Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Microsoft
Remember that scene in The Return of Frankenstein where the terrified villager spots the monster, years after he's been burned alive and buried below the rubble of Victor's castle? He rushes back to town, shrieking "He's back! The monster is alive!".
"But that's impossible!," thunders the incredulous mayor. "I saw him killed with my own eyes!"
"You fool," retorts the villager. "Don't you know he can never be killed?"
Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator, is today the King of the Corporate Republic, the CEO of Internet, Inc. He and his company are about to launch one of the most ambitious campaigns in the history of business, one that should leave him firmly in control of the digital universe.
If everything works as planned, Microsoft software will shortly control nearly every point at which a consumer or business interacts with the Web. That puts Microsoft at the center of all computing. And soon, the company may even escape the break-up threat hanging over its head. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule momentarily on the company's appeal, and based on the questions asked during oral arguments, the court is expected to reverse Judge Thomas P. Jackson's findings that the company illegally "tied" its browser into its operating system, and acted illegally to maintain its Windows monopoly.
This, say competitors like Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, is where we started, only more so. "It appears they're doing all over again what they did when they previously went into foul territory," McNealy told congressional investigators, according to Business Week. Microsoft's new Internet strategy is the boldest move yet, he says, to leverage the company's Windows monopoly to create a bottleneck that will constrict the Internet.
McNealy might as well be talking to himself -- the Bush administration is hardly going to curb Microsoft's new juggernaut, which can proceed unimpeded for at least four years, by which time the company may well be beyond any control, if that's not already the case.
Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our time. Even with the NASDAQ down 9 per cent, the company's stock price has risen more than 60 per cent this year. In the quarter ending March 31, MS earned $2.45 billion on sales of $6.46 billion.
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
There are now real questions whether corporations like Microsoft, Disney, and AOL Time-Warner are vulnerable any longer to government regulation, or to any other kind of curb. Microsoft seems to have convincingly demonstrated that is is, in fact, above the law, and means to stay that way.
Even bitter critics of the government's attempt to break up Microsoft concede that Bill Gates was arrogant and dishonest in his Federal court testimony, and whatever the ultimate judicial ruling, mountains of evidence presented at the antitrust trial showed how Microsoft squelched competitors and discouraged both innovation and competition. Yet it all seems to have had no more impact on the company than a pea bouncing off an elephant, or a torch on the monster.
We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were we dumb. Microsoft is stronger than ever, and, as a consequence, so is Linux and Open Source.
Just a year ago, Microsoft was so embattled -- its revenue growth had slowed to 8 per cent, Jackson had ordered the company split in half, $250 billion had vanished from the company's market value -- that Microsoft called 20,000 of its employees together at Seattle's Safeco Field. There it showed a motivational video that included scenes from a documentary about the mythic l974 title fight between George Foreman and Muhammad Ali.
But on the Net, a year might as well be a century.
So the monster isn't only alive, he's stronger than ever. It's the Microsoft Era, Part Deux.
I wish people would stop whining already. Microsoft this, RIAA that... For the love of , DO something or STFU. I don't own anything or have a license to use anything made or distributed by Microsoft, RIAA or MPAA. I don't like 'em, I don't use their friggin products. I use my money to support their competitors.
And I only work for companies that allow me to work with Linux, no matter how hard I have to try to find them. And if I couldn't find any, I'd flip fsckin' burgers for 5 bucks an hour, but I would NOT touch anything made by Microsoft. And if you think that having more money or being able to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster is reason enough to give up on your beliefs, then guess what: they were not really your beliefs in the first place and you'd better shut the fsck up already, because your whining on slashdot is not going to do anybody any good, and is certainly not going to make you look any cooler.
You know, I hate to break this to you zealot-type folks, but MS is nowhere near the most evil corporation in the world. Take a look at what Shell Oil is doing in Nigeria... I've never heard of Bill Gates ordering anyone executed.
Don't forget goatsecx.slashdot.org!
Look, here's Linux 1.0!, wait OVER HERE! Here's Linux 2.0!, etc Dude... get a life, there are new operating systems all the time.
It may have problems, but it sure beats living in a communist country that controls what its people are allowed to do, say, hear, feel, or think Doh!! Sounds like a corporate monopoly. Hmm... "communism" and corporate culture are convergent?
Many yell, "Free, them nasty corporations can't compete with that" And intelligent and wise people then respond by informing said poser that free is NOT the point of the Open Source movement, it is quality from world wide collaboration of ideas and work. (not to mention that service is often more important than the product). What is funny is that any 'dumbed down' interface is just that... an interface. Oh well, end of rant. Die posers!
North America is more British than it likes to portray, the true English capitalist and imperialists values still live on indomitably in the States even more so than in the UK. The British had their empire and have now moved on, but America is still operating and building its empire through the corporations and a great 'cultural imperialism'.
As was said in the late 1940's, "Britain has lost an empire and has yet to find a purpose", apart from a half-hearted attempt at socialism in the 60's, this could be just as true today.
As many in Westminster at the time of the American Revolution said, it is a true example of our values being carried forth into new lands, and just as the British would not be subservient to the French or any other nation, the people of the American Colonies would not be shackled by a misguided government in Westminster.
Reading today, it's amazing to see the dissention in Westminster when the decisions were made on what to do with the problems arising in America due to the stamp act etc, the most notable objections are of those of William Pitt, it seems they didn't particularly know how to deal with something which fundamentally was a civil war. The Brits did do the Americans a favour though, if it weren't for their early conquests you'd all be speaking French right now! I've heard a Brit counter with that when an American indicated he'd "be speaking German if it weren't for the Yanks in WW2". There's some amazing quotes from Benjamin Franklin on how these conquests fundamentally underpinned the greatness of the Empire, he was in London at the time. 13 years later he was signing The Declaration of Independence, oh the irony.
Maybe the Brits could have retained control (maybe not indefinitely) of the US if they ignored the incongruity of their values? I'm sure the militia men were kick ass and all, but the Brits could of blitzed the place if they decided to bring in the entire army and fleet, it seems they just used those armies to move onto new places though, namely, India.
Basically, because of this 'sun never sets' business, their forces were too thinly spread around the world.
It's amazing how the British manage(d) to be so competent yet incompetent at the same time.
I wonder what will become the future Yorktown of the American Empire? China?
Right on. I like what you've said for a few reasons:
.net and her even BIGGER plans for the future of computing, there will be no GNU/Linux. *NONE*. What's the point in GNU/Linux, when you can't use it for *anything* once M$ succeeds in getting the hardware specs concealed, proprietary formats controlling the net, and app and hardware vendors unable and unwilling to make a non-windows version of their product for fear of offending the mega-corporation in charge of all the world's business and trade?
1. You've contributed to the GNU/Linux codebase in some way. No other Slashdotter in history has. You now have credibility with me, assuming you're telling the truth.
2. You're rational. Good. Even more rare among Slashdotters.
3. You are strong enough to admit that M$ has its' good points (they are few, but..). GNU/Linux gets killed by M$ in many ways by features that our coders don't seem to care about, but which are VITAL to the adoption of GNU/Linux by corporations and individuals.
4. You actually USE a Free Software OS. (Of course, most Slashdotters are lazy bastards who write in from work, screwing their boss over for the sake of having a "first stinkin' post!", which may be why the numbers are skewed in favor of IE...)
I would like to say, however, that although I try not to take part in the unintelligent M$ bashing, I strongly believe that computers are dramatically changing the world; a foundation for our new eSociety must be built, and it CAN'T be a Microsoft foundation. That would be INSANE, and yet, the politicians have no problem with it.
Microsoft already has far too much power (as do many large multinationals). If anything, our foundation should be based on a FSF "openness and respect" ideal, just for the political and ethical aspects of it. It is a GREAT restriction on freedom to say that upon birth, you will be issued a Microsoft Card without being given a choice. And this is what our kids will be facing.
If M$ can succeed at
Even the Slashdot bosses, who should be role models (like STALLMAN is, I might add), use Windows for games and crap. They're as bad as Bill Gates, worse even, because they are figureheads of Open Source (since they disavow the FSF) who should know better. They should think about the ramifications of what their favorite game or windows app or whatever ethically COSTS them in the long run. I do. And I'm a nobody. But I'm not complacent, like most.
I'm not as hard on Mac guys because, despite the proprietary closed hardware (blah blah blah), at least Apple gives the impression that they're trying (It's hard to reconcile the two worlds of free and proprietary). So I'm okay if Katz uses a cute little Titanium PB, but at least dual boot with GNU/Linux, would ya? Try, dammit! Learn an OS based on ethical factors rather than ease of use (MacOS) or availability of pirated warez (guess who?)!
At one time, I thought Slashdotters were so smart and were fighting the good fight against a cruel and inhumane enemy who was out to control the world forever, crushing superior technology and individual freedoms to the detriment of all mankind.
Now I know that Slashdotters couldn't care less, save Stallman and his fringe element of FSF guys. These guys stick to their principles, but they're seemingly alone in their fight, and that is why Slashdotters will always be dual booting (until GNU/Linux is gone - not Windows), with secret cravings for Windows and MacOS' proprietary simplicity and nice GUI. Two or three can't win a war against millions, when even their army of Slashdotters don't believe in the cause.
Slashdotters better wake up, because you have NO IDEA the things that are brewing in Redmond and elsewhere politically and technologically. It's soon going to be VERY UGLY out there.
Bitterman
GNU/Linux without the GNU is just a shitty windows.
Poor, stupid, programmer. If he had spent just a little more time actually reading the release notes he would have seen that the patch would give him the exact results that he got.
But, instead of reading and understanding the release notes, the programmer scanned the notes and assumed a great deal. This is typical of so many programmers. I have to admit that even I am sometimes guilty of this.
I must also admit that when I read the release notes and saw that the patch would block functionality that I used, I decided not to apply the patch. Sorry you missed that part.
The point is, although I can come up with a thousand valid reasons to bash M$, your failure to properly read the notes isn't a reason to condemn the company or even that particular patch.
Not Microsoft.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It's impossible to blame someone for behavior they had no way of knowing was hurting them. The tobacco industry and chemical companies have a decades long history of bald-faced lies about the dangers of their products. I agree that people who started smoking 10 years ago really has no leg to stand on blaming the tobacco industry but the other millions of people who were hooked when every voice in that industry said their product was harmless have a case. Nothing is completely black & white.
That's nice to think but the chemical companies, tobacco industry, and automobile industry (to name a few) have been killing people for decades with little or no repercusions. Granted, MS has (probably) not killed anyone but thinking that no businesses are "above the law" is a tad naive.
Things simply weren't bad enough yet for everyone ELSE to vote for Nader, too.
Microsoft is like a cyber-Wal-Mart, it's all about sucking money out of communities and squirreling it away. It leads to poverty, the stratification of classes, and the collapse of the infrastructure it feeds on.
Eventually this becomes obvious, just as it does in ghost-towns at which everyone works at Wal-Mart and gets laid off together when they can no longer purchase enough goods from Wal-Mart to justify keeping that many employees part-time. (A hypothetical case, as Wal-Mart usually cannot destroy _all_ independent business in a town.)
The question is, how much damage do you allow before taking action?
It is NOT a foregone conclusion that the government will let Microsoft do this. After all, the government is Microsoft's competitor, and if it wishes to act as Microsoft's 'partner' it's going to get raped like all the rest. There's got to be a shred of self-protection in there. It's _really_ unlikely that the government will blithely let itself be replaced, marginalised. Again it's a question of how much damage is permitted- to what extent does the U.S. Government allow the communications and IT infrastructure that its economy depends on, to be replaced by a privately controlled entity that has no reason for loyalty to the USA? It's got to the point where the USA is holding Microsoft back. MS can't grow to another ten times its size without stepping into the role of government, and so they hold pep rallies and chant "Microsoft, kill 'em! Microsoft, kill 'em!" (who would have _believed_ that in '95?) and how can they not take advantage of, say, the ability to gain control of U.S. military communications and threaten to sell the information to Iraq unless the government moves over politely and lets MS run the show? ("You keep on dealing with stuff like roads and such- that's boring"). It is simply too profitable an opportunity to pass up. Once MS controls the communications and IT of countries, and technically controls the Internet, they can easily gain access to _everyone's_ information (picture the USAMC and Iraq's military secrets residing on the same server somewhere in Redmond. Who can offer more to gain access to the secrets of the other?).
One possible safeguard is that the USA has an army, non-computer weaponry, etc. whereas Microsoft tends to consider challenges to its authority impossible. That means in the event of Microsoft demonstrating high treason, the army could surprise it by literally invading with very unsophisticated weaponry.
At the same time, there is much concern elsewhere in the world about how a 'US' company is gaining such control. It is not unthinkable that some Middle Eastern country might declare war on Microsoft specifically- and you'd see terrorist actions, such as bombings of the Microsoft campus. This would force MS and the US government closer together, but it would also be a very effective form of attack against Microsoft, again because they do not tend to consider challenges possible. Their worldview is psychotic- although they are in fact faced with seizing power on a geopolitical level, to themselves they are still the scrappy little vendor. They can push around entire COUNTRIES and still they are imagining some sort of greater competition 'forcing' them to do it. It's an unhealthy situation, but it's also a suggestive situation: outsiders are not always fooled by Microsoft's own self-deception. They can see that MS is slightly closer than even the WTO to the goal of a global totalitarian governing body, and the fact that Microsoft isn't aware of its size and scope and consequences makes it VULNERABLE to attack AS a global power. For instance, they have bodyguards and security but I really doubt they have aircraft or the ability to defend against air attack, and I don't think they'll be getting it, again because to themselves they are the scrappy little software company writing word processors.
It is sure an interesting time to be alive- in the sense of the old Chinese curse. (another idea- what does China think of the whole world being assimilated into a 'US' company's control?)
If the other ones are army infantry, Microsoft is Navy SEALs, or some sort of special forces unit. That is why they are dangerous. They're on nobody's side but their own, yet they have a striking force that's equal to far huger organisations, and a positioning that could give them personal authority over the world's electronic communications, and thus the world's economies.
You're making a lot of weird assumptions that aren't based in reality. Come back when you're over 21 and see if you still remain confident that you understand everyone's motives in the whole wide world :)
Especially since the copy of RedHat I purchased came bundled with Lynx. REDHAT IS STIFLING INNOVATION BY ILLEGALLY TYING PRODUCTS%#!#%!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Now, it looks like Microsoft may have figured out a way to actually do it.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Microsoft is dead and buried! You know it's true! Jon Katz said so!! "Microsoft was brought down by the arrogant, delusional monomania of its founder, a man who had clearly come to believe in his own immortality and was unable to grasp the realities of the world."
I can see it now. Bill Gates will get a cabinet post as the head of a new federal agency. If you like the EPA, you're gonna love this.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Maybe there's not been a strike at MS because...this is going to shock you.
They are not Unionized!
"How do you think you got your shiny new ride, and your cool apt. during our last big ecomomic boom? On the back of Microsoft. Whether you used their products or not, they legitimized client/server and internet development."
Actually I got my shiny new ride the same way my family has been getting them for the last 90 years, from wheat farming, and the prices havn't gotten better because of MS.
""I never use MS products, I only use blah-blah-blah to write software". What do you think the users that buy from your e-commerce store use? What do the IT drones that use your intranet apps use? That's right, suckas: Microsoft products."
The IT drones in my area use Linux/Novell/Apple. Sorry. But yes...I am posting this from IE 5 for the Mac...so you are right...Microsoft is as important, perhaps more important than the very Sun that gives Earth light.
As for Sun/Apple/IBM/Netscaple blowing it...no, unfair business practices from MS had nothing to do with the downfall of Java/Netscape/OS2...naw...nothing.
That's why we have immigration limits - to keep all those pitying people from flooding America with their "do-gooder" attitudes.
Some people risk death trying to come here - I guess they must have a powerful sense of compassion toward us poor, ignorant and myopic fools.
When people say that Americans are ignorant and myopic they are not joking
As opposed to stupid people who claim that our only involvement in, say, World War II was "Selling arms/support/supplies/whatever".
So, the guys we sent to France 57 years ago today were just salesmen? Thanks for demonstrating that America doesn't have a monopoly on "ignorant and myopic" people!
If you think Im blowing smoke, just some kind of Anti-Yankee nut
I don't know where you would get that idea ...
So, you selfishly starve your brothers, eh?
Isnt your rolling blackouts really proof of the failure of privatization?
Sigh ... it's discouraging to listen to mindless idiots refer to heavy-handed government stupidity as "privatization".
Some health department people that I work with are dismayed by the lack of truth contained in both "Erin Brokovich" and "A Civil Action". Neither case came up with evidence to really link the actions of the defendants with the illnesses of the plantiffs. Then again, these are statistics addicts, so what do you expect.
Next time though, why not mention a story that actually merits national attention: the WR Grace vermiculite mine in Liberty, Montana. They have had processing plants for their asbestos laden vermiculite in many of our 50 states.
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
Some health department officials that I work with are dismayed by the lack of real evidence in both movies ("Erin Brokovich" and "A Civil Action") and the cases they relate. They are statistics junkies, but they do know what they are talking about, especially from a "what causes cancer" point of view.
I am certainly not trying to say that it isn't nice to play "hide the chemicals". Next time, though, reference a story that deserves national attention: the WR Grace vermiculite mine in Liberty, Montana. They have had local neighborhood processing plants in many of our 50 states, and they have known their vermiculite contains asbestos for decades.
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
Your sentiments might have some justification but you make them worthless by blabbering on about Africa, when he only mentioned India.
One has to wonder which would be more insulting - the notion that Indian culture was worthless and backwards and needed to be subjucated by some western company, or the inability to distinguish between Africa and India. Why is that ? some kind of - "they're all wogs anyway, what's the difference", or what ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
From the article:
/dev/null
Jon Katz: the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free
Normally I'd agree, but in this case, I'd have to say that the customer is getting what they pay for. Users want a easy to use environment that scales well enough for small to mid-sized businesses, yet allows them to go home and play games on it. With a common interface and easy to program api's, Windows takes the lead, at least in the public's view. Microsoft has spend untold billions in developing and continuing to develop this product, and for a vast majority of the computing public, it works. Sure everyone complains about the lock-ups and blue-screens, but for the most part, we're all fat and happy, and would be more than happy to contiune this way. Am I saying that we're all wasting our time working on Linux/*BSD/whatever, because it has the potential to prove that there is a potential for those platforms to let the public know. My point however is that after spending billions to produce something, why give it away for free? It doesn't make business sense.
As always, redirect flames to
Secret windows code
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
However, the Free Software argument is much more persuasive, this isn't about money, we don't give a shit if it makes a good business model, this is about freedom, let Microsoft argue with that.
--
--
--
Corporations making money is not good for everyone, corporations making money is good for the corporations and their shareholders. This kind of "trickle down" economics is a lie perpetrated by the wealthy to justify them getting more wealthy while the poor get poorer. And it is the power of corporations which make the US the Corporate controlled laughing stock its political system has become. Not the American dream, but quite possibly the American nightmare.
Tying a web-browser to their operating system may make a better product for their users, but it is also leveraging a monopoly to extinguish competition in a different area, and that is illegal under US antitrust laws. They broke the law.
Every day I see a new reason to wave goodbye to /. and say hello to Kuro5hin.
--
I'm not saying the alternatives (communism, socialism, etc..) work either. Democracy sure doesn't exist in this world either.
The U.S. is one big corporate oligarchy.
fialar
Of course, it could just as easily work out that people will simply stick with the versions that they are using now. Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Linux, or Corel, or Sun. Their biggest competition comes from previous versions of their own software. This is especially important because Microsoft knows that part of the reason that they can charge huge money for their office suite is due to the network effect of being the market leader. In order to easily share information businesses and individuals currently need to be on the same version (or similar versions) of MS Office. If no one upgrades to new versions of MS Office then Microsoft all of a sudden has to battle the same type of market penetration problems that Sun has had with Star Office. Their new versions simply won't be the "standard."
Microsoft doesn't want the alternatives to grow. They aren't going to have problems with the DOJ, and they know it. However, losing users to free software alternatives is a serious longterm risk. Microsoft lives by getting its customers to upgrade. But with each upgrade Microsoft upgrade GNU/Linux becomes a more and more attractive proposition. When I first started using Linux in 1995 you had to really want to use Linux on your desktop. Nowadays, it's much more comfortable. Windows has made some improvements in that time as well, but it has not advanced nearly as drastically as Linux. And Linux is much more cost effective a solution than Windows.
Now, I am not saying that Linux is ready to take over the desktop (yet), but it is giving Windows some competition and Linux's price will always work in its favor. Microsoft really can't afford to be upsetting their customer base at this point, and yet that is precisely what they are doing. I don't expect to see a lot of customers switching to Linux when Windows XP rolls out, but I do expect to see a lot of them sticking with what they already own. And for Microsoft, that's nearly as bad.
If you adjust your account options you can have it fail to show stories by certain contributors.
Katz and Roblimo have always been the two most notable nutcases, so just ignore anything from them.
Then maybe ignore anything tagged as Microsoft news.
Why is it assumed that the computer industry will ever belong to any one company or technology. Geeks will still have the computers they have now, they will still be able to write free code on them, and they will still be able to create free networks around the world. Even if all new computer hardware has mechanisms in place to limit your use or applications which must contact their creator to see if you are licensed does not mean that we can not continue without them.
Just like RMS wrote free software to combat the those who began selling their programs we can always continure without being stuck. You may need to use closed, licensed software at work for a while and you mom might not be convinced into trying linux because the marketing of giants such as Microsoft keeps her away. That shouldn't matter in the long run. As long as we write good programs people will eventually see the beauty of free/open software.
There is nothing in the corporate, closed source world that we can not duplicate and surpass in due time. I see no rush in fearing and trying to overthrow these corporations when in the long run I see us winning out because the strength of our message will overshadow any corporation's limiting of freedom.
Get real! Where the hell have you been the last ten years, under a rock?
No company can be a coercive monopoly unless the government forces others out of the market for them.
Oh, right! It's all the government's fault!
Silly me! Why didn't I realize that before you enlighten us all...
Is it a crime to be a monopoly because you have the greatest market share? I think not.
Well, duh!
This is not merely an issue of the greatest market share ...
Do you have any idea *what* a monopoly is?
And, are monopolies criminal?
Well, duh, deux!
In a word, yes.
Get a clue...
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
And gosh, why does every post that says something positive about Microsoft *immediately* gets moderated down as Troll?
I am surprised why I still waste my time here.
Why is it that every Slashdot article posted related to microsoft always talks about how they are stomping on our rights, choking innovation, killing off Linux, etc etc. Perhaps its "cool" to bash Microsoft these days but do you people actually USE some of Microsoft products? Their office suite cannot be matched by anything available for Linux in stability, user-friendliness, and many other factors. Remember, for most people cross-platform means it runs on Windows and Mac, and they could care less about other things. So stop bashing and start using Microsoft software because believe me, they are NOT going away anytime soon. And if you really want to make Linux software as usable as Microsoft one, Linux UI designers might want to check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/UI.
I think it's kewl that M$ is taking over computing in every area of the world. I found it interesting that American Airlines uses NT for their movie server. Of course NT crashed, continually, and we never got to see the movie. Which made my laugh. What happens when the entire plane is run by NT and the OS crashing causes the plane to crash. The minute the FAA releases that information I can see a class action suit against M$.
But the real reason is because I use linux and if M$ takes over the Web (which they can have) then it'll be easier for me to and many others to not only live in a secure enviroment on the Net where no softies won't dare to tread.
Unless, of course consumers realize they aren't safe with M$ products and that M$ doesn't care about the consumer just the dollar. Why else would they build another OS (talk about a fragmented OS) that will live on the Net yet doesn't even have basic security built into it and you have to pay every year to use it.
Keep it up because consumers will get wise and a large enough class action (or many of them) the goverment is going to notice the it's society is spending all it's time with M$ in the courts. Of course all the non-spook systems will be using M$ products while the spooks already figured out the *NIX's are not only more secure but practically free.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
And I quote, "Then one day he happened along the Microsoft Product Updates website. Hmm, he thought, here's an "important" security patch for Office. After reading the release notes for the patch, he realized that this security patch was a good thing."
/. reading and posting community any longer.... (community, isn't "community" akin to communism like the GPL??? ugh...) :(
Clearly you didn't read his post but instead replied with a snide and insulting knee jerk retort; completely baseless as well. Astonishing that you got modded up as an Anonymous Coward five times with such a rude comment. Equally surprising given that you clearly intended to insult the previous poster rather than presenting some rational argument in debate. Sometimes I don't know what to make of the
My beef isn't with the counting of the votes - it's with a system that is broken.
;P
Gore won the popular vote. That means that more American citizens voted for him, than for Bush.
Bush won the Electoral vote. That means more members of the Electoral College voted for him than for Gore.
Bush becomes president, even though another candidate got more votes from the citizens of the United States.
Now - the virtues of the Electoral College can be debated. Personally I think it's stupid. One of the principles that this country was founded on was that "...all men are created equal..." - well, I don't see how our VOTES are equal - especially when a Gore voter in Texas is essentially throwing away their vote. Even if 49% of the voters in Texas voted for Gore (or someone else) - ALL of the Electoral votes would have gone for Bush. Is that fair? I don't think so. (Disclaimer: I don't live in Texas - it's just a very convenient example) Admittedly, it can be argued that if you reverse the situation, they'd all go for Gore, but that's not the point.
A vote in a state with more Electoral votes is worth more than a vote in a state with less. That's why the campaigns specifically target the states with more Electoral votes.
IMHO, it cheapens the system. You live in State A, your vote is worth more than if you lived in State B. Therefore citizens of State A are, in a sense "more valuable" than those of State B, at least in the eyes of the candidates.
Sure doesn't sound like "equality" to me.
In addition, there are certain states that "traditionally" go one way or the other. Texas, for example, is a Republican state, traditionally. It would have been very easy to predict, before a single vote was cast, which candidate would "win" Texas.
So if you live in Texas, and you voted for someone else - guess what? Your vote didn't matter. Your state went for Bush and you had better well like it.
I'm not complaining that Bush "won". It does no good to complain about that. I'm complaining about the system that let it happen. A system where supposedly everyone is equal, but in reality it's only a facade.
I was also attempting to be witty, but I failed dismally
Interesting - I didn't know that. I'd been under the impression Texas was staunchly Republican for quite a while now - I stand corrected on that fact =)
Choice is important, but majority rules. That's the way America runs.
So...that explains how the elections ran last year, eh? =)
Not that I think either one of them was qualified - but that's beside the point.
If many (or most) Windows installations are 'pirated', and Microsoft can coerce people into paying for more of the installations they make, then their revenues go up. Since most of their money will come from the coroporations which are tied to Microsoft through complex site licenses, revenues are almost guaranteed to go up.
Similarly, if people can't 'pirate' their Windows or Office, and those people (who wouldn't pay anyways) migrate to Free alternatives, Microsoft can point to the growth in the Free userbase as proof as a vibrant and growing competition.
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see the short-term or mid-term downside for Microsoft in this scenario.
I also don't see the downside for the Free community -- with our growth in users, we will gain more developers (since a percentage of the transitioning users will also be developers), leading to an increase in the availability of Free software.
Long term scenarios don't apply to either party, since we have repeatedly seen that there is no such thing as a long term scenario in Internet Time. Something always comes along to upset the status quo.
If Microsoft wants to grow the Free community as a side effect of growing their own revenues, I say let 'em.
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
BeOS sunk because it was only one component in the total user experience. What I mean by that is BeOS does not have the application base that Windows has. Now, M$ may not have any single application, server, or OS that is superior to anything else on the market... but in total, they have the best System.
Only because, by your own admission, the vast majority of applications are written for Microsoft operating systems. It has little, if anything, to do with the technical merits of the OS.
All of there software works together pretty seemlessly. You can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a PowerPoint presentation... or a Word Document just as an example.
I bet there are many people who would attest to the opposite.
That is what every other OS is missing. Applications that integrate seemingly seemlessly with each other.
Incorrect. What every other OS is missing is applications.
That's why M$ is on top and you know what... for that reason they deserve to be. Maybe the best competitor is MacOS... but they are held back by the limited hardware that it runs on.
No one "deserves" to be on top. Corporations do not have a right to profit or to success. And MacOS is held back not by the hardware, but by the dearth of applications and the expense of the hardware it runs on (so your argument is partially correct, yet incomplete).
Until a company, or a group of companies working together, challenge the whole of M$'s offering, Windows will always be on top. That's what the market wants. That's why a free market is good. Demand drives what products are produced.
This is not a simple "supply and demand" situation. The OS market is wildly different from any other market in existence. There are multitudes of corporations who base their *entire existence* on the fact that Microsoft holds monopoly power in the operating systems market. You can't say that Linux or BeOS are competitors to Microsoft's OS as long as Office won't run on those systems. Remember, Microsoft's power comes from the OS monopoly, and their cash cow is their Office suite monopoly which runs atop it.
In other words, it is not a free market. For many companies and individuals, not choosing Microsoft is equivalent to not choosing to use computers at all. And that's exactly how Microsoft wants it!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I notice that your reply addresses none of the points that I brought up. Instead, you blasted off on a sarcastic rant.
I am a libertarian and I believe in libertarian issues. I differ from mainstream libertarians in that I also believe in antitrust laws. The scope, degree, and power of those laws is not something that I'm sure of yet and requires more thought.
Next time, I suggest you address the arguments I made. I probably agree with you on every issue you've implicitly mentioned in your reply (i.e. government can not and thus should not attempt to protect citizens from themselves, and government should not be making decisions for individuals).
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Unless of course no one complains, no one stands up, and people vote for the sheriff again...
Flame wars are good, people who don't think so have somthing to lose/hide.
"linux is bad", "Microsoft is bad", and "you all suck", are a world better than "We shouldn't have this discussion." That's the biggest troll of all!!!!
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
To Katz and those who say M$ is an unstoppable monster: If you don't think the Open Source movement is enough opposition, wait. It will grow or another ally against M$ will join the fray.
To those who say Katz is an overreacting loon: Maybe, but no one says the opposition has to be sane.
Actually, with true laissez-faire, MS wouldn't stand a chance. It's the government interference with granting copyrights and patents that causes this. Calling non-thing "property" is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Preaching to the Choir, aren't we?
-----------------------------
803 words according to wc :D
--Moo
Noone can force me to use Microsoft products, so I won't, because they offer me nothing I desire or need that free software already offers me. So, my home will be a happy Linux/BSD/KDE/Loki camp and not worry about this rant a bit. So what Katz is trying to say: Microsoft will dominate. So Linux et al are going to be a niche only? Fine by me. That niche has worked for me for a long time and I don't see why it should stop working. The only problem could be when RMS wa right and compilers/debuggers/open source stuff will be forbidden sooner or later, but when we have a government so deluded that such things would happen (it looks like sometimes it is indeed close to that) we have more to worry about than Microsoft. Microsoft is not a threat. The real threat is that we believe in certain rights, opportunities and freedom but that the average citizen doesn't even care or realize and thus allows them to be taken away. We're the witches of our era.
Would that be the stuff that matters then? :-)
Oh, Lord ... look out for those e-e-e-v-i-l corporations! They'll suck out your eyeballs and spoon out your brains! They'll be rude to your mother and tease your dog! They'll spit in your ice cream and piss in your whiskey!
I'm part of a corporation. I guess you could say I'm the CEO, since it's a partnership and I'm one of the partners. Now that I'm and Evil Overlord, I probably need to brush up on the Rules before I go plundering across the countryside.
My corporation is merely a legal fiction by which I can avoid losing my house if a client gets a bug up their ass and sues us. I stand behind my work, but I'm not willing to bet *everything*, every day! It's conceptually similar to playing Russian Roulette every day -- are you willing to do that?
A corporation like Enron or GlofaxMegaThorp is simply a scaled-up version of my little LLC. Even if they do something low down and evil (which does happen, I'll admit) it's not likely to be as dangerous or as permanent as what a government can do (put another way, Three Mile Island 0, Chappaquiddick 1), and in the end you can sue them for damages to yourself.
Please try to not be so shallow and reactionary as to claim that corporations need to be removed.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
No, read it again. Slowly, if neccessary.
I stand behind my work, but if a customer decides to screw me (people are not, by nature, always nice, reasonable, or kind to animals), I am not willing to get shafted by one malcontent (rim shot!). If a customer is not happy and sues, I lose my business -- is that no enough? Must I lose my house because a client doesn't like how I designed his brochure? Is that justice in your world?
Did I get that right?
No. You either deliberately misunderstood me or are particularly obtuse. A corporation is not a "dodge" for responsibility any more than a programmer's "suitability of purpose" disclaimer is a dodge. To be logically consistent, if you are a programmer, you should be held personally responsible for every bug and misuse of your program. Are you willing to do that? If not, then stuff it.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Have I Just Grown Up? ...Or has Slashdot regressed?
You know, I was wondering the exact same thing.
Slashdot has gone from being News for Nerds and devolved into some sort of anti-corp opinion tabloid.
I've been with Slashdot a long time(user #6288) and have slowly seen this site turn from being News for Nerds into some sort of political rag.
This article was done in extremely poor taste.
And I wish I could say it's the exception, but most any other Slashdot article dealing with corporations, the music industry, telecoms, Microsoft, copyrights, patents, domain registrars, are equally bad and leave me feeling like I'm reading some 3rd world country's anti-whatever propeganda.
First you create the enemy.
Then you fight the enemy.
Then you are the enemy.
pronoblem
pronoblem
Also, a more significant point would be what MS has done for the better. They may be big, bad and evil, but they have done a lot of ground-breaking. I mean, how has Wal-Mart made people's lives better? My mom may shops there, and my mom will never get a handle on Linux at this point. AOL and MS suit her fine. It is a lot easier for people to be politically active by how they spend their money rather than what OS or software that they use. I think that was my point, if I had one to begin with.
The battle is still in the trenches.
pronoblem
The thing that strikes me as I read all these articles about Microsoft is their attitude. Its seems obvious that they have done some quite anti-competitive and criminal things to cement their position as the ubiquitous company of computer. Irreplaceable and an inevitable part of everyday computing.
That considered what I find amazing is their steady-fast denial of any wrongdoing, and seeming an organizational level compete lack of remorse. Some of the public commentary and discussion as led me to think this is very similar to that of the amoral criminal. Most particular in the formation of this thought was the article The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth on Wired.
It is somewhat of concern in day when Microsoft, even in the face of obvious guilt, continues in its actions along the same vein. Furthermore it seeks to court governments and in entwine itself further into the bowels of modern interaction.
Imagine the future where you need a Microsoft Passport to vote in your national local elections. Certainly possible, I'm sure Bill can hear the coins clinking now.
GET A GRIP.
MS *CAN* be killed. If the government wants to kill it all it has to do is revoke it's corporate charter. Done. MS no longer exists.
So they are introducing new products to take advantge of the net? SO WHAT? Linux has done that, as has any company that wants to stay in business. So now because someone puts out an internet product they should be killed? A bit drastic, don't you think? Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on internet innovation (not specificly the MS deffinition).
If you don't want to support MS, then don't. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to. Yes, you can't buy a new PC at a chain store without Windows. Boo-hoo. Build your own. Oh, you don't know how? Find someone that does. Patronize a small computer shop. They will be happy to put together a system with anything you want on it. If enough people do this, the big PC makers will take notice. And market forces will force them to offer whatever it is people want, MS be damned. If enough people refuse to buy or use MS software and it lowers thier profits, they can't do anything about it! Imagine that! So, in reality, if you want them to die, DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR MONEY! It's really very simple. Oh, not satisified since many people do give them thier money? Why? What business is it of yours? Make a better product and maybe they won't. Remember, in a free market "better" means "what the customer wants". The CUSTOMER is **ALWAYS** RIGHT. If they aren't, then they aren't your customers. It's really that simple. MS is huge because they make what a LOT of people want. Maybe it's not what you or I want, but that doesn't matter to those people. We have other choices of software.
For a group that spouts off about freedom, you seem to know little about it. Freedom means EVERYONE, even MS, is free. Freedom has limits of course. But all one really needs to do is obey the laws. Did MS break them? Maybe. Did Bill lie in court? Maybe. That is for a court of law to decide. If they are found guilty, they will be punnished. Don't like the punnishment? Too bad, you aren't the judge. Good thing you have ways to hurt them yourself (don't use or buy MS products). There are trade-offs we make to live in a free society. This type of thing is only a small part of that.
IMO, the only way a REAL monopoly can exist is if the government creates it and passes laws to protect it. Otherwise there will be competition of some sort. MS has just about every other software company on the planet as competition. And as if that were not enough, they have Free Software and Open Source to deal with too! Compare that to pre-breakup AT&T (Ma Bell). AT&T had NO competition because BY LAW nobody was allowed to compete with them! Government created thier monopoly and they brought it down. IMO, there is no comparision. MS simply provides what the customers want. Customers wanted a web browser, so they added one. This goes on and on.
Now, since I will probably get accused of astroturfing.. I do NOT like MS or it's software. I simply feel that the law applies to everyone equally. Even the filthy rich and huge corps. If they are not breaking the law, they should be let alone. Just as if I am not breaking the law I expect to be let alone. I don't draw a different line for anyone. Think about it, if we can draw that line, who else can? Do you want someone moving the line on YOU?
Ah. So you understand every word of the US Federal Register, do you? As a US citizen, you are obliged to know it all and consequently can be jailed for rules you have no hope of knowing (enough pages are added every day that you would have to do nothing but read (no sleep, probably no meals) to keep up).
But even more pointed, OutLook is so fundamentally insecure and badly structured internally that any ``real'' security patch absolutely has to be a bastard. Ditto for Word, Excel, name it. One reason for this is that Windows, on which these all rely, is fundamentally a single-user system.
Even derived-from-VMS NT has been knackered down to a fancy kind of single-userness. This (and a good deal of the excess baggage in W2k/XP) has been necessary because their premiere apps have depended on it. Remember the brouhaha about MS apps ``cheating'' by using undocumented OS calls...? Well, the biter has now been bit.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Bottom line: consultant had to rebuild the entire app for free (meanwhile somehow continuing to eat, pay off house, run car etc), which took him just over a year, after paying for a complete new set of tools.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
About year ago, a different fellow consultant, an NT expert who also does Linux, was losing hair over a network connection port-forwarded from a Linux gateway box to a masqueraded NT 4.0 server running a Pick app.
An aside: the company concerned (call them BB) had been told to buy an NT box for their app, even though it cost several thousands of dollars more than running it under Linux. Two weeks after commissioning, the provider was bought by a Linux shop, technician from which promptly asked MD of BB why he hadn't bought the Linux version, because it was more reliable and used less resources. Gngnngnngnngn!
Anyway, problem turned out to be that the NT box was gatewayed to... 127.0.0.1! No problem, change gateway to point to the Linux box. Still no go. At my insistence, NT guru does ROUTE PRINT from the command line; system is still gatewayed to localhost. Hmm. Reboot (this is Windows, after all). No change.
Redo the route from the command line... viola! Life and happiness! We wound up running a BAT file on startup. Yerk, but it works.
More recently, similar story with an NT 4.0 DHCP server, changed to nail down a server to allow port-forwarding, fix gatewaying and generally coalesce the bizarre and disparate settings on all of the Windows boxes on that LAN around a sane concensus. No matter what we changed, the DHCP server still allocated the wrong settings. Amongst other things, DNS service was aimed out through the gateway and twice across the Nullarbor to an ISP that this LAN hadn't been connected to for at least 2 years...
Finally, we had to (1) create a new subnet; (2) empty the DHCP server config completely, starting with the old subnet; (3) reboot (surprise: stopping and restarting the service wasn't enough); (4) make a new subnet (and yes, the settings defaulted to the abberrant ones so had to be overridden by hand); and (5) stop and restart the DHCP service.
The usual Linux equivalent of the NT graphical route editing tool (linuxconf) pulls its config from the text tools, so they cannot disagree (and has the additional advantage of a low-bandwidth/low-hardware 2D non-graphic mode if you want it); the usual Linux DHCP server (daemon) keeps config in a text file, and reliably reconfigures itself on a hangup signal. Of course, you have a choice about (and source for) both of these services.
Reading any Microsoft release notes (no matter how carefully or how many times) would have left us entirely unprepared for either of these eventualities. Neither would have assuming or not assuming any amount of stuff.
In short, you're talking out of your fundment. Poor, stupid Anonymous Coward, Microsoft don't provide either config for the filter to temporarily or permanently reduce its enthusiasm, or any means of backing out the patch.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Isn't that the alternate ending of that Antitrust movie?
--
I happened to have just finished reading a report by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies on the topic of corporate global power, sorry I have no link. The data is for 1999 and Microsoft is not on the list of the top 200 corporations in the world. It look s as tough Microsoft is just not that big a corporation to be worred about. Of the largest 100 economies of the world, 51 are corporations; 49 are countries. General Moters is bigger than Denmark, IBM is bigger than Singapore, and Sony is bigger than Peru for just a few examples. Microsoft is not listed anyware in this study. But again this was for 1999 data, it might be they've grown since then. I guess Mr. Katz could look up this study and check some facts, but then agen, I guess not.
zenray
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
Oh give me a break! This is so friggin' inane it really brings into doubt the rest of the article. That's right Jon: You know the righteous way and all us uninformed masses are stupid ponying up for Windows 2000. Please guide us in our ignorant ways and bring us enlightenment. The real cream on the cake was using Scott McNealy for quotes...wait isn't that the "no one should expect privacy" gentlemen? Gosh, he's got some negative things to say about Microsoft? Egads! What a great surprize! Surely such a credible source adds such foundation to this article.
Don't blame the press for the continued success of Microsoft, because if anything the press has been down on Microsoft for years. CNN (notice that CNN has the big Netscape banner, and the favicon.ico for CNN for the longest time was the Netscape logo...rather disconcerting) has been slamming Microsoft for years. Every other print organization has tried to be hip by hyping the dream world of open source and Linux. There have been countless "Microsoft is doomed because of the march of network appliances/Java/Linux/PS2/etc". Movies like AntiTrust are ridiculous, foolish Katz-type mass media pandering to the foolish that believe an argument without a foundation. So don't tell me the media is the reason that Microsoft is successful: Microsoft is successful DESPITE the media.
You're a classic anti-MS raving zealot..and you have the nerve to tell the other person that they're pissing you off? Give me a break.
because as we speak the professional graphic market is still owned by OpenGL and there's one big freakin reason about this, it is better.
Anyone out there who does professional 3D work please raise your hands...yup, that's about 0.0001% of you. For the vast majority of users, and the vast majority of uses, DirectX is clearly a superior choice. This is pretty much unanimous in the field, including by some well known industry figures who fought DirectX tooth and nail. They now concede that it is clearly superior because it is innovative and continues to evolve.
Now, yes DirectX as improve in the last years. You know why? Of course not. Because it was made to compete OpenGL, you know what they did at M$ for their 8th released they worked with the OpenGL community isn't that weird?
No it isn't weird retard: OpenGL was a good, logical competitor so MS learned from it. The next time you use KDE or Gnome think long and hard about how they learned from, egads, Windows 9x. This is so pathetic. It is natural for anyone who develops software to learn from other software, especially when it's held up as the superior alternative. Is Linux an original operating system? No it's a rip off of a system from the 70s. Any rational, logical person could see that it is reasonable for Microsoft to learn what some in the community particularly had a problem with DirectX, in particular why they thought OpenGL was superior. Gosh you think the setup is too complex compared to OpenGL? Okay we'll make the setup easier. You want a transformation pipeline? Okay we'll put in one of those.
Office is the best office suit on the market because M$ killed all the others that were far far far more quality products.
Now this just takes the cake. The competitors to Office were all universally pieces of shit that were poorly integrated, and were bloated sacks of crap. Please name these superior products that MS killed that were superior? While Microsoft is often accused of making "bloatware" it's funny that when other products try to emulate the functionality they end up bloating much moreso. It was fun to call IE bloatware until Netscape finally came out with that bloated monster. Word was bloatware until Wordperfect finally made a Windows (ergo non-DOS) version of Wordperfect...which ended up being a slow, memory hogging, disk encroaching behemoth.
IE? pfff come on, I'm currently developping web applications, and you know what that DAMN FREAKIN IE IS PISSING ME OFF BIG TIMES!
That's because you're a moron. PFFF! Take a lithium pill or something.
If you think this is downhill you should have been around since they handed out the first ID Number
Or like I have often said: If you're not paranoid, you're not paying close enough attention.
I guess I'm confused about what exactly JK's opinion regarding OS is now--or did he merely throw in the terms as a checklist item?
.NET, and compulsory registration. If .NET fails or doesn't take off as imagined, Microsoft could be in serious poo-poo.
I think he's drawing some premature conclusions about Microsoft's imminent success. There are two major bet-the-farm strategies Microsoft has embarked upon, and they could succeed or fail to various degrees:
Regarding compulsory software registration, that's yet another case of sticking the head in the sand: large corporations like MS simply refuse to acknowledge how much of their market share is really due to full on or gray piracy. Once you will literally be forced to buy a copy of Windows and Office for EACH machine in your household, rather than just using the CDs that came with one of them, let's see how many people will still have the latest Windows and Office on all their machines. And that's not even considering the Big Brother aspect of it. I think Microsoft will get a sobering reality check within the next year or so (especially after Windows XP turns out not to be the expected cash cow).
I deserved that. It seems I need to remove the plank from my own eye.
I disagree. As one who has travelled to both places and would be the first to point out just how very different they are, I have to say it was crystal clear in the context of your statement that you were describing colonialism in general, not India/Africa specifically (beyond citing historical examples of colonialism which refute and highlight the stupidity of the comment you were replying to). You certainly weren't guilty of equating the two, beyond alluding to the fact that both Africa and India (and of course other places such as China) suffered immensly under European colonialism, which did, in fact, destroy much older and arguably more civilized societies in favor of its own model of government and culture. You made this point well, and only someone with the head in their ass would have missed this and think you were somehow saying "all former colonies of european powers are alike." They do all share the one attribute you discussed, namely the damage of one degree or another to their own (often older and more venerable cultures) by europe's imperialism, which after rereading your comment is the only equation of the two places you imply.
The plank wasn't in your eye until you were distracted from the subject at hand by a meaningless and pointless diversion from the subject at hand. That, if anything, is far more insulting to everyone than anything you wrote or may have implied to those who are more interested in picking apart the literal semantics of your words than in having an intelligent discussion.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
We were forced to upgrade to FreeBSD 4.3 because we could no longer find a hardware vendor that would sell us new hardware that would also support FreeBSD 3.2.
... if the requirements don't change, the machines may never be upgraded at all ... merely discontinued when their purpose is no longer relevant to the business. That has happened several times already, much to the amazement of one of my colleagues. A machine in use for five years, then retired when the service was no longer necessary, with never an upgrade and never a crash. A far cry from the days of running SunOS/Solaris/Windows and being compelled every six months to upgrade this or that package, occasionally with disasterous results as one required "upgrade" was completely incompatible with another, both of which were necessary to the underlying service.
You chose to purchase a new machine and/or upgrade your hardware, and are complaining because that choice also entails a software upgrade? (Other possible choices you could have made would have been to buy used hardware or shop the components yourself and put together something your old OS supported). That is a very, very far cry from having your vendor coerce you into changing to a new platform because all support of the old one is being discontinued and, without the right to examine and modify the source, you are completely beholden to them to fix any problem which may arise.
We have GNU/Linux boxes that are still running 1.2.x of the kernel and haven't been touched in years (the uptimes exceed two years and would be longer were it not for having to physically move the machines a time or two). When we choose, we will upgrade to new hardware and, yes, probably new versions of the Linux kernel and GNU software. And yes, that will require some time, effort, and work to do so.
The difference is that we will ourselves choose if and when to do it, not our hardware or software vendors. And who knows
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If we are going to argue this from the open source perspective (peer reviewed methodology produces better than secret sourcecode) rather than the Free (as in freedom) software perspective (free software is about fundamental freedoms), then we will find we are playing Microsoft's game on their own terms and our arguments quickly become moot. Microsoft can and, if dubious reports are to be believed, may perhaps actually be getting their software reviewed by other professionals, peers if you will, in a source-available-under-onerous-conditions approach, with the result than Windows 2000, while still inferior to GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/etc, is vastly improved over its predicessors. The open source argument can and likely will be made moot by a little agility on Microsoft's part coupled with a tremendous amount of cash.
That does not, however, affect the underlying issue of freedom at all, which actually has much more compelling business implications. One of the major reasons my employer moved away from Sun and Microsoft products and toward free software (Linux and GNU software in particular) was not because the software was technically superior (although it was), but because we would no longer be beholden to our vendor and have dictated to us when and to what we would upgrade.
Many people do not realize just how onerous and expensive such lack of freedom is for a company. When you are developing in house software for mission critical systems and you are told "platform x will no longer be supported as of this date, port your stuff to our new platform y" this can result in deployment delays and huge amounts of money spent on hiring enough staff to get the changes made in a reasonably timely manner. The cost is very real, and very significant. By switching to Linux and GNU we enabled ourselves to deploy in-house apps in a quick and timely manner, and we upgrade when we decide we need to, not when our vendor decides to pad their bank accounts at our expense.
I will reiterate: the major cost isn't the "upgrade cost," it is the actual time, effort, and work involved in moving an entire codebase from platform x to y, and being forced to do so over and over again every two or three years at the behest of one's vendors. Whether it is Sun, Sybase, Oracle, or Microsoft doing this is irrelevant, it delays important work and sucks up valuable resources.
The freedom of free software in allowing a company to preserve its own autonomy and not be beholden to its vendors, and to have a free, competitive marketplace in which to obtain and/or provide its services (as opposed to a monopoly) is IMHO a much more potent argument that the "peer review makes free software better than proprietary software," since, as Microsoft is showing, they can at least create the perception (and, if they wish, the reality) that proprietary software can also be peer reviewed.
I think sometimes we loose sight of real value of using free software vs. proprietary alternatives: the freedom itself, and how it enables us to do business and lead our lives in a much less encumbered fashion. Technical superiority is nice, and certainly important, but even in a case where proprietary and free software are both peer reviewed and a parity in quality is achieved, the free-as-in-freedom is still preferable because of the significantly lower drain it places on a companies resources and IT personnel, and the greater flexibility and choice it affords its users.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Oh my goodness.. people around here really HAVE GONE INSANE!!! .. I find no problems in using my intellimouse.. or any other mice for that matter..
:)
Maybe you need to re-learn your mousing skills?
--
Delphis
Delphis
but in that MS article .. WTF is 'Hyperspace' ?!?!?
--
Delphis
Delphis
ultrapenguin
...
I am surprised why I still waste my time here.
I wonder about that too, perhaps you're a masochist ?
Any ways, I don't like Katz and his horrible articles, but c'mon, you're upset because people bash and flame a corporation ?
What's the matter, are we hurting the corporation's feelings ?
Oh my
- sigs are for wimps.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
They win the browser war as AOL slows down its goals of being a browser builder.. needless to say that mozilla should be called slowzilla instead (troll comment but am I lieing here??)
They are taking on Real with Windows media player...
They are basically branchine into every tech area that there is and some that aren't there just yet. Needless to say that the new US goverment has a hands off policy when it comes to big business so they wont do anything to stop M$ and they will discourage anyone else from doing so.
If this keeps up those same people that are letting M$ do what they want are going to be the ones that are hurt the most...
Just watch M$ take on AOL time warner in the soon future.. I can see M$ getting into broadband DSL/CABLE networking somehow..
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
If there was a real free market, then it would be possible to gain market share on Microsoft without essentially giving your product away for free. The fact that Linux is the only OS making headway is proof that the PC OS market is essentially devoid of competition.
A free market maybe isn't the right term, since as you point out the opposite of free is government control. Maybe "competitive market" would be more accurate - then not only are you free to use Microsoft, free software, or any other products you can find, but since the market is competitive those other commercial alternatives actually exist. A market with exactly one commercial competitor may be a "free" market but it is not a "competitive" one.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Huh? What corporation controls — without any alternatives — what I can do, say, hear, feel or think? If a corporation tried it, I could go to a competitor. If a Communist regime tries it, the people better learn to actively fight for the regime's downfall or just live with it, because most of them won't be able to emigrate even if they wanted to.
Cheers,
As of right now, that is not useable.
Wrong. 64-bit WinXP betas have been available for download at MSDN since last year. Beta 2 is the most recent XP beta, and the 64-bit version for it is there for the downloading.
They're way behind the Open Source folks at supporting Itanium.
Wrong. See, they have this little thing called a release schedule. The difference is that RedHat, et al., decided to release everything they have so far the day the Itanium came out, while Microsoft is going to make sure that the OS is actually ready before they release it to the general public. If Microsoft released XP to the public in the same condition that RedHat released 7.1 for the Itanium, they would've been crucified for such incompleteness.
Cheers,
Exactly. It's more an introduction than an article.
-- Cheers!
How can the linux community begin to judge microsoft when in fact we want to create the same domination without the fee. America is built on commerce folks, its time to wake up. Buying car audio equipment and beer isn't going move our economy forward.
Katz comments how arrogant Gates is, hasn't he deserved the right to be arrogant? Where are all of the arrogant Linux users/developers who enjoy bashing windows users of their incompetence? They're all waiting to creep from the woodworks when a new version of nautilus comes out I'm sure.
Sometimes I can understand how the Linux community is disturbed by Microsofts actions, but the Linux movement is doing its best to compete with MS, and when (and if) we finally catch up what will we do. Do you think the CEO's of those future Linux corps will be happy with marginal profits when they can charge their customers more, create their own license, services, subscription fee's, etc...
As the Linux community keeps screaming 'bring down the beast' while we're building one of our own. Has anyone not noticed Redhat distro's selling for $100 at compusa. What will you people say when iso's for install discs stop showing up on ftp sites, and all you have left are shrink wrapped Redhat boxes waiting to be purchased. Upgrading your software will eventually cost you too.
Its so easy for Linux community to judge because we're the underdog, we're just as twisted as Microsoft except the market hasn't given us the chance lash out on consumers.
As you point out, Office is the best office suite around, bar none. But why? Is it because nobody else has the skill that Microsoft does? Perhaps. But is it possible that nobody else bothers because they can't hope to compete. The risk involved is enormous and the reward is miminal. It's so bad that Corel decided to develop its own flavor of Linux just so it could have a platform where they could sell their word processor (that's not necessarily a fact, but it's my impression).
As for Office competing against Linux equivalents, what features do the Linux equivalents lack that you are concerned about? My biggest problem has simply been incompatibility with the Microsoft document formats. I have to keep a copy of Office around because some work I do requires having Office (otherwise I'd purge it). Is this a good thing that regardless of the quality of Microsoft's product I really have no choice but to have a copy?
If Microsoft's software was the best in all categories, I would still use Linux. Why? Because I like having a choice.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Maybe I'm just not seeing the argument, but what's the problem with removing a floppy disk from the drive during a read or write in Windows? As an empirical test, I just did that here. What happened? A message box popped up explaining that the file copy couldn't be completed because there was no disk to copy it to, and then another box popped up saying that the delayed write failed with a list of potential causes (hardware or network, basically). I fail to see the problem. Maybe I should qualify this by saying that I tested on Windows 2000, but that should be pretty much irrelevant (because if you must compare linux to windows, do it properly -- Win9x isn't even in the same league, and was never meant to be).
Amen indeed!
Blar.
really, nobody ever said you had to use whatever MS has to offer. neither you nor anyone else is being forced into that situation, and if people wanted something different they could use something different.
:) *shrug*
I prefer different operating systems, so I install them, and the world is good. when I'm at work, I use microsoft, so I can actually share information with the other 95% of the lemmings out there like myself. Just because they or I use it doesn't mean we are oblivious to the issues of monopolies or anything of that nature- it's just convenient and lets face it, business is about making money, not bandying about social issues. But maybe that's just my opinion from actually working for a living instead of being an intellectual recluse like many of the readers here
EOM
That's quite true, I guess. as a network engineer, the only necessity I really have is outlook- nobody has anything that can tie in with it or offer the same capabilities. if there was ANY alternative to outlook that ran on *nix, even a costly one, I'd jump on board.
but that being said, there's a difference between your home use (which could be anything) and business use (in which someone is paying you to do what they want.) While I think you and I are in the same boat there, where we could use what we wanted as long as it got the job done, most corporate employees aren't. And I'll be the first to admit that if I tried to replace MS Exchange with something else that didn't work in EXACTLY the same way, I'd be strung up from the nearest pole. oh well.
EOM
They were both "qualified" in the sense that they can do the job. You may not like their views, however. Just to pick nits.
"There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
What would the Clinton administration have done if Bill Gates had contributed money to Clinton's campaign fund?
I don't like Microsoft, but I really don't think they require a break-up. And even if they were broken into separate companies, what would we really gain? We'll benefit if they put a stop to their anticompetitive practices, and I support that.
"There are no cool guys in musicals." -- Coach McGuirk
Hey hey.....please stop. I do get upset when someone pretends to limit our right to illustration. It would be probably worse to control the information than anything else.
Believe me, if you're not illustrated and you're unaware, you might as well not care about all that sort of things (pollution, toxic waste, weapons). The power to exert propaganda into the population is far worse than any isolated toxic-waste-throwing company.
Guess who's getting that power....
Yeah, right.
It was once stupid that MS could dominate the OS space: "look, there's PC DOS, DR DOS, CP/M, MacOS, and eventually we'll be using some kind of UNIX". Look what happened (well, they were partially right on the UNIX thing, only they expected it in 1986, not 1996)
It was once stupid that MS could dominate the application space: "look, there's Quattro Pro, Ami Pro, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Paradox....Netscape... all of them are BETTER than the MS alternative" Look what happened.
I don't see why the Internet could be any different. Customers are clueless. For them, the Internet is that nifty little AOL or whatever icon you click, as well as explorer.
Just my two céntimos
Hugo
The end result? A Dictatorship was created, but UFC gets their land back. Look up PBSUCCESS for more info on the web.
There are plenty of more examples where the US gov has stepped up to the plate for huge corporations, or ignored their deeds, with more harm than good resulting. Microsoft may not be killing people (yet), but their economic practices may someday be just as deadly.
While I have been an avid reader of Slashdot for about 3 years and Linux user for 6 years, I think the continous Linux is better/MS is better and MS is the devil/MS isn't so bad arguments are rather pointless here. Most people who read /. are already pretty opinionated on the subject and for the most part Linux/BSD biased. If you think your comments are going to change readers' minds you are sorely mistaken. Unless you are a linux zealot and enjoy the big circle jerk you are probably wasting keystrokes by bringing up the same arguments we have all heard a million times.
If you really want your comments to count bring them to the people in your company that decide what software the company buys. If the person/group of people already seem to have their minds made up, show them why your choice is better. I realize that this seems only to be a call to the Open Sorcerers, but I have seen it work the other way, too.
But of what quality? Try pulling a floppy out of the drive while WinDOS 98 is writing it. Now do it on Linux. Now that's quality.
Wow, you take it out, and windows tells you to put it back in. What crappy crappy software. They must be the devil's own creation.
Or, try not taking a floppy out while it's being written? It's also a good idea to put the clutch in before you change gears, does that mean manual cars are a piece of shit? I mean other people make clutchless sequentials, so all manual cars must be crap, right?
--Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
This is weird. How come there is so much pro-Microsoft Astroturfing going on the early posts under this article? Initially, I get the impression that so many people have blocked Katz's stuff that all that are left are trolls and Microsoft apologists. Did I say apologists? Maybe I meant employees...
The only other time I have seen this many people come to Bill's defense is on bad days at ZDNET's Anchodesk.
As one other poster indicated, the real problem is with the corpratist system completely unchecked by government. I know that's an essential element to what Jon is saying, but, whether you consider Microsoft evil or the best thing since sliced bread MS is merely a symptom, not the disease. To see what is happening, follow the money. And that's exactly what the officials you elected are doing, following the money.
Microsoft is apparently above the law - because they can buy the law. If you own it, you have nothing to fear from it since you control it. Thanks, G. W. (Our first unelected president since Gerald Ford.)
America is changing from a Democracy/Repulic to a Corporatocracy. (And so is the world mostly) That's the real danger. If we were truly a democracy or even a republic, the officials we elected to represent us would carry out our desires and work for the benefit of the *people*, not the *corporations*. (Who, strangely enough, are "people", but not subject to the same rules that you and I are.)
I know, there are those of you who will say that the stockholders are people and they *are* the corporation. But very few stockholders have enough of those little scraps of paper to influence the direction or behavior of the corporations they have invested in. That is reserved for the rarified few who have *lots* of those little scraps of paper, and they seem to have lots of little scraps of paper, but few moral or ethical beliefs and most a desire to collect more of those little scraps of paper. The average stockholder has *absolutely* no input into the corporation they invest it.
I think I heard this somewhere before, "We must all hang together, or we will certainly hang separately." It's never been more true than today. It's too bad that it seems that today, apathy reigns supreme.
It's gonna be an interesting ride, I hope we can survive it.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
I would have to agree that MS is not above the law but they should not be punished for running their business their way. If there is a company or person with a superior product and they can't get it out there or make money at it, then it's not MS's fault. This is the USA, a capitalist society not a socialist one and I would rather live here than in the latter. You can question the quality of their software, which has improved in my opinion, but it has made it easier for people to get out there and use a computer. Go back to 10 years ago before Windows 3.1, computers were quite difficult to use and nothing made sense, MS made the Intel line affordable and easy to use. That being said, there are alternatives like Linux but it's not there yet and it's not the system people want, they want applications, they don't want to think about how the computer does this, or configure that. They want to turn it on and be productive anything else is a waste of time. MS deserves accolades for making their software easy to use for everyone. For you tech elite out there, enjoy the alternatives, you and I can live with them, being a Linux user for over 4 years now, but not my Mom and Dad. I would rather live in a country where I don't get penalized for making money and be able to run my business my way without the Government, fed or state, interfering. We need checks but I think Sun, AOL and other MS competitors have envy and the Liberal Democrat "it's not fair" administration pushed for MS to be broken up. Now we have an administration that supports businesses large and small to realize the American dream and that is not only good for my small company but for me as well. -Pat
Web Developer
Katz points out that MSFT is up 60% this year, but doesn't mention the fact that it is almost exactly where it was one year ago today, and comfortably below its 52-week high of nearly $83/share. See Yahoo's one-year chart of MSFT for the real story.
Add to that that we are taking about a programmer, here; someone who knows something about computers. Suppose Granny accidentily discovers she needs a security patch (she's not likely to go looking) and couragously attempts to install it, do you think she's going to understand the release notes even if she does read them?
I'm sorry, you just added to the case in point. Microsoft products make simple tasks complex and complex task incomprehensible. I believe you are mistaking "attractive" for "quality".
The death or incapacitation of Bill Gates would bring M$ to a screeching halt. Let us assume that he is 'only' the company visionary, and it's really being led by Ballmer. Doesn't matter. He is the Sun King, the royal emperor, King Arthur, the (dare I say it?) the Linus Torvalds.
Sure, things will go on, but without the fanaticism and cult-like tones (notice that this can be applied equally to Linux. Interesting.) No longer can the media speak of the 'boy genius programmer'.
Perhaps more importantly, Bill is there to provide focus, unity, and discipline. Look to Wal-Mart. Following the demise of Sam Walton, the formerly united management front became fractured and embroiled in legal bouts and in-fighting. Sure, the company is still quite successfuly, but it derailed them for a while.
Look at IBM. Following the death/resignation (forget which) of the guy who led the company from the 30's until?? they became rudderless and run by the buracrats (sp). Took a long time (until they found the current guy, with the power and charisma to unify the company) to get back into fighting shape.
Look at Apple. While getting rid of Jobs was the best thing they could do (and Amelio got a REALLY bad rap) because of his less than stellar management techniques, it turns out that his personality and drive were more important to the company.
And while Alan Cox could easily take over Linus' role from a technical standpoint, let's face it, the press loves Linus.
Which brings us back to Bill. If he were to meet with an unfortunate accident, M$ would be in shambles. Until someone could grab the reins. While Ballmer may be able to run the company, I'm not sure that he could rally the troops in the same way.
So while Gates et al. may know how to capture the world, he is thus far forgetting one thing: how to preserve his legacy. Great conquests (be they military, business, or whatever) frequently only last until the death of the figurehead.
I wouldn't advocate Bill's death. But I would advocate extraditing him to the former Soviet Union and have him sent to a gulag.
Short of this, I don't see a solution.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I think Jon works for himself (freelancer) but I'm not sure.
To answer your other points: I agree that corporations are a boon to tyranny. I see two problems (at least in the US. That's my POV, deal with it) with corporations that are somewhat related.
First, corporations are legal 'citizens' with rights. This is a new idea, and not the way corporations were intended. They were intended for the narrow purpose of surviving the owner of the corporation. This eventually got extended to include the 'right' to be taxed and the separation of liability (in some instances).
Now, the problem arises as courts and legislatures have continuously extended what it means for a corporation to be a 'person' under terms of law. Corporations have the right to free speech (including lobbying rights) they have various civil rights (absurd, since a corporation, if it is a person, is a slave, owned by one or more people). They also have the right to welfare (witness the level of protectionism on trade that exists in the US. Calling it welfare is perhaps unfair to the people who do need and deserve such a service.) This is the first big problem: corporations have tons of rights. They can do almost anything except vote. Due to their financial might, their voice carries more weight than the voice of a human person.
Combine this with point two: corporations have none of the responsibilities of a human person. They don't have to pay taxes (in theory, they do, but how many corporations pay taxes on a level anything like you and I?) They no longer have to be in the public interest (like their original mandates) and they certainly are in no way subject to criminal penalties.
This last is the most harmful. Civil penalties are incomplete, and allow the offender to continue their piss-poor behaviour. (Witness the behaviour of the baby bells and the behaviour of microsoft following civil 'penalties') Businesses must have criminal penalties (limiting their ability to do business, or simply to exist) and they must be used by the courts.
And about this, there is not one fucking thing the average citizen can do. Not one. Not voting, not killing people (see my post in this topic).
Personally, I'm thinking of moving to MT and stockpiling some large caliber weapons.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Given your staggeringly high user number, I'll assume that you haven't heard this before:
Filter out Katz stories. Filter out Michael stories. Filter out whatever type of stories you don't like.
The story filters aren't perfect. But they work fairly well. Well enough that you shouldn't even notice the paranoid ramblings. As a matter of fact, you may want to disable everything except tech and hardware.
Try this: http://slashdot.org/users.pl
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
c. You have regressed.
It's Jon Katz. He doesn't speak for Slashdot. He speaks for JK. (And sometimes he likes to speak for the downtrodden nerds in high schools)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
They shouldn't have to censor Jon Katz any more than the Washington Post censors George Will on the editorial page. But most of JK's stories should be classified as 'editorial' or 'commentary', rather than a 'feature'. At least in a site that claims to be a NEWS site.
Some people would answer your second point with k5. I wouldn't. Just never liked it that much.
Finally, while JK retains copyright on his postings, it doesn't prevent the fair use copying and pasting of them to other sites in order to disseminate and discuss them. It should even be legal to deep-link directly to his stuff.
But yeah, given the lack of competition, there is no downside (that I'm aware of) to OCL'ing much of the content of Slashdot in general.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I've heard an MP3 of RMS singing to the public. I'd prefer that he would lie instead...
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
I don't know about that, you yourself rail against Gates all the time. Seems there's actually quite a bit of dispute about it.
--
Help us build a better map!
But neither does the west treat people with respect. Look at the conservative movement in the US, there is even talk of making it law for women to stay home after having children be barred from working (here). Is descrimination still present? What about xenophobia or isolationism? The West is not the be all, end all of civilization. Just another silly stage.
Their browser is much the same though, albiet they did bundle it into the OS, which does make it a bit different. I think a lot of people just dropped the other browsers (Netscape) because they plain sucked. Netscape crashes *way* more than IE, and is slower. Office is the same. I used Wordperfect for a very long time, but it just wasn't as stable (I never though I'd hear myself saying that about an MS product either.)
Ok, I'm not that big of a Microsoft fan, but some of the things Katz says aren't really that strong, especially without backing up. I'm going to be inviting the flames with this, but ah well, here goes...
Katz calls Microsoft the first company that exists above the law. Where does he get this. They were taken to court in an antitrust suit because they bundled their *free* web browser in their OS. I admit that this is a bit of an underhanded move, given that it pushed Netscape out, but what market did they push them out of? Browsers had been free for quite a while prior to the bundling, so Netscape wasn't making any money there (I know netscape made cash from selling ads on their homepage, but people could reassign homepages quite easily, so that one doesn't stand up that well.) The point I'm making in this is that the antitrust case for the browser is pretty weak. More powerful than the government?! What exactly makes him say this, the fact that they lost one antitrust suit? "Undisputed King of the Net"? What about the big-wigs at AOL-Time Warner? They're pretty high up on the food chain themselves, not to mention they're also monopolistic whores who have their sights set on MS. While I agree that Micro$oft is too big for its breeches, and probably should be broken apart, the efforts put forward thus far to make it happen have been pathetic at best. Why not go after Office for it's monopoly instead? It's not free, and MS sure did drive the competition out of that space.
I guess there really is no great point to the above, except that Katz should learn that using adjectives doesn't make his point any more solid...he should use facts instead, they work much better.
umm... linux does not ship w/ anything but linux... linux is a kernel, nothing else. your distrobution may come w/ a browser (almost all do) but linux does not...
thats the point, with linux you dont have to have anything, you dont even have to have the unix commands (mostly), or even a shell. you can just have a kernel running on your computer, wasting cpu cycles. its all up to you.
with microsoft, you dont get to choose. certainly, you can use another browser, but you can free up the space that ie is wasting, even if you dont use it. you dont get to choose which gui you want, or if you want one (well, with windows xp, supposedly you cant use dos). you are completely locked into what they have chosen for you. thats what a lot of people dont like about windows, they have no controll over what is happening, what is wasting their cpu cycles (even if they never use it) and what is taking up 300 mb of their hardrive space (windows 98)
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
And some say we never see thoughtful, erudite rhetoric on Slashdot!
What if the Goverment made a website, which required IE, and planned that in the future, you must interact with this site if you wish to do your taxes on line. It could never happen you say? Think again.
How many times has Microsoft said 'no more 16 bit code'. How many times has more 16 bit code been found? Why would anyone think that it would be any different for the move to 64 bit code?
(a long rant)
/Mac ever was?
:-(
I think you don't understand what is all about, and why people like me, are really, really worried about the direction the entire IT section is headed.
First, Microsofts total software domination is an extreme case study in "market failure".
MS have no competition whatsoever, in the markets the choose to dominate. (sure, there are a few players around that MS hasn't killed yet, but they will be killed in the end, just like the others).
Normally, in a free market, the consumer has some choices to choose between. If something sucks, they vote with their feet (and pocket).
But with computer software, that has not been an option for a long time. I am not talking about the tech savy Slashdotter here, but average home computer users, and foremost, business's.
They are so deeply entrenched in MS software, that no matter what, they don't have a choice anymore. Other software producing companies (and soon hardware companies) hasn't had a choice for years; they either humbly submit to MS or gets destroyed.
In short, Microsoft is a monopoly that can do things with impunety, since it is more or less impossible for the consumer, to choose anything else, than MS products.
Not even prices on software is a factor anymore; Corel WordPerfect suite 2002, may be better, faster, and much much cheaper, than MS-office 2000, but will that mean, that it even qualifies, as an unserious competitor to MS-Office? No. Even small business's, or home owners, either warez a copy of MS-office, or pay the full price of it, rather than using a cheaper (and perhaps better) alternative.
As long as Microsoft remains a monopoly, no new software companies, producing software even remotly competing with MS, will ever get to survive. They will either be bought (not in itself a bad thing, but since MS is a monoply.. Ex. Foxbase), or MS will buy all the developers (I strongly suspect, that a lot of the wizz-kids, working for MS R&D, are hired, not so much for what they do for MS, but for what they now don't for others), or directly sabotaged (Quartedeck (qemm, Stacker)), or threatend to submission (Symantec), by locking them out of crucial info, or simply by FUD, "integration" and embrace and extent.
All software companies lives on the mercy of MS. Adobe, Corel, NAI, Symantec, Apple, Macromedia, Real, PKWare, Autodesk, SAP, etc., either lives on borrowed time, or until MS decides to kill them. How long can Autodesk survive MS-CAD 2005, when all their developers now works for MS, their software gets broken with every hot-fix, and service pack released, and when MS is willing and capable of using 5 billion dollars on capturing a 2 billion market?
The article express surprise, that MS do so well on the stockmarked as they do. I am not surprised. In fact, MS anno 2001, is nothing to what they will be in the next decade or two. MS will be the largest, and richest corporation, ever known to man; they will be the defacto only software maker, the largest hardware manufacturer (what good is a CPU, if runs anything else than MS-products), the largest investor and shareholder in the world, and the largest political lobbyist.
When I was young, I refused to buy Macs. I thought they were overpriced, and no fun, because the system was so "closed" and propriatary (and all the nice PC games of course). Now, the PC, that was a lot of fun; wanted a new graphic adaptor? Choose between many firms, buy and plug it in. New, cheap storage? No problem. Of course the Macs were superior to PC's with DOS, even when Windows 3.1 came around, the Macs were superior. But I would not give up my freedom, to choose between many, and cheap hardware firms. Besides WP 5.1, Norton Commander, Turbo Pascal, and Norton Utilities got the job done just fine. I was not alone in that opinion. But I wonder now. Isn't the MS-PC heading down road, more viciously proprietary and closed, than Apple
Sure, the hardware is still dirt cheap. But I dread the day, when even my RAM modules, requires a signed MS-driver, and serial number to work. Then it will be hard for me to run Linux
Take eg. Asus. They want to produce a PDA with Windows CE 3.0 as OS. But MS simply refuses to license it to them. MS's reasons notwithstanding, it is a chilling example of what to come. Think about it; a respected, large hardware firm, begs MS to be allowed to pay MS money in exhcange for a licence for a product MS is "selling", and MS says "NO!"
Whats next?
I seldom rant about how bad MS has become (I am not talking about their products, but about their behavior), I just use Linux, and is very happy about that. To me, Linux made computers fun again.
A bonus contrieved example and analogy, on how it would be, if MS ruled the movies:
Lets say you like going to the movies. Especially Sci-Fi and historical movies has your interest. But all of a sudden your local theater only shows badly syncronized east-german movies, from between 1970 and 1975. And prices doubled too. Fine. You vote with your feet, and drive to another cinema a little farther away. But next week, that cinema has been bought, and now it only shows badly syncronized east-german movies, from between 1970 and 1975. Prices went up too.
Some people gets the idea to start their own free theater, with cheap prices; they buy a building, and starts renting some flicks. Alas, the only movies they are allowed to rent, are badly syncronized east-german movies, from between 1970 and 1975. Besides, since they are independent, they will only be allowed to resell anchovis scented, wet popo-corn. They go bust.
Now, the east-german movie industry may have blossomed during the early 70's, but it really gets to your nerves, that even TV shows they same movies, as the cinemas. So you goes to movies again; the movies are the same and the prices went up again, but now the pictures are all blurred, and unfocused. The theater refuses to refocus the film, but will happily sell you an eye laser-surgery operation (in small lifelong payments). That way, the marvels of east-german movie production, becomes crystal sharp again. Unfortunatly, everything else is blurred.
Doesn't this sound a little like what people were saying a year ago when Napster (and p2p in general) was taking off? There were a lot of smug proclamations that p2p was "unstoppable", and the government was powerless to the stop massive, open exchange of digital content.
Well, it sure didn't take long to push it back underground, once the RIAA set its mind to it. If Microsoft did something to *really* anger the government, the table would turn rather quickly.
The title "The Return of Microsoft" misunderstands our place in the story and the roles of the players. A more accurate title would be:
The Microsoft Strikes Back
People screaming in the streets! Panic!
Fire! Foes! Awake!
The real revolution takes place after Microsoft America v3.0 is released and dissident Microsofties upload the entire code library to SourceForge.
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
"Why is that you twits never bitch about the fact that government tax the piss out of you yet bitch and moan about some evil corporation. "
Well first of all every body bitches about taxes even the fucking farmers and ranches who collect welfare to the tunes of millions and corporations who take so much tax payer money it would make your head spin.
As for your other points..
What makes you think Microsoft does not have guns? The worldwide Microsoft security staff all of whom are armed and trained would dwarf the police force of most cities. Not only that but the army of private investigators, bodyguards and other mercenaries (including lawyers of course) on the MS payroll must also be mind boggling.
Lastly. MS does not have to jail you. It's much cheaper to bribe a politician and make your activity illegal and let the state jail you. That way they make the govt looks bad, the Republicans like you get mad at the govt, republicans like McVeigh blow up the govt buildings, the taxpayers to foot the bill for catching, trying and jailing you. The corps come out smelling like a rose. It's a total win for the corporations. If at any point the govt stopped doing their bidding you can be sure the corporation police force would be out breaking knees and assinating people.
Historically the corporations have always chosen to kill and maim their opponents as opposed to jailing them. Go read up on the copper kings of Montana or the Union busting tactics of the coal companies for examples of how corporations ruled the people when the govt would not do their bidding for them.
War is necrophilia.
"Without the electoral college the people in the 4 most populous US states would dominate presidential race, and that's wrong."
Why is that wrong? The exact same argument can be made for the statewide numbers. In most states one or two cities hold the greatest percentage of the population but somehow nobody had gotten around to implementing an electoral collage for counties or cities. If it's good enough for the majority of a state to elect delegates why isn't good enough for a majority to elect the president?
And remember without an electoral collage the states would not be winner take all. you would still have to convice the majority of Americans that you were the better man no matter where they lived. In this day of mass media that would be very easy to do.
As it is the electoral collage causes just a few states to determine the outcome of an election. The candidates concentrate their efforts on five or six swing states and completely ignore states that they have in the bag or are never going to win. George Bush completely ignored California (and is not punishing them for not voting for him) and Gore completely ignored Texas and most of the inland west which was going to vote republican no matter who the candidate was. If you were a democrat in Texas or a Republican in California you voice did not matter, your vote did not matter.
Without an electoral collage your vote would matter no matter where you are.
BTW you example only works if the people of provinces of A, B and C are completely monolithic in their thinking. Remember without an electoral collage it's not winner take all you must convince the majority of the people in the country that you are the man. If in your example every single resident disliked the other provinces then yes it would be hell for the others but that's the nature of democracy.
War is necrophilia.
"Although I think Richard Stallman venting his rage does compare."
No it does not compare. For one he does not lie to the press and public. Secondly he knows the difference between the open source movement, the free software movement and the GPL. Third he does not pay people to post favorable comments about him. Fourth he does not spend millions of dollars to hire Marketing companies to tell lies about how his product "play nice with others" or "never crash".
Clearly you are unable to grasp the difference between the behaviours, motivations, and strategies of RMS and Microsoft a fact I find rather disturbing to tell the truth.
"But my point is that Joe Schmoe's ranting about Micro$hit makes me unsympathetic to his trauma when a Microsoft statement jars his feelings."
How odd. When Joe Shmoe rants it makes you unsympathetic but when MS call joe Schmoe a communist, anti-american cancer it makes you sympathethic to MS. Why the double standard?
"here's just one group of editors, right? The ones who are posting all the "Ohmigod, Craig Mundie said something bad about Linux!" stories are the same ones who've been leading the anti-Microsoft crusade for years."
Well until the astro turfers arrived here (notice every pro MS post has been modded up to 5) this was an open source web site. If you wanted to talk about how great MS was you hung out at ZDNET or Fawcette publications sites where any comment regarding any software that was made outside of redmond got you flamed all to hell. Grow the fuck up that's the net for you. If you don't like it there are a billion Pro MS sites including microsoft.com where you can hang out and talk about how we are communist pigs for writing software that we don't charge for. I for one will not stop calling them liars till they stop lying or stop calling them evil till they stop doing evil things and will not make nice to them till they stop calling me communist and anti-american. I at least served in the military did Bill Gates or Jim Allchin? Where does he get off calling me un american the fucking pig.
War is necrophilia.
Well that's nice. Next time I read about how the vast majority of meteorologists and climatologists are very concerned about ozone depletion and carbon dioxide emissions and the so called "global warming" I'll just ignore that. After all what to they know, it's not like they have spend years studying the atmosphere or doing research or something. Instead I'll rest easy knowing that cato institute and rush limbaugh insist that there are zero conseqences to polluting the air, releasing hydrocarbons and other activities. And besides some poster on slashdot said it's a myth so it must be a myth, and really he ought to know.
War is necrophilia.
"I stand behind my work, but I'm not willing to bet *everything*, every day! "
So let me see. You are willing to stand behind your work except when you are not willing to stand behind your work. Some days you will stand behind your work but other days you won't. If for example a customer of yours is not happy (or from your perspective has a bug up his ass) and sues you, then you will not stand behind your work.
Did I get that right?
What good is a corporation except dodge personal responsibilty? Isn't that the whole purpose of a corporation?
War is necrophilia.
If what you did to the customer was so bad that he sued you and he won and the damage was so large that you would stand to lose your house then you should lose your house. You must have royally screwed the guy to be bitchslapped like that in court.
If you were the one that screwed the customer then why should you escape with any of your assets intact? You fucked him you ought to pay with everything you got.
War is necrophilia.
"Microsoft is not Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Big Brother, MegaCorp(tm), or anything of the sort. It's a software company"
MS is a megacorp and much worse. Hitler and Stalin are evil becasue they killed millions of humans which is a profoundly evil thing to do. What Bill Gates wants to do is much worse. He want's to kill what separates you from the animals in the first place. The ability to communicate and pass on information freely from one human to another and from one generation to another. It's one thing to kill humans it's another to kill what makes you human in the first place.
Even if you totally disagree with me, even if Bill gates is not as evil as Hitler or Stalin he is still a pretty evil person who has committed evil acts against other companies and people. At a minimum he is a criminal (perjury) and his company has comitted criminal acts (evidence tampering, witness tampering). These things should not be so easaliy dismissed.
Even if you disagree with the fact that they are criminals not even you will deny that MS is a threat to open source software and an enemy of open source. They cleary think you, me and millions of other programmers are communist, un-american and a threat to the american way of life. They are spending millions of dollars bribing congress, advertising and spreading lies about the open source movement. This alone makes it important that every open source developer fight them at every opportunity to do so.
And finally I don't think that nybody would argue that Bill Gates, Jim Allchin, Steve Ballmer etc are liars. They have lied publicly, frequently and effectively all of their lives to further their own agenda which is nothing less then accumulating as much money as humanly possible. Well last I checked the bible said the love of money is the root of all evil. I guess you are going to have to take it up with your own God.
War is necrophilia.
Paraphrasing:
Until we basically have a coup ('pander to corps->money->get elected->govern the country' is broken, probably by cutting out the election part and inserting the 'right' guy in charge)...
And people aren't starving or miserable.
Normally this would lead one to conclude that Microsoft is *not* the greatest evil since Chairman Mao, but not you, my intrepid fellow slashdotter!
Pah. If you all would take five stinking minutes to think about these beliefs you're so fervent about and the solutions that seem so obvious, you could learn a lot.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Aha! Gotcha!
If we were talking about the old-school *book* Frankenstein, then you'd be right. But the Frankenstein from *Bride of* was the same erversion of Shelley's original as appeared in the first film.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That's what I get for hopping on the story early and trying to get under-tenth-post... sigh.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Uh, no. This is not worthy of a 'grow up':
Microsoft: Raa, woo, blugh! Linux BAD!
Katz: Microsoft is wrong. Here's some good, well-thought-out reasons why, without a lot of painfully old rhetoric. I refuse to sink to their level.
This is:
Microsoft: Raa, woo, blugh! Linux BAD!
Katz: Doody-heads!
See what I mean?
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ha! Bwa ha ha! Sniffle... giggle...
Immortal. Right. The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire! Tee hee...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ha! Ever heard of Union Carbide and what happened in Bho Pal?
Of course, Microsoft doesn't do that sort of thing, but corps *can* and *do* get away with it.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
First we get mad when MS calls us a 'cancer'. Then we call MS an evil, unkillable menace.
Yeah, real mature.
Grow up, Jon.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I was taught when I was three years old not to pull a floppy disk out of the drive while it's writing. You, sir, apparently did not learn this most crucial-of-crucial tenets of the computing world.
I mean, just cause Linux CAN do it doesn't mean that it's a great feature. If it took more than half an hour to make such a feature, I can guarantee you it was a waste of time spent, since most computer users are taught not to touch the disk drive while it's writing. And I have no need to pull out disks while the light is on.
It doesn't represent "quality", it represents "code bloat". And that's MS's main game (extra features), one that no company has beat them on yet.
Not that Linux is that bad of an OS for a dinky webserver. Better than Windows ME and cheaper than NT. I would just hate to play games on it, though...
Microsoft hasn't gone out of business yet b/c Bill Gates is really smart. Boy is he scary.
Remember old horror movies. Bill Gates is like the scary guys in those movies.
"Are you scared?"
"I didn't think I needed to be. Didn't Linux kill Microsoft?"
"No you fool. Be scared!"
Repeat paragraph one. Bill Gates is really scary.
Soon Microsoft will control everything, and the DOJ isn't even going to break them up. Aww. C'mon!
C'mon break them up! Their competitors say they're no good.
No one is listening. I said, "their competitors say they're no good!"
Microsoft makes too much money. My Linux stocks are all worthless but Bill Gates is still rich. No fair! Just 'cause he has a lousy revenue stream and profitable business model. That snake!
It's the media's fault. Everyone except me. Don't look at me. It was that guy.
Oh, and while we're at it, there are other big successful rich companies out there. Break them up too!
Everyone saw Bill Gates was a cry baby at the hearings. He deserves this. Give him a spanking!
We all saw it coming. But we're so dumb. Hang on...I'm feeling dumb now...must make myself sounds smart too. Yay Open Source! Open Source is stronger than ever too. Nah nah nah nah nah!
Did you know 8 percent of people can make up statistics off the top of their heads? Neither did I!
Boxing is scary. A year is a long time. Bill Gates is scary. I'm scary. Yay Open Source!
....
What gets me about this is that Katz just read the Business Week cover story from the latest issue and then paraphrased (very poorly) some of the reasonable things they had to say. This is pure drivel designed to provoke mobbish reaction. It is childish and a disgrace to Slashdot.
----------------------------
MS is not even on the list
Bear in mind, that those numbers were all from a time before Windows 95 existed. Until then, MS was still a middle sized (But growing quickly) company.
God Fucking Damnit
Gates & Co. have learned the real way to take over the world, keep people employed and happy
I'd be willing to bet that the number of happy, employed microserfs is miniscule in comparison to the number of careers and even lives that have been ruined by the Micro$oft Empire's ruthless opression. Every time a small company or individual is trampled underfoot for even thinking about standing up to the giant, every time they buy a government official, and every time Windows crashes in a critical environment, jobs and even lives are lost.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
I'd be willing to bet that the number of "careers ... ruined ... is vastly outnumbered by the number of people who are gainfully employed every day using Microsoft products. ... That's 90-plus percent of the computer-using world.
Answer 0:
So it is OK if only a few lives are ruined? At exactly what ruined-lives/gainfully-employed-person ratio would you begin to fault Micro$oft?
Answer 1:
By your logic, we should also legalize murder. Since 90-plus percent of the people out there would be gainfully employed and in no danger of being murdered, it's OK.
Answer 2:
Yes, Micro$hit is everywhere in computing. 90-plus percent, as you said. But UH-OH, that does not constitute a positive point about them. Indeed, you've just SHOT yourself in the FOOT. They ARE everywhere! They ARE a MONOPOLY and YOU'VE REALLY GOT NO CHOICE IF YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF 90-PLUS PERCENT OF ALL AVAILABLE GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT!! YES! YES! YESSSS!!!!
I always love it when people bring out the "Micro$oft is big and everywhere" argument, thinking that they're so sly. Now, enough of your insolence!
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
The problem out there isn't just one issue. It's many, many layers, of varying degrees.
For instance -- Customers are clueless. It's more than just cluelessness. To be even more acurate, the average consumer is lazy. They don't want to learn. [As I'm sure, any of you whom have worked some sort of technical support have come to realize.] Although I may have broadly sweeping stereotypes about people, in marketing, it's just called a 'target audience demographics'.
I work for an organization that has a person with Oracle DBA certfication who can't figure out how to shut down her application, and has the system administration folks reboot the entire machine when it locks up. For her, it's easier than fixing the problem with why it locked up, and a phone call's easier than her typing in the commands to shut down and restart the database.
In the rest of the world, the majority of the population is just as lazy. Sure, you'd get better selection of video games if I went to a real computer store, but I could get most of the 'big name' games if I went to Walmart or Target. Sure, some people will give you the excuse of 'I'm being more environmentally responsible by not driving to three different places, as I had other things to get, too', but that's what most malls are for, but with those, you actually have to walk from store to store.
You'll get people who are in it for the lower price, which I admit, is a valid reason, but well, with most of the discount stores, you pay more in sales tax than you get a discount, so that's not nearly as significant as people claim it to be.
Most people, knowingly or not, take the easy route to most things. (I mean, hell, why make things tougher on yourself than you have to?) They don't like making choices. If I went to Circuit City or Best Buy, I'd have to decide between 3 dozen models of VCRS. There are only 4 models available at Walmart.
Once you've gotten some new product, it's easy to stick with similar stuff, as you don't have to learn as much. (okay, the VCR example doesn't stick as well, as it seems manufacturers take an evil delight in changing where the hell the 'set time' menu option's hidden). But well, if you've gotten a copy of MS Works with your Compaq/HP/whatever computer, it's not that much of a jump up to MS Word. I mean, sure Word Perfect has less bloat, and actually handles Tables of Contents well, and has that really nifty 'Reveal Codes' option, but well, it's more of an effort to switch from one program to another. [Although, Macs tend to make it less difficult, as the UI's fairly standard between programs]
How many of you, if some new spread sheet product came out, would be willing to convert every one of your existing documents over, or just stick with what you've been using for years? I'm guessing significantly less than 5%. [And most of that 5% are the ones who don't use spreadsheets]
What MS did, do, however, is do this nasty little 'site liscense' thing. So, suddenly, companies decide, 'Well, even though Bob's needs are different from Dave's and John's, we're going to make them all use the same program.' So now, Bob's torn, as he normally uses Lotus 123 at home, and Excel at work. So well, he caves, and pirates a copy of Excel for home use, so he doesn't have to keep switching his files back and forth, etc. After some time, he forgets all about how much better Lotus 123 was for his needs.
Had Bob not been lazy, he could have fought for his Lotus 123, and stayed happy. However, that would have required more of an effort than just being herded like a sheep, as the rest of the company's doing.
[Okay, so I'm bitter that someone from management went against all of the technical folk's recommendations for a new mail server last year, and we told 'em we wanted to switch user naming schemes, and they whined that everyone was going to have to switch all of their settings, so we were going to have to stick with the old stuff, so we didn't have to let people know how to change everything, and now I have to do 3-5 times as much work as all of the names are tied to another system, rather than making a clean break.]
um....I think I went off on a tangent, and didn't quite reinforce the lazy thing as well as I could, however, being a lazy person myself, I don't feel like fixing this comment itself, damnit.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
But M$ never sells a product. They only license them.
There was heavy hints at an XP product meeting recently that M$ would start to revoke the licenses of companies who fail to upgrade to XP within a reasonable amount of time, somewhere around 2 to 3 years. That send waves of terror and elation through the audience, a mix of large corporate buyers and M$ channel. The channel will get the same cut as before, but M$ expects to more than double its revenue stream with the introduction of XP. No longer will M$ allow end users to have 4 year or longer upgrade cycles, 3 years will be the maximum.
M$ also announced a new certification program for auditing companies, the ones who go onsite and bugger up your computers for a week, and produce a software licensing bill for every seat you can't produce a physical license for. This new certificate will be used by the BSA to ensure "fair" audits, and a number of the large audit firms (KPMG, PWC, E&Y, D&T) already have pre-certified teams ready to go to work all over Europe. Corporations wishing to avoid legal harassment can hire these teams to make regular audits, and produce a certificate of compliance, and a copy is sent to the the BSA and the main software companies.
If you are a large enough corporate target, expect M$ to put pressure on your IT and legal departments during the next year. Fail to upgrade soon, and they will revoke your licenses for win95 and anything non-XP. Tell them to bugger off, and expect an audit at the end of a gun (the company next door was audited last year after telling the BSA to fuck off, with a dozen uniformed police assisting the raid at 7 AM).
There is also a big financial incentive program. Buy XP before august of this year (yes, we all know it won't be out before next year), and only see your per seat license fee increase by 70% to 90%. Between September and February, the increase is 100% to 130%. Wait until after XP comes out, and the fee increases 170% to 210%. The figure you lock in now will determine your increases over the next 5 to 7 years. So early adopters of a 100% licensing of XP (whether they use it or not) can expect lower licensing fee increases when they are forced to upgrade every 2 or 3 years. Figures taken from all over TheReg, too many to cite here.
There will be no win95 aftermarket support industry in 2 to 3 years. Probably not even for NT. M$ has guaranteed to the distribution channel here in Europe that it will use "judicial means" to eliminate the support headache currently born by the channel. While you might still keep and use your PII/win95 machine, you will still have to buy a perpetually upgrading XP license whether you use it or not.
This is what is freaking out JKatz, even if he hasn't been paying attention to the details. Some of us do, even if it feels like wallowing in horseshit. M$ is growing so bold, we will soon look back on 2000 as the good old days when M$ put on a pious act for the US and Euro governments and allowed the last gasp of true competition in the IT/networking/telecoms worlds.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
If Microsoft controls how you see the Internet (browser), they then can easily control how it is displayed (web server), then they can easily limit who can display it (server OS). It's not a huge jump. These are big Open Source/Free Software projects that are threatened by Microsoft
So use Mozilla/Apache, and they don't do what you want, add the functionality. Nobody forces you at gunpoint (since we're talking about ESR :) to use MS information architecture products. (BackOffice, whatever)
Katz is simply responding like anyone that supports open or free software. He, as I do, feel that someone is trying to steal our homes.
What? I use, support, and develop open source software. I still see the need for Microsoft or companies like them to provide software for the masses, though. Nobody makes you use windows when you get a new PC - liscencing issues aside, which is one of the issues the DoJ has. Going from that to the possibility of a grand paranoia scheme where MS controls the internet through their servers is silly, when the architecture of the network is well standardized and many browser/server alternatives exist. Your decision to participate in the conspiracy at that point is volantary.
..don't panic
Get a grip, Katz. I can't handle this drivel much longer. Bill Gates is not the frigging antichrist, and Microsoft is not the only point of contact between business and the web. Companies may choose to make microsoft their only point of contact with the internet, just like they might chose to use nothing but custom developed IBM systems. If it's cost effective, all the power to you.
The internet can't be "taken over" by Microsoft. That's just stupid. If you want to use the services and products provided by Microsoft, then do so, but there's lots of alternatives, and if there aren't alternatives, then go write your own! Maybe it won't have all the bells and whistles, and it might cost an arm and a leg, but you can do what you want. Microsoft has a long way to go before you have no choice - and the open source movement has come a long way towards guaranteeing that.
Nobody said computing has to be easy. Bah. Microsoft fills a need just like linux. Get over it.
..don't panic
You're missing my point. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has a dominant share of the OS market. If for some reason you feel constrained by Microsoft, be it in the OS, Browser, Office Software, Development Tools, Gaming, whatever, arena, go write your own stuff. If enough people dislike what MS is doing, then your stuff will get better and have more features, like linux.
For most people, Microsoft is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Antitrust issues aside, most people just want a simple OS that they can use to do a few things. I want a complicated OS that gives me a lot of power, and I want nice development tools. You might want somthing different.
It's about choice. You're free to choose to not use MS stuff, and use something else instead, or write that "something else" from scratch. Contrary to what most people thing, programming is not rocket science. It's more time consuming than anything else.
I'm sick of people whining about MS dominating this and dominating that. Spend less time whining and more time working on things you wouldn't like to see dominated by MS, like Mozilla. Nobody said the choice had to be easy.
..don't panic
"the CEO of the Corporate Republic. He's created the first but surely not the last truly Unaccountable Corporation, a vast entity that is, in fact, above the law and more powerful than the government which enables it."
Oh please, we have the LEAST to fear from Microsoft of all corporations in the "Corporate Republic". Oh no our software won't be Free! Millions will starve! No way, Microsoft is FAR from the first. The ones we have to fear are the ones that bury toxic materials and cover it up (*cough* Erin Brokovich *cough*), destroy the environment, fund wars, sell weapons, imprison people, control the food supply, etc.
The issue with Microsoft is a fairly obscure ideological issue. The Corporate Republic has been around far longer than Microsoft, and has much much scarier players.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
If cars were invented today, there would be people who would get angry that most cars will be using this "Internal Combustion" engine that uses this proprietary "Gasoline" substance.
(And before you go off saying "well, the car would explode every 3,000 miles.." to quote someone who flamed me earlier - that statement is "so 1996". I dont know what you guys have been doing, but i havent had windows (NT/2k/XP) crash on me - ever. Of course, most of my hardware, and software, is of decent quality and not made-on-east-jesus-pike, BFE.
Without dissecting your statement too much, which i can't, because i have a real job to get to, Bill Gates is no longer CEO.
Chairman and Chief Software guy, yes.
But not CEO.
What happens when Bill Gates dies? Except of course for the OSS Zealots throwing huge parties and desecrating his grave, i mean. What happens if MS continues being a "Big Bad Monster".. will you still villify Gates, and directly blame him for everything wrong with the [computer] world? He shares in the blame for many things, yes. But he is not singularly responsible for every evil thing on the planet.
Linus Torvalds is not a prophet,
Bill Gates is not satan. Thats rediculous, anyway. Everyone knows satan is Dr. Laura. =]
He has to be different. :)
/. had a spell checker, too? :)
Just correcting myself.
Am i the only one who wishes
Engine:Fuel::Computer:OS
Engine:Gasoline::IBMPC:Windows
Engine:Diesel::IBMPC:Linux
Yes, i'm quite aware of the availability of all these operating systems.
However, You're taking it out of context. I'm speaking of the IBMPC, End-User Market.
Some people want performance + power at a good ratio.. Linux or Diesel.
Some people want a car that most mechanics know the best. They want it cheap, they want to get in, turn the key, put it in gear and GO, and be able to stop at any gas station and get gas [fyi, not all gas stations around here have D2].
Its not a perfect analogy, but its more perfect than what you imply.
Super Premium Gasoline would be Windows NT-based OSes.
Linux is a different monster.
I've been running windows since 1994. Before that I stayed in DOS, running Desqview. I've occasionally broken off and ran OS/2 Warp (now *THAT* was a good multitasking environment for BBSes, i'll tell ye.)
I've been beta testing the operating system since 1996. The DOS-Based OSes gave me problems. I've had NT go to no mans land once or twice. And of course the early betas of the operating systems have had their serious performance issues. HOWEVER, i resent being called a "fucking liar", and i refute.
Just because one person's experience with windows is negative, does not neccesarily mean anothers will be, also. Corallary, just because i've had a plesant experience, doesnt mean others will. But the fact remains more people tend to gripe about something they dislike rather than praise or defend something they like, unless that something happens to need the support. Like linux seems to. I've spoken with several - several - people who havent ever had a problem from Windows.
Just out of curiosity, i was wondering.. are you talking about applications crashing, or windows?
I've had Linux kernel panic on me exactly once. I've had solaris do it a couple times because of a bad bank of memory. I've had Windows 2000 professional gold or XP pro Beta 1+ die.. Never. I've had IE croak on me before. But not the OS.
Oh, and yes, i've seen many NT servers crash under heavy load too. I was speaking of 2k/XP Pro stuff never having given up the ghost on me.
NT Server mainly. To quote scotty.. "The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes."
Microsoft still sells Windows ME. And likely will continue to sell Windows ME until XP Home edition gets a good, strong foothold. And im pretty sure MS has plans to support 98 & ME for a few more years.
It's a corporation and as such will do anything for the almighty dollar. They don't care about morals because that's simply not their job. As for me, I could hardly care because at the end of the day it doesn't affect me in the least. When people want interoperability I'll just charge more. Oh you'd like standards with that? Write to Microsoft. That's not my problem and no I don't care about your deadline it just isn't technically feasible and if it is, it's going to cost you. Don't like the pricing? Find someone else. Eventually people will get fed up with exhorbant prices and then having to pay people like me more exhorbant prices to get the job done.
When all is said and done I go home at the end of the day a little bit more richer with alot of free software on my desktop. What can Microsoft do about that? Not much.
All you have to do is do your part, continue to write code, innovate etc. Eventually people will wonder why they are paying through the nose and the guys over there got their stuff for free.
It comes down to one question.
Are you comfortable with one company in complete control of its market? All issues associated with "MS -vs- The World" aside, you are either "OK" with it, or you are not.
"Well, duh." Yeah, seems obvious but apparently it's not, based on all the time spent arguing over MS's quality of product.
VB
"We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were we dumb. Microsoft is stronger than ever, and, as a consequence, so is Linux and Open Source."
Carved up with our own eyes? When? What the hell you talking about? They were never carved up anywhere, other than in jealous competitors dreams.
Any reference to Scott "Mr Bill Gates Wannabe" McNealy is laughable. He is nothing more than a jealous competitor.
And to say Linux and Open Source is stronger than ever realy hurts your argument. Linux companies are failing by the dozens, and Linux is still 5 years away from even having a shot at being accepted as a desktp OS.
what a tripe commentary from a no-nothing blowhard.
If everything works as planned, Microsoft software will shortly control nearly every point at which a consumer or business interacts with the Web.
So, how is the effort going to port Slashdot to ASP? Will we soon be directing our IE-only browsers through Windows routers? Will there be one Active Directory Domain controller that we'll all have to authenticate through?
I understand the issues at hand here, but from where I stand, they haven't changed at all over the past few years. Yes, Microsoft is launching some pretty fly new products for the business world, but that doesn't meant that other companies are sitting on their laurels contemplating their navel lint.
The Internet is still quite free. If it ceases to be, we'll build another one. It's all part of the Nerd Handbook.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Mozilla 1.0? Let me borrow your time machine.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
MS's success is from preying on the weaknesses of human nature: herd mentality and laziness. Until people in the US get off their butt and do something other than worry about theirs and start acting in a socially meaningful way, nothing will change.
Laziness and the herd mentality are instinctual. That MS and other big companies rely on that for their income is no surprise. What is a surprise is to think that anything will change until US citizens want a change. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the next 5 years.
Instead of just bitching, go do something or suggest an alterntative. Then you too can make money.
Your point is taken. From what I read on the Apache post, it seems that it's only Apache for Win32, which may explain why it wasn't front paged?
My God. I thought I'd read Katz again after a break; give him a chance. But THIS! It's worse that the John Dvorak trolling that slashdot regularly links to. Maybe he just doesn't have anything real to write about, so a stir-the-flames MS troll will still keep him employed. Ugh.
A highly offensive troll, and you fell for it like the morons you are. You who moderated that racist drivel up to +4, I hope you feel ashamed of yourselves.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
It amazes me to see kooks like Jon try to convince people that Microsoft is more powerful than the government.
... etc. etc.
Let's take a little tally:
Tactical Nukes held by US Gov't: 10,000
Tactical Nukes held by MS: 0
Warplanes held by US Gov't: 50,000
Warplanes heldy by MS: 0
And don't give me this stuff about money being power...if corrupt politicians take bribes, don't blame the money, blame the politician (and the voters who put him there)
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley
But now anyone include a browser with their os. Today any os come with a browser. Even AmigaOS 3.9 does include a browser. So does BeOS, QNX6,
and all linux-dist I have tried have installed netscape, so this is nothing unique to microsoft. And how should the user download a browser from the web, if he/she don't already have an other browser???
How they integrete the browser with the os don't really matter. Anyone are free to change browser if he/she want that.
Martin Tilsted.
No entity or person can truly be "above" the law. Really, they are just "unnoticed" by the law. If everybody (or at least a majority) of voters in the US see or believe that what Microsoft is doing is illegal, then they will pressure lawmakers, judges, etc. to act. If those government officials do not act, they will not get re-elected. If a majority of people are mad at you because you didn't do what they wanted, then that majority will probably vote for somebody else. Majority wins.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Eric S. Raymond wrote about "Homesteading the Noosphere", which is basically creating an Open-Source project and making it available to the world. If Microsoft controls how you see the Internet (browser), they then can easily control how it is displayed (web server), then they can easily limit who can display it (server OS). It's not a huge jump. These are big Open Source/Free Software projects that are threatened by Microsoft. Katz is simply responding like anyone that supports open or free software. He, as I do, feel that someone is trying to steal our homes.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Your jealousy and Fascist tendencies are showing, Jon. The powers of the federal government are supposed to be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The government is not supposed to be in charge of everything. Just because you don't like Microsoft (and I don't either) doesn't mean the federal government is supposed to cut them down to size to suit you (or me).
I would gladly suffer a thousand Bill Gates over one Bill Clinton or Janet Reno.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Sub-saharan Africa was indeed not only different... but primitive, in terms of both technology AND social development. For instance, such concepts as public schools, educating *both* men and women, agriculture, codes of law, and so forth were significantly less prevalent, if in existence at all. The fact that tribal warfare is *still* a very significant problem on that continent speaks volumes about their societies.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Is your time free?
Is your bandwidth free?
And are you fine waiting for fixes for features that don't exactly work? For instance, can StarOffice actually load a PowerPoint presentation without massive font and style corruption, or is it still broken?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Is that what it is about? America being in that dominating position? Well, I live in Europe, and guess what, MS sells software here too.
If this is just "a hugely visible embodiment of the American Dream", then by all means, keep it where it came from...
ad
>Quite simply, we live in a capitalist system
"We in the USA", you mean.
> and corporations making money is good for everyone at the end of the day,
Good for many in the USA, yes. Not everyone in the USA. Certainly not everyone in the rest of the world.
> Without companies like Microsoft, AOL, Time-Warner and Cisco, do you really think we would be able to maintain the world dominating position we are presently in?
"We in the USA", you mean.
Do you understand now why European governments are investigating the security issues of using Microsoft software? Do you understand why Europeans don't always share your enthusiasm for Microsoft's dominance of the desktop market? Getting locked into a foreign country's product makes us dependent on that country, the way you're dependent on foreign oil. So there is much enthusiasm here for building Linux into a viable product on the desktop: much nicer than tearing the shit out of Alaska, don't you think?
> a hugely visible embodiment of the American Dream.
Well, I certainly agree with that. Microsoft is indeed the hugely visible embodiment of the American Dream: take other people's ideas, package and sell them well, buy the support of governments, viciously fight your competitors with lies, half-truths and innuendo, sew up the distribution channels, winner takes all, and fuck the losers.
The trembling was a bunch of FUD frankly. Judge Jackson was a Regan appointee. However, while I agree a Bush DOJ would be less likely to go after Microsoft, I disagree that conservative judges are pro-business. Conservative when applied to judicial nominees is different from political conservative. Judicial conservatives tend to rule within the strict confines of the law (hence their conservatism). On the other hand, liberal judges tend to extend the law (often fabricating their own) when they rule.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Microsoft doesn't dominate the world of computing now nor will they for years. They only dominate the Personal Computing market.
Bill Gates, on the ropes just a year ago, is now the undisputed King of the Net, the CEO of the Corporate Republic.
Bill Gates is Chairman with Steve Ballmer as the CEO. Gates' role is removed from the day to day operation of the company, and he is no longer driving strategy. His primary job is hiring and firing the CEO.
He's created the first but surely not the last truly Unaccountable Corporation, a vast entity that is, in fact, above the law and more powerful than the government which enables it.
Microsoft is accountable in so many ways, one could not list them all here. Ultimately they are accountable to the shareholders. Microsoft is not above the law. The US government spends roughly 8x the total market cap of MS each year. To suggest that MS is even a spec compared to the power of the government is laughable (but Ted Kennedy wants you to think that).
Remember that scene in The Return of Frankenstein ...
This is a horrible analogy, because Microsoft was never burned at the stake. Microsoft was never "destroyed" and they are still here.
Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator, is today the King of the Corporate Republic, the CEO of Internet, Inc. He and his company are about to launch one of the most ambitious campaigns in the history of business, one that should leave him firmly in control of the digital universe.
Exhagerate much?
If everything works as planned, Microsoft software will shortly control nearly every point at which a consumer or business interacts with the Web. That puts Microsoft at the center of all computing.
While Microsoft probably does have a plan to control all aspects of the market (what company doesnt), it's rediculous to assume they would ever be able to succeed. There are some other big fish in the pond who wont let that happen.
And soon, the company may even escape the break-up threat hanging over its head.
Soon? This issue is dead. No breakup.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule momentarily on the company's appeal, and based on the questions asked during oral arguments, the court is expected to reverse Judge Thomas P. Jackson's findings that the company illegally "tied" its browser into its operating system, and acted illegally to maintain its Windows monopoly.
What an idiot that Judge was in the first place. If that egomaniac had just kept his mouth shut and not spoken to any journalists for his stupid book, the case would have gone a different way.
This, say competitors like Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, is where we started, only more so. "It appears they're doing all over again what they did when they previously went into foul territory," McNealy told congressional investigators, according to Business Week. Microsoft's new Internet strategy is the boldest move yet, he says, to leverage the company's Windows monopoly to create a bottleneck that will constrict the Internet.
McNealy is more on target that you are, but I don't hear him saying undisputed King of the Net.
McNealy might as well be talking to himself -- the Bush administration is hardly going to curb Microsoft's new juggernaut, which can proceed unimpeded for at least four years, by which time the company may well be beyond any control, if that's not already the case. /. liberal shows its colors. Of course, the Clinton administration was right on top of this issue! Give me a break. This is an issue for the courts not the commander in chief. Let Bush appoint some real judges, and you'll see Microsoft tremble next time its at the bench.
Ah, I was waiting for this to come along.
Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our time. Even with the NASDAQ down 9 per cent, the company's stock price has risen more than 60 per cent this year. In the quarter ending March 31, MS earned $2.45 billion on sales of $6.46 billion.
The stock is still off by about 45% from its high last year.
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
Microsoft's lock on corporate america (office) is its stronghold, which supports the lock on the residential market. The corporate market is well informed.
There are now real questions whether corporations like Microsoft, Disney, and AOL Time-Warner are vulnerable any longer to government regulation, or to any other kind of curb.
Only from socialists like yourself.
Microsoft seems to have convincingly demonstrated that is is, in fact, above the law, and means to stay that way.
Maybe you should write this out several dozen times to get your point across.
Even bitter critics of the government's attempt to break up Microsoft concede that Bill Gates was arrogant and dishonest in his Federal court testimony, and whatever the ultimate judicial ruling, mountains of evidence presented at the antitrust trial showed how Microsoft squelched competitors and discouraged both innovation and competition.
Nobody doubts Microsofts guilt. The remedy is what people can honestly disagree over.
Yet it all seems to have had no more impact on the company than a pea bouncing off an elephant, or a torch on the monster.
I doubt that it is operation as usual at Microsfot. First of all, Bill Gates stepped down as CEO. That is significant. Second, they've had serious personel problems since the trial.
We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size.
?? When was this
Boy, were we dumb.
Ah, we agree on something. You were dumb and you still are.
Microsoft is stronger than ever, and, as a consequence, so is Linux and Open Source.
Yes, Microsoft is stronger than ever. They are positioned well. And they have a great deal of competition in front of them. Linux is a major part of that competition. The "King of the Net" is in fact not King afterall.
Just a year ago, Microsoft was so embattled -- its revenue growth had slowed to 8 per cent, Jackson had ordered the company split in half, $250 billion had vanished from the company's market value -- that Microsoft called 20,000 of its employees together at Seattle's Safeco Field. There it showed a motivational video that included scenes from a documentary about the mythic l974 title fight between George Foreman and Muhammad Ali.
The horror, the horror
But on the Net, a year might as well be a century.
The time it takes your articles seems like a century too
So the monster isn't only alive, he's stronger than ever. It's the Microsoft Era, Part Deux.
Wow. Lots of sustinance and good solid reporting here. Wonderful editorial (full of interesting facts and insites). And the prose! Shakespear stand down!!! Katz is here
Someone you trust is one of us.
Thankfully, we do live in a free market system, and the system will hopefully take care of this for us. VA Linux is feeling the pressure, so they are sure to eventually weed out the Katz factor.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Bullshit. This is exactly why a free market is good. Because we are free to use non-MS software. If it wasn't a free market, MS or some government sanctioned software company would be the only choice... and all things GNU, GPLed, Open Source, etc would not exist.
--
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Nonsense. If the market were decently regulated then there would be more competition because no company would have such a huge monopoly. Other groups would have a far easier time having their OS accepted. Witness how BeOS sunk, despite having a technically superior OS to both Windows and Linux.
BeOS sunk because it was only one component in the total user experience. What I mean by that is BeOS does not have the application base that Windows has. Now, M$ may not have any single application, server, or OS that is superior to anything else on the market... but in total, they have the best System. All of there software works together pretty seemlessly. You can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a PowerPoint presentation... or a Word Document just as an example. That is what every other OS is missing. Applications that integrate seemingly seemlessly with each other. That's why M$ is on top and you know what... for that reason they deserve to be. Maybe the best competitor is MacOS... but they are held back by the limited hardware that it runs on.
Until a company, or a group of companies working together, challenge the whole of M$'s offering, Windows will always be on top. That's what the market wants. That's why a free market is good. Demand drives what products are produced.
--
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Jesus Christ, man, has someone stolen your lithium?
.NET will not even approach the internet development being done in Java today. This year's JavaOne conference in San Francisco had too many attendees for the space. They're pursuing battle on grounds that are unproven, uknown, and largely already taken up by Sun Microsystems.
Look, here's Windows 2000... no, wait, look, here's Windows Me, no, wait, OVER HERE! It's WINDOWS XP!
Open your eyes, they're running scared and pursuing a business model that, in all likelihood, will drive them out of the industry if they stay with it. Noone wants to pay a monthly fee for software. It's hard enough being a specialized ASP in today's business world, nevermind trying to be an ASP for virtually *every* application on a single computer.
Personally, I believe that they're shooting themselves in their collective feet.
yes
I disagree with most of what you said, except:
Or has Slashdot regressed?
Slashdot: Whiny nerds, stuff that only our staff cares about.
Anywho, on with my rant. Microsoft is not Hitler, however they're marketing/FUD tactics are the only intelligence inside Microsoft. Windows 2000 is crap. It's FINALLY taking some hints from that 30 year old OS called UNIX. They call it a "revolution". We call it "been there, done that". Internet Explorer is a crappy browser. Why does it appear to be better? Because it dominates the market. Developers are told that no one uses Netscape, so develop for IE. Netscape et al becomes incompatible as the new HTML standards favor IE and slowly squeeze everything out of the market. That's just the kind of power Microsoft has. They have the ability to make the standards committies ignore everyone else, declare Microsoft the standard, and bingo, MS wins again. I have no problems with one company setting the standards. I am not anti-Microsoft. I'm against shitty software. Everything Microsoft "innovates" (writes, buys, redistributes, whichever is the tactic of the day) is complete crap. I have yet to see a piece of MS software and say "ah hah! finally someone has heard my plea". No, actually, every time they release new software my reaction is "I'm supposed to use THIS? Do I HAVE to?" And because of their market control the answer is generally "yes, you have to" from the PHB.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Hahaha, Linus Torvalds actually programs... I'm not sure what bill gates does besides maximising profit and satisfying his "windows everywhere" ego. The fucking cunt licker. I'm sure he's a real hoot at the parties. Hey Bill lets drink a 12 pack and kick it back for the weekend.. P'shaw. right. I'm sure Balmer is a barrell of fun too (no pun intended ehheheh).
Very well put. *applause*
btw, where do you think these pro-MS fellows are coming from? Redmond? PR-shills?
Are folks hatred of Microsoft so consuming that they ignore the history of companies like McNealy's Sun?
There's no doubt that Microsoft has done some (a lot of?) questionable things, but don't kid yourself. Scott McNealy and Steve Case aren't lobbying congress for justice, it's all about cutting the tall poppy that is Microsoft and increasing their own market share.
Great point re: the Apache hole. But watch how fast you're modded down to "-1, Troll" for questioning Slashdot folks integrity.
Fortune -- The Beast Is Back
How to Download YouTube Videos
I've been thinking about how to talk about Linux and Open Source in reference to profits and Microsoft. I've made some of those thoughts available here, but I'm not satisfied with the outcome. I'm going to try again. Join the conversation, flame me, or back me up. I don't care. I just want to try to parse things up appropriately.
First, I keep forgetting that Linux is only one slice of Open Source. Indeed, in many ways it is a small slice. Similarly, Linux isn't necessarily competing against Windows. Linux is an operating system and that is the way it should be treated. Linux isn't going against Microsoft.
Second, Open Source is not a business philosophy. Therefore, it also does not compete against Microsoft. I thought it did, but it can't. Open Source is a philosophy with business implications, but it is not strictly a business model. Therefore, if you hear that Open Source is fighting Microsoft, you are hearing lies.
Third, companies such as Red Hat are competing against Microsoft, at least in terms of operating systems. Note that Microsoft has not really attacked folks like Red Hat. They are considered insignificant competitors. Instead, Microsoft attacks the Open Source philosophy because that deflects attention on their attempts to dominate software and the internet.
Fourth, if you attack Microsoft, you are attacking capitalism. Not the roots, but some of the side effects; the leaves, if you will. The injustices of Microsoft can be handled in the marketplace (e.g., IBM versus Microsoft) via products, sales and services. Or, it can be fought in court. Open Source cannot fight Microsoft because it isn't about money. The Open Source philosophy can't win because the philosophy can't beat capitalism. Recognize this important idea: capitalism is both a philosophy and an economic description of reality. Capitalism is business.
Fifth, even if Open Source was a business philosophy, it does not have the resources to fight against Microsoft or other major corporations. If it truly a war, an economic war, and I think it is, then Open Source is feeble. You have people waving the banner of the Open Source philosophy -- "share, share, share" -- but that does nothing in terms of marshaling resources.
Sixth, in light of the pervious point, there is no centralized leadership. The fact that a whole community needed to respond to Mundie exactly fits my point. The fact is, even when people replied to Mundie's comments about Open Source, it made no difference. Since the Open Source community has little in the way of economic resources, it cannot effective battle against Microsoft. Remember, a philosophy cannot fight against a business. Even large groups of people (with limited economic power) cannot fight against Microsoft. Without centralized power, and centralized resource, and focused plans of attack and defense, Microsoft will continue to dominate. Simply put, perhaps there are some leaders, but there are no generals. Remember, at least for Microsoft, this is war.
Seventh, Microsoft is defending its pocketbook. It is fighting for itself and it is fighting for its stockholders. There are thousands of people, outside of Microsoft, that want Microsoft to do well. How many Open Source folks own Microsoft stock? Some percentage of people do, either directly or via mutual funds. You cast stones, but are you hoping they miss?
Finally, while I say "Microsoft" again and again, the fight, if there is one, is with all corporations and all monopolies. Microsoft just rubs us the wrong way. There are many reasons for that. But the point remains. Open Source, being a philosophy, cannot effectively compete against corporations. It doesn't stand a change.
You might shrug this all off. You ignore this posting. But I warn you that Open Source might not be what you think it is.
How to Download YouTube Videos
I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain to me how bundling IE to Windows is not illegal tying. What exactly improved about the operating system by making parts of the browser code inseparable from it. It always looked a lot to me like Microsoft's "integration" of IE with Windows was a lot like a GM welding their brand of car stereo into your chasis so it can't be easily removed, running the speaker wires through sealed conduits to speakers that are built into the fabric of your seats, and routing several of the car's major electrical systems through the stereo. The experience of driving a car is enhanced by having a stereo. Bundling it into the car makes the car a better product (have you ever tried to buy a car without one?). But making it so that it cannot be easily removed an replaced with a competing product is simply using your market advantage to crush competition in a market segment you want to control.
Of course to make the analogy fit more closely you'd have to accept that GM controlled 90% of the auto market and that they only produced four models of car. And you'd have to assume that GM perceived a threat that other stereo manufacturers were interested in expanding their stereo to make the stereo the entire user interface for the car, replacing the speedometer, the gas gauge, the odometer, and potentially even the air conditioning controls, the turn signal and, gasp, the steering wheel. Still I think it is a pretty good parallel.
All you have to do is read the release notes to know what it's going to do.
Granny just wants to send e-mail, and she can still do that. She doesn't need to connect tasks and hyperlinks. Anyone who does, should be smart enough to read about what they are installing.
Of course Jon works for a coporation. Because some corporations aren't as successful as others, everyone's favorite propaganda machine is out in full force, as usual. It's your typical case of sour grapes.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
As an employee of Slashdot, owned by Microsoft "rival" company VA Linux Systems, Inc., it's Jon Katz and the whole crew's job to denounce Microsoft in every way possible.
Notice how the huge Apache vulnerability fix got posted to some backwaters slashbox with a whopping 10 comments, while every MS hole gets full coverage on the front page. Is the Apache story important to Slashdot readers? Yes! Most of them probably run Apache, and would like to have that stuff covered. So is it shuffled away into the closet because it's not important, or because it would be bad PR for something in which VA Linux Systems, Inc. has a vested financial interest?
Is a Microsoft hole important to the Slashdot community and the security of their X Servers, their Debian, RedHat, Slackware, Turbo, etc.? No, except maybe for a chuckle. But why not file it under humor? Why post it on the front page? Is it because it's important to Slashdot readers, or because it would be bad PR for a business opponent of VA Linux Systems, Inc., and therefore good for it's profits, shareholders, etc.?
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
After taking the time to practice the ancient art of "reading", the story I linked to yesterday seems strangely less relevant than previously supposed. This is the point when a professor or teacher could leave the rest as an "exercise for the reader" without looking foolish. ;)
BTW, do you think the slashbots got devious and started ignoring the comments they didn't like? I'd hate to think that they've also used this ancient art of "reading" on the moderation guidelines.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Post or moderate? The classic dilemma.
However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
That is an as arrogant, narrow-minded and xenophobic statement as I have ever heard.
Taxation is not a self-evident benefit, as another poster pointed out.
Democracy was a relatively nascent concept (not in terms of time, but in terms of its adoption) at the time at which the East India company subjucated the peoples of India. To say that democracy wouldn't have made it there without their help is ridiculous at best. What we do know, though, is that after the East India company took over, there was no real democracy in the country until 1947 when the British finally left.
The statement I find most incendiary, though, is where you say the East India Company "breathed the light of the west's wisdom on India". You can lookup the scientific and mathematical advances that pre-modern India had made yourself. It won't be hard to read up on. Indian culture also had a relatively egalitarian system of education and local economies that were dismantled by the British to set up their own hierarchy where bureaucrats that worked for the British achieved a higher status.
The only area in which the British were distinguishably superior to the indigenous population was in terms of the technology of warfare.
I'm reminded of an anecdote I read which was written by a British author whose name I forget. He described an incident when he was sitting down with a French friend and he made the statement that England had never lost a battle (which was what he had been taught in history). His French counterpart rattled off a list of battles which England had indeed lost. The moral here is to not go just by what history texts teach you because they are almost guaranteed to be biased towards the authors point of view.
Mmmm.. Donuts
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Quoting Scott McNealy is a riot! If there was anyone who'd love to BE Bill Gates, it's McNealy. Given the opportunity, Sun would gleefully be the next MS.
...the Bush administration is hardly going to curb Microsoft's new juggernaut, which can proceed unimpeded for at least four years...
Perhaps Slashdot should change it's motto to "Liberal bias for Nerds. Stuff that we think you should believe". This is sickening. Hell, I could be watching CNN and get a less biased statement.
I am MuchTall
Why is it that Microsoft always takes in the shorts for being the biggest, baddest, and meanest kid on the block? I mean come on people, as someone who has been held hostage by Oracle, IBM, Computer Associates, etc, I personally don't understand what all the hubub is about. If Microsoft is really as bug ridden as everyone says it is, then, logic tells us the users will switch from the bug ridden product to the stable product. If this isn't happening it's not Bill G's fault, it's our fault. Personally, I think Katz looks in the mirror and wishes he was as smart as ole Billy Boy. P.S. - Remember, don't whine about what is, create something new or shut up.
Confusion to the Masses
You my dear person has just gotten youself in deep shit.
That statement about what? Enligtenment of the primative people? What century are you from? Don't tell me they invented time travel already. Oh right you must be a Microserf.
Now much as tyour words about the east india company is terrible if not partly right. I must say you and the rest of the world dont' get it!
It's not MS's OS being popular and linux or BSD isn't it is the point that they are making a grab for control of all you information that's the point.
.NET if successful will enabled MS to be at the center of every single bit of information floating around the net. They don't acutally handle it but they can decide who can. That also is alot more power then you imagin it seems.
Now what about those apps you are talking about? Photoshop, cakewalk and those drivers are not given to you my MS. It's thrid party developers. That's what you don't get. MS is putting together every single feature it can think of into it's OS. Soon you wouldn't get a choice. All you'll get is some dumb down idea of software that MS thinks you need. How does that sound?
Do you really want MS to give you everything you use?
That is so typical!
.NET and subscription software.
Some would tell you that alot of africa's problems started with the introducation of colonial power.
Basically the colony kept a peace and introduced guns to the regon. They then made half ass attempts to allow the people to rule themselves after world war two proves the difficulties of defending colonies. They did it in such a way they just left a power vaccum. End results of which is everyone who thinks they have a claim to power jumped for it.There you go that's way your primitive people are all suffering right now.
They were primitive as in they didn't have computer and such. Gee? Lets see would you say that technologically the Japanese wasn't all that much more advanced during the same period? Now how come they are not still living in mud huts and totting AK-47s?
Just take a look at India and Pakasitan. Why do you think that the situation exist there for war? Oh right i forgotten gandhi and jinnah. Screw that the reason india and pakastan are enemies is because the original government was removed. Did you realise that the original government of the whole place was musilim? Or that they were able to keep a quite peace?
The reason is that the japanese were able to retain their power. They were able to control their own destiny. Granted that the japanese had a strong central government. But you know what?
Everywhere where colonial power resulted in nothing but crap for the local people. Don't tell me that you don't know about the opium trade in China Mr Wu..
That's what i would call MS's current direction. They want ot sell us opium in the form of
And exactly what part of the American Dream are you talking about? The two party political system? The "trickle down" effect? Japanese interment camps? Manifest Destiny? Slavery? (You knew that one was coming. And yet, you act as though you didn't think of it before.)
I don't care what you think the American Dream is or was. We're talking about a new dream, a dream about who we are and who we want to be. We're not going to leave for the New World, you're just going to have to arrive by staying here.
There can be no doubt that Katz is blathering on here, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. You've just heard it so much you're tired. Me too. It's hard not to repeat your self when explaining something the second time when you're right the first time. We aren't the only ones reading slashdot; maybe that article wasn't written for us. Talk about arrogance. The alternative is to be silent. So, good choice, Jon.
The real fool believes not that Microsoft is bad, but that it is irreplaceable. A million college dropouts could have done it. And you can be sure they would have done it differently.
And don't tell me what the consumer wants. I know; I'm one of them.
You must be reading John Stuart Mill's account. We're talking about the same East India Company that, but for logistical snags and the fear of serious local unrest, would've torn down the Taj Mahal for its marble, aren't we? That enlightened and enlightening bunch?
They also weren't really done in by the Government - it most mostly the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 that weakened them to a next-to-useless state. They weren't up to much after that, and the Gub'mint took over running the company.
The company existed and prospered using the traditional divide-and-conquor tricks, augmented with the bonus that from 1600 to 1813, they had a government sanctioned monopoly in the region. A British company trying to set up shop was illegal; a foreign company setting up was an act of war.
What stopped them was probably the combination of the monopoly being broken, putting pressure on them from the West, and the local uprisings, adding pressure on another front. Is anyone else making comparisons here? A monopoly existing mainly because it's a monopoly, and no other reason? Hmm.....
I'm glad you brought the East India Company up, but more because it's an interesting historical parallel than a counter-example. Bluntly, you've done more to help Jon Katz's argument than your own.
"A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five." -Groucho Marx
Can someone please explain to me why Katz has a problem with Microsoft showing their employees motivational videos?
What is this, "If you strike us down, we will post code more powerful than you can imagine."?
Sorry, but $14 million can pay a lot of really good programmers for a really long time. Eazel was badly managed. They died like a dotcom because they acted like a dotcom.
And this could have been a thoughtful comment. You failed too.
Microsoft is not Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Big Brother, MegaCorp(tm), or anything of the sort. It's a software company. As of the past few years, they've actually been making pretty good software. Windows 2000 is a respectable operating system. Internet Explorer won the browser wars (because it was better, not because it was "integrated"). Sure, they ran into some trouble because they acquired a bunch of companies and were accused of being a monopoly, but that doesn't justify the puerile namecalling that we typically see in posts like this.
Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
We hang on every Microsoft-sponsered word that refers to Linux as "inferior" or "a cancer" or anything else, but then turn around and make exactly the same accusations, with just as little basis.
Nothing in the software world will change as long as people like Katz and the karma-whores continue to treat Microsoft like an evil villain; It's unrealistic, and any approach that has such flawed logic at it's core is destined to fail.
Got Rhinos?
Maybe you should read the line again. It distinctly says "developer/user base". In other words how many Windows users (outside of M$ employees) are Windows developers? Exactly 0 (zip, nadda, NONE). How many Linux users (or other Free OS users) developers as well? With Linux I'd say at least half the people who use it have probably contributed something, probably more. How many everyday people do you hear praising Windows? I'd say the vast majority of regular users complain about it but they accept it because they think its all there is.
So lets restate: M$oft obviously has more users. How many are developers for their product? -- None. How many of their users actually praise everything they do and would never go away even when presented with a better product? -- Not alot. So if there are about 10 million Linux users world wide and assuming half develop (5 million). And M$oft I saw somewhere has 38,000 employees. Say 20,000 are developers for them. We out number their developers 2500 to 1. I think we can use this resource.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
I must admit, this one hurts.
Microsoft is not indestructable. They are powerful yes, but not indestructable. The king of the Corporate Republic? No. Gates is merely a prince. The people that control Pharmacutical companies, the oil industry and the auto makers are far more evil.
For once we need to think outside of the box. Form grass-roots advertising campaigns. Its not that expensive either. Local LUGS hold community conferences and put up some signs. BANG! Instant linux users. We have something M$oft will never have: a world-wide loyal developer/user base. Most people use M$oft because they think its the only thing there is... we need to show them otherwise! If we listen to Katz we might as well take our programs and go home.
<sarcasm> Lets take our programs and go home, M$oft has won, no way we can beat them </sarcasm>
Seriously Jon, you've had some much better articles lately but this isn't one of them
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
MORE complex than shadowrun?!?!?! Sheesh :) At any rate, as long as my battles in reality don't take as long as my battles in shadowrun, I think I'll survive.
-Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Re-make of Rollerball? Hmm.... Can't believe I missed this little fact. I still enjoy watching this movie, but fear it could be another popular rehash of old movie craptastrophy. Will have to investigate this further. . .
-Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Corporations have an average life expectancy of 40 years - not very long at all. And eventually they die.
The key word in that sentence is "average". Corporations develop inertia according their size, which makes them difficult to change or to die off. Large corporations can push past an average life expectancy by sheer mass. There are companies that have outlived many of the current world's governements. For example DuPont is busily planning their bicentennial celebration for next year.
Here's a document comparing the economic sizes of corporations and the world's nations. One of the most interesting tidbits is:
Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs)
This is from the report "TOP 200: THE RISE OF CORPORATE GLOBAL POWER" by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh
i'd say i miss the days when intelligent discussion occurred on here
:/
Well then, glad to see you are doing your part to bring back those glory days
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I heard someone posit not so long ago I would submit that not only can the majority be wrong, but that the majority is always wrong. Think about the ramifications of that one.
--
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
1) Did you ^really^ think the appeal wouldn't go in their favour? The appeals courts in DC are heavily slanted toward the conservative and business-friendly. This has, so far, been no surprise whatsoever. Given MicroSoft's vehement protestations that it had done no wrong, did you expect that the predatory behaviour would cease? Why should they correct a problem that they don't acknowledge exists?- ------
2) That bit about 'first truly unaccountable corporation' is just plain irresponsible. Have you been following the news for the last two decades? There are dozens of 'truly unaccountable' corporate entities. They dominate every aspect of our lives- the government has no real power in this country anymore. Look at the media as a perfect example- part of huge comglomerates, they have interests that transcend their obligation to present the news objectively. Everything you see or read in the major media is incredibly biased, and often just plain wrong. See Ben Bagdikian, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky for details.
Where was I? Oh, yeah.... We are the least democratic of the Western nations, and the most beholden to secretive, autocratic institutions. Corporations have no legal, moral, or economic right or reason to exist, and until this is realised, they will continue to grow in power, crushing every semblance of 'democracy' they happen to stumble across.
3) I think I missed the point of your article- could you please explain? Maybe it has something to do with point 1- if you were actually surprised by any of MicroSoft's actions in the past year, then I guess the article makes a little bit of sense! *grin*
Sorry, Katz, I don't mean to be a putz- I'm only being honest!
----------------------------------------
+++++++
"Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
Conspiracies are a function of nature, my boy.
Pick up an astronomy book and read up on the birthing process of a star, the death process of a supernova, and of a black hole. Study it very closely.
Now liken dust, radiation, and gas, to money and power.
A corporation is born with money and as it gets customers, it makes more money, lots more. It gets bigger in size and thus also power.
When its money supply is threatened by the government, bad market conditions, competitors, etc., the same thing happens as when a star consumes all the hydrogen at its core. The corporation reaches out like a red giant, attacking politicians and hiring lawyers, spewing out money in its self defense, like a star reaching out to consume hydrogen in its outer layers.
In other words, they start lobbying, covering up, and suing.
Finally, under too much pressure to clean up their act, they implode into black holes. Come anywhere CLOSE to the corporation with a hostile agenda and you wind up getting sued, or violating some law that company had passed after millions of lobbying dollars being thrown at Congress.
Conspiracies occur for the same reason that black holes do. Money and power wants more money and power and money and power will always defend money and power. Simple as that.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Yeah, OK, I admit I couldn't be bothered counting - you got the gist, right? BTW, thanks to whoever moderated this up to being visible; let's hope it has the desired effect.
But this......
This is just Jon writing an easy essay to score points. It's largely his opinion, with the actual facts of the matter sadly lacking (as numerous other posters have mentioned). I'm wondering; is there a karma system for the editors as well as for us mere mortals, cos if so Katz is acting like the biggest karma-whore alive. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of M$, but this article almost amounts to a troll.
Next time Jon, try the following:
I doubt Jon reads all these little posts that don't get above 3 points, so please could Hemos or Rob or someone tell Katz to try harder. Cheers.
till I realized it was written by Jon Katz and remembered he's Ed Anger to Slashdot's Open Source "Weekly World News".
"The First Unaccountable Company" my left butt cheek. Bill Gates/Microsoft is a modern day equivalent of the old "fill in the blank from the list provided" (Railroad Tycoon, Oil Magnate, Telecommunications Monopoly AT&T, IBM, blah blah). They lost their 'terrible power', so will Microsoft. Get over it, get over yourself.
Could you please name your supplier of recreational pharmaceuticals?
Censorship on Slashdot
First I didn't see anything serious in the article discussing an ACTUAL REAL LAW BEING LEGITIMATELY DISCUSSED that would bar new mothers from working. Just because two guys get drunk and start a pissing contest over what they should "make their women do" doesn't constitute actual discussion. And quoting some other Jackass doesn't make the issue any more legitimate.
The difference is that in the west we call an adulterer, liar, theif, what-have-you, names give them dirty looks at worst lock them in a cell for awhile and are on our way. In other countries they lob off arms, drop you in a well, behead you, sell you, or the least harsh but still cruel - disown you (you never existed). The so-called conservative movement in the US is a farce. A small minority of backwards buraucrats wants to pass some ignorant law that they think will help children while funnelling money to their favorite pet project. This non-sense happens all the time, morons wanting to send up bills that they no won't pass just to eat up time so the larger issues don't get voted on.
Additionally this is what the US has a judicial and executive branch for to balance out the airheads in congress. If the prez doesn't veto the issue the judges will deem it unconstitutional (especially when NOW starts chewing them a new one).
But on to the original point of my post. The poster before me equated "civilization" with technological superiority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Technology does not in and of itself define the civility of a nation/state. After all a civilization is made up of people not made up of the technology of the people. While the technology of the people says something about them, their treatment of others is what really defines who they are. So while the first poster took up the flag and said that the "west" (which way are you facing? China is west from where I am.) brought government trade etc. to the area assuming that those items would also bring civility compassion and western moral views (incorrect). The second poster to which I responded shot back with a statement about technology of street lamps which still addressed nothing about the civility of either people.
Now I'm not saying that there's no xenophobia or isolationism ( there's those six guys down in alabama still filing petitions to cecede from the union), but it's nowhere near as rampant as some people would want you to believe. It's like this ignorance with the "right" and the "left" the "east" and the "west". All that directional crap just depends on which seat you are sitting in and what conversation you are having. I sit beside people every day that call themselves democrats, republicans, left, right, easteners, westeners, and every day we break bread together and discuss the topical issues of the day and more often than not we agree on almost every single issue. The fact is that we agree on more than we disagree on, and you'll find that the majority of people sitting down to a serious discussion end the discussion in agreement despite rhetoric to the opposite.
Is the US civilization perfect, hell no, what civilization is? Do we act like nationalists and puff up how great are country is, hell yah! Tell me a country that doesn't! I'm sure the Romans looked at Christianity in much the same way as you look at Western Society. "Oh, it's just another silly stage". How many times has China's culture and government flip flopped, how many stages have they gone through, and yet they shout from the roof tops the age of their civilization and it's "stability and endurance". The civilization survived because of the people not the governments, not the technology, not the theology, the PEOPLE. And that civilization is still to this day defined by the way it TREATS it's people.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
This has more to do with economics than anything else. What evidence do you have to show where MS "leaned" on a hardware manufacturer to not produce drivers. The key factor is market share. Linux in the past has been a hobbyist market, people taking older out of date equipment and running with it. The problem there is that some of the hardware makers for those machines no longer exist so the community had to make the drivers. The manufacturers that do still exist don't want to put forth the effort to support a product that they abandoned 4 years ago. Manufacturers also see very narrow margins for profit in a venture where Linux only holds about as much market share as Mac. So they look at the numbers and figure that they could get some good press by creating linux drivers for the 500-1000 people that still use their 4 year old video card, or they could spend that development money on their new product which will sell to a million people or more and make them millions.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Unfortunately they continued to treat people, women especially, like cattle well past the point where Europeans acquired street lights.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Taxation is a good effect?!
IE? pfff come on, I'm currently developping web applications, and you know what that DAMN FREAKIN IE IS PISSING ME OFF BIG TIMES!
:)
I bet you weren't around back in the day when web developers had to test on Navigator as well
So, now when you click on a link that has a million pop-ups and you decide that you don't want to look at all that crap and just shut down your browser... oh no! You can't, because it's also your entire UI.
You've never actually tried killing that iexplore process, have you?
Ya know, it's all I hear any more, Microsoft is evil, Linux is the shining sword that will smite the evil wizard known as Gil Bates, etc, etc, ad infinitum. But who says we can't just nicely co-exist? All the Linux distro makers have to do is just push their product, same as they ever have, spend a tad more on marketing to the masses, let Microsoft slowly make itself look ultimately more and more silly as they increase the onslaught of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It may take years but like David and Goliath, the Giant's days *are* numbered. Rich
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-corporate. I think there are very good reasons for corporations to exist. But at the same time I think the root of our societal problems is a lack of personal responsibility. Whenever something bad happens, the guilty always point to some abstract and essentially untouchable entity for blame (i.e. society, bureaucracy, the criminal justice system, the corporation, whatever). If the people who sit on the board of directors are held personally for the abuses of their company, then there won't be any more of the arrogance we saw from Bill Gates in his testimony. He would have something to fear.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Flame me or call me a troll but they cant seem to compete because they cant get a product that works to market. Integration with windows or not I have yet to see a usable version of mozilla.
Oh try the nightly builds you say?? How about.. I can still crash Mozilla with Javascript that will work as per what they say is supported in the DOM in Moz 1.0
Oh well, that couldnt possibly have anything to do with it could it?
Jeremy
Well said! I appreciate Mr. Katz's intentions but his carte blanche to post whiney drivel and hyperinflated rhetoric really pushes the envelope of good taste, having long ago left behind good sense.
Don't forget Sun.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
One OS to Rule Them All,
One OS to Find Them,
One OS to Bring Them All,
And in the Darkness, Bind Them
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
anyway, FreeBSD kicks all your arses ;-)
Linux 2.4 supports more commodity workstation hardware. I'm not saying it's better, but I'm saying that a fellow may not get FreeBSD or NetBSD to even boot on systems with a relatively new proprietary chipset, a proprietary video card, a proprietary sound card, a proprietary network card, proprietary assistive input devices, etc. For some reason, the Linux developers are having more luck at squeezing either specs or binary kernel modules out of the hardware manufacturers.
Of course, FreeBSD has its features too, especially server-side.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I do not know about Microsoft killing people. However, if you look at corporations in general. There are much worse companies out there. De Beers, who is the olipology of the "blood" or "conflict" diamond industry has a death toll of almost half a million people through their actions in Sierra Leone, Algoria, and Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo. De Beers is 1000 times worse of a company than Microsoft. I would buy 100 Microsoft products before I ever bought a diamond. Most people don't even know who De Beers is though let alone how the diamond industry works.
Shell has a death toll of thousands (maybe its up to tens of thousands by now) from the mercenaries they use in Nigeria.
One is fooling themselves if they think the US government is going to stop these companies. The US government helps them! The CIA was involved with De Beers in DRC, and Algoria. The Nigerian army helped Shell do the massacring.
[Going a little off topic here]
The entire US foreign policy is about protecting our economic interests. The Capitalism vs. Communism thing was just a guise. Example: In Guatemala the US destroyed a functioning democratic government because they were not working with the US's economic interests and installed a dictator who uses death squads to enforce his rule. The death toll in Guatemala is over 175,000.
The Gulf war coverage here was totally BS. Saddam had helped the US with the Iran conflict and was one of the CIA contacts in the middle east. Bush Sr. was on good terms with Saddam from back in his CIA days and talked with him regularly. Saddam had contacted Bush about a oil plant he wanted in Kuwait. Bush sent a message to Saddam to go ahead and take it. For one reason or another Saddam chose to interpret the message as go ahead and take Kuwait. That was bad for US economic interests. There's the gulf war for you.
I trust slashdot a little more to be less Corporate biased, however, it is still owned by VA Linux. What we really need is public media (television/radio) where it is illegal for money to come from corporations or large individual donations. Where they are required to show some news that they have come up with themselves. Where do we pay for this? A 1% tax on advertising. A 1% tax on advertising would produce over a billion dollar budget for public media. Then maybe we would actually get some decent television and a news media that does not rewrite history.
I can provide a long list of articles and books on these subjects for anyone interested.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
I have no idea why I said Algoria. You are correct in that it is Angola. Yes, Castro helped out Angola along with the USSR. The Soviet Union provided the Marxist Popular Liberation Movement of Angola (MPLA) with finances and Cuba supplied troops.
The USSR and Cuba were very close during the cold war. Castro in general is a hero to the people of Cuba but the US makes him out as an abuser of the people because he is not on good terms with the US.
I really do not think most people learn this stuff in school. It should be taught more.
I really do not know why I am replying because it was obvious attempt at a flame instead of a polite correction.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
> What mindless, pathetic drivel. This is a new low,
> even for Jon Katz.
Like beeds like, I guess.
> Microsoft are guilty of several dubious business
> practices (the OEM lockin for instance) but
> their core business has succeeded by a shrewd
> knowledge of what their customers want, a
> cunning marketing campaign and quality products.
> Yes, that's right, quality products.
But of what quality? Try pulling a floppy out of the drive while WinDOS 98 is writing it. Now do it on Linux. Now that's quality.
OEM lock ins are not all there is to the story. They cheated IBM, Stac, Borland Novell...seriously. To the point where they had to settle out of court to prevent a conviction. Try settling out of court, if you ever get arrested. Must be nice to have all that cash...the fruits of crime...at their disposal.
Very few of their decisions are based on what their customer's want, rather they are based on increasing market share.
> Quite simply, we live in a capitalist system and
> corporations making money is good for everyone
> at the end of the day, as it benefits us in
> services from tax revenues and general growth of
> the economy. Without companies like Microsoft,
> AOL, Time-Warner and Cisco, do you really think
> we would be able to maintain the world
> dominating position we are presently in?
Actually, we live in a regulated capitalist system, meaning that a corporation (in theory) can't do "anything they want" for profit.
At the end of the day, people sometimes die due to corporate irresponsibility...placing shareholder profit ahead of the customer.
The truth is, without Microsoft (and the others you mentioned) I think their would be far more software and tech companies...in the US and elsewhere. That would be good for just about everyone, and would far closer match a free marketplace, than what we have now. This is actually, as far as models go, much closer to the former USSR.
> And if Microsoft come to dominate a set of new
> markets (a hell of a lot less likely than it
> made out here), then it'll be because they've
> again produced what the customer wants.
I think Bill Gate's position on wants vs. needs goes something like "Make them need you". When you need a bit of technology, and there is only one choice, it's really easy to say "Well, Microsoft did a great job of providing what the customer wants". Circular logic at best, since without a free market of competitors, it is impossible to ever know what would best serve the customer.
> Microsoft is not "above the law". How foolish.
> They're nothing more than one of our great
> success stories, a hugely visible embodiment of
> the American Dream.
If the American Dream is federal criminals paying off both sides of a two-party system, if it's false "Astroturf" campaigns designed to lie to politicians, if you smile when state laws are broken to ruin a competitor, if your "Dream" of America is the choice "one size fits all" made famous by the Soviet Union, then yes, Don, your dream for America is coming true, courtesy of Microsoft.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Microsoft is not invulnerable. The arrogance and complacency of MS, Earthlink, AOL/TW and other mega-corporations will be the source of their ultimate downfall. There are forces and bodies of knowledge and power on the Internet of which MS and their kin have never dreamed. Anyone who doubts this should read Steve Gibson's account of his recent DDoS atttack at http://grc.com/dos/grcdos.htm, sit back with a warm cup of coffee and ponder the implications.
The power of a good idea is untimately irresistable, and the Internet is just such a good idea. Many walls and many established powers will fall before the sweeping changes which will surely come, no matter how strongly the Microsofts and AOLs of the world try to excercise their control. We are, in all likelihood, at the beginning of time of conflict, perhpas even war. Many of us may be called on to take action or to take stands, some of which may be difficult, frightening, dangerous or lonely.
Be hopeful, keep your eyes, ears and mind open, and remember that the Internet, like all open source endeavors, was founded on trust, sharing, and cooperation, and it's these that will see us through even the most difficult of times.
"Everything works if you let it" - The Flying Mouse
He lost the popular vote. In most countries you then loose the election. What's so odd about that? Ah, I see: the US of A tells other countries how they should behave and install a democracy while the US of A itself isn't able to install one / keep one at home. :D
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Nuff said. Can Katz be replaced by the poster of the parent posting, plz ? (Webword). thanks.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
But I had to laugh about the 'while still inferior' part. That was really funny :). Please, understand that 'inferior' means: bad quality, but only for YOU. In YOUR situation. For a COM programmer, it's a heaven on earth. Please realise that, next time you're advocating Linux. thanks.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Hey, YOU have to live with that president, I don't. I'm at the other side of the ocean. But I regret it every damn day, when that same ocean increases in size, Bush was elected president, by an ancient system.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Oh, right, like... there is an equivalent OS that _EVERY_ drooley on the planet can understand and WILL use. For free. Like there is a _FREE_ equivalent as good and as powerfull as, say, SQLserver 2000. Or Visual Studio.
Open your eyes.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
You know that's just a game right? And that the real world is far more complex, even more than the ShadowRun system?
Then again, I think I saw a woman who looked like a troll pushing a cart around downtown the other day...
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Besides, without Microsoft, who would we use as a baseline of evil to make us feel elite and pure?
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Of course it has big holes, that is why all of these communistic countries are doing so much better than the United States.
It may have problems, but it sure beats living in a communist country that controls what its people are allowed to do, say, hear, feel, or think.
What the heck is this 64-bit Windows link then?
Ouch! The truth hurts!
I can't decide if you were kidding or serious on this one. I'll treat it like you were serious.
breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands
Sorry, but the India has been civilized much longer than the west. They had streetlights in India when the europeans were still in caves.
When asked what he thought of western civilization, Ghandi replied "I think it would be a good idea."
Politics, Culture, Food?
Nor is it Microsoft Cheerleading...
But sometimes your articles do read like the same clueless sensationalist trash
that John C. Dvorak puts out to generate page hits.
In this regard I guess I'd have to at least credit you as a real journalist.
There really are a few Gems in this article:
"Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator"
Excuse me, where have you been for the last 20 years of computing history? Not
to mention the greater part of the Industrial Revolution?
We've known that about Bill Gates for well over a decade now; just as we've known
that about every other corporate CEO in the same timeframe.
What people get pissed about is not that Microsoft wants to take over the
world (lots of companies want that), but that Microsoft keeps coming up
with workable plans to take over the world (something that a lot fewer companies
manage to successfully do).
Having a goal is not illegal, what might be illegal is the means one might use
to accomplish that goal. The courts might be able to penalize MS for the methods
they use to achieve their goals, but can do nothing to MS for having that goal
in mind. Nothing in their practices will change until and unless they are
made to revise those goals; because (like any good hacker)
anything else done to the company will only cause them to rethink the
means they use to get where they want to be.
Whenever I hear quotes from Scott McNealy, it sounds like he's more mad at MS
for thinking up these schemes first. And the reaction from the ABMS crowd is
such that you either think that Steve Ballmer cannot cross the street without
evil intent; or you accept that the company is capable of some valid business
practices and that not everything they do is part of some grand conspiracy.
"Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our time"
"We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were we dumb"
Yes we were, those of us who did not pay attention to the Linux Advocacy FAQ.
The rest have kept themselves too busy trying to improve on open source projects and
positive advocacy for privacy, p2p sharing or ideas and code, and freedom of choice.
And no, profit != evil.
...
Just like guns != evil. And code != evil
These are just inanimate objects. Its how we as people use them that determines their alignment to good or evilness.
Wow. The poster known as AoaNLA,T is trolling in a Katz article. That's sweet, sweet irony.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
A guy over at Kuro5hin wrote in "Marijuana, Mountain Dew and My MCSE":
Good for him.As of right now, that is not useable. Linking to a site that tells what a company has planned doesn't mean much. They're way behind the Open Source folks at supporting Itanium.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Don't buy their product and the corp ain't really going to care. Don't buy into the government line, or send them your tax money and your in jail
HELLO. Slight screw up in priorities mr. commie
BTW - free market is millions and millions times better than the crap that tanked the former Soviet.
Yeah, and eating mashed potatoes is a lot more fun than eating feces, but that doesn't mean I want mashed potatoes every night of the year.
I don't bitch about the government when I like their policies. I don't bitch about Microsoft or any other company when I like their policies. When either behaves badly with the power over other people that they have, especially when that bad behavior affects me, that's when I start to complain. Your whole government/private-enterprise dichotomy is total bull.
P.S. Corporations care very much when you don't buy their products. That's why they plaster their slogans on televisions, magazines, web sites, billboards, t-shirts, coffee-mugs, radios, baseball stadiums, mouse pads, tall buildings, the sky, etc.
--
share and enjoy
The reason StarOffice doesn't do so well loading powerpoint is because MS regularly changes their format JUST SO IT DOESN'T WORK FOR OTHER SOFTWARE! Are you blind and deaf? Haven't you followed the trial at all?
The real question is: what do you do to reverse the trend?
Read the damn Communist Manifesto, for God's sake! You sound exactly like Karl chuggafuggin' Marx, with your evil, trident-bearing Few triumphing over the simple, benevolent Whole. The biggest difference between you and ol' Karl is that despite the flaws inherent in your pipe-dream communist fantasies, he had the brains and the balls to put together a set of rules and spark a revolution, whereas you can only whine about the fact that in a CAPITALIST society, people WORK to EARN money.
My recommendation: give yourself a good, solid kick to the groin (or ask someone else to do it), and move to Cuba where you can bask in Communist "glory." And by glory I mean rotting, penniless wasteland of broken dreams and escaping baseball players.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
it seems to me that Slashdot is lately engaging too much in the latter rather than the former
You're new here, aren't you? :-)
This article seems a bit over the top, I agree. However, the number of fronts on which law enforcement and corporate entities are muscling into the computing world is astonishing and disturbing.
Perhaps it is because the internet is a relatively clean slate. In the wider world, we are used few large corporations controlling virtually every channel of information we have: radio, television, newspapers, magazines, movies, music... But on the internet, we aren't used to that. So we notice the invasion.
We see RIAA and MPAA attacking digital copying, ICANN handing the namespace to corporations and excusing itself from public accountability. We see FBI wanting to tap communications at every ISP and bar strong encryption. 2600 is ordered not to link, and program code is ruled unprotected under the first amendment. Microsoft tells us Open Source is a cancer while cheating at business itself. RAMBUS wants cash for every memory chip manufactured, RIAA wants cash for every CD-R sold, and CPRM would control what you write on your hard drive. Reality doesn't leave a lot of room for irrational paranoia these days!
These issues may not interest you, but they'll shape the future of the internet and, consequently, of society. Think no one should care? Tell that to RIAA, MPAA, FBI, Microsoft, RAMBUS, AOL-Time Warner... because for some reason, they all do care passionately and are on the ball asserting their interests every day.
Corporations have come a long way since the EIC. New, fascinating advances have been made in Marketing. One suspects that a corporation as big as Microsoft has the capacity to influence the zeitgeist, to create demand where none was before. that, would be truely dangerous. I wonder how many of microsoft's employees are affected by groupthink? just my 2 cents. chuys
Anyway, where did you get your stats that M$'s stock price grew 60% last year from? Looking at a chart on news.com I see that M$ is about level for the year. Yes, they dipped to $40 around December but before the anti-trust suit they were up around $90, IIRC.
So if you're going to spit bile about M$, please make sure it's accurate, thanks!
Microsoft has not touched every aspect of working with the web; they haven't done anything substantial with wireless technology. There should be a WinCE-based platform analogous to Sun's J2ME platform. I'm sure there are other areas...
You fool! (tm)
Corporations already make their own laws! Can you say DMCA?
You think all that money AOL-Time-Warner, Disney, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA puts into lawmakers' (and judges') pockets through "lobbying" and paid vacations will allow the DMCA to die? Napster live? Microsoft broken up? Disney propaganda driven into the hearts of every citizen of the world? Ha!
Just look at how this works, Napster has to pay the each individual record company to let citizens share songs they already paid for. While the record companies pay each individual radio company so their songs ( should be the artists' songs, but thats another story ). America is already run by mega corporations. Mark my words, if Teddy Rosevelt or any other "Trust Buster" rolled over in their graves when the AOL-Time-Warner merger was approved, and will again if the Microsoft ruling in over turned.
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================
Until it doesn't. While I like what Katz says here, he is falling into the same trap that has caught folks for years, even decades. The current trend (whatever it may be... stock prices, weather, M$ power, etc...) will continue just as it is. If he was writing this 80 years ago he would be saying the same thing about Standard Oil, and we all know what happened to them. Let's just hope the Government will smarten up, and this trend will stop. Trends do not go on forever, this one won't either.
I've worked for Borg for most of eleven years now, off and on, and the only video I've ever gotten shown was the "hey, we've been around for fifteen years!" one they made back in '90. I feel all deprived now.
First off, Jon was using "CEO" in a metaphorical sense. I personally don't believe that Steve Ballmer picks his own nose without some kind of authorization from BillG anyway.
Second, though Katz' article is a bit of a jeremiad, I don't think it's too far from what could become the truth. I used to work for Starbucks and had an inside view of a company that, while not as rapacious as its reputation, still suffered from a lack of internal dissent. Microsoft seems to be the same, only with a much more vicious attitude towards the rest of the world. A company of yes-men will not keep itself in check, and if the antitrust case collapses, than there will be nothing to do so at all.
In that light I think Katz is overstating his point, but it's not a hopelessly unreasonable way of looking at it.
/Brian
He lost in his home state, making him either the first or the second to do so - I can't remember.
Assuming he won in 15 states, that means that he lost in 35 states. 35 > 15, meaning that most of the country didn't elect him. Maybe the largest cities elected him, but just because the most people are there doesn't mean we should only do what they do. Unless you want to always be like California.
Gore was a proponent of this system anyway. He was hoping to win because of it. It didn't work that way. He lost because of it - the very system he was formerly quoted as supporting. (And, to maintain continuity, still claims to support.)
Ever look at a map of the election results? If you count land mass, then maybe 70% of the US voted for Bush.
So according to the law that both canidates accepted and supported, Gore lost. He lost fairly. And I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to spin it any other way.
GET OVER IT - Bush won many more states than Gore. It's that simple. Accept it and get on with your life - and don't try and use any BS spin - if Gore won after losing the popular election, you'd be saying how that's the way a "civilized" nation should work.
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
What, you don't play EverQuest? The growing popularity of mmorpg (massive multiplayer online role playing games) and the fact that most of them charge you a monthly fee should give a hint at how very likely it is that people are in fact very willing to shell out $$/month.
If nerds like us are getting used to the idea then the masses will not stand a chance to protest the business model of monthly fees.
And why should they? In my opinion there are a few advantages for both sides. First there is choice. The moment I have to pay a recurring fee for software I will be more critical to the quality of that software (vs the "it came with windows, why should I replace it?"). Secondly, charging a small fee per month leads to a better measure of the quality of the product. In the analogy with EverQuest, the designers get a good feel how long they managed to hook people to their game and build on that knowledge to build a next and better game.
my $0.02/month
---------------------------------
>It brought taxation and simple democracy to >India. It breathed the first light of the west's >wisdom on those dark and primitive lands. Your knowledge of indian heritage and culture and for that matter your worldly views wouldn't sell for one cent. Go read about Indus Valley civilization (www.harappa.com, www.brittanica.com), the invention of decimal system etc.
I use to find Katz mildly entertaining ... but this ?!?
It makes me wonder about the fellows at Slashdot who decide what gets posted.
sniff-sniff (smells payola)
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Those cultures had public schools (even though you might not consider them as such because they were different to your notion of 'school') and Europeans were not exactly strong on educating anyone other than upper class males.
True enough... India (back to the original subject) had advanced states of education... and a more egalitarian culture than many of its neighbors, at that time. However... not all cultures in Sub-Saharan Africa (or North or South America, or Japan, or Western Europe, or the Mediteranian Region) had what we currently hold to be acceptable levels of education for the general populace. It is very important to understand that, for all of its flaws (massive imbalances between first and third world, single-religion control of huge blocks of the planet, rapid transmission of virulant diseases across the globe, overconsumption in the first world, overbreeding and resistance to birth control and education in the third world (just a note that much of South America has joined the first world - under the radar of the English speaking quadrant - in the last few decades... ironically, India and Nepal, once the heart of advanced education, philosophy, and culture in the world, ultimately birthing the rational cultures of the Greeks and the Hebrews via migratory philosophies, and leading to the "modern" value system, have become almost irredeemably third world - and not all the blame can be laid at the feet of the British), and a general refusal to acknowledge the transient nature of our current resource flow, not to mention the vulnerability of the entire ecosystem it is being extracted from (thanks, dubya, for making us look like the utter asses the worst of us are in the eyes of the world - someday, I hope you drown in toxic waste), we are still, as a planetary culture, orders of magnitude better than anything that has preceeded us. Cultural relativism only goes so far. Remember, the British Empire was a primitive culture as well... and use the same damned grain of salt you use for looking at their (and American, and whoever else's) history when looking at the histories of the rest of the world. The things I could tell you about, to take an example, the tribes of Tahiti, or Arizona, or Malaysia... taking them apart over their centuries and millenia... would make you go into as great a fervor, if you could look beyond the blinders of cultural relativism.
Both Africa and India had advanced cultures. Your reference to tribal warfare merely demonstrates your ignorance of the mess and chaos created, then left behind, by the colonists. This is directly responsible for pretty much all the conflict on the continent.
While I am aware of a handful of long standing peaceful tribes, they mostly survived by isolation. As aware as I am of the mess and chaos left behind by the colonists, and the disruptive influence they had on some of the local equilibriums, I am also aware of many attrocities and inhumanities (with a long 'a', not a short) that existed in much of Africa, North-Eastern India, the Central Plains of North America, and across the Pacific Islands.
And let's not forget that European and American corporations continue to inflame for their own gain the tensions left behind by colonialism - they provide weapons, encouraging as much torture and murder as possible so they can rape the countries with impunity - they do not want the wars to end - how will they ever get away with stealing all those natural resources if that happens?
True, and a vitally biting accusation it is.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
India had several cultures. It was a shifting set of political, cultural, and religious boundaries for centuries. At one time, about 4500 years ago, India was home to the first literate civilization to recognize parallel (hence egalitarian) male and female gender roles. I had thought there was still a pocket of this in the North-Western region of the subcontinent, but I haven't been able to find any corroborating documentation. I'm going to have to put this down as an I-Was-Mistaken, unless I can dig that up.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
I used to be down on the Electoral College until I did some reading after the election. I'm a believer now. It's like this: the EC helps to prevent the "tyranny of the majority." To understand this better, take a look at this imaginary country...
In Hellholia, there are 3 provinces.
Province A, with 60% of the population.
Province B, with 20% of the population.
Province C, with 20% of the population.
The people of Province A hate the people of Province B. They'd like to dump them into shallow graves. They don't get along so well with the people of Province C either.
The people of Provinces B and C get along with each other and they wish the A-holes would leave them alone.
If the Grand Poo-Bah of Hellholia is elected by popular vote, the most rabid, racist violent psychopath would easily be elected by the majority, those being the people of A, and he'd start wiping out the people of B and forcing the people in C to make license plates or something.
If the Hellholia uses a system like the electoral college, the candidate from A would have to win over at least B or C in addition to his own province, and this would ensure that a more moderate candidate won.
Without the electoral college the people in the 4 most populous US states would dominate presidential race, and that's wrong. With the EC in place, the candidates need to appeal to a more broad spectrum of voters. That's a good thing.
Far from destroying democracy, the electoral college is a critical fine-tuning element. It's actually quite elegant.
One wrong click can ruin your whole morning. I know better than to not look at the author of the article before I read on...
/. as easily as you can when reading a newsgroup. Katz would have been in my killfile long ago. 95% of his articles are just flamebait anyway. The other 5% are totally uninformed. This one happens to be both. Who is going to start the "Fire Jon "Troll" Katz" petition? Tell me where to sign...
*smacks forehead*
If only you could filter out authors on
You must be referring to the centrally planned economy. That is exactly what the Microsoft world is about. A few guys at Redmond deciding how the rest of the world should use their computers. Too many companies just don't have the freedom of choice any more after being locked into proprietary file formats and the like. You can see the effects now that this locking has progressed, and M$ start to charge annually for the use of their products.
An analogy: I'm planning to get a digital camera but I wouldn't like it to use a Sony memory stick. Reasons: (a) the theoretical possibility that Sony go bust and nobody will ever make new memory sticks. (b) After a sufficient number of people use devices with memory sticks, nothing can stop them from increasing the memory price as high as they like. In the same way, with the possibility of Gates^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft being split into two, possibly rendering present M$ systems incompatible, I am glad nothing like that can happen to free software and we will have the last word :-)
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Man, you fell for that one hook, line and sinker. The whole shebang. Lock, stock and barrel. In toto. Ad infinitum. Et cetera! Great trolling!
Good point, AC.
Brilliant. +50
Obviously you've never heard of Randolph Hearst.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Wow, I would love this. Hear that Slashdot!.
First of all, Bill Gates is not the "CEO of the Corporate Republic" for several reasons. 1: He is not even the CEO of his own company any more, 2: There is no reason to be so certain that Microsoft's .NET strategy will actually work, and 3: We are not (as was firmly established in the replies to the last Katz article) living in a "Corporate Republic".
Secondly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is made up of judges which were appointed before the current president (who you love to hate) was elected. Most of them were probably appointed by the same administration (Clinton) that brought the case before Judge Jackson... So when you try to frame this as a case of W bailing Bill Gates out, you are just making as ass of yourself.
Finally, MS stock went up (in spite of the recent NASDAQ slump) not because of some corporate dystopian nightmare, but because any investment advisor will tell you to put your money into market leaders, and rely on them even more during the slumps (when some of their weaker competitors might dry up and blow away). Want to buy stock in a soda company during a market slump? Buy Coca-cola.
In spite of the NASDAQ drop, the tech sector is still a good buy, but investors are less willing to play the long shots until the market becomes a little bit less of a mine field. Since MS sells the OS used on over 90% of all desktop computers and completely owns the office suite market, they are (in spite of the possibility of a break-up) an extremely good risk. They are far-and-away the least likely company to go under or be bought out in all of the tech world. Does anybody here seriosly believe that Netscape has a bright future ahead, even if MS is broken up?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Standard Oil, US Steel, AT&T, General Motors... All of these companies ran a monopoly or totally controlled the markets they competed in. All were put down, no matter how powerful they became.
The same WILL happen to MS, just give it time. This isn't to say that we should all sit back and ignore it. We should all keep up pressure - write our senators, congresspeople, business leaders, media personalities. Let's keep an active discussion going with real statistics and real intellect. No one is going to seriously listen to a 1/2 baked reactionary drivel. We need a sensible, coherent alternative for MS. Complaining that they're evil just because they make a lot of money won't get us listened to by anyone. We have to build our own coalitions, just as MS is doing now.
And about the "cancer" statement made recently - this is just the tip of the iceberg in the propaganda war that is starting to unfold. Statements like that made in the mainstream will be listened to by the mainstream. A few small lies here and there will snowball into an avalanche of disinformation. The Soviets and the Nazis knew this. Microsoft doesn't need to sell technology to win; they need only sell the message.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am no ms supporter, but I suspect that they will go 64-bit only to say that they've done it. I also expect it to be a muddled pile of uselessness when they do.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
They did the same thing with USB 2.0, changing their minds...
But you have it wrong about 64bit-
At the Office XP launch, here in Raleigh, I heard the talking head (Shawn) specifically say that they were developing for 64-bit.
If Office is 64-bit, then the OS will be 64-bit, because you know for *damn* sure that there won't be Office running on anything other than Windows or MacOS X.
I heard it straight from the mouthpiece of the beast.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
There is only one way to take down a Micro$oft or any other monopolistic corporation. Get people in power in our government that will protect consumers and not sell out at the drop of a pile of money.
Check our candidates like Ralph Nader who not only supports and advocates Linux but uses it to power his web site.
No one sitting, posting and forgetting can complain about anything!
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Not to mention lack of motivation to upgrade...I've seen all the flashy "Buy Office XP NOW!" hoopla, but I've yet to see anything that resembles a list of new features / improvements (or, heaven forbid, bugs fixed)..."Buy it, it's shiny and new!" seems to be their only selling point...Not really a good reason for me to run out and spend $400 CDN on the upgrade from 2000, which IMNSHO, was only an incremental upgrade over Office 97...
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
You obviously haven't spent much time using them.
Let me tell you a little story.
Once upon a time, a very busy programmer with several projects and many active email conversations decided to make full use of this program called Outlook 2000.
This programmer set up folders for each project, and sometimes for each contact. Then he started using the Tasks feature to keep track of activities.
It was all very good... he could send message with attachments, he could receive messages with attachments. He also discovered how convenient it was to create Tasks with URL attachments (drag-and-drop that URL from the address bar of IE into the task.)
The power of information was at his fingertips.
Then one day he happened along the Microsoft Product Updates website. Hmm, he thought, here's an "important" security patch for Office. After reading the release notes for the patch, he realized that this security patch was a good thing.
So programmer downloaded and installed the security patch. All appeared well. The patch installed without a hitch, and everything seemed fine.
Programmer continued his work briefly, until he needed to refer to a task and the information associated with it. Programmer opened the relavent task and looked around for the attached URL link.
Then programmer noticed something interesting written at the top of his window... "Outlook blocked access..."
I'm tired of storytelling. Suffice to say that virtually every fucking attachment, including the most benign of attachments, the URL link file, was completely and fully blocked from any kind of view by Outlook. This special "security" feature wasn't listed in the release notes. Essentially all the information storage that I had done to make my work more efficient was lost. Links to old facts were lost (hidden.) Files I had sent and received were effectively lost.
All because Microsoft needed a "fix" for all their ILOVEYOU and such viruses. If you want to be amazed, look at the list of file types that are blocked... Q262631
Now, if you think that is one cute little example of pain and suffering related to MS products, reply to this message and I'll provide you another good story. And another. And even another. I bet I can give you more stories than you want to read.
So where does this leave us? Even though MS admittedly has the best browser, no contest, I'm writing this in Mozilla. And in my job search I have lately been telling recruiters I'd like to avoid MS technologies (at a cost of job opportunities and perhaps even $5/hour in pay.)
If the software MS sold was actually good all around, perhaps the fact that their business practices were so evil wouldn't matter to me. But the only thing MS is good at is making money for their shareholders. They're not good at making software, don't confuse the two.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
Im sure a lot of India's people may be able to make a retort at the 'then' state of India.. a great many of them would suggest that history has proved they would have been better off - just like Africans and Indiginous People of the Americas - they all had very rewarding cultures with independant priorities to provide well-being to the residents. Your statement is not a little surprising.
..on a wholly seperate note...
The war for our hearts is not an easy one, but by virtue of its products. MS holds that position now.
The day any 'product' enters my heart is the day I go stark raving mad - have you lost your vulcan-mind? You need to do some serious analysis about how you make decisions, and what influences them, because 'products' are really a means to an end, those ends may be clean cloths or end to hunger - you *NEVER* desire 'Tibe Freshness' or 'McBlondalds MaCHapply Bleals."
Anyhow, the only real competition that Microsoft will ever have is Open Source.
This is true. This crowd understands the real economics behind software - that it really is cheap to write code (software = cheap computer + good developer + free time).. and what the Free Software paradigm does to empower those people... yadda yadda.
What I dont understand is, in the world of 'economics' and capitalism (which I frankly abhor) is that with GNU/Linux being MS's only real competition is this: Doesnt this *PROVE* their monopoly? I mean really, the only viable alternative, as small as it is, is a group of Volunteers and their collaborative efforts. With MS seeking to malign and destroy (the purpose of every one of their campaigns till now) GNU/Linux this should send up warning flares at the US DoJ and FTC (the hollowed hull that it is) like nothing else.
I mean really, to your average dollar-worshipping whore how does this appear? From someone on the sideline, without any tech-clue, isnt MS *really* impaling itself by attacking GNU/Linux and Free Software?
Here is an anology: If McBlondleds managed to put every other beef-burger joint effectively out of business (Lotus, Corel, Borland, Novell) *THEN* they began to attack people in their own homes/backyards because they were giving away home-BBQed beef-burgers with the only condition being that 'when you BBQ, I expect you give me a burger also, no charge' - I mean really, isn't MS really just proving the DoJ's case here? The only people left to attack are non-profit volunteers!
Reality doesn't leave a lot of room for irrational paranoia these days!
/.
/.; there are raging environmentalists, anti-GMO activists, social-justice activists, indymedia advocates and tonnes of other 'perspectives' that are citing the same exact problem: Private, non-democratic For-Profit Corporations have *WAY* too much power - they need to begin to be held accountable to the communities that they are supposed to serve. Profit-Seeking is *NOT* the highest priority && people are begining to demand that Corporations he held accountable to the priorities of our communities and not simply their own selfish interest.
Phew, I thought i was the only one... Here! Here!
Now my real paranoia is this: In all other sectors of society; health care, auto-manufacture, law etc etc etc, is this: If these weasles can have astonishing power, without any accountability, think of the absolute stiffling power they wield in whole. I mean we have watched ruling after ruling against reason - in favour of profit over and over and over in our area-of-understanding. The Technology and the Internet is the forte of the average slashdotter, what we see here is the enlightenment by slashdotters of this afore mentioned fact.
Literally, what the fuck is going on when real citizens - people - no longer have any ability to make choices for themselves and their community? This alarm is what we see in the forums on
..and its not isolated to
Come to Washington in Sept. for the WorldBank/IMF Demo. See: indymedia.org
hhehehhehhahahhah haheheyhehhahaha hehhah You do also understand that the rest of the world's people look with PITY on America and *NOT* envy? The only thing we 'fear' is that America's Plutocrats, with its armies, will come to enslave the rest of us as it has you! While were busy building social-systems, community, health-care and generally healthy communities we watch the hack-and-slash American-Capitalists chomping outside the gates. Ready to lie, cheat, steal and bribe there way into undermining our efforts and replacing it with a cut-throat system of consumerism.
When people say that Americans are ignorant and myopic they are not joking. We are not jealous - as in the American-Jerry-Springer-idiot -mental-mcnuggets-for-mindless-masses 'i get paid' sense. Its Pity as in the 'we cannot believe that they believe this kind of shit' sense.
Your present world position is a result of these things:
Never having fought a modern domestic war (think WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Indo-China) Although you did play your part in all: Selling arms/support/supplies/whatever, you have never hosted one. This alone I believe is your number-one contributor to the Modern-USA state.
Ruthless-ill thought out sense of 'self' (ie: selfishness, greed compounded by a predatory establishment to re-enforce this)
Age. Vast resources and natural space to mindlessly exploit. The Industrial revolution aided the USA in an accelerated planet-rape program. Most everyone else had already cleared their forests and let them regrow many times over while America was cutting (still doing it www.mattoledefense.org!) old growth for the first time. Americans are to resource management as children are to candy-stores. See: Golf Courses in Desserts and Air-Conditioned rolling blackouts*.
...surely there is a simple and wise solution, that involves conservation - decrease in demand - that would solve some of your over-consumption (the American Way of Life) problem that would be more elegant than drilling for oil in Federal Reserves and Building Coal-Powered Electricity Plants.. I dunno, just a thought...
Basically - the present world-state of America is *NOT* proof that you are making all the right choices, it really is the result of short-sighted self-serving choices, made in a myopic vacuum, a few random events of history and an inability to be humble in the presence of (seemingly) 'good' fortune.
If you think Im blowing smoke, just some kind of Anti-Yankee nut, please dont. I am quite sure I am pretty on the mark. What pisses off the rest of the world about Americans is their lack of perspective, and their never-ending hubris. Where a statement like "world dominating position" really simply displays why you have no real future.
Corporate controlled laughing stock its political system has become. Not the American dream, but quite possibly the American nightmare.
Pretty much sums it up.
...but I should really know better than to feed the trolls... +5 Insightful? How about -1 McCarthy-Inspired Delusion.
*Note to Californians: Isnt your rolling blackouts really proof of the failure of privatization? Where is the better service, increased choice and decreased price? Looks to me like you simply got screwed, and are now getting the 'you over regulated the market - *this* caused the problem' bullshit fed back to you... AND YOU BELIEVE IT! Further, when you live in a desert, pools and lawn watering are considered 'waste'. Ever think that if you simply outlawed lawn-watering that the decrease in consumption would make up for your shortcomings?
...just that this 'world dominating' chest pounding really irks me....
Jon Katz is clearly a tunnel-vision writer. All it seems he is capable of is supporting narrow views on the poor man. Microsoft is a smart company, but they will go away one day. I think ol' Jon needs some Prozac. The world still has choice, we're not locked into Microsoft products only.
"There is no spoon"
Bill Gates is Chairman with Steve Ballmer as the CEO. Gates' role is removed from the day to day operation of the company, and he is no longer driving strategy. His primary job is hiring and firing the CEO.
You're right that Gates is no longer CEO, but you're wrong in saying that he's removed from operations. In addition to being Chairman, he's Chief Software Architect, essentially the head of R&D, which is a very operational role. There are people in R&D now who are directly responsible to Gates, which would not be the case if he were simply a Board member, even Chairman.
Gates' "web site" is here.
1: Do you want the government to stand up and start smacking businesses? I don't like that idea. Sure we all hate M$, but they have small black hats compared to a government that can break down your door, storm your house and shoot you because you grew the wrong kind of plant in your garden.
2: Sure M$ has stomped competition (Netscape, Amiga, Apple, the list goes on and on....) unfairly - such as threatening software outlets (Electronics Botique and other mall software stores) for carrying competitors products.... But is there really an open source alternative to office? Koffice? Don't make me laugh, it wouldn't stay alive long enough for me to save a line or two of text. Not everyone uses a computer as a game machine or a "web TV" box. Some of us actually do productive shit on them.
3: More powerful than the government? Really? Really? Since when has Micro$oft sent tanks and guys wearing black ski masks and carrying automatic weapons into a person's home with all intent on murdering them? The government (US and otherwise) DOES this kind of thing from time to time. A couple wrong moves, and it could be Bill Gates house they knock down next. It takes ALOT of money to stop a teflon coated armor piercing bullet.
4: Will whining and shouting "Woe is me!" on the street corner actually do anything? The short answer is NO. What will accomplish the death of microsoft? It's competition getting off it's collective ass and making a good product, that's what. So - don't whine about M$ - go fix Koffice, The Gimp (it's good, but it's not photoshop), and all the linux configuration UIs and let's kill these bastards.
When did Microsoft ever go away?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Unfortunately, sensationalism like this doesn't do much to help the anti-M$ cause. Likening Bill Gates to Frankenstein's monster might be good for a chuckle, but without presenting a strong case based on facts and evidence, articles like this are only going to preach to the converted, and alienate those who sit on the fence. People who might be sympathetic to the Open Source movement if they were better informed are not well-served by this sort of shrill invective.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
So, you guys can get over it. The election results were correct. George Bush won, even when the complete recount is tallied. But aren't you glad we didn't have to wait until April to learn who would be President?
Once again Jon Katz innocence and ignorance shines through. I don't think I have ever seen a writer that knew so little about so much. That said, a) Bill Gates was never on the ropes, and b)Microsoft is no where near the first Unaccountable Corporation. Microsoft's appearance of accountability was due to their ignorance of politics. They lived under the misguided belief that if they ignored Washington, Washington would ignore them. They have learned their mistake and are taking steps to purchase politicians like every other major corporation. If you need an example of an Unaccountable Corporation that dwarfs Microsoft, how about the federal reserve. Most people don't even realizes that the federal reserve is an independent corporation with few ties to the government, and no accountability, and they control our country's economy. Microsoft is small potatoes. Microsoft may be an evil corporation (one that knowingly and intentionally produces an inferior product at a higher price, though most of the software industry falls into that catagory)without conscience, they are certainly not unique, and certainly not worthy of the paranoid panic that you seem to feel they are.
I thought katz's tone was somewhat melodramitic, but anyhow I just cant seen MS 'owning the internet', given its strong links with UNIX, If companies chose MS, it's generally because it suits them better - like MS, they're just businesses, trying to make as much profit as possible. So If you want linux to succeed, or MS to fail, why not try improving Linux in anyway you can, be that through bug reporting, programming or simply advising your friends to use it. Much as people view MS as some evil force, they don't have some sort of control over people - most people will use their products because it's simplest or best them. If you want Linux to succeed, just try and make it better.
Jon,
I know you lament the fact that Microsoft is not only hanging around, but is still going quite strong even in the current economic downturn.
I think you need to understand some facts:
1. Companies involved in developing for Linux are NOT getting the type of revenues they had expected. Most companies making commercial Linux distributions are gone, cutting back or gritting it out with lower-than-expected profits. A few companies that are pushing Linux (Dell and IBM) are still around because they are primarily hardware companies.
2. Microsoft is continuing to do well with continuing sales of their operating system and application products, even if their growth rate has been cut due to the economic downturn. MS has introduced a new version of their high-margin product (Office XP) and will ship Windows XP late this October, which will generate lots of revenue well into 2002.
3. Microsoft has US$30 BILLION in cash reserves available for product development and marketing. That's probably more cash than most of their competition combined. This gives Microsoft a massive financial cushion to protect the company as it develops future products.
4. Linux as it currently stands is not a viable alternative in the desktop computer market. Linux will most likely stay a product for servers, high-end workstations and embedded devices.
In short, Microsoft not only has survived the economic downturn, but is poised to be a hugely profitable company once the economy starts up again late this year through 2002.
The first think that come to my mind is the freedom of initiative, of speech, of discovery.
I want to have the choice.
I want each software editor to have concurrents because this is what stimulates innovation.
Instead of this, we'd have one productivity suite running on one OS with one browser and so on.
Then, we'd have one computer language, one way of developing, and one unique way of designing programs.
So : no.
I prefer the "Vi vs Emacs" war which at least offers one choice.
but maybe I'm answering a troll.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
> really, nobody ever said you had to use whatever MS has to offer.
Yes : the bastard that forces all of my company's employees to use Outlook for our internal communication just forces us to have it running on a window-OS and alongside office, preferably the latest as the formers are incompatible with it.
Even if I want to do some work remotely from home I need some compatible environment, so you see, I am somehow forced.
We are some dozens of Unix admins here and I can guarantee you that if there were *one* Free alternative to Outlook, then we'll all reformat C: and install a Debian.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The reason the Court of Appeals will reverse Judge Jackson's rulings is simple - they did not act illegally in tying IE to their operating system. Quite simply, having IE as part of the OS makes it a better product for users! What a concept!
:)
Sorry, just because something produces "good" results for some people doesn't mean it's not illegal. Morality and legality are separate concerns. Not that I don't think the ruling might be overturned, but if that's the reason - 'it did some good for some people, ergo, it's not illegal' - we've got a sad court on our hands.
creation science book
Does Linus know? So how long before Linux dies. Well lets see *nix has been around for about 20 years, so far and shows no sign of stopping, so the Linux variant will probably be around for awhile still.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
Honestly, you point out that when Microsoft is faced with competition they crush it, isn't that the point of competition. Its a kill them before they kill you kind of thing. Is Microsoft supposed to sit back and let the young upstart overthrow their power? If the answer is yes its not competion its a surrender. Competition is good for the consumer, its just that the competitors need to learn how to fight a bit harder.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
They had news reports of 64bit windows being shown at the same time as the Linux counterparts, at the Merced unveiling. At the unveiling, I'd have to say that they are not that far behind, if they are even behind at all
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
If you don't agree to tax law and pay the taxes the IRS says you owe, you can get tax-auditted and have to pay any fines they impose, or the government will take it from you in a criminal action.
If you don't agree to M$ licenses and pay the fees M$ says you owe, you can get license-auditted and have to pay any fines they impose -- or else they will have the government take it from you in a civil action.
From what I've heard, the IRS and M$ audits can really hurt a business if they find enough infractions. Even if you do follow the rules, the audits can me a killer. The only difference is that M$ doesn't target individual users much...yet.
science is a religion
You have to be kidding. The East India company impact on India has been deep, pervasive and terrible.
"And yet, when the government of the day got fed up of it, "
The problem is here that you are thinking of the East India Company as "free enterprise" with a government sitting on top of it. Government, "free trade", and the use of extreme military force went hand in hand during the time of the Raj. To separate out the three is to condemn yourself to misunderstand history, as evidenced by the first paragraph of yours that I quoted.
Its pretty much the same nowadays. Take the oil industry for instance, and then look at the invasions of Indonesia into E.Timor, or the US into Somalia. Or the diamond industry and Sierra Leone. The use of extreme military force is a common place part of the free market, now as always.
M$ will die some day. I don't see that as a cause for celebration or sadness to be honest. Its not M$ that are the problem, but rather the notion that we should run our societies as oligarchies. I could not care whether M$, or the government, or a military dictatorship that is in charge.
Phil
I've always wanted to be a street samurai...looks like I will get the chance....
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I just turned off the filter to allow me to read Katz's articles yesterday and I'm met with this mindless dribble...
Katz (and I suspect a few other people out there) needs to get over Microsoft. They're here to stay and all of your comparison's to the Borg or the evil empire won't do much other than make you look like a bunch of whiners that attack whenever they can't win. Like it or not, Microsoft has made the PC more accessible to the average person with Windows and whining about it won't change things.
Yes, I wish Microsoft would subscribe to the Open Source concept but it appears that they're not so we all have to move on.
I despise Microsoft products, and don't use them. They are models of poor design and cater to the lazy-minded.
However, the government had no business to 'punish' microsoft for being successful. No-one has put a gun to my head yet and told me to use their products. But the state, the only part of our society vested with the use of uninitiated force, has chosen to attack a successful entrepeneur (the same state that buys almost exclusively microsoft products) and break up his company, not because his products suck, but because he has marketed his lame products so successfully.
See the Moral Defense of Microsoft site for the reasoned libertarian/capitalist viewpoint.
Don't forget that McNealy was more than a little uncomfortable with a government attack on the competition.
()-- Mycr0ft --()
Oh, and yeah, keep building superior GPL products and get everybody to stop using that microsoft crap. Keep it fair folks!
Me physicist. Me make rockets.
Tieing IE to Windows means, quite simply, that when the web browser crashes so does the major UI interface.
It also wastes resoruces if, for *any* reason, I need to use a non-IE browser. (Why would I? Oh, I don't know... maybe I'm compatability testing a web site. Maybe I'm browsing something else. Maybe I just can't stand IE... maybe I want to turn off the web browser.)
The other times MS has tied a product into the OS (Compression, networking) it's something that the user doesn't *want* to deal with, and happens more or less transparantly.
But with IE, nothing really changed. Oh, I can have web pages show up on my desktop--if I load a clunky system setting, slow down perforamnce, and I *still* have to open up a new window (program) to open a web site.
IE bundling was a mistake, and I hope that, if nothing else, MS is required to let users turn it off!
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Yeah that's great, except that since MS has such a huge desktop market share, that none of these other OS examples matter. The fact is that MS uses it's desktop product to kill competition in another arena.
As for downloading, did you ever try downloading Mozilla on a 28.8 modem? I didn't think so...
And for the goddamn moderator who modded me flamebait go fuck yourself, the original "flame jon katz" comment was flamebait, not my response. I'm getting really sick of the dumb ass hivemind developing here at slashdot. Maybe it is time for me to switch to kuro5hin, where people really can have intelligent conversations.
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
What I mean is that most people I know dont feel that they have real choices at the polls. It is boiled down to selecting the lesser of evils rather than being able to vote for a person they really want in office. By the time of the November elections none of the canidates for President were ones that I would have spent time campaigning for. Put "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot and see how many of our current politicians get elected.
It seems to me that most elected officials have forgotten that they were elected as our representatives. Instead it looks like politics have turned into a game to see how high an office a politician can be elected to and how long they can hold it. Politicians will do whatever they have to in order to gather more money than their opponents. When was the last time you heard about a politician turning down a donation because it was from a group/person that his/her own political views opposed? Not very damned often.
It would be nice to have a political party and politicians who just said here is our platform, here is what we believe, here is what we want to accomplish if we get elected and actually stuck to it rather than compromising a bit here and there to get more contributions.
As for Microsoft, you are right they arent evil. They are a company that does whatever they can get away with to get more business and income. Thats what corporate entities are supposed to do. If they didnt you'd hear more screaming from their stockholders than you currently hear on Slashdot. However, when they break the rules of society (ie anti-trust) without regard and without being held accountable then there is a problem. Microsoft makes decent products, but they tie them together in ways that make it hard for anyone else to compete. Thats the problem I have with them. If they competed fairly and were still as big as they are then I would be cheering them on for doing a good job.
As for my beliefs, they are far more complex and well thoughtout than you would give credit and than could be explained in a quick comment posted here.
Gates & Co. have learned the real way to take over the world, keep people employed and happy and they will over look each little step on the long journey to where ever they are being led.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain to me how bundling IE to Windows is not illegal tying.
Because the HTML viewer component is a core part of Windows, used for various different things (such as Explorer for instance), not just IE. Active Desktop uses it for instance. And since IE is just a wrapper around that and the networking code, then how is that wrong? Most of IE is part of the core Windows code. You can get rid of the wrapper, but the rest of the components are used for different things around Windows and need to be there...
For a start they were the ones trying to introduce a non-compliant DOM and lock everyone into their browser well before IE was even vaugely worth using. And secondly, they lost out mainly because IE made huge performace and usability improvement with every version, whereas Netscape stagnated and died.
Sorry, but IE is still the best browser out there. If you read /. regularly, you'll even notice there are quite a few posts saying that people wish they could get it for Linux...
What mindless, pathetic drivel. This is a new low, even for Jon Katz.
Microsoft are guilty of several dubious business practices (the OEM lockin for instance) but their core business has succeeded by a shrewd knowledge of what their customers want, a cunning marketing campaign and quality products. Yes, that's right, quality products.
The reason the Court of Appeals will reverse Judge Jackson's rulings is simple - they did not act illegally in tying IE to their operating system. Quite simply, having IE as part of the OS makes it a better product for users! What a concept!
Quite simply, we live in a capitalist system and corporations making money is good for everyone at the end of the day, as it benefits us in services from tax revenues and general growth of the economy. Without companies like Microsoft, AOL, Time-Warner and Cisco, do you really think we would be able to maintain the world dominating position we are presently in?
No.
And if Microsoft come to dominate a set of new markets (a hell of a lot less likely than it made out here), then it'll be because they've again produced what the customer wants.
Microsoft is not "above the law". How foolish. They're nothing more than one of our great success stories, a hugely visible embodiment of the American Dream.
Bullshit. This is exactly why a free market is good.
Because it allows a company to get to a position where they have the majority of people to be convinced that Microsoft == PC? That there is no alternative to Windows? Right...
Because we are free to use non-MS software. If it wasn't a free market, MS or some government sanctioned software company would be the only choice... and all things GNU, GPLed, Open Source, etc would not exist.
Nonsense. If the market were decently regulated then there would be more competition because no company would have such a huge monopoly. Other groups would have a far easier time having their OS accepted. Witness how BeOS sunk, despite having a technically superior OS to both Windows and Linux.
Sorry, but there is a big difference in providing services and enslaving people on entitlements. It also is ludicrous to expect people for fork over nearly 1/2 of what they earn to the government.
Did you not understand my comment? Here, I'll repeat the gist of it... I am happy paying these taxes. And once again, if you feel contributing to the welfare of the society that gives so much to you, then go and live elsewhere.
Oh, and if you equate paying tax with enslavement then I suggest you read some history. Specifically, the history of slavery in the US. I think those people would have been happy if their slavery consisted of... paying taxes!
There is no such thing as home ownership or even any ownership.
So you're a hardcore anarchist then? I had you figured for a libertarian what with your delusional rants about slavery and taxation, but if you don't believe in property rights, what rights do you believe in?
I do know what communism is, I also know how it was twisted by a "Government" to fit its need.
So if you know what it is, why did you bring it up with regards to my post other than as a strawman?
Governments no longer serve people, they serve politicians and intrest groups first.
As opposed to corporations, who serve only their bottom line and are less accountable than any government.
As for France, gee, I have yet to read that startling claim. Guess the economies of a few other countries got in the way.
A quick google search brings up this, but I'm sure you'll ignore things like facts.
France is no threat to anyone but themselves, the people are great, their government stinks. Then again that works for here to.
Uh huh. Just out of interest, do you have a small enclave well-stocked with canned goods and ammo, or maybe a manifesto of some kind? Just curious...
Why is that you twits never bitch about the fact that government tax the piss out of you yet bitch and moan about some evil corporation.
Why would I bitch about taxes, when I fully agree that they are needed in order to provide essential services that allows those who don't have the same resources as I do? Unlike the so-called libertarians here on /. I fully accept that by living in a society, I have a moral obligation to other members of that society. I don't selfishly expect to reap the benefits whilst giving nothing in return.
Don't buy their product and the corp ain't really going to care. Don't buy into the government line, or send them your tax money and your in jail.
Don't buy into the government line? Move to another country. By living here you accept the social contract.
HELLO. Slight screw up in priorities mr. commie
Oh how sad. Name calling. And an ad hominem attack as well. Boo-fucking-hoo, I'm devastated.
And next time, learn what communism actually means before using it as an insult, okay?
BTW - free market is millions and millions times better than the crap that tanked the former Soviet. (let alone the crap tanking Europeans now - socialist governments are expensive and stifling)
Which is of course why France has the world's fastest growing economy. And where did the USSR enter into the conversation, other than as a strawman for you to attack?
As if we needed any more examples of the rampant excesses that the supposed "free" market has bought us in the last century (and before, as the comment about the East India Company points out).
Time and time again, we see that corporations become large enough to strangle anything even resembling free trade, and that without a strong government to regulate them, a corporate dictatorship ensues, in which a coporations control over vital commodities gives them immense power over the lives of the proletariat.
I was pleased when I saw that the DOJ had finally moved to block the excesses of Microsoft's reign of terror over the computing industry, but in this new regime Gates and co have friends in the highest of places, all to willing to let "market forces" and the "invisible hand" determine the future.
Let me tell you, the invisible hand will bloody its knuckles against the hard rock of Microsoft's monopoly, to no effect.
Only by ensuring the market is tamed by regulations and a strong government can these kinds of abuses be tamed. A free market is not an unregulated libertarian paradise, for the only freedom that gives is the freedom to abuse. In an unregulated market, it is simply a race to gain the greatest market share, followed by a systematic procession to monopoly and corporate domination.
US corporations are famous for their abuses of power, especially against countries that cannot afford the resources necessary to combat them. And with corporate frontmen like Bush in charge, you can expect to see more government operations designed to allow US corporations to "increase profitability" through the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.
The DOJ lawyers start congratulating one another as they leave the crypt. Suddenly, the cold pale hand of the "undying one" grips one on the shoulder. Never confuse Jobe's Tree Spikes with the wooden dracula killing kind.
In other news: Napal Ragecide Blamed on "Cl4n W4rz"
Microsoft is an economic entity & must be fought that way.
Help us create demand for open-source'd products.
If markets demand open-source than companies must comply.
http://opensourcedirectory.org
I'm sorry, but you're obviously so far under the burden of your own myopia that, like the fish in the sea, you cannot know that what surrounds you is water until you are out of it.....
Simply put, your corp--or any other, for that matter--IS a legal fiction, and CANNOT exist without the government to PROTECT it through COERCIVE FORCE. You would-be (and real) anarcho-capitalists make me puke--pretending you can live without Government to protect your gold-inlaid faucets and your stock portfolios.
"the reason 40000 children die of starvation each day is they're too poor to afford their Volvo because of their government, but that's too bad because I've got mine, living free in my gated community, so all is right with the world, now if we could only eliminate *our* government, to let the Market decide the best for all of us."
Please try not to be so empty-headed and fascist as to believe the system you embrace in your little way is alright because you're not personally pouring arsenic into the water table.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
While I agree with your view that Katz points the finger at the wrong suspect, your premise that government and the corporate system are separate is simply silly.
Corporations ARE government, and have been at least since Ike warned of the Military-Industrial Complex (really long before that). If you honestly believe your precious tax dollars aren't being used to float the boat of corps such as Raytheon, Lockheed, etc., then you're living in a Randian capitalist fantasy.
Anti-capitalism = anti-government, just ask any anarchist.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
Jon, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious, but your lament falls short of placing the blame where it really exists: the System Itself.
The giants you mention--Microsoft, Disney, AOL--and the literally thousands you neglected are only doing what they were desigined to do: create profit for a few without concern for the Whole. Corporations are the greatest creation for social and economic control ever created, and their success at manipulating governments (which isn't difficult, as they are little tyrannies in their own right) has only increased over the last 100 years as their powers have expanded. They are doing what they were designed to do.
The real question is: what do you do to reverse the trend? If corporations are the problem--which they are; one doesn't need the remedial Business Ethics class to see that (which is something most MBAs blissfully ignore, anyway)--then they should be removed. But are you going to do that? Aren't you wringing your hands in public for PAY from one of these evil monstrosities?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
We are indeed talking about an arogant corporation which tends to impose its view of the world to others.
What about westerners arrogance ?
No they'd make money from it. Didn't you see the latest announcement about ActiveDeath on the Xbox?
Steve Ballmer is just as much a puppet to Bill Gates as George DuhBya is a puppet to his father, Dick "Chainy", their "oil buddies", and the Christian Coalition.
I personally do not think that Steve's control is really his own. I think Bill still controls it from behind the scenes.
I maybe wrong, but this is my opinion.
~GreatOak
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Discontinuing official support isn't going to do it, either. With a large enough market to support others will step in, and do. The only option left is for Microsoft to offer something essential, which business can't live without, alas, 10-15% of all features is about all anyone uses and they're happy with that. It's all been done. Now the beast of Redmond will begin to collapse under its own weight. The new strategy, of Microsoft licensing the software per annum will generate some revenue, but if that were to cost us $100,000 a year we'll be saying, thanks, but we'll just stick with Office 97. Without enough revenue to support the staff, Microsoft will finally restructure, perhaps yielding the opportunity competitors and OS should be in place for.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I was telling my loved ones in the Peuget Sound area to get the fuck out before the implosion hit when I saw the Mandrake install. Mandrake is a particularly good example for Mr. Katz to contemplate because it's coming from another continent and another country. MS has amazing global penetration when you compare them to something like autos, but software is not car sales. I've seen plenty of Linux action outside the States and major resentment against MS among other US companies. There's already been distros from Taiwan and you know there's going to be more as we --I just got my marriage visa, so I'm an offical part of this lovely island now too I suppose-- enter mainland China with the goods that companys like AMD and Intel don't even want to get their hands dirty with because they're too low-end.
Well, in case you can't see the light here I'll spell it out. The Taiwan computing industry has publicly stated over and over in the media that their intention is to drop the bottom out of the traditional PC market in order to force mainland penetration.
Rather sexual metaphor eh? Well, like I said, I'm in love with the place. But personal life aside, you get the picture. This mainland China/India strategy is no secret. Stories about Via's plans to go low have been on slashdot repeatedly. And then there was that Anandtech.net piece on nVidia's new ultra all-in-one Xbox knock-off chipsets. Sure, those aren't going to be cheap per unit right off the bat, but they're clearly meant for volume production in a commodified market as the boards simply don't need cards.
So with all these clues that globally PCs are going for cost controls at all costs, how can anyone be so confident that MS is going to be the dominant player in software? I mean even if MS bundled Office and the OS for two hundred --I think OfficeXP is almost five hundred all by itself-- it's not making much sense as PCs enter the sub-three hundred dollar zone.
I thought the opposite of Katz. I must confess, I had no idea MS stock was up so high. I thought things were falling apart. Oh well, it's just a matter of time. Maybe it's a long time, but I seriously think the glory days done gone by for this ol' dog.
However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
before colonisation, india was a trading hub of asia. the colonisers destroyed local industries, breaking the hands of those who dared work there, to stop them from competing with british companies. thats why gandhi asked indians to stop buying british clothes, salt, etc, and start making their own again
taxation was nothing new either. indian kings used to do it too. do you even know how old taxation is?
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
Bullshit. Microsoft will die computers and the web die. I happen to believe that this isn't going to be in my lifetime. Even though the average corporation may die in 40 years, who the hell thinks Microsoft is "average"?
I'm not a big Microsoft hater. As long as the basics of computing (x86 architecture, protocols for information transfer, etc.) remain open and knowable to the general public, I know that Linux will continue to exist...and that's all I need to be happy.
However, with the crap that Microsoft has been saying about Linux lately, I don't know if I can count on that anymore. Maybe I'm paranoid. Or maybe I'm looking at the history of Microsoft, the things they've been saying recently to the effect of Linux = disease, and making a reasonable extrapolation on what the future will be like.
I'm beginning to think that the answer to the question "where do you want to go today?" is going to be (or already is) "wherever the hell we say you're going!"
this reminds me of the book SnowCrash by Neal Stephenson. L. Bob Rife = Bill Gates
life, the universe and everything? = 42
Linking to a site that tells what a company has planned doesn't mean much.
Unless you're responding to someone who says that said company has no plans to do that very thing. The original article said "ms has no plans to develop for this hardware at this time." and t this person said "umm.. yea they do."
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
While MS does have a lot of influence in computer markets, it is foolish at best to assume that they are more powerful than the government. In fact, as companies go, there are certainly other companies that have more power and influence.
In computing, Microsoft certainly has some hefty competitors. Take IBM. While its market cap of ~$200B is less than Microsoft's market cap of ~$378B, it continues to dominate large sectors of computing. And at $21B, its revenues are certainly larger than Micorosft's revenues of $18B.
Looking outside of Microsoft, we can see that other companies are not to be ignored. GM, with a market cap of $32B and revenues of $42B, and Exxon Mobil, with a market cap of $306B and revenues of $57B, have a much larger day-to-day effect on people's lives than Microsoft.
Microsoft is just a company and not a world domination plot. IBM, GM, and Exxon Mobil are just companies and not world domination plots. They do bad things and they do good things. Microsoft is not the worst evil in the world by far.
JonKatz's diatribe is ranting and lacking substance.
--Sam
Hmmmm.
West Germany on one side, East German on the other. The same people, with the same social background, the same social mores, the same education levels. Practically a controlled scientific experiment:
On one side, communism.
On the other, the free market.
On one side, misery and tyranny.
On the other, a land of plenty and progress.
I rest my case.
C//
p.s. paraphrasing Milton Friedman
-Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Before you get crazy, I'm not suggesting that everyone who dropped a +1 Insightful is being paid to do so by Microsoft, and on the surface, the pro-MS, anti-paranoia arguments all make logical sense.
What I'm wondering is, if the general sentiment is just that, enough is enough, we've got Linux and *BSD as our alternatives, we've got our open standards that MS will never take away from us, let's drop this issue and move towards the future?
I can understand the frustration that comes when someone kicks a dead horse repeatedly for everyone else to see. But let's get real here -- if we're not going to act as a corporate watchdog on the geek level, who else is? The government? I wouldn't count on Dubya caring if your country's "thousands and hundreds of people" only have distributed access to MS. The industry? Microsoft IS the industry -- everything in the industry is either affected by their presence or noteworthy because of their absence. The average user? The average user cares if their hotmail is working and if they can get to e-bay and can play The Sims or whatever. They can do that out of the box with Microsoft -- don't expect them to care if we're only a year away from MSHTML.
Let's face it, we're on our own. For everybody out there who is saying "Hey, Microsoft isn't evil, Bill Gates is a pretty smart businessman", realize that you don't need to do this... the MS marketing machine is way ahead of you. What's scary isn't as much the initiatives of today -- it's what their initiatives of today will mean for their initiatives for tomorrow.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
I thought that when the court ruled against Microsoft, they would simply roll over and die. This resurrection truly is a miracle.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Microsoft is in no way the first "truly unaccountable" corporation. It's merely the 21st century equivalent of the Jay Gould/Rockefeller/Carnegie trusts at the turn of the last century. They're the ones that spawned the antitrust laws that are now being used (ineffectually) against Microsoft.
> Hey, I don't have a problem with using MS Office.
> They were the first to do it and they do it well.
I can only assume that you mean that MS was the first to do MS Office, because if you meant that they were the first to do an integrated office suite, you'd be wrong. Of course, they squashed Lotus out of existence (and AmiPro sucked anyway), but I don't really count that.
Virg
> And since IE is just a wrapper around that and the networking
> code, then how is that wrong?
It's not wrong to tie IE's components into the OS for use elsewhere, but that's not where the problem lies. The problem lies with the fact that in integrating the components of IE into the OS, they also made it prohibitively difficult to use them elsewhere. In this example, you state that IE is just a wrapper for the HTML viewer and networking code, which it now is (in simplitic terms). However, that means that a different wrapper for HTML viewer and network access (Netscape) can't be used in its place for most functions, because those components are not easily commandable from an external program. The only reason MS could do this is because they control the OS, which gives them the unfair ability to wall out competitors, and that's what's wrong.
Let me take the example of a simple application: the calculator. Microsoft includes a calculator application with Windows for free. On the surface, this seems to be the same as the Internet Explorer, but answer these questions.
1.) Does the calculator program destroy all other calculator applications when it installs?
2.) Does the calculator program use internal programming in the OS that other calculator programs can't access?
3.) Does uninstalling the calculator program cause Windows not to boot properly?
I think it becomes easy to see the difference when you look at it that way. The simple answer is that it would have been easy to embed the HTML rendering engine in IE and in Windows, or, more correctly, to make the HTML rendering engine a distinct component that can be (1) worked around by another program's engine, or (2) modular so other programs could hook into it and use it. Microsoft chose instead to make it as difficult as possible for anyone else to replace IE by knitting it into the OS. That's where they crossed the line, and if you think they did it just because of bad planning, you need to read up on what happened when they integrated Kerberos security. Or Java.
Virg
> Is your time free?
Time for what? Installing Linux? Configuring Linux? Let me ask you, did you install Windows on your current machine (and did it take some measure of time), or did you buy that machine with Windows already installed (which you can also do with Linux)?
> Is your bandwidth free?
Did you download MS Office XP off the web, or do you not realize that you can order StarOffice on CD from several companies for very few dollars? Also, if you're referring to Linux fixes, does Microsoft send you patches by mail, or do you get them from the update site? Did that bandwidth cost not count?
> And are you fine waiting for fixes for features that don't exactly work?
Are we talking about Linux patches here, or MS Service Packs?
Virg
> The best, most powerful, candidate survives. If office or windows
> did not serve the needs of the business community - it would fail.
> If it suits the needs of the business community, it thrives and pushes
> its competitors out of the market. Have you thought, just for a microsecond,
> that instead of always bullying people out of business, microsoft actually
> makes, what the majority of corporate users consider, a superior product?
> Wether or not you consider it a superior product is irrelevant. The business
> end-user community has practically standardized. There is nothing better
> out there for the generic, end-user market right now.
Very well said, but I disagree with your point, and didn't even need a microsecond to think about it. First, you consider "best" and "most powerful" to be synonymous, and in this case, they weren't. In virtually every case (excepting Windows 3.1, which beat out its competitors right off), Microsoft put out a weaker product and then leveraged its advantages over competitors to force them out (recall the now-infamous "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" t-shirts). It's true that the Microsoft products overtook their competitors, but hills of documentation were presented in the trial that this could not have happened if MS hadn't actively submarined its competitors' products by manipulating the OS underneath it, and the market. The reason WordPerfect stopped getting better is because MS made it so that WordPerfect Corp. and then Corel had to spend so much energy dealing with the undocumented additions to the OS that it became unprofitable to continue innovating the product. In brief, you're right that there's nothing better out there for the end-user any more, but you're wrong to assume that would be the case if MS hadn't been able to control the OS, and that's why we're bashing Microsoft about their new initiatives today.
> Just in case your wondering, I admit MS has some pretty nasty tricks
> up its sleeve when it comes to business practices. But nobody ever
> said the world was a nice place to live.
We're way beyond "nice" by this point, which is again why we're so anti-MS. When the company presented a forged videotape of performance issues within Windows, someone should have gone to jail for perjury, and someone working for a company with less money and influence would have done so. More recently, Steve Ballmer himself, whom I've heard is a rather intelligent man, can't seem to understand that Linux and the GPL aren't the same thing, since he uses them interchangeably in discussions, but I suspect it's more likely he knows full well and says the things he does to add to the open source confusion. Like I said, we're way past "nice" by now.
Virg
Is MSFT the most profitable corporation in the world? If not, who is? Is it some drug company? Some oil company? I ask because profits=evil. Money is the root of all evil, right?
Children, remember, there are no stupid questions - only stupid people.
I think the concern is the .NET platform and it's implications to the unknowning corporate consumer.
Children, remember, there are no stupid questions - only stupid people.
So, define love...
Children, remember, there are no stupid questions - only stupid people.
Garlic... he liked it
Holy Water... no effect
Silver bullet... minor flesh wound
Wooden stake...Laughed, killed my henchmen, created zombies, and sent them back to the village
All right, where do I get a crossbow bolt blessed by a priest... or do I need cold iron? I really hate these unique ones.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Microsoft is running a new PR campaign. It consists of articles appearing all over, complete with pics of a smug, smiling Gates. Investors are supposed to come away thinking their money is safe in a strong, secure Microsoft. Enemies are supposed to tremble in fear of the indestructable juggernaut. The masses are supposed to see MS as their only choice -- for everything. And Slashdot, YOU FELL FOR IT!
;). Expect some bloody chunks of the "Great Devil's" market share to come fluttering down next year. ;)
.Net is also getting linked with subscription software, which people don't like. .Net assumes broadband is the standard, but with DSL providers in trouble, dialup is much more the real world standard. Also, there is that nagging security issue with MS's servers. Do you really want to trust your credity card info, online identity, and all your data to MS's servers?
The only area in which MS has a true monopoly is on the desktop. MS is so smug in that area that they are planning to put out an ugly OS upgrade full of features that people would pay to not have. The strongest alternative is Apple's new OS X, still drying its wings while waiting for all the drivers and apps to be finished (but just look at those spiffy new wing blades!
.Net is a server strategy. MS holds 41% of the server OS market share. All the versions of UNIX (lead by Linux at 27%) add up to 40%. One percent difference does not a monopoly make. Apache holds 60% of the web server market. Given that, I'd say that UNIX and Open Source rule the web.
.Net has other problems. It will be ready in 2 or 3 years. J2EE is here today. In fact the nice folks from Apache have an open source J2EE application server.
Xbox: "Powered by Direct X". Don't make me laugh.
As for as the DOJ case, it would be nice if it actually resulted in the government punishing MS for its crimes. But it already served its purpose. For years, MS had to prop up the competition (bailing out Apple, and loosening its control of the OEMs which benefited Linux). Now its competition actually stands a chance of competing. Thanks to MS's insistance on entering a bunch of new markets, its competition now includes such heavyweights as IBM, Sun, and Sony.
Finally, MS's biggest problem: its customers. The sheep are getting miserable with so many razor cuts and burns. MS has dumped trash on its customers for years. Its OS's are not only flakey, but are getting more bratty by the day (no, I don't want to see a movie about how great ME isn't; no, I don't want info gathered about my system to ship off to parts unknown; no, I don't want XP running off with my desktop files). MS is treating their customers like criminals on the one hand (content protection, BSA witchhunts), but is ripping them off on the other hand (subscription software). What ever happened to "The Customer Is Always Right"?
If anything, MS's position today is weaker. It has not had this much competition in a long time. It does not have superior products, or superior anything -- except attitude. In a few years, with or without the antitrust case, it CAN be beaten. The only question is: will you people quit believing in MS's fictional victory long enough to beat them?
"There is something important to do, no matter how hard or painful."
-- Mothra Leo, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
The bigger the fall.
This statement might seems obvious and redundant, but take a look on what happened to large empires of the past.
Egypt, Romans, Great Britain, Nazist Germany, France...
They all built (or tried too do) large and powerfull empires, some of them endured for thousands of years, some of them for only a few. And I ask: Why did they fall ?
IMHO there's a few key reasons:
- Size: When and empire becomes too large (like the british empire, the largest one ever) it becomes hard to manage and to defend (in a military sense) which exposes it to internal and external atacks.
- Brutality: No one like a ruthless empire. Sooner or later other nations join forces to fight this empire. Even if individually they can't fight the opressor togheter they can. This is what happened with Nazi Germany and Napoleon.
- False sense of security: When you build a large and powerfull empire you might start to think that no one ever will dare to atack you, this can make you relax your defenses, exposing you to atacks. It's what happened with the roman empire.
As katz said "on the Net, a year might as well be a century. ". So give the Net a year, and we may see this "Microsoft Empire" crumbling appart.
--
What ? Me, worry ?
This is, I'm sorry to say, terribly naive.
First of all, Gates and Ballmer own almost a billion (1000000000) shares of MSFT between them. We'd all have to buy several shares, and some for our kids and pets too, to match them.
Second, once you've owned stock in a company, you'll find out something unpleasant about yourself: when it's YOUR company that the environmental/diversity/free speech/antitobacco/whatever freaks start targetting for action, it's pretty hard to remember who the good guys are. Which is to say, don't count on the other 4 billion shares jumping on the bandwagon with you when you start explaining what a problem it is that Microsoft is kicking everybody's ass. You'll find yourself with mighty few friends at those stockholders meetings your planning to attend.
Is it about time for somebody to ring up Eric Raymond and see if he's figured out where he miscalculated? As I recall, it was his considered opinion that Microsoft would be starting to fold under its own weight just about now.
And on a related note, those of us (yes, I include myself) who have not always been kind in our thoughts toward Richard Stallman might want take a reality check. Over the years, he has pointed the free software community in the right direction when more personable, more optimistic, more...uh, opportunistic spokesmen have mis-stepped. The longer this whole commercial software thing plays out, the more the GPL and Free Software look like the best hope we all have to retain a lot of freedoms...freedoms that computer geeks like us consider basic.
Bull.
While Office is pretty good what is worrying is the fact that Company A makes an innovative Product. Microsoft liked it, embraces, extends and slightly changes certain things, copyrights the changes and make that a standard hence getting an idea for free, locking the original developer out.
Just a reminder to all :
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The fact that they are actually good at it just makes it sting more!
Katz' ranting case of paranoia seems to indicate a hidden wish for his own pool of sticky, self-replicating, corporate slime.
42
You know why Microsoft has a monopoly? For one thing, they dont' have a superior product. And in my opinion Microsoft software is just as easy to use as Mandrake 8 (which rox). And with guys like Loki software there really isn't a reason anymore to keep that windows dual boot. So how is microsoft controlling the net?
Marketing. Microsoft advertises their product. They have a big name that almost everyone in the world recognizes. Nobody but us nerds and geeks realize that we can get everything free. And the main thing that keeps open source down, is that in order to use it you need to understand source code. However taking microsoft out would be fairly simple. What do we need?
Television commercials. We know the world is full of stupid people. They are stupid because they do what the television tells them to. They do things because they are trendy and they want to fit in with the crowd. If everyone was intelligent and did things they actually liked instead of just trendy things, then no corporation would be able to make profit. If everyone listened to music they LIKED instead of music MTV told them to like, then the record industry would have to sell so many different bands and so many different CDs. And a fairly equal number of each would be bought. But the cost of producing all those different CDs would ruin them. So they make people like shitty Boy Bands by using TV, then They make a billion NSUCK Cds and make a zillion dollars.
In order to have Linux take over the world just make television commercials. YOu will have to have lots of commercials. Especially Super Bowl commercials. It will cost lots of money we don't have. But if we make them they will come. The commercials have to show flashy screenshots of different desktop environments showing that Linux is as easy to use as Windows. We will have to drive home the point of free software. We will have to show people they can do just as much with linux as with windows. We have to throw dirt at microsoft about invading privacy of users. We will have to tell people that there are a lot of people using Linux out there, and they aren't paying money for software, why are you? Then the idiots will switch to linux, because of money. The one thing everyone understands.
Windows - 100$
Linux - 0$
Microsoft Office - 500$
Star Office - 0$
Adobe Photoshop - G-d knows how many$
The Gimp - 0$
Borland C++ Builder - I don't want to know$
Visual Studio - 1000$ I think
gcc, JDK, KBasic - all 0$
Not having Microsoft invade my privacy - priceless.
Yeah the mastercard thing is old. But it really helps you drive home stuff.
I think the best way to start is if Sun put commercials saying this.
Microsoft Office XP just came out, and upgrading to it will cost you 100s of dollars. Instead go to sun.com and get Star Office for free. It is every bit as good, and did we mention that everyone in the world can download it for free, with no tricks whatsoever? Bill Gates doesn't need your money.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Using "real" and "well-respected" in the same sentence, while referencing "news agency" is something of an oxymoron. Show me one "respectable" news agency in the US (besides maybe FAIR)and I can find several creditable refereces that will say that the chosen news source is unfair, biased or just flatout lies. Besides, Editorials are supposed to be opinions, articles are (theoretically) fact based.
Also, we've historically failed to present a united effort. We are fragment, by the very fact that the individuals will work on what interests them, not what is needed for the "greater good" of dominating the market with the free software.
You see this coming out of organizations such as the Free Software Foundation. In this case, the Debian distribution avoids all installation interfaces needed for non technical users. This means that the Debian distribution, without external help, will never be as user friendly as Microsoft. They will never make it to the desktop without help from an external entity, and that external entity can never achieve the marketing and development power that Microsoft has without paying for it. Debian is then dead ended on the desktop, period. All that Cathedral and Bazaar stuff goes out the door.
This previous example is true ecause lot of the open source proponents live off funds they get elsewhere, i.e., parents, research grants, etc. Programmers need to eat and a place to live. The programmer needs to be paid. If you don't pay money for the software, the programmer can't get paid and goes elsewhere. We just saw this happen with a few Linux companies that recently died. Those companies didn't make enough money to pay their programmers and they needed to get paid. When the money wasn't coming in, the companies folded and they lost their jobs. Simple economics.
Sorry folks, but I've been pushing open source inside a major corporation for five years now. We support it, but it will probably never replace our internally developed software because the open source stuff simply does not approach what we get when we pay for it.
No. We have another solution which works identically.
Wanna see MS go down? Do a better job than they do. Write compelling software that changes how people live their lives. Provide an app. that folks can't live without. No matter how much money MS has, no matter how powerfull they (seemingly) become, their weakness, any company's weakness, is Intelectual Property.
'If life was fair, birds wouldn't eat worms.' Folks need to stop whining about MS and start
changing the world. Open Source IS the weapon,
use it!
Above comment is personal opinion. Poster is not a spokesperson.
Sorry, but there is a big difference in providing services and enslaving people on entitlements. It also is ludicrous to expect people for fork over nearly 1/2 of what they earn to the government.
There is no such thing as home ownership or even any ownership. Its a freaking myth. do you not see the problem with this. When you lose freedom in the physical world you will soon lose it in the intellectual world.
I do know what communism is, I also know how it was twisted by a "Government" to fit its need. Governments no longer serve people, they serve politicians and intrest groups first.
As for France, gee, I have yet to read that startling claim. Guess the economies of a few other countries got in the way.
France is no threat to anyone but themselves, the people are great, their government stinks. Then again that works for here to.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The difference between microsoft and the USSR planned central economy is that thousands of linux programmers won't be taken into the woods and shot in the head for speaking out about a different and better world.
They can try and shove it down my throat, but I can damn well choose another option.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The issue here is that Jon seems to imply that the corporate world is more evil, and that Microsoft will actually win out.
/. majority audience. Nothing like ranting against eveeel Microsoft to score some karma.
I read about all the wonderful tax breaks corporations get (I think corporate income tax should be abolished - did you know GMs tax return was 56ft tall if stacked? - people would then get an idea of just how high their tax burden really is)
Corporations modify governments, they don't control them. Because as anyone knows, the politicians in office hold the purse strings and have their fingers on the trigger.
But Jon is far far off base here, he is simply playing to
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Why is that you twits never bitch about the fact that government tax the piss out of you yet bitch and moan about some evil corporation.
Don't buy their product and the corp ain't really going to care. Don't buy into the government line, or send them your tax money and your in jail
HELLO. Slight screw up in priorities mr. commie
BTW - free market is millions and millions times better than the crap that tanked the former Soviet. (let alone the crap tanking Europeans now - socialist governments are expensive and stifling)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Tell me Jon, which one of these takes my money by gunpoint?
Lets see, Bill Gates is a man, most if not all of MS employees are human beings. Versus the USA I don't think they have a chance in hell, do you?
If you want something legitimate to moan about, then moan about oppressive governments that take a third or more of peoples income and gives them little or no choice in how its used.
Its anti-capitialist like you that forever put us under the heels of oppressive governments by painting corporations as evil so as to distract the common populace.
Let me guess, your in league with the idiot newscasters who go around spouting 53% profit increases at oil companies without explaining that that really means they went from 4.8 cents on the dollar to 6.9 cents (which is still lower than most other companies in other fields).
Spread fear, doom and gloom, the corporate state will kill and enslave you all, only the nice gentle, caring, and lovable government can save you, your children, and your neutered dog Fluffy
GACK
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And this seems to be the difference between a real, well-respected news agency and Slashdot. The people who work as professional journalists write articles of substance, including opinions from professionals in each area he addresses and objective reporting of the facts. An occasional personal opinion is appropriate in most circumstances. But a drawn-out rant that sounds like it was written by a religious zealot attempting to incite a Holy War completely turns me off. If this kind of thing keeps getting posted as "news", I will find another place to turn for updates on the technical world around me.
Slashdot has a level of popularity at this point that I think it's time that it lets some of its editors go, and start accepting resume's for more qualified individuals to write its editorials.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
Exactly. I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I'm taking my Mac and moving out of the country...
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
If you can't beat them, then join them.
The funny thing is; weren't the India-ns made into virtual slaves of that company? That company controled all facets of life - what they did controlled the people in direct and indirect ways.
They had a ban on making salt, we've all seen the movie Ghandi right?
p.s. MS provides none of those things you mention - and (!) you missed the whole point. Companies can lobby, they can buy votes and laws. But at the heart of your mind fart - MS *WAS* found that they are doing things not so legally - face it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Microsoft is horribly evil and their products suck. I conceed this point. I think they may have even broken, or at least stretched, the law a few times.
Point 2: I work at a hotel (in Vail...I prefer QOL over Quality of Job). We use UNIX for most of are stuff, because the software we, and 98% of all hotels, need to run to function runs on UNIX. Most user computers are Windows machines...crappy ones. They are used for email, web and Word Processing. But mostly they are just fancy telnet clients.
Like many, many companies and industries that do real enterprise computing we need serious computers that don't crash for the server. Running serious database software. There is essentially no way that microsoft will ever convince hotels, banks, wal-mart, Kroger, safeway, hertz, American Airlines, SABRE, aol, earthlink, DirectTV, blockbuster, etc to switch to an NT server. I doubt they could trick any software developers to making the enterprise software for NT. This is our safety net. As long as the server space is worth millions, and the cost of changing to high, and the old stuff too valuable...Microsoft will never have control over anything but the consumer. Yes we should be paranoid, because Microsoft is paranoid, that's how they succeed. But lets not conceed defeat, keep on fighting, and remember that the enterprise is ours. (us being the UNIX world...if you think us ought to be free-software...how the hell can something free lose? The price is right...)
---
---
"Against stupidity the very god themselves contend in vain" -Johann Schiller
Although you had the continents uixed mp, I stood by your words. I saw "Anna & The King" ... That East India Trading Company guy with the big mustache was creepy! He just looked evil! Just like Bill Gates! Perhaps Microsoft was behind the Yugoslav conflict somehow, like the East India Trading Company was behind that whole Siam thing in the movie. Hmm, I wonder...
--He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!--
Oh, users are stupid and don't know better than to use Microsoft software? Well, then Free Software programmers are better off going away and creating an objectivist community somewhere in the mountains and just leaving society to its own stupidity. Don't delay, go now!
Or, maybe, most Free Software isn't worth the bits its magnetized on. For every Apache and gcc there's 10,000 useless Perl scripts or window managers that seem to have been written by (infinity - 1) monkeys.
And then there's the problem of Free Software not innovating. Its all well and good for Slashdot users to snicker at Microsoft for its overuse of the word innovation, but can anyone name any really innovative Free Software? In my experience 99.99% of all Free Software projects are poorly written clones of existing commercial products.
Thats it. Im joining the army.
I'm a minimalist. I only want one productivity suite running on one OS with one browser and have one computer language, one way of developing, and one unique way of designing programs. Hey! Look at the rainbow of pretty colors!
"Its not like their pointing a gun at us... or are they?"
:) (the one that used be around for some weeks where mundie attacked the GPL...)
And what's with the mundie speech?
But I donnot see why both sides (Free)OpenSource & Microsoft cannot simply concentrante on making good products as they're both supposed to do, but hack on each other...
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
12 years ago, peaceful, pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square were crushed beneath the tanks of the People's Liberation Army.
Hundreds, possibly as many as a thousand people were killed in Tiananmen Square.
Even today, dissidents are "disappeared" by the Chinese government.
It was not Steve Jobs who went to China and embraced the Butchers of Bejing.
It was not Linus Torvalds who publicaly shook the bloodied hands of Deng XaoPing, the man who gave the order that launched the masscre in Tiananmen Square.
It was Bill Gates who went to China. And it was Bill Gates who said that buisness practices and human rights should have no connection to one another.
This is why I have NO MS code whatsoever on my Macs.
This is why I spend far too much time and money to not buy products made in China. And if I MUST buy something made in China, I atone by donating an equal amont of money to pro-democracy and human rights for China organizations.
Bill Gates IS evil.
He has embraced evil men and called them partners. His business practices are evil.
How any person of conscience can buy MS products or own MS stock mystifies me.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
I generally agree with Katz, but this article doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
He and his company are about to launch one of the most ambitious campaigns in the history of business, one that should leave him firmly in control of the digital universe.
Katz continues in this same manner for several paragraphs, preaching how Microsoft will dominate the world very soon, but he never gives any solid reasons why. What is this "most ambitious campaigns in the history of business" that is going to cement MS is a permanent world power? Why is it so different from anything else they've been doing for the last decade?
"The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
One has to wonder which would be more insulting - the notion that Indian culture was worthless and backwards and needed to be subjucated by some western company, or the inability to distinguish between Africa and India.
I deserved that. It seems I need to remove the plank from my own eye.
Nope, no sig
However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
I thought you were being sarcastic as I started reading this, but after finishing your whole post I think you mean it. The cultural imperialism you have just displayed is astonishing. Those lands weren't primitive. Many African cultures had longer, richer histories than all of western society -- I intentionally didn't use the word "civilization" there. The African cultures were described as primitive simply because they were different from that of the invading armies.
I won't bother to expand on your assumption that introducing taxation was a self-evident improvement, other than to point out that the people suddenly forced to pay the taxes to their new colonial "masters" would probably not have agreed with the assumption.
Nope, no sig
Dr. Evil: Uhhhh....right....
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
If you have low and flowed standards you're comparing to then your own inventions and progress is the reflection of that as well. I would rather follow the most excelent standards and make sure that the next generation of software is at least as good. So, I'm not impressed with the M$ comeback, because it's not really a comeback, but the continuation of the same shamefull desire for more profits. However, Microsoft is also the reflection of our own everage-Joe mentality in computing: even though there maybe better solutions than Windows, a lot of people will stay with the everage because they feel comfortable in what they already know and anything new is a challange requiring work and learning. Which again doesn't stop me from progressing, so let those people who are slaves to M$ earn 20-30k less than I'm making in Linux. Hard work is rewarded, don't fear BigBillG...., every bubble can burst.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
Typical from Katz... long on panic, short on content.
Sigh. This could have been an informative article.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
*Right*!
Because Unix doesn't have *any* security holes in it that needs to be patch, after all.
I mean, the BIND's exploit was just MS FUD, because Unix is *so* secure.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
You seem to forget that while the company's headquarters was in England, their powersource was far from there.
If it was on the same place, it might have been a different story.
As it was, the company *had* to disband. The goverment had more power than the company did *on England*, and that is where the stock owner and all those people who made important decisions sat.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Where did you find this information?
Can I have a link?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Sometime, OSS developer might get tired of playing catch-up, you know.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
No, that would be stuff that shivers.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
> NT = Well i guess the fact that they dropped it means a lot. No ownership system, bad memory management. Hell, a single NT server with 256 ram needs to be restarted each month or so, expect if you have their super last 'service patch pack'.
Dropped it?
Win2K & XP mean nothing to you, I guess.
NT is going forward full force.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Well, OpenGL is *much* simpler than DirectX to learn with.
I understand that it's usually *easier* to learn OpenGL, and only then move to DirectX, because by then you've grasped the concepts of 3D.
My major point against OpenGL is that it's slow on my machine.
I've a 1.2Ghz & Voodoo 5, and the moment I'm trying to do something nice in OpenGL, it's start to crawl.
(Before the flames begin, I believe it's the OS that is to be blamed here, I'm running XP beta, and it's entirely possible that this is the reason. I know that they've taken out DirectX support from another build. So it's not impossible that they did something to OpenGl as well.)
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Actually, I was being sarcastic, not trolling.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Sure, I would like nothing than open my bank account to MS and have them dig into it with a big shovel.
Hi, wait a minute...
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Hit submit instead of preview, sorry.
That was supposed to be:
Sure, I would like nothing more than open my account to MS and have them dig into it with a very big shovel.
Hi, wait a minute... they... already... do.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
the day is coming when microsoft will fall behind.
there was the bluetooth incident. ms decided that it wasn't an important technology. they have since changed their mind, but the time will come when they will change their mind and it will be too late.
there is the 64 bit processor issue. no ms os runs on a 64 bit processor and ms has no plans to develop for this hardware at this time. there was an article in the most recent issue of sm@rt partner where microsoft said that there wouldn't be any consumer demand for the chip. as soon as comsumers realize that unless you only use word and outlook there are probably benefits to having a better processor, ms will be behind again.
there is the justice department. the anti-trust case is far from settled, but it could have quite a few ramifications for microsoft and the technology business in general.
Bored with your projects?
Try Einsteinium
Contrary to the article's implications, the current CEO of Microsoft is Steve Ballamer. See his webpage
Bill Gates is the Chief Software Architect and chairman of the board. See Bill's page
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
More like 'Rollerball'. Norman Jewison was asked why 'Rollerball' didn't do well at the boxoffice when it was released in the early seventies. His reply was that he thought most people didn't believe that corporations could rule the world. I wonder how it will play now, with the re-make coming out in a couple of months. I just hope McTeiran doesn't butcher Jewison's original vision.
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
>made moot by a little agility on Microsoft's
>part coupled with a tremendous amount of cash.
And this is definitely one thing MS definitely does have - 24 billion in cash and cash equivalents, according to their 2000 Annual Report:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar.htm
There's no $$$ in 'team'...
www..--..net - for incisive, w
People, this user has been trolling unashamedly for some time now on slashdot. Ignore him/her. I've stopped even reading his/her posts (they're always so tempting to reply to).
while i can appreciate katz's paranoia, i really don't think we will have all that much to worry about
as soon as people realize taht they can't do things like make their own music compliation cd's wtih windows XP because it's been disabled in the operating system itself they will be quick to find alternatives
same with the rest of the XP line up.. no one wants to pay for an application that only lets you write ONE paper or balance yoru check book ONE time
trying to implement the purely american single-serving one size fits all ideals to operating systems while catering(pandering?) to their various lobbyists and under the table backers doesn't help the rest of the population
the real test will be what the major OEM's do when their customers start petitioning that they were sold crippled machines without their knowledge or consent..
A free market is partly defined by a fully informed consumer. Most people are ignorant of the products they purchase, they do it based on it being marketed to them.
I disagree. You won't find those drivers for Linux because Microsoft can lean on the hardware companies, making it very difficult for many of them (especially the more specialised ones) to supply Linux drivers and stay in business. You won't find a lot of software for Linux for the much the same reason.
In other words, a large part of the reason why there is so little available for Linux is because of Microsoft's monopoly. So far from proving your point, this example actually proves the opposite!
But that's just my opinion!
Corporations are more powerful than government if at least one government is too weak to stand up to them. Today the supremely weak government is the US administration. No country can afford to stand up to their local corporations because the corporations just threaten to move their business and capital elsewhere. Naturally business types are quick to defend their right to do so in the name of capitalism and globalisation. The governments of the world need to get together to draft strong global control of corporations.
Those cultures had public schools (even though you might not consider them as such because they were different to your notion of 'school') and Europeans were not exactly strong on educating anyone other than upper class males. Codes of Law
They certainly did have codes of law. Again perhaps different to your notion of this concept.
They had no need for agriculture and therefore did not develop it.
Both Africa and India had advanced cultures.
Your reference to tribal warfare merely demonstrates your ignorance of the mess and chaos created, then left behind, by the colonists. This is directly responsible for pretty much all the conflict on the continent.
And let's not forget that European and American corporations continue to inflame for their own gain the tensions left behind by colonialism - they provide weapons, encouraging as much torture and murder as possible so they can rape the countries with impunity - they do not want the wars to end - how will they ever get away with stealing all those natural resources if that happens?
Ok ... now that I have your attention.
... not malevolent, just without morals (as most big companies are). I believe that they engage in immoral (and illegal by my understanding of the law, which is not as great as my understanding of code) behavior. I believe that they write code that is stunted, and do not build a better product, but use marketing to cut out their niche.
Disclaimer: I dislike using microsofts software. I am a strong linux advocate. I think that microsoft is amoral
That said. Mr. Katz, please stay off of my side of an argument. Did you go into theaters and scream fire as a small child? Do you get a kick out of encouraging the fanatics in a group? Do you hang out with pagans and declare that the christians are eating their babies? What is the motivation for this drivel?
You were doing so well for a while, containing your melodramatic urges. You sounded (almost) sane. Did you forget your medication?
-CrackElf.
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Because, I can't... And although Bill Gates has turned to the Dark Side, some (builder-refused) Jedi will destroy the Emperor(P. Allen) and turn Gates back. Meanwhile, the Ewoks(that's you linux people(cute, I know)),are so close to destroying the shield generator. Keep it up. Look for some support to be comming soon.
You know the Microsoft destroys the night, Linux devides the day...
Myth: Global warming=myth. There has been no SCIENTIFIC REPEATABLE study or data that supports that eroneous conclusion that the planet Earth is gradually or rapidly warming any more than it has done so in the past millenium. Unfortunately, even though computer science major's have the name science in their major, they fail to have any education regarding the actual practice of science and what it takes to make a study/data that is believable.
1)we have only had extremely accurate temperature measurements (and i say extremely accurate since the "global warming" that is supposedly occuring is in fractions of degrees celcius) for the last 100 some years. Can you make a projection of future temperatures that show the average temperature has moved up some in the last 100 years? Not hardly when you consider that the Earth ecological cycles have been demonstrated to move in patterns of decades, centuries and even milliniums.
2)Man's contribuition to environmental warming is miniscule when compared to the amount that happens NATURALLY. When lightning strikes, and you smell ozone, well guess what, thats the stuff they say we are destroying. Guess what also, jets produce ozone as they fly. Some will argue that oH that ozone is trapped to low to be useful which is complete BS (barbara streisand :) ) and this argument has been proved false many times. One volcanic eruption sends out enough polutants in the air that destroy more ozone than the WHOLE world wide man-destroyed amounts of ozone in more than one year! (Liberal activists will be quick to claim that this isn't true and I'm only saying it because Rush limbaugh had said it. They will fail though when asked to refute it factually.
To summarize: there are no accurate records of temperature far enough back, 2)existing studies have not been corroborated or have significant flaws in the study so as to discredit them. 3)the major methods of ozone destruction currently and throughout history dwarf man's contribuition so as to throw their whole theories into a bad light.
you are either a fucking liar....or youve been running windows less than a few weeks to NEVER have a crash.you reinstall every day?dont get me wrong i use windows for things i need windows for and all my kids computers run win 98(thy are 3 and 5 and not unix wizzards yet),and i run linux the rest of the time.i also have decent hardware and ive had linux crash bfore,so i find your claim of windows never crashing quite unbelivable
Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom. But sharing data is the first step toward community
The games would be on whatever the most popular OS is at the time. Unless Linux can get 100% compatible with Window's based games, I don't see people switching en mass
God spoke to me
This is silly! Microsoft only makes money insofar as it makes a product that millions of people are willing to pay for! When somebody else does a better job, Microsoft won't be around for you to bitch about. Also, Learn to "zpell" (i.e. "Capitalizm")
Please, PLEASE ask yourself the following two questions before accidentally posting the result of your next paranoia trip. "Is this NEWS for nerds?" "Does this matter?" Any article posted should be a yes anwer to BOTH questions, though on a slow news day, maybe one is good enough. But THIS, THIS was a huge and resounding NO to both. It really makes /. look bad when the article posters are either borderline nuts or the biggest trolls/flamers on the entire site. Seriously, this sort of thing makes the Linux community LOOK like a bunch of loonies. It that what we want? We should make that a poll, I'm not honestly sure. I know that I certainly don't. But maybe the majority don't care. I'd really like to know. How many people think that this sort of nonsense is funny and entertaining, and how many think it's demeaning and stunting (by whatever amount) the growth and acceptance of Linux as a serious alternative to Windows?
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
What you're suggesting flies in the face of "one man, one vote." Last I heard, "land mass" has nothing to do with voting population. Yes, Bush won vast stretches of relatively unpopulated land which looks very compelling on a map plot.
But what is more compelling are the numbers. More individual people voted for Gore and for Democratic senators. That fact is undeniable, regardless of how you want to rationalize it by claiming that more "land mass" voted for Bush. Land mass doesn't vote. People do. And more people voted for Gore.
If you count land mass, then maybe 70% of the US voted for Bush.
You must admit, that's a pretty strange argument. I mean, the state with the greatest land mass is Alaska, but it's perhaps the most politically insignificant state in the union.
If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Katz is saying that we should hate Microsoft because they are releasing new products and actively marketing them.
On Slashdot, I would think that we can be open minded about everything, even Micro$oft. Lets look at the history:
o Solaris 2.8 and Linux both ship with Browsers. So surely it has to be OK for Microsoft to also ship an operating system with a browser.
o Linux has no marketing department (some comapnies have taken on the burden of marketing Linux, but not to the degree that Microsoft markets its products). This has to be considered one of the many burdens currently holding Linux back from mass popularity like Microsoft has. Linux can't strike the level of deals that Microsoft has with vendors such as Dell, Compaq, Gateway and HP.
o Linux is free. This is certainly a burdon on Microsoft.
This is going to be one of the great battles of all time, and we are only getting started. Lets not muddy the waters with slander. It's a pretty even fight:
A product that costs $$$, and where you are paying for (mostly) marketing of that product
vs.
A product that is free, technically superior, but is not marketed.
I wish both sides well.
If I were given the chance to work Microsoft, I would jump at it. Why? Because job security is a good thing. I'm lucky enough to have a good programming position at a local company, who I also know will be around in a few years. My point is this: Microsoft employees many geeks in a reliable fashion. Hell, even Sun and Oracle are feeling the pinch, but is Microsoft? NOPE!
TODO: Something witty here...
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
FUD
In a mass extention, the top order preditors go first because they are the most specilized. MS is the saber tooth tiger of the buisness world.
MS scares the hell out of me for a lot of reasons, but they can release products until they are blue in the face and it won't change that much. They are big and have a very strong presence, but we (the IT and software engineers) have to choose their products. Despide their monopoly in many areas writing it from scratch is still an option and there are other options for just about everything MS sells. They can't succeed in a consumer market if most of the consumers (not general, but IT, etc) choose not to buy from them because we are smart enough to know how dangerous their monopoly is.
> lets use it as a rally cry to begin a new wave
:-) "Choose a directory, where the floppy/CD-ROM/etc. contents will be displayed when accessed" will probably be more helpful.
> of Linux development. Danmit! Lets Get Linux On
> The Desktop. Lets make a "SUPER SIMPLE" version
> of linux that my mother can use. Lets get off of
> our high horses and give this to the world who
> is crying for it. (whether they know it or not)
I wholeheartedly agree. While the installation procedures get dramatically better with each release of the various distro's, for the most part they're still not taking into account the everyday scenarios of common computer usage.
For example, most families will share one or two computers at home between several users. Current install procedures mostly do not reflect this in any way. Right there during setup should be a "Family" option, where you can create several accounts and set the various permissions ("Can Jimmy go online?" "Can Martha use the CD-ROM and speakers?" "Set up account and desktop for 6-year old Amanda exclusively as a game and learning station?"), so that by the time you're done everything is already set up for the most part.
I don't believe, btw., that it needs to be a 4-times-click NEXT procedure without any significant user input. People are generally willing to learn and figure things out. That will only work though, if things are presented in a human-understandable format, where the user feels empowered by the choices offered, not overpowered by alien geek-speak.
For example, "choose a mount-point" during partitioning is not understandable for most people...at least not in terms of computers
Good documentation is vital. Great strides have been made in this area and things are getting there. Most man pages, however, tend to be utterly useless until you get into the syntax and even then some are still incomprehensible. A simple EXAMPLES section would do wonders. Let's face it, documentation, that needs documentation to be understood defeats the purpose.
In terms of the desktop, Linux is almost there. Most home-users tend to do these main-things:
1. get online
2. browse the WWW
3. send/receive e-mail
4. instant messaging (incl. "chatting")
5. play games
6. play music CD's and perhaps DVD's
7. WordProcessing
8. Printing
While there are many more uses not mentioned, these seem to be the most prevalent from my observation.
All of that needs to be addressed during installation, if possible, for *every* account. It can't be, that sound works in one account (root?) but not in another. That will be a very frustrating experience for even a willing and smart newcomer to Linux. Therefore it should be dealt with right from the start so everything works close to what you want it to be when the installation is done.
Microsoft, out of all vendors, did a very smart thing by video-taping users trying to setup and use a Windows-station and then analyzing the road-blocks and difficulties experienced. Perhaps Linux-vendors would be well-advised to try something similar and incorporating the lessons learned into the OS and it's setup/administration utilities.
Overall, it's getting there though and dramatic progress is being made in Linux-land. Even at this point I already consider it a viable and mostly usable computing environment on both server and desktop even for newcomers. But like everything else, there's always room for improvement and if user/usage issues are taken seriously, then without doubt many people will choose Linux on it's own merits.
Harka
--
Software, that's too difficult to use and administer by a willing person is, by design and definition, buggy!
I agree. Of course, this whole fiasco will probably be coming to an end soon.
Microsoft continuesto be succesful because they speak the language and also appeal to the venture capitalists and business managers. I'm not saying it's right, just making an observation that birds of a feather.... well, you know.
I like to hear about advances in technology and cool hacks, and not so much to hear paranoid ramblings about how the government and big business are in some grand conspiracy. Regrettably, such as is the case with this article, it seems to me that Slashdot is lately engaging too much in the latter rather than the former.
How about Slashdot split itself into two sites:
Just an idea.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Here is a study of client and server market share.Ignoring sales figures (Linux is free), MS has a 87.7% share of the desktop OS market. A commanding lead, yes, but not quite a total monopoly. Look at the server market, and see a completely different story. NT holds 36% of that market, which is nowhere near a monopoly. In fact, Linux has a 24% share. Getting close! Keep in mind that this "monopoly" is held over computer operating systems, not exactly a survival item, or even a "necessary luxury", like cars. The Big Three held a %75 market share on new cars sold in the US, and nobody cried monopoly. Domestic cars were good cars, and nobody minded. It was considered patriotic to buy American. Now, Microsoft is "evil" because Outlook is programmable, and they made a game console?
Let's look at the facts:
- When was the last time you heard of a strike at the MS factory? Microsoft treats their employees a hell of a lot better than American Airlines or UPS.
- How do you think you got your shiny new ride, and your cool apt. during our last big ecomomic boom? On the back of Microsoft. Whether you used their products or not, they legitimized client/server and internet development. They provided a lot of the tools and infrastructure you whiners used to make big bucks. I don't want to hear "I never use MS products, I only use blah-blah-blah to write software". What do you think the users that buy from your e-commerce store use? What do the IT drones that use your intranet apps use? That's right, suckas: Microsoft products.
- Apple, Sun, IBM, et al... these are not the "little guys". They had their chance, and still have a chance to innovate. They blew it, and they're still blowing it. They let their egos get in the way of making good (or at least popular) software, and it cost them the game.
Anyway, IMO, MS is NOT a monopoly. The U.S. justice department sees things differently, but then again, I don't see eye-to-eye with the government all that often.If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Ok, this is the last time I'm going to point this out. Government only ENABLES microsoft so far as it keeps bill gates from being beat up by linux junkies. Actually, what I really mean is that the only real job of government is the retalitory use of force, or more clearly, to ban physical force from relationships.
The only way microsoft would become more powerful that a government would be for it to purchase tanks and guns, and start using them. Even then, just because a company purchased weapons, doesn't make it evil and ungovernable, either. Brinks has an army of security guards, some armed with two pistols apiece, driving around in nearly indestructable vehicles. No one's scared of them, but I bet if push came to shove, brinks officers could kick microsoft's programmers asses.
What this rant really is about is the difference between political power and economic power. Katz is missing the difference between the two. The only power the government has is with guns... they can pass laws forcing people to act a certain way. The only power Microsoft has is to offer a value or product... which must be traded for money, which cannot be forced on someone. Sure, maybe microsoft can make it easier to get their os by prepackaging it with every machine avail, but alternatives will always exist because microsoft cannot legally use physical force. the government , however, can. Any questions?
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Microsoft is no different from any other successful corporation as to whom it is answerable - its customers and its shareholders. That requirement is a greater control on how it does business than any government regulator or federal judge could ever be. Katz' pathetic snivelling echoes what thousands of other have-nothings and do-nothings have been spewing for over a century. They conveniently forget that oil and railroad barons built the US west of the Appalachians, that AOL played a major part in the making the internet what it is today by making it usable for millions of people who otherwise would not have bothered to try to figure out the net, and that Microsoft helps make peoples' work products compatible across different companies and offices. Katz and his ilk rave that they don't play fair, but they're whistling in the wind. Your rant does nothing to earn someone a living or boost tech investment. If you don't like it, Katz, then come up with something better. I'll be using Word to get my work done until you do that.
Not only is Microsoft a threat to a fair computer market (the hole monopoly thing) and a threat to free speech (hotmail blocking peacefire news letter)but they are also a threat to open source. Well not really but they are trying to be, doesn't anyone remember the "Halloween" documents or the rigged Mindcraft Linux vs. NT publication, I'm sure there are many more examples.
***kgbFXzero***
I believe that OpenSource is a fight - and should be fought. You seem to contradict yourself sometimes, concerning if we should fight against capitalism or not.
I have posted my ideas on economical structures under Demokratica today (so don't ask for too much) What doesn't really come through on this site (because it was intended for another audience) is, that i believe that all information should be freely available out of ethical reasons.
The economical system of Demokratica supports authors of open content. It lives through the fact that noone can exploit this kind-of-communistic-system, because the information of how much one person has consumed or produced is freely available too - and can be monitored.
so much for now, wait for a lot more coming on demokratica (or even better, participate - and make things happen)
--- wSerPg@deAmokratMica.org (remove "SPAM")
McNealy might as well be talking to himself --
Does Katz ever get this feeling?
DocWatson
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
let the back lash continue... at the rate of these comments pretty soon /. will be known as a microsoft apologist rather than an agitator ;-P
... while their brain scrambles over the latest developments in nanotech or genetech or whatever and they bemoan how megaamalgacorp is dominating the whole market on a /. 3D emulator-emanator to the moderating AI visage of cowboy neal or hemos ;-P
microsoft bashing is going out of style i think, because it's just tired, really... it's like "ok, shut up about microsoft, sit down and enable the open source revolution you keep blustering about, and then come back and we'll talk, ok?"
my two cents is that microsoft's dominance ends when the computer loses its shiny newness and appeal and stops capturing our imagination...
when people start doing something with nanotech, genetic tailoring, etc. that really gets people's imaginations fired like computers have for the past 2-3 decades... then microsoft will become hohum, and slip into history and obsolescence...
we don't care about the abuses of the golden age of the railroad like vanderbilt and the other robber barons because marconi invented the radio... we don't think radio is sexy anymore because americans bought televisions en masse 50 years ago... now tv is mundane and the computer/ internet is "it"...
someday smarty pants young turks won't look at the internet and think "oh my god! all the cool things we can do!"
they'll just yawn and have their refridgerator tell their car to go pick up the dry cleaning via bluetooth ver 10.1.23a
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If any of you have played the game Shadowrun (or similiar themed games). Welcome to the world of Mega-Corps. They are above the law, in fact, they create their own law. It's only a matter of time...only a matter of time.
Anyhow, the only real competition that Microsoft will ever have is Open Source. And Microsoft will be Open Sources competition... anything wrong about that??? I mean... do we have to worry so much about microsofts success??? Doesnt Microsofts benefit somehow the open source community?? Its not like their pointing a gun at us... or are they??
Throwing dirt, slinging mud.. Is that really such a great way to gather followers? Maybe the more radical ones, but if they're radicals and interested, they're probably already aware of Linux's existence...
Agreed, Linux and free software in general does need more exposure, but it needs more than that. There needs to be still more specialized software... Great, there's a nice office suite, a nice word processor, MP3 players, everything you need to do every so often or like to have going in the background.
I'm probably biased because I do a lot of music/sound-related work on my computer, specifically tracking, and there are more powerful trackers available for DOS than Linux, so I would rather use them.
The main issues as I see them for popularizing Linux, and these have probably been hit a million times before by other people, are that it needs to really cater to the needs of everyone at the same time. This includes easy to install software (configure... need this library? okay, got it. configure library... need seven others? rurg this is getting frustrating) that is easy to use (though usually not much of a problem once it's going) and powerful (certainly not a problem).
Of course, people need to be aware of its existence and usefulness. So do companies and institutions.
It needs more companies with clout to develop for it. Loki develops for it, but there's a myriad of others that don't. This is tied in with the whole advertising/unaware of existence problem; if people don't know about it, it certainly isn't profitable for a company to develop for it, and companies like profits.
Yes, Linux and free software could benefit from TV time, since most people hear about it from word of mouth (I know I did). But they definitely need an actual reason to switch, which means yes, they need to be shown what it can do. And to publicly throw dirt at other companies is just nasty and can turn people off.
IMO.
"However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands" I HOPE you're not being serious....
I would say this article was eloquent, being forceful and all, but the definition requires the use of facts. There are none.
The only rights being violated are those of Microsoft. I am thoroughly disappointed in the companies filing the anti-trust case. No company can be a coercive monopoly unless the government forces others out of the market for them. Is it a crime to be a monopoly because you have the greatest market share? I think not.
Corporations can not use force in our economy without the government's help. If you don't like a product, Microsoft will not come to your house and put a gun to your head and make you buy it.
I sincerely hope this anti-trust case is thrown out. Otherwise it will be a severe blow to our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - which includes building a company and not having the government break it up becase it is successful and the competition can't create better products.
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Come on now. You appear to be highly opinionated. Can you back up your statements (the bullshit ones) with a fact or two? You lose all credibility if you don't.
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
:: Get real! Where the hell have you been the last ten years, under a rock?
Is that the basis of your argument?
:: Oh, right! It's all the government's fault!
Yes it is. No one can force someone to buy a product in a free economy without the threat of a gun. The only ones that have the legal means to use force is the government itself. There should be a separation of economics and state just like church and state.
:: Do you have any idea *what* a monopoly is?
Apparently more than you. I atleast define it, you however do not. Lack of definition does not imply that you know every aspect of it and just don't "care" to enlighten the rest of us. Prove your point or move along.
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I am not certain how many of you have read the findings of fact regarding the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. I read a large portion of it and I still have the file. If anyone would like to have it E-mailed to them respond with your E-mail address.
Anyway, from my reading of this paper and other historical truths regarding Microsoft's rise to the level of power that it has today has lead me to conclude what you shall read in the following paragraphs. While these opinions I have developed may differ from your own they are simply my opinions.
In Microsoft's beginnings the company really was on the ball and was able to take advantage of the need for the development of a computer operating system. Of course this operating system was originally co-opted from another company and was never meant to be anything other than the "Quick, Dirty Operating System." That alone was a dirty trick and eventually Microsoft was forced to pay compensation. At the time, from my understanding, the compensation was fairly small and really was not much more than a tiny slap on the wrist.
As time went on, Microsoft grew. With this growth the company began to take bolder steps in co-opting its competitors. I could create a large listing of who the companies were and what Microsoft did to them, suffice to say most of the time Microsoft pretended to be collaborating on a project with a company. After some time of having Microsoft Software Engineers working with these companies, Microsoft would say that they no longer wished to continue the collaboration. Usually a few months later, Microsoft would then come out with the same type of application that they had been collaborating on. This happened time and time again and people kept believing that working with Microsoft would better their companies growth. Of course they failed to see the field littered with the corpses of previous companies that had worked with Microsoft.
Before I continue I would like to point out a very poignant recent use of this tactic that Microsoft has performed. Long before the idea, or at least the implementation, of the X-Box Microsoft had a partnership with Nintendo, or some other game console company. They were working together to come up with this next generation gaming system that would sweep the world by storm and also put Microsoft software onto the televisions of the world. Of course after some months of engineering Microsoft canceled the partnership and then began talking up the X-box. I do not wish to pretend to know exaclty how things went down, but it is my opinion that Microsoft once again co-opted another companies technology.
The Microsoft of today likes to talk about intellectual property rights as well as that vague concept they have called "innovation." Let me put this straight, Microsoft can say all they want about intellectual property rights, but what of the intellectual property rights of those companies that Microsoft has factually co-opted? Does this intellectual property right definition mean that, "All your intellectual property rights are belong to Microsoft?" As for innovation, when does innovation mean stealing another companies hard work and then packaging it as your own?
I know those two above statements have been said before. It is of course the truth that was in the "Findings of Fact." If you have not read it it is something that you really need to read with an open mind. If for nothing more than to be able to respond to this post with all the facts before you. I am very sorry, but I do not have a link to that file.
Now, before everyone believes that I am nothing more than an Anti-Microsoft-Linux-Loving-Freaky-Geek. Let me explain a few of my other thoughts about Microsoft. I believe that the company has done a great deal of good. Many of you would not be reading this or even know how to read this if not for Microsoft. If not for Microsoft I never would have been able to get the jobs that eventually exposed me to UNIX and then Linux. For that, I really must thank Microsoft and I am really happy that they did that, because now I am learning to program once again. But, just because I am happy that Microsoft exists and made my writing this possible, I do not want them or any other corporation co-opting the internet as Microsoft appears to be doing.
Thanks for reading,
Robert A. Adkins II
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
You are partly wrong. The role of government is to ensure whatever that government stands for. In the case of our Republic, the government is to ensure our political and social freedoms as well as the freedom of choice. This choice is fully clouded by the large campaign contributions of large corporations.
This choice has also, more or less, been taken away from the average computer buyer. The only choice most PC buyers have this day is Microsoft Windows. The government is supposed to be there for the good of the people. The old saying that the individual is smart but the mob is easily duped really stands true.
American society is the mob and it needs a good leader that is there for the good of the people. This good must be done even if a large number of people do not want that good.
You can save your arguements. We do not have that form of government anymore. We have a Corporate Dictatorship, where corporate interests control the very people that we elected to protect us.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
The next target for MS is not the Internet. According to the so-called two evangelist theory there will be The Two Big Bill G's who join their forces. They will praise the goodness and godliness of The Right Technologies in catherings of hundreds of thousands people (Football arenas will not be large enough, but larger MS innovation arenas are to be build). Mr. Graham will start the ceremonies and Mr. Gates will continue with the appraisal. After a while Microsoft will be the official religion all over the world. Installing The Holy Components five times per day clean believers' computers from The Harmful Influence.
-- Imperial units must die --
You're an engineer. Engineer in what? Wow, I'm almost one in computers(year and a half left.) Who do you work for? How much do you make? Do you have any recommendations for who not to work for once I graduate? I don't get out much, being a computer nerd and all, but am willing to go nearly anywhere. Thanks.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
No, he didn't.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
This all depends on how you define culture ( and frankly one cannot easily compare these things)
On the other hand, as far as technological and scientific progress is concerned these people (especially in Africa) had nothing to show for themselves. You might want to talk about their culturally advanced societies but the simple fact is, over the last 2000 years these people contributed practically nothing to our knowledge of the world.
...and you can't blame meteors for everything.
hey kids, i think it's about time to get our corporate espionage on. any cs majors out there, take a few courses in "how-to-dismantle-a-business-empire-from-the-insid e-onimics. and even though MS isn't killing people with violence and guns and stuff, it doesn't make what they're doing any less wrong. once there is NO alternative and we're all using standard software to do the same tasks, innovation will likely plummet. not innovation at microsoft - we allll know that's an oxymoron. so, in short, do what you can to help dissolve this company, and support the electric car!
It would be more like:
Engine: Fuel: Computer::OS
Engine: Regular Gasoline::IBMPC: Windows
Engine: Super Premium Gasoline::IBMPC: Linux
Look at the time when Ford was the only 'good' car manufacturer. Do you think people were asking for quality cars? The answer is no since Ford was almost the only car manufacturer around. Now tranpose this situation in the Software business. Do you think people are now asking for quality software? The answer is YES, since competition is fierce and people are now learning from experts what is best for them.
It's simple the more software users learn about their machine and the software they use the more M$ is going to be in DEEP SHIT.
Oh and for all you XP fans, XP = Xtra Pourri.
DirectX surpassed OpenGL about 2 years ago. In the beginning it was shitty, but look how far it has come. OpenGL has stalled out for years.
I'm sorry to attack you this way, but your view on OpenGL vs. DirectX puzzles me big times. If your going to give any good arguments for this say so now. Provide links, benchmarks, come on you need to convince someone here, because as we speak the professional graphic market is still owned by OpenGL and there's one big freakin reason about this, it is better.
Now, yes DirectX as improve in the last years. You know why? Of course not. Because it was made to compete OpenGL, you know what they did at M$ for their 8th released they worked with the OpenGL community isn't that weird?
Office is the best office suit on the market because M$ killed all the others that were far far far more quality products.
IE? pfff come on, I'm currently developping web applications, and you know what that DAMN FREAKIN IE IS PISSING ME OFF BIG TIMES!
Now that i think of it, I don't think you can follow the Grow Up ... advice, Oh this discussion is over.
Why does everyone insist on fighting yesterday's battles?
OS doesn't matter, and we have a viable browser with Mozilla and other initiatives. Who cares what Microsoft says they're going to do. They've used all of their monopolistic muscle with Best Buy and Windows to push their way into a distant #2 in the Internet space - both in numbers of access subscribers and in the amount of time utilized by users.
This is not a Coke/Pepsi situation. AOL-TW dominates them. Looking to the future, AOL also has its fingers planted strongly into broadband and content. Microsoft ONLY has the OS. Remember Novell? Explain to me why Microsoft will gain momentum in the face of Mozilla, Linux, and, yes, even MacOS X? These products are all lower priced and BETTER than anything Microsoft can throw at us.
If we're talking about MS-Office being dominant...well, I, for one, still use Office 97 on my Win2k machine. Both are good enough to run anything that I will ever need. Once I need an upgrade, Linux/MacOS/StarOffice (or something better?) will work just fine.
I wouldn't be too afraid of these "other" initiatives. MS had to give away their service for half price (through rebates, 3 months free, etc.) to entice people away from AOL standard service. They only got to a distant #2.
Think about it.
The progression continues: Ma Bell, IBM, Microsoft, AOL. When regulatory pressures hold back the past monopoly, a new one quickly fills the void.
In our neck of the woods, through AOL and Road Runner, AOL-TW controls 85+% of the access market. That sounds dangerously close to the installed base of Windows that everyone claimed was a monopoly.
The difference is that MS's hold (especially in server spaces) is weakening while AOL-TW's continuously picks up steam. They are bigger in installed users than the 10 next largest competitors COMBINED.
This definition of success... through whose eyes is this measured? In my eyes, Linux is very successful because it does exactly what I need. If you are a graphics artist who designs web pages and music scores, then Macintosh would definately be your "success story"... not Microsoft. I've done graphics and music work on Wintel hardware, and the downfalls of the architecture in general makes me wonder why I ever did it on that hardware and not a Mac... besides the fact that I had a commodity computer with a commodity video capture/render card.
You see... the "success"as you put it is not bestowed upon Linux because you do a very specialized task. Sure, Linux does not have the niche of video and graphics manipulation in the palm of the opensource hand... but that is *hardly* the only thing a computer can do, much less the OS. Of course, if your job is to monitor and troubleshoot a intra/internet while using scan probes to figure out a perpetrators whereabouts and port openings in order to disable them and remain secure all the while and being able to take those statistics, run a few commands and manipulate them into a usable comma-delimited file which can be read into a plotter utility in order to make them readable by upper management... then Linux is for you.
You said:
Look at MS. It is successful because it provides what people want, and Linux is not because it doesn't. I myself am a web designer and graphic artist, and I use
photoshop, cakewalk for music, and expect good drivers for my synthesisers, graphics tablets, and so on. I don't see them, or the software, on linux. MS provides me
with what I want.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Even as a White American Imperialist I caught the wisdom comment. It figures that a Limey would mouth such racist bullpucky! ;)
Eastern civ is different from the west, but was sophisticated even before the Europeans had barely crawled out of their caves (so to speak).
Corporations are law-abiding? , *giggle*, *guffaw*.
Maybe for the laws they get created.
Jeez, I hope you were trolling or speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Nobody I know uses IE.
I use Netscape running on Linux, and OpenBSD.
I don't own a so called "Windows" OS.
No intention of wasting money on "Windows".
I don't use closed-source software, much less pay for binarys when I can get the source free.
I'm no punk bitch !!!
My Troll Rant:
I prefer my X system of Ms's anyday. Designers might want to check out http://www.xfree86.org. Linux is here to stay, and so is *BSD, its NOT going away, and never will, because its been here 30 years since AT&T. I don't own ANYTHING made for that so called "Windows" OS. I don't pay for binarys when I can go download the source for free. I love security and LOVE to have control over what MY servers do. I don't like company's limitations of security through closing up some prog binary. Its too insecure. I prefer to use source to secure my systems. Not let some company decide that I have to download a so called "Service Pack" because THEY screwed up.
I have been a Unix admin and programmer for over 17 years, and run my buisiness successfully off of NON-Commercial Platforms.
I'm no punk bitch !!!
I have to agree with you %100. Let me tell you a little story too.
:) As it turns out his main-page was completely defaced. (He paid $830 for this OS). Now what had happened was someone used an exploit a bug in IIS's Unicode.(sound familiar?) And had completley wiped out EVERYTHING in his webdir, and had deleted almost 1/2 of his D: drive. I told him I wasn't going to even touch it because of the simple FACT that Ms servers arn't allowed on the network. I told him if he was going to put up a server, go download RedHat, Madnrake, Suse, Slackware, Debian, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, go buy Solaris, OR SOMTHING, and run Apache like most of the net does. I made the policy, and I stand by it every inch.
One day I was working on a Win2000 machine for an employee. It was his "Personal Server". Get that? Personal Server.
I'm no punk bitch !!!
I don't think anyone is disputing that the U.S. government is weaker than MS. The point is the damage that a Monopoly does to the consumer. You say that MS holds its position by the virtue of its product, but if you are willing to admit that Microsoft is a monopoly (which I don't see how you can't) then MS holds its position because the virtue of its product is that it is the ONLY product. Monopolies are never good, and I don't care what people say about the new economy being different and that the days of the anti-trust battles against the RailRoads, AT&T and IBM are a thing of the past. If you want a present day example, look at INTEL and its battle with AMD and VIA. One more blunder by AMD, and INTEL would have the same type of monopoly in the CPU departement as currently owned by MS in the OS department. Where would be then? Probably still stuck around 600 MHz, that's where. Have you seen the prices of CPUS these days? And if INTEL was as effective at bullying chip makers (like VIA) as MS was at bullying computer makers, we'd either be stuck with the 440bx chipset still (It was a damn good chip set though...) or paying outrageous prices of RDRAM. I gurantee, the hardware for being a web designer and graphic artist would be a lot more expensive in these conditions. MS has innovated, no one can take that away from them. They've done it really well. But they have also crushed, bullyed and stifled innovation whenever somebody else did it first and they couldn't buy or steal it. You don't fault MS for that, they are a corporation who exists to keep its profits high and its shareholders happy. But the government is here to protect the consumer and the economy. One choice is no choice at all for a consumer. Not only that, but do you realize where the economy would be with Monopolies such as these. I'd guess most of us would be out of a job. Two companies with a similar product, sharing 50 percent market share hire a LOT more people than a single company with 100 percent market share. Compeition creates jobs and MS is evil.
Savage
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. Although it may be fun for everyone to bash the things they don't like, it's not productive to take that approach. It seems to me that if you don't like the mainstream options, you could find something else that suits your need - without badmouthing the "competition." Instead of whining and complaining constantly about what the other guy is doing, you can silently switch over. I think it would be amusing to see how a huge corporation would respond to millions of users just vanishing from their profit margins. Ignoring a rash won't cause it to itch any less, and scratching it will only make it worse. But with proper treatment the rash will go away. If you truly think Windows is better than Linux, use it. If you think Linux is better than Windows, use it. Etc, etc, etc. Just don't go crying and bitching and moaning on /. whenever someone does something you don't like - have an intelligent exchange of ideas.
SenorChuck
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion. -- Chinese proverb
Mircosoft has helped the pc sector grow. Their not all bad
Linux does not support the kiddies latest games.
MS supports the kiddies latest games.
When the kids start asking asking for Linux because it works better with the games, Linux will make inroads into the desktop market. Until that happens it will be mostly server software.
We were forced to upgrade to FreeBSD 4.3 because we could no longer find a hardware vendor that would sell us new hardware that would also support FreeBSD 3.2.
So we had to expend "time, effort, and work involved in moving an entire codebase from platform x to y, and being forced to do so over and over again every two or three years at the behest of one's vendors"
So we have to trash Microsoft and such, no; however, there is a more certain response in way of choice, yes, as said previously, but also an imperative against this omnicorp that provides people with nothing but their way. Such is to say, much like the nickelodeon-mtv-vh1 path laid out to direct comsumers to their future cultural identity by purchasing products that go well with the predisposed leanings of these Viacom entities (or much like ClearChannel's radio/concert sword.) So for all of this, we concerned readers of Slashdot can at least realise its not just merely the product that can do good work (there's a lot of free labor that may do pretty good work as well, but we rightfully and morally shun it) that should be churned over, its the process as well, and the meaning of our future.
It's surprising... if Microsloth is so good, why is 60% of the webserver market running Apache? Now that they have a distribution on Windows, I don't know how much of that share is on Unix-based machines, but I'm sure it's a pretty darn big amount. I installed Win2000 server on my home computer for IIS, which will be replaced with Apache as soon as I build my Linux web server and then I can get rid of it... But lemmie say, it's pretty stable as long as I don't try to play DVDs or some sort of movie file (video driver conflicts with the kernel)
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator, is today the King of the Corporate Republic, the CEO of Internet, Inc.
_ _
Like the article says, a year is long time in computing. A long time before this press conference.
____________________________________
______________________________________
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
I use Microsoft products every day, because they are really good (not perfect but really good) and because there is nothing that does as much. The problem not that Microsoft does not do a good job - they have a lot of very good people working there, and do a pretty darn good job for the most part.
The real problem is that there is a threat of no real competition, of Microsoft gaining more and more power to prevent competition. When you don't have real competition the prices don't go down and your only choice is to do without, or live according to the only choice you have. And that's not always a good thing - despite some people at Microsoft really believing that they know what's best for all of us.
If Microsoft makes it impossible for anyone to compete with them, this I have a problem with. Because new ideas will be killed off before they are born, or bought out by Microsoft and turned into what they consider should be the way we use computers.
It's like freedom of speech! If you can't start a company because you can't compete commercially with the Microsoft "empire", or Microsoft buys the idea and sits on it, then we don't have the choice of having that idea.
That's why Open Source and the FSF are so great and why I will contribute whenever I can. It is freedom of speech, freedom of expression that it is defending!!!
We need to have competition for the good of the industry and for the good of innovation, freedom and new ideas.
Nations (mostly democratic ones) have to be some what accountable to constituents - Corporations don't. Do you see a problem yet?
No...
They're accountable to stockholders. If all the people who don't like M$ would buy stock and go to the meetings, they could affect real change by presenting their views before the other stockholders (larger investors). That's probably more power than you have in dealing with your congressmen. If the media can't do a good job of explaining to the people who own microsoft (investors) what the problem is, why don't you go do it yourself? It wouldn't take much. Just one share per person.
This space intentionally left blank
Ummm...obviously he DIDN'T read the release notes, because the release notes state that a person using this patch will have the 'issues' that he said he was having. If he did, in fact, read the release notes, he didn't make sure he understood them. Maybe you should do some research and go to the link he has in his post. Do that and you'll see what he did...
...from the people who buy the software. Mostly companies. Obviously, the $6.something billion did not come from pirated copies. That was, of course, from monies paid for whatever services or products Microsoft provided. Notice the 'buy' and 'paid' portion of the last sentences...I'm not sure if you caught it since I've noticed some people here don't like to read the full Monty... namely Mr. Programmer blunte up there... Oh and by the way, those statistics about market share come from records of 'bought' copies and independent researchers who count the number of 'licensed' (i.e. paid-for) copies of particular software. Some people...
We should admit the fact that at the present time Windows is officially wiping the floor with Linux, as far as the average computer user is concerned. Only then will we fix the serious problems that Linux has.
-All your base are belong to the man.
--Computer Science will continue to lag behind the other sciences--
I might not be correct, but aren't computers one of the main tools to used to further progress in the other sciences?
--... and be the laughingstock of the engineering disciplines if the best they can come up with is Microsoft.--
Are effective, proven, and stable Microsoft products (eg Windows NT/2000) really that bad? (Also, as far as I know, the NSA uses BSD and Linux on their Crays, something you might call a "better alternative".)
It seems as if you want the future now. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but do you have a vision of what that future is? And are you actively working to bring about that future? (Read some stuff about quantuum computing if you're really that interested in the future). Moreover, why do you blame M$, a software developer, for the lack of more advanced hardware than there is today? Microsoft tries to write software to get the most that computers can provide, and I believe they do a very good job at it (bespite the tactics they use to achieve this goal).
A figure divine
Her radiance shadows sun
The wind is her song
A figure divine
Her radiance shadows sun
The wind is her song
All I know is that someone in the computer Science Field needs to come up with something innovative to get us past the stagnate PC era ,before Microsoft dominates not only the desktop but the high end server market as well.
Computer Science will continue to lag behind the other sciences and be the laughingstock of the engineering disciplines if the best they can come up with is Microsoft. I know Im laughing.
Can you imagine the U.S.S Enterpise with PC's?
"Sulu! Fire Torpetoes!"
"I cant! MicroBloat Crashed!"
Bill Gates is a Joke.Computer Science is a joke.
The Joker is Laughing all the way to the bank.
Period.
First of all this is the "united STATES of america" NOT "AMERICA". Now if their was a "United states of Europe" that was set up exactly like the united states and if you are living in denmark would you want england,france et al have all the power? (actually have no idea of the populations, just assuming) Also do you think Bill Clinton actually would break up M$. He is as big a con man as gates.They are the same breed. Another rant: I dont think people should assume all microsoft haters are left wing loons. Their are still "Theodore Roosevelt" Republicans out their that feel we need freedom from BIG goverment and Big Monopolies.
maybe not but once microsoft contorls part of the server market.. they will have control over all data in a sense. data is power. these top 200 will be peons in comparison
uh Oracle is a database company . they dont make desktops. BTW Oracle gained market share and kicking ass. SUN makes backend "SERVERS". oh yeah apple wa the one that made a user friendly OS. btw its always been better. what did MS innovate? And no sir they are not an "american" sucess story. its unamerican to steal like bill gates has and get away with it.
shove bill gates dick up youree arse .. youve been sucking it too long.
Outlook 2000 is bloat we dont need.Office 95 works fine for almost everyone on the planet. what? you need to a 1 ghz machine to run that new office product?
go pay more money to upgrade for more featues on XP, you crack whore. im sick and tired of having to upgrade because a weennie like you keeps paying more money for a blow job from bill gates.
I d like to meet and beat the shit out of you for doing this.
That's me isn't it?
Just when we thought Microsoft was down for at least another 5 years, they surprise us. But what exactly is Microsoft going to do to make us cower and throw ourselves to its mercy? I say we should encourage the smaller businesses to quietly rebel by creating new technology, patenting it, and marketing it--Microsoft can't stomp on the company because it won't know what it's doing before it attempts to create the technology, it can't steal the patent, and it will be on the market and everyone will know that Microsoft can't do everything. Microsoft has been the best, and it doesn't like being told what to do.
Teresa tkarr@iastate.edu