Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and the GPL
rleyton wrote in to tell us about yet another Microsoft related GPL story. He says "The Linux Journal has an interesting article analysing why Microsoft is attacking the GPL. It makes for interesting reading, and ends with a comment on the possibility that Microsoft will be seeking to pursuade the U.S. Government to forbid distribution of federally funded software under the GPL."
This is why that slander is illegal. Microsoft may or may not be in the realm of slander already, but they are approaching it. And as is, the GNU people-- unlike a third grader-- have a real need to defend themselves against public smears, because if they do not then they will lose customers.
As is i believe that the recent MS liscense which bans "viral" tools from being used with a released API-- which offers a definition of "viral" more extreme than what the GPL is, then gives the GPL as an example of fufilling that definition-- is slander, and i believe that the GNU foundation should ask Microsoft under threat of lawsuit to amend their wording so that they do not mislead customers.
Furthermore, storing or distributing any files in a proprietary file format should be forbidden
for all government offices. They should only be allowed to use a given file format if full
specs for the format are publically and freely available and are unencumbered in any way by
patents or other IP law.
The Department of Defense tried this a while ago with a project called CALS. It required documents to be in standardized formats (SGML, CALS-Raster, IGES, CGM, etc.).
Microsoft's version of a CALS document during a demo of technology was--get this!--transferring a Word document between a Windows machine and a Macintosh. The hell with SGML or any other standardized format. They don't exist!
CALS is dead, although some interesting things came out of some of the stuff it funded. HyTime (later, HTML), for one.
You have a better chance today using, say, XML, PNG, JPEG, MPEG (without patents), etc. But Microsoft still uses its proprietary shit in everything they sell to the government.
You make some valid points, however I disagree about the following:
1. Starbucks -People hate Starbucks because their coffee is *shit* (im a.Italian and b.barista). If you knew what made a good coffee, you too would be insulted by starbucks marketing engine making out that their coffee tastes good. Nobody likes being lied to.
When people attack large businesses it is not necessarily because they are jealous, often it is because they beleive that the business has too much power or it is abusing its power.
Is hate for MS justified? As you have said, they have been responsible for bringing computers to the mainstream. Whould have another company done it, if MS hadnt? Who knows. The reason why I dont like MS is because of their "below the belt" business tactics. Examples of this are:
Labelling GPL software as "potentially viral" in a software license - This was done purely to cast doubt and fear into the minds of businesses thinking about or currently using open source software. This statement takes advantage of an novice users ignorance, and forces their customers to uninstall any free open source software, and purchase a commercial software alternative. This is an attempt to sabotage
Bastardising standards - This is quite a clever tactic. The first example that comes to mind is java.
1. Add extentions to a protocol/language that if used, will not strictly comform with the protocol/language standard hence injuring its cross platform status.
2. Ignorant users will use these extentions. Wait for the IT businesses to loose confidence in the technology.
3. Develop a MS product that will perform the same tasks as the original protocol/language, but this time charge for it.
I dont hate their protucts, I just hate their abuse of power.
Further, companies like MS, IBM, Sun, the former Dec, Honeywell, etc.. will charge the government billions of dollars for software and they will sign contracts about what it does and deliveries, try to find opensource that will do that. Proving that it's cheaper than free software is a non-issue, nobody will commit. The comparison is so apples and oranges that it's laughable. They're not talking about running a web server on a workgroup lan or doing some filesharing or something.
Now something that would be beneficial would be that when they build a system they made public the specs and when they try to replace one they made open the full specs so that a competitor (free or not) could make a drop in replacement. Where the money is wasted is when they try to go from some custom database that isn't open in to some closed database that isn't open and the millions of dollars spent hiring trained monkeys to do the grunt work.
I agree, just because microsoft is big does not mean that they are a good company or they make good products. Microsoft wants total control of the universe by whatever means possible, upon approximatlly achieving that goal, we will all pay the ferrymay (read bill gates) for a long time, again and again and again. Open source, freeware (both software and hardware, standards bodies included) are anathma to microsoft's goals. Open standards allow fair play and use of resources by everbody (a democratic ideal). Unlike the commercial battles of the barrons of old (standard oil, the phone company etc), the control by microsoft is a problem for now and it looks like a distant/forever future (using the example of oil, you cannot mine/drill for OS's, standards etc. as easily as any natural resource). The changing landscape of patents laws (read microsoft's attempt at leagally defeating open source products acceptance/use etc) also can complicate the situation. What you can't win in the market place (ie: bill's fight against linux etc), you can sometimes win in the court of govenment and the law. (change the rules of the game if you find yourself loosing it). All in all, I think that there is a critical mass of people out there who are dis-satisfied with the products and service from microsoft and are willing to offer better alternatives. It is important to note that humanity has become very dependant upon having good working computers at our disposal, for example, we use them to develope future important technologies we will need to survive as a species, if we use and contine to use crappy computer technology people will be afraid to use computers, they will be uncomfortable using them, they will not use them or avoid using them. We will lose important opportunities in the future becase the existing resources we all have will be spent messing around with badlly designed hardware and software when we should have been using the computer as a tool an not trying to fix/use it instead. What about a situation where coutry A limits use of open source while country B ecourages it, country A will probably flourish with new efficient programs while country A which limits development experiences a styfling existance.
Bill Gates CODING? Now I've heard everything. I've got a nice house to sell you - it's white with columns in the front, and great D.C. location...
Actually this made me think of something from the anti-trust trial.
Billy said that getting another browser was as easy as ocnnecting to www.netscape.com.
How do you do this without using IE, which is the only installed browser on Windows?
And if you cannot agree to the terms of the EULA for IE, you are effectively preveted from downloading a competing browser, are you not?
Your post was very well written, unlike most. The problem though is that it brought to mind the history of the Soviet Union as told by Stalin. Either you are a student who did not watch the desktop comuting revolution and instead is relying on MS propoganda or you are a MS marketer. Either way, almost nothing you say in regard to MS is correct. I learned to program when I was 13. I'm now 41. When I was 15 I learned FORTRAN via punchcard job submisions. My first computor was an Apple II that I paid $1000 for in 1978. In 1987, I got into OS/2 at version 1.0. I have been active in computing for a long time. In all this time, not once has MS done anything realy innovative. In fact, especialy since the mid 80s, MS has done more to hinder development then anything else. The misinformation spewing forth from Bills empire via there puppets at places such as PC Mag, has been incredible. I liken some of the reviews that I have read in Ziff Davis pubs to Malus Maleficiorum for all the science contained. The desktop computing revolution had alread gained unstoppible momentum without Bill, when Micrsoft co-opted it and rewrote the history to make it the hero. At almost every moment, there has been superior and more inovative products then anything MS was offering, but for some reason, they never were reviewed or the reviews were biased. At this time, the amount of capitol MS spends for marketing spin docktors ( sons of Satan) and lawyers is at least 10 times that spent on actual software development. The majority of the resorce apllied to software development goes into technologies that are there specificly to promote MS product lockin, and to provide leverage to force developers to yeild to their wishes( the API games). Development of the "user experience" is more involved with controling what the user can do then enabling the user. The selection of what the user is permited to do is determined by deals with entities interested in control for exclusive suport for MS products. An example of this is MSs Windows Media. Containt providers like it because it has built in mechanisms to prevent users doing things that might infringe on their plans for marketing control, like saving to HD for later viewing, or viewing in Canada when the containt has been priced for the US. In this particular case, containt providors were reluctaint to lose non MS OS users so MS promised a UNIX version, then when enough providers were locked in, MS anounced that it would never support UNIX, using a Catch 22 type excuse! Fortunatly MS plans have not played out as far as they would like. Notice the preference for .pdf over .doc on most websites. This is enough ranting for now, my son is asking about dinner, and I'm hungry also.
Oil and mining companies fund wars in Africa, funding savage rebel armies who keep the countries in chaos and anarchy. Clothing companies give kids in third world countries stimulants so they can work 20-hour days. Drug companies gouge people, making enormous profits and driving people into bankrupcy with Federal- and charity funded research, while thousands die becuase they just can't afford the medication all over the world. Gun companies make sure the cycle of violence continues throughout the world and in our own inner cities. And, of course, tobacco companies make their profits keeping people addicted to poison.
These Microsoft issues are just so petty. Even if they aren't beaten on technical merits (which they will, one day, like all technology companies), even if they dominate, their evil is just so minor and petty compared to true abuse in the world. You really have to be living a life of luxury to think that someone who makes computer operating systems in the anti-christ.
Open your eyes, people... there are just so many things in the world which are far more deserving of your rage. If you want to work on Linux, if you want to beat Microsoft, hey, go ahead, but the way so many Slashdotters obsess about this like Gates is the next Hitler is just sick.
no, the same rule always, but you can't abuse monopoly powers if you are not a monopoly.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Why should they get to use it in their own closed-source projects? The code is the property of the US government, which means US citizens. They shouldn't be able to take that code, modify it, and charge people for the modifications.
It's just like pharm corps taking research done by uni profs/students, taking that one last small step, and then patenting the new drug and selling it for 1000% profit.
If it's GPL, they can use it. If they choose to use it they can't exactly say they were "forced" to open their code.
Yeah, what a complete dick. I'd seen the Spectacle article, but it didn't have that update. He *renewed* the fucking domain? That is just unbelievable.
Slashdot should definitely do an article on this whole issue. Has kuro5hin? Maybe I'll submit something.
better to use rtf and call it Word 5.0 compatible.
~^~~^~^^~~^
As I understand it, your partly right and mostly wrong. (Bad form to say your wrong in the first sentance I know, but hey time is short.)
As is was pointed out when we were *really* discussing this (back before MS cared about slashdot) these aren't bundled for free. They cost money, sure its the same as the previous release that didn't have those programs (that you can't buy any more) but it isn't free. Its more like you are forced to buy them also.
Now lets see, you aren't even forced to buy RedHat, so it really must have something to do with it being done by MS.
As an aside, the GPL is unamerican becuase it undermines real for profit alternatives? Now heres the twist in logic that will keep your head spinning... Why if this for free attitude is bad is it okay for MS to "give" these programs away? Wait a second on that reply trigger, remenber MS has actually been ruled in a court of law (and recently upheld) to actualy be undermining good american competition with that practice.
So yeah the debate was over a long time ago. Resurfacing the same dead arguments is only going to resurface their problems. But go right ahead. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
~^~~^~^^~~^
Live free or DIE!
however, some of those Windows libraries, which are now included with ME/98?/2000, used to be installed when you downloaded (for free) and installed IE 4.0. That's why for a period there a lot of windows software came with IE4.0 to be installed - it may not be web based, but it needed some of the controls IE4.0 provided.
Oracle has their whole database and depending on their mood - most of their product line.
Word Perfect had their WP on Linux. Many games have come out for Linux. There are other apps that have been released.
So, how is the GPL the thing (as the article mentioned) stopping MS from releasing stuff on Linux?
If they wanted to, they could have IE, Word, etc... on Linux - without GPL problems.
However, that eats directly into their core market - x86 machines. That person no longer need boot to windows for Word/Excel or to view that IE only web page. Sure - some people may be able to get by or around those limitiations, but MS products on Linux means anyone can get around those problems, and there goes the Desktop OS battle.
Then again, IE on Solaris/HPUX blew.
GPL is the disruptive technology that is reshaping the software world. As a "social engineering technology" it breaks the traditional rules of the software industry, within which no one has been able to outdone Bill Gates.
GPL attacks the very foundation, the very nature, of Bill Gates and Microsoft: its proprietary business model.
If Microsoft is the Borg, the GPL is the virus that Microsoft cannot assimilate, or once assimilated, it will wage havoc inside the Borg to cause its eventual destruction.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
This is a policy issue that honest people can differ on. Personally I prefer the GPL in this case, for the same reason I dislike our long-standing goverment policy of allowing logging on public land for a trivial fee.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
You know what? You're absolutely right.
It's after all my own damn fault I cannot buy a PC without Windows these days. If I don't like it I can just buy my own damn components and install linux on that if I really want Linux that bad huh!
Well, perhaps I WANT to buy an HP Kayak WITH LINUX PRE-LOADED! Isn't it a violation of ME the CUSTOMER that I can't buy an HP Kayak with Linux preloaded?
If you want to bring on the argument that nobody will buy such a workstation because there isn't a demand for it, then the argument reminds me of an old scetch I saw once on TV.
"So, tell me, why is it that you don't have a telephone?"
-
"That's because nobody calls me"
-
"Well, why doesn't anybody call you?"
-
"Because I don't have a telephone"
I don't Microsoft being in the market. What I want is EQUAL ground in the market. I want CHOICE; and not the Ford type of choice either (any color as long as it's black). Unfortunately for me and my longing for choice Microsoft doesn't want to play nice.
</rant>
We can probably expect MS to continue writing their EULAs to lock out GPLed and other open-source software. If MS could make it so that managers have to choose between (a) banning all GPLed software from their enterprise or (b) forfeiting the right to use Microsoft software (and access MS file formats and MS services), most would choose (a). This may result in GPLed software being contained in a GNU ghetto, well out of anywhere MS wants to be.
I do agree with the author's conclusion - I think a serious lobbying effort is now or will soon be underway to bar institutions receiving federal funds (read: universities) from releasing GPL'ed code.
Significant kernel and userland code has and continues to come from coders under gov't employ or grad students. Most of the Linux network drivers were written by Donald Becker of NASA, and the copyright is in fact assigned to the US Gov't, administered by the NSA (!).
It's true that currently, most code produced directly by the Federal gov't must be released without copyright. But it's also true that this code can be relicensed and distributed under the GPL (it's public domain, remember?), and it's also true that not all institutions that recieve federal funds are required to release code to the public domain (think universities).
Now, MSFT doesn't have a prayer of getting a bill blocking the GPL passed on its own, but it might be able to slip in a rider on some other bill.
My nightmare is MSFT sweet-talking the gov't on the issue with the siren song of licensing revenue. You know, sort of like how universities already do with patents, where they take public cash for research and sell to the highest bidder?
Watch out.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Hmm.. Wouldn't Micros~1 lose all rights to IE then?
But OS/2 Warp came out at the end of 1994 and there was (supposedly) a big showdown between it an Windows 95 at that time. The main reason Windows 95 won (easily) is because it supported Windows 3.1 16-bit apps much better. Plus, let's face it, Windows 95 was one of the first non-crap products that MS ever produced.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Guys, Netscape already tried to recover stock price and marketshare by attacking Microsoft instead of creating quality product of their own. It didn't work.
It's kind of hard to imagine that anything Netscape could have done would have worked considering that Microsoft integrated their product into their OS. What do you think will happen to Quicken if Microsoft decides to integrate Money into their OS? Why do you think AOL lobbies so strongly for their icon to appear on the Windows desktop? Microsoft knows where the power is.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Honestly, what's wrong with using something like the BSD license?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here it is:
The BSD license allows programmers to take software and then use that to limit others' freedom. Microsoft has used BSD code and then released code that reduces others' freedom. The BSD programmers were inadvertently working for Microsoft, a company which works night and day to remove people's choice and thus their freedom.
I argue that free code that can be used as a cudgel against others' freedom is something that hinders freedom.
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
How is it any more wrong than forcing the closedness of code? How is it anti-American at all? Sometimes being anti-American isn't a bad thing, considering what happens in the CIA (do a google search for MK-ULTRA), the NSA, the School of the Americas (anyone remember "Blowtorch Bob"?), and the War on (Some) Drugs.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
They're following Sun's lead in marketing Java the language and Java the platform independant bytecode interpreter and the Java libraries and Java applets and JavaScript and so on. It clouds the issues to the point of making it an all or nothing proposition for the PHBs ("We're using Java!" or "We're going with .NET") instead of using the best tool for the task.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Bleh!
Well, so the problem is that MS pays taxes just like you do. (Of course, corporations don't really pay taxes; only people do, but under our legal system, it doesn't matter.) So they should have full rights to the software, just as you do. IMO, all federally-funded software should be placed in the public domain, despite how much I like the GPL.
[ home ]
The best is when you select "Workstation" install and get like three textbased newsreaders, that never get used.
I also agree with the orignal post. Don't buy it. People will moan and groan about M$, but when asked what OS they use.. "Well I have Windows.. but I ONLY use it for games". That's my personal favorite:-D
btw, I do have a windows box... BUT it's only for games:) jk
Awesome!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for submitting this comment, whoever you are. It finally drives home the reality of the marketplace to the zealots who post here.
Folks, it's a sad fact that IS types and the blissfully computer-ignorant have a brand loyalty to Mickeysoft.. much in the same way that your elderly American relatives absolutely must drive Lincoln Continentals or buy WinModems.
Simply put: you or someone you know is spoiled and/or incredibly daft about the products being sold to you. Chances are, you don't want to know how something works, but you'll assert your divine right to cheap reliable consumer products, and you'll certainly buy whatever the media (or the box) tells you to -- forgetting the adages "if it sounds too good to be true etc. etc." in the process. That WinModem is $20 on the shelf at Fry's, a whole $80 less than that other modem. Hey, something for nothing, right? *snicker*
If you want Linux to succeed, sit down and take a good hard look at your VCR. Consider how many of the damn things blink "12:00" across this great land of ours. Then consider that most people don't want to know how the damn thing works.
It's a pity we can't mod a quote above 5...
.sig a .sog, .sig out loud, .sig out .strog"
".sig,
".sig,
You can download Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror too but there are tons of incompatibilities because of the userbase that IE inherits by default. Microsoft has clearly stated in the Halloween Documents (and by their actions in the past) that their goal is to hijack and pervert standards and to use their OS leverage to make competing products nearly useless because of incompatibilities.
Because Microsoft's EULAs would be dead too.
Yes it was part flamebait but that comes with the territory. The netscape comment was the most insightful thing I've read in the last 1/2 hour though.
just curious...
does anyone actually believe that microsoft attacking gpl could have any impact whatsoever, besides making them look like a whiney gorilla?
I've never had to use MS software at work. SunOS, Solaris, IRIX, Linux, and HP-UX, but not any form of Windows. So there are places where you can use what you need to -- granted that this was all in research, and at NASA/AMES, UC Berkeley, and XEROX-PARC.
*shrug*
what this says to me is that I was right -- research is a great area to be in for all sorts of unexpected reasons.
Lea
I can see the public schooling in Canada isn't any better than here in the U.S. That is both refreshing and reassuring.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
> What, anything to discredit someone who isn't on the Open Source team?
Nope. The original post had an offensively condesending tone, e.g. the title ``Petty petty petty". The original poster was not stating that there was more worthwhile targets for our energies, but that we shouldn't concern ourselves about what Microsoft is doing. My response remains, ``We all rise to fight the evil we think we can defeat."
If the original poster *truly* felt that we should battle these other -- & I'll concede, more immediately important goals -- why didn't she/he offer ways we can contribute to these struggles? I suspect that the posters intent was to silence criticism of Microsoft whether justified or not.
> I can see modding down the original post (Offtopic, perhaps?) but modding up that "you sound like you're from a cult" drivel?
If it makes you feel better, this is the first karma point I've gotten for any of my posts in about a month or two. And I gave up long before that trying to understand how people awarded them; sending email about possible issues to Cowboy Neal doesn't even result in a form letter acknowledging he even reads his email. So I merely look for reponses to whatever I post.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
And there's a constantly growing crowd of others like me, who switch to free software and stay with it. We're forming a community, we have a voice loud enough to make governments listen. People are becoming more aware of critical issues in the software world, and less likely to blindly believe everything Microsoft throws at them.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The world is yours! Soon the tide will turn and the GPLers will run the show! (Yikes! There's some nasty visions there)
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
And we'll live in Dumpster(TM) brand dumpsters and eat the shit they throw out the back of the Chinese place for dinner.
Blegh. Anyone who spouts your shit hasn't programmed a line of code in their lives, and they love consuming and not giving. I read another interesting comment that indicated that the payment for GPL code was other code: HOW GOD DAMN NAIVE. 99.99999+% of Linux (l)users haven't ever contributed a single iota of code, nor will they ever. Who cares about reality though...VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Check out http://forums.siliconvalley.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboa rd=5968009897410465&msg=2968245722915407&page=1&id DispSub=5145094516046185 where Bruce Perens says something quite interesting and disturbing....
This is because when the GPL was written, dynamic linking, object brokers, and operating systems kernels that were split into separate processes were not as common. In my opinion these gaps should be addressed in the next version of the GPL.
I guess the GPL just isn't viral enough? This is hilarious because so many GPL crusaders stood up for the GPL in recent arguments relating to how GPLd and non-GPLd code can coexist...not for long. BTW: Doesn't the GPL state that the current GPL license is the legal force, so that they could change it all they want and retroactively affect every GPL license toting application?
Your comments regarding my caps and swearing proves your sophistication, so you must be right.
As far as the GPL and the contribution of code, it is the express stated reason for the GPL that the payment for code is code in kind (in other words it's a new economy of code rather than $), and the GPL is the contract enforcing payment, and my point is that the overwhelming majority of GPLd code users never and will never contribute an iota of code. It's the myth of the GPL fantasy versus the reality. Personally I am a huge believer in the *BSD/Apache license (oh but wait: Soon MS is going to release Apache++, Apache#, Apache.Net, etc, or so the author of the pathetic and completely naive article writes) and the license is founded around a give and give freely attitude : There is no expectation of payment (unlike the GPL).
The GPL isn't revolution at all: It's some very old and unworkable ideas that became a fad but is now a falling star (at a very rapid rate). Read the quote attributed to Mr. Stallman at the bottom of http://gnomewww.sunet.se/news/fullitems/102.shtml to really understand what the GPL is all about.
In good old days (note the bellow 10K user id...) the obvious trolls got their -1 quick and painlessly. Now some moderators think the parent troll/flamebait is "Insightful". Go figure.
Well, when companies have laws passed that restrict the development of free software (by making the authors liable for problems), then maybe you'll start to worry.
Oh, wait. Read up on the UCTIA. Start worrying now.
Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people,
People like you, perhaps, who misinterpret him and put your words in his mouth? Maybe if you bothered to actually listen before spouting your bullshit, you might understand what RMS is saying. Maybe you should try reading RMS's own words, rather than what other people filter them into?
that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers.
Ahhh personal attacks... The last refuge of the wrong, and so exceedingly convincing, too.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Occasionally the gov't does release GPL software (e.g., NASA's ethernet card drivers, Beowulf, etc). This happens when the software they are modifying is itself GPL'd. Perhaps this is what MS is afraid of? Maybe what we need is an alternative to the GPL which allows persons to use the code in closed-source programs on the one hand, but requires that changes to the source be distributed freely on the other. Maybe like the modified LGPL of wxWindows. Then apply this license to all non-classified US government written code. Microsoft doesn't have grounds to bitch now, but they'll have even less grounds with this new license.
Finding God in a Dog
Considering that the GPL restricts your right on what you can do with GPL'ed software. Wouldn't the BSD style license be more politcally correct. If our tax dollars are going toward it, shouldn't the software created with those tax dollars be as free as possible. Both for individuals and business. Both pay tax's. Both should have equal rights to federally funded software.
Cheers,
Tomas
===========
Wrong analogy.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
For more info see:
http://www-rsicc.ornl.gov/SOFTWARE.html
People are stupid. They will not use additional superior software they can download, because they are too dumb or lazy to bother when they have something that does the job already, even if it is a little substandard.
This is why microsoft has a monopoly, because by including it, you appease the lazy man, who constitutes a large chunk of the software market.
--
Ummm sorry, i just toasted my Win 98 install two days ago, so i installed a fresh copy of Windows ME... Renamed my program files directory in order to be sure that i'd keep only the new components. Yes, after the install i had to sit through a 4 or 5 minute movie about why windows is great and all that, but after that, i just double clicked IE, told it use then LAN connection (i have a cable modem), and haven't seen mention of MSN since...
I'm suspecting that if you went to start--->settings--->dial up networking, and enter the appropriate info for your ISP of choice, you'll see no mention of MSN again either...
Well, perhaps I WANT to buy an HP Kayak WITH LINUX PRE-LOADED! Isn't it a violation of ME the CUSTOMER that I can't buy an HP Kayak with Linux preloaded?
:)
Sounds more like an issue you should take up with HP... Even if they've signed any agreement with MS to give other OS's less promotion or what not, it can't be all forclosing, in that they still do ship workstations with HP-UX installed (they do, don't they?
If you want a Kayak workstation with Linux installed, let them know that. Then bite the bullet and buy elsewhere. Things like that might start swaying vendors, as the PC market starts crumbling away, they'll be a lot more interested in acquiring and keeping customers...
No, i swear... when it asks you if you'd like to sign up for MSN, click the last option, which i believe reads "i already have an account i'd like to use", or something like that, it never mentions MSN again...
Well then, maybe you should start climbing back down the trees and showing the users the leather balls you found up there, rather than taking away the bushes they're playing with down there... or maybe even fashion a rope or ladder in order to help them on their way up...
Anything but sitting up at the top of your "tree" and looking down at everyone else down on the ground while thinking "if only they knew what was up here...."
You could improve this post further by taking out all the periods.
You seem to have noticed that TCP/IP is a published standard, but seem to overlook that the BSD licensed TCP/IP stack is a reference implementation of that standard. And that it's use by any and all partys, is exactly what was intended. Even with a published standard, making different implementations compatable isn't always an easy task. Without the BSD TCP/IP stack being out there to use, the Internet as we know/knew it, might never have existed. Or worse, might have been ISO-OSI based. Maybe you should go learn what a connectathon was. And, why they were necessary?
Too bad your anti-M$ knee jerking seems to have given you a concussion. I doubt I'd hear you claiming:
Feel free to substitute "VA Linux", "Caldera" or any of the other companys out there, who are trying to build a business based on Free/Open Source software.
Of course, in the absense of such the BSD TCP/IP reference implementation, the world might have been treated to MS TCP/IP becoming the de facto internet standard.
The BSD license. All the freedom of the GPL, without the Napolean Complex.
On the other hand, it seems you're the one with the short memory. I was running telnet and mounting NFS filesystems on MS-DOS boxes well before 1995. IIRC, this does require TCP/IP to be available. :-) Just because M$ didn't ship TCP/IP with the OS, didn't mean stacks didn't exist.
My point was, if the BSD implementation of TCP/IP wasn't freely available as a reference for multiple vendors to use, the Internet as we know it, probably wouldn't have been around for M$ to exploit. Either we'd heave been stuck with the bloated ISO/OSI stack, courtesy of GOSIP, or, more likely, the Internet would still be restricted to universities and DARPA, because commercial vendors wouldn't have bothered to develop their own TCP/IP implementations.
2. Not all the MS-DOS TCP/IP stacks and clients were "freeware", some were "shareware", too. Also, there were third-party stacks for early versions of MS windows as well.
3. Right, not everyone uses the BSD stack. But it's very existance eliminates a great many excuses for having an incompatable implementation.
4. Prior to '90, I'd be willing to bet most of the UNIX systems on the internet were running some form of BSD with the BSD stack. Most of those that weren't were probably connecting in via UUCP, if they were networked at all. Most of the Vaxen not running BSD were probably running VMS and so if they were networked, they were talking DECnet, not TCP/IP.
5. No, I'm not saying that people can't make fully compatable implementations if they want to. Nor, that they couldn't create one as good, or better, than that in BSD, if they are willing to make the effort. But other than the petty spitefullness that the Stallmanites and Linux zealots, seem to have towards anything not GPL'd, should we force vendors to reinvent their own version of the wheel, if we want systems to interoperate? After all, DEC would have been happy to say DECnet was the system to use; IBM had SNA; ISO/OSI, etc.
Would the Internet have been better if M$ had its own slightly incompatable version of TCP/IP, that simply by the force of their market share, became the de facto standard? Let's say, one that allowed Windows to access the Internet, so that it would be accepted by Windows users as standard, but was different enough that non-windows clients couldn't connect to MS servers? Do you think M$ would consider that a bug, and fix it? Or is the Internet better off because M$ used code that started off compatable from the beginning and didn't make the effort to break it?
Oh, and I'd advise you to skip pointing out spelling glitches. Unless, you want to explain what you meant by "I'm looking to look the other way"? The common idiom is "willing to look the other way" when excusing ones double-standards.
But OS/2 Warp came out at the end of 1994 and there was (supposedly) a big showdown between it an Windows 95 at that time. The main reason Windows 95 won (easily) is because it supported Windows 3.1 16-bit apps much better. Plus, let's face it, Windows 95 was one of the first non-crap products that MS ever produced.
I have to disagree on a couple of points. First, there was no showdown between OS/2 Warp and Windows 95. No-Show is more like it. Second, OS/2 was better at running 16-bit apps, not Win95. However, OS/2 could not run (at all) Win32 programs. Finally, the mid-'80s versions of MS Word and Excel for Mac were not crap. Not only that, but they were also the best products in their field at the time. No surprise that they provided the foundation for their Windows counterparts. And calling Win95 non-crap may be going a bit too far. :-)
The real reason Win95 succeeded is the obvious one: It inherited the OS monopoly from Win 3.1, which inherited the OS monopoly from MS-DOS. MS forced the succession of each new product by forcing all new systems to ship with it while also cutting off support for the old one. End of story.
Some of us were there at the time, sonny. The way you tell it isn't how it happened. For starters, let's just remember that MS-DOS came with the MOST expensive personal computers, not the least. From the mid-'80s through the early '90s, it was possible to buy a new computer (with no MS software at all) for under $200. Where are the sub-$200 new systems today?
That is a good point. However, companies which posses monopoly control of an industry are held to a stricter standard when they take actions that might further their monopoly into new areas. RedHat doesn't have any monopolies on anything, so their bundling of things is fairly harmless. Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OSes, so any time they bundle Microsoft products in place of a competitor's the effect will be to extend their monopoly into application markets.
I still thing the arm-twisting of the OEMs would have been enough to make the case, though - in itself I don't think bundling is as bad as the DOJ made it out to be, and maybe Microsoft hasn't always intended to extend their control via bundling in the way that they have. But the end result is the same - a loss of competition, which is bad for the marketplace.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
StarOffice isn't too bad - I used it for a presentation this week. Since our IT folk aren't quite bright or motivated enough to make the color laserjet accessible from Solaris, though, I had to load the finished presentation into PowerPoint to print the thing. It mostly imported OK, except that some fonts looked pretty different between the two. I eventually figured out that "Arial Narrow" would look presentable under both.
StarOffice was marginally easier to deal with than PowerPoint+Citrix, not that that's saying a lot...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
No, no, that's not it. It's "what if Linus was hit by a bus?". "blown off the face of the earth" - hah! You probably don't even know what's supposed to happen to Alan Cox...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
In one sense, it isn't unbridled capitalism, but in another sense it is exactly that. If a monopoly controls the market, then in a sense there is no more capitalism since that monopoly can charge any price it wants. Sometimes to keep the market truly free, you have to have limitations on what individual competitors can do. Until we find an economic system that better resists the effects of monopoly power, I don't see any other alternatives - would you prefer to buy everything from Standard Oil, AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, and ADM? I didn't think so.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Microsoft can't play its "embrace and extend" game with GPL-licensed software because the company can't appropriate and modify the code.
Say what? Since when has Microsoft ever needed someone else's source code to "embrace and extend" features?
If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux, Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux, with a variety of maddeningly incompatible oddities that taken together would make it even more difficult to develop applications for Linux.
Please. Why wouldn't Microsoft just do the same with FreeBSD, then, and use its Linux compatibility features? Using BSD's Linux compatibility isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but there's not much more problems than dealing with the incompatibilities already present between different Linux distributions. Kinda funny how he doesn't realize that there already are "maddeningly incompatible oddities" between the current Linux distributions.
Cheers,
If the government-funded research is put into the public domain, you can take it and use it in your GPL'd projects too, just like Microsoft can use it in their own projects. So you're getting the value from your tax dollars. The difference is that if Microsoft spends their own money to enhance the base software, you think you're somehow entitled to get a free ride off their work. Why is that? They're the ones who spent the money to enhance it, not you.
Cheers,
Oh, the irony. Netscape/Sun/Oracle/Apple/Linux/IBM/AOL advocates have been blaming Microsoft for all of their own fuckups for the past two decades. Can't make a good browser? Damn that IE bundling! Can count the number of Network Computers sold on two hands? Microsoft FUD! Companies don't want to produce software for Linux users which have a history of not wanting to pay for anything? Microsoft is strong-arming companies to only code for Windows! People hate OS/2? Steve Bartko brought mighty IBM to its knees! Worry about losing IM marketshare even as you're refusing to let third parties connect to AIM/ICQ users, all while suing any related product with the letters "AIM" in the name? Those Microsoft bastards are making us do it!!!
Cheers,
If microsoft would just stop all this crap with windows being the one and only operating system.
Microsoft develops a ton of Macintosh software. If something else grabbed a decent marketshare, they'd probably develop for that platform, too.
developing software NO MATTER WHAT THE PLATFORM OR LICENSE
So, it's uncool for them to dis the GPL, but not the other way around? Should Bruce Perens also go back to writing software instead of calling people who write BSD-licensced software "dupes"? Is it okay for the KDE guys to keep working, or should they wait until after they, as Richard Stallman ordered, "beg for forgiveness"? After seeing all the companies who have been completely flamed here for not releasing their software under the GPL, even though they were writing free beer software for Linux, it's pretty odd to hear someone here telling Microsoft to not talk about licensing.
Oh, and as far as karma goes, I think Gates will do all right with the hundreds of millions of dollars that he's given to charity. What was the big accomplishment of a certain GPL advocate who hit the big time? Oh gee, he wrote a lengthy article to Slashdot letting everyone know how cool it was to be rich, and to remind them that they'd be on his shitlist if they dared ever ask for a donation. That's class.
Cheers,
Easy. They're in the business of making money. Linux has a miniscule desktop marketshare, about 1% at last count, and negligible corporate desktop presence. Now why again are they supposed to spend all this money to try to grab a piece of such a small market? Sounds like a losing proposition, especially since so many Linux users will tell anyone who will listen that they don't want any Microsoft software. They're not a charity, so seriously, why would they produce those products for Linux?
Cheers,
An excellent solution, if you are self employed and/or live in a cave.
Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their throat by an MS employee and been forced to purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the big deal?
Practically everyone I know who works with computers is forced to use MS software. Either that, or they can quit their job. I wouldn't exactly call that an environment where people are free to choose the best tool for the job.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It may be dangerous to Microsoft for the license to be struck down. GPL is less restrictive (it doesn't even claim that users are bound to it, unless they wish to obtain additional rights that normally wouldn't be available under copyright law) than even the most benign commercial EULAs. If GPL is struck down, it may very well take all EULAs with it. This is against Microsoft's interests.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So Microsoft continues to do its thing as it has been, blocking channels of distribution, locking people into their products, and charging outrageous prices. In the mean time, GPL software will still be there because as long as a small band of skilled people want it to exist it will. So it will evolve, it will grow, and companies will end up using it, as they always have, because it works and does so very cheaply. It might not get the headlines but it will be grinding away in the trenches as it always has.
Maybe Linux fades from the spotlight a bit. Maybe it goes back to being the toy of hackers for while. But fundamentally in the long run it will not die and eventually Microsoft will screw up. Either their monopolistic practices will finally get trimmed by the government, they'll jack their prices up too high, or they'll get behind the 8-ball on development. They aren't infallible, they are just very clever.
When the PC came, they saw it coming and got in early and rode it until the Internet came. Initially they saw a threat, they stumbled a bit but recovered and are now moving to make it their own. Free software though is so contrary to their way of doing things that I don't know that they can change. They certainly aren't going to keep people from making and using GPL software and eventually it will be their demise.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
/me turns ont he Flame-retardant absestos suit!!!
Because as I have said in previous fourms the GPL is Linux's greatest assest and its biggest weaknesses. It both encourages collaboration, sharing, and committment at the grass-roots level and undercuts anything that isn't. RedHat turned a $600,000 profit this last quarter oooooooooooOOOO, scary! Please! Larry Ellison uses that kind of money to wipe his ass.
Personally, I think going forward the BSD licenses are much more attune to both business and geek interests. Its not just about free code, free source, and free beer its about employing people, getting better products for all and creating businesses that server all facets of the Linux market. Last time I checked on fuckedcompany there were a lot of companies going out-of-business because they gave their stuff away for free. The same goes for software. That's ok though. Everyone keep coding away on those projects that undercut business interests. If you want to make free software more power to ya, there are many people who will use it. However, do not expect business to go along with it. Even the notion that someone could create a free alternative is enough for most folks to turn away from that opportunity. Having seen it enough times I can tell you even with a superior product, customer service and a salesforce that wants to help; you cannot compete with free. Business does get it, business needs to make money to pay developers to make product to sell to the consumer. The reason business hates the GPL is because it does not offer a real way of charging for and making money, the BSD licensing-style does.
In the end on present course, Linux is and will be considered a revolution, but it will be relegated to the server ranks. Without the coperation of software companies who sustain business models built on license fees there will be no user/consumer level coding for Linux and we will continue to see the likes of companies like Eazel go the way of the dodo. To fully realize its potential as an OS that can change the world, Linux and the communitity are going to have to get both a lot more business friendly and a lot more user (No I don't know how to rebuild my kernel WTH is a compiler) friendly.
Love me, hate me, tell me Im dead wrong and burn me and relegate me to karma hell; but I am one of the few here that understand the technical, user-level, and business interests that all cross at the forgive the pun Linux fork in the road.
Laters,
HT
Exactly, consumers are seldomly in a position to judge the QUALITY of two things that are mostly alike. All they can do is judge it on price.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Actually, OS/2 ran 16-bit apps better than 95. You could even start up Win3.1 from within it. The reasons Warp failed were because it lacked support for the soon to be released win32 API, and it wasn't peddled by IBM with it's full marketing might. The original intent of IBM was to create a separate platform based on OS/2 and Lotus Office to compete with 95/Office. Unfortunately, what little campaigning IBM did do was insufficient.. for quite a while I was perplexed by this lack of OS/2 support from IBM, but apparently Microsoft played hardball with the IBM hardware division by restricting their access to pre-release versions of 95 *and* threatening to stall their OEM licensing process. IBM hardware had more to lose in the upcoming win95 buying frenzy, so IBM software was forced to concede and stopped pushing for Lotus office to be installed on the IBM Win95 installs. People started using MSOffice 95 (which was one of the few win32 apps at the beginning) , IBM's Lotus Office / OS/2 migration plans were destroyed and OS/2 Warp adds stopped appearing.
It's amazing what you can learn from Jackson's Findings of Fact.
As a Brazilian (hence my username) and a government network admin I gotta tell you that the law ain't got a snowball's chance in hell to being approved - and yeah, it's not law yet. :(
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Yet I'm quite sure that if RMS uttered the following, Microsoft would be crying Communism.
It's not what Microsoft executives say that surprises me anymore. It's that most media just print it as if it was coherent.
Peace PatientZero
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Hey, I'm a flag-waving, apple-pie-eating, baseball playing, gun-toting American just as much as the next guy, but quite frankly, what the US does vis-a-vis Micro-Soft amounts to precisely dick. Let's face it, as a country/government, we are going to roll over and take it in the ass from Bill and friends. It's just the way things are.
Our saviours come in the form of China, India, France, and Brazil (among others). They get a leg up on development (look at all that tasty source!) without playing BS games or paying BS licensing fees.
And yes, right now, in 2001, the US is the economic 800 lb. gorilla. But by the time my son (five weeks old this past Tuesday) is old enough to vote, you better belive various brown/slant-eyed/'furrin' speakin' communists are going to be showing their shit. And quite frankly, it doesn't involve paying Bill and the fam squat.
Let's say that tomorrow, China alone (ignoring India, which would make this more pathetic) had as many PCs per capita that the US did. Furthermore, let's imagine that most of them ran some Open Source OS. All of the sudden, Micro-Soft's 92% domination of the market shrank to what, about %20?? What happened to the monopoly power?
Quite frankly, if either Linux or Micro-Soft wants to get ahead, it's time to have easy-peazy Mandarin support. Or give the Chinese a few years. They'll take care of it themselves. A billion people with a little motivation and direction can really mess things up (or change them for the better depending on your POV).
(Better stop. This is starting to sound like that Chinese or communist tide sketch from Python)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Head on over to the FSF order page, where they offer to sell you a $5000 distro.
I think RMS's position is that it's unethical to restrict redistribution or use of the software after the sale. If you squint at it funny, it almost looks like first sale doctrine.
Disclaimer: I'm not RMS. RMS never even posts to newsgroups, so he wouldn't be posting here. I don't agree with many of his positions. Phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine.
I haven't decided what I think of the Act. A simple analogy between patents and copyright seems improper, but this is a case where there was a vigorous debate on issues related to the above posts.
The Act does not automatically result in licensing directly to large companies. Quoting again:
I dunno if it's OK to just buy the startups outright after important patents have been licensed.
I've never seen Mozilla advertised on TV or in mainstream newspapers and publicatoins. I've seen Microsoft advertise its products in these places.
Maybe if Netscape/Mozilla marketed its product to the general public, there would be more awareness among that group?
Fault for that lack of awareness lies with the organisation.
If I try to create a car brand to compete with the massive companies, I'd need to do some serious advertising/marketing/PR to get people aware, interested, and buying. If people trust existing brands, and ignore my car brand, then that is hardly their fault - they've worked hard to build up awareness and trust in their name.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
To her mom, a computer is just a computer. It sends her e-mail, she can put picture from her digital camera on it, but she doesn't even think about things like licensing or freedom
And that's how it should be. You should use what works best for you. If you don't want to be bothered with anything technical, just send email, write recipies, etc., then use what is easiest, which is probably Windows. I'm quite happy for Linux to stay away from the mass market - it means it will stay oriented toward the areas which are best for me.
Don't assume that the operating system space should be a monoculture. For all the wierdos harping about Windows, it's a very good product, particularly given the (mostly achieved) objective of maintaining compatibility with code going all the way back to Windows 2.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Ah, but you did implicitly compare Hitler to Microsoft by stating that both made their "users" pay full price. Godwin's law applies.
Therefore, you lose. Thank you for playing. Goodbye.
You could argue, of course, that because Microsoft has been forcing companies to pay over and over just to keep what is basically the same functionality, Microsoft is hurting the economy. That is, they make you buy new office software by making the new product incompatible with the old, although with the new XP stuff, they won't have to bother - they can make you pay over and over without having to come up with new formats.
:-)
When companies operate less efficiently, the overall economy suffers. The extreme example is, you could have 100% employment by having people harvesting food and performing other manual tasks that are currently automated.
If you have to pay again for something you already bought (i.e. pay for a new Windows license when you replace your old computer), you are operating less efficiently. Unlike other subscription-based schemes, Microsoft isn't adding any additional value for the subscriber (cable companies, satellite providers, etc. must keep their systems going in order for subscribers to use their services). On the other hand, someone could nuke Redmond and the MS software would still keep going - at least until hit hit the artificially imposed deadline.
I would argue that in the long run, this approach hurts the economy.
Even if you disregard subscription software, though, you could still argue that heavier reliance on open/free software eventually improves the economy, since companies can operate more efficiently - there is a good solid framework for new development and you don't have a single company trying to place barriers to development in order to maintain their monopoly.
Never forget that all that money that Microsoft makes eventually comes out of our pockets - either directly or indirectly.
Then again, you could also argue that I'm full of it.
>Solution: Don't buy the thing for fucks sake.
>Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their
>throat by an MS employee and been forced to
>purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the
>big deal?
Well, in corporation alas, it doesn't works like this. Most of time, the easiest and less risky solution is to go with an M$ product. To swim against the tide, you need to be highly motivated and you need really a lot of energy, to convince the upper management. Most of the time people just give up, as they don't want to add the this burden for projects which migh be already difficult.
Ever notice the level of popular support for Microsoft, even in the face of the most damning evidence against the company?
Well, I imagine there are lots and LOTS of people who have invested money in Microsoft, and all of these people are interested in seeing Microsoft succeed. Thus, they are going to fight anything that comes along that threatens Microsoft, no matter how irrational their arguments.
Picture all the PHBs all over the country looking at Microsoft's history in the marketplace. "Here's a sure thing!" they say to themselves. "I can invest in this and never lose!" Thus, they put LOADS of money into it. Then, when something like the antitrust case comes along, it's like a monkey wrench gets thrown in the works. "How can this be? This was supposed to be a sure thing!"
Ever notice how many people don't care whether or not Microsoft was involved in anti-competitive practices? "It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, the bottom line must be protected! Otherwise, what's going to happen to the value of my stock?"
Getting back to the topic at hand... I think you're going to see a lot of Microsoft allies fighting the GPL. Some of these allies are going to be in the top levels of government--lawmakers. The common thread? They're all Microsoft shareholders.
"The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
"Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers."
Well, all I know is that you're either lazy or not very interested in the subject, in which case you shouldn't be speaking about it. It's not like it's very hard to find out about RMS's ideas straight from the man himself...
For instance, you could go read some of his writings on the GNU Philosophy Page. They are very well written and explain things simply and unequivocally.
If your time is limited, you should start with "What is Free Software?", "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", "Selling Free Software" and "What is Copyleft?". However, all the essays listed on this page are worth reading, and I encourage you to do so.
Also, if you don't feel like reading, you could download some of RMS's speeches listed at the end of the page. The ones he recently gave at NYU and MIT about "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" and "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" are of particular interest. I strongly recommend them
Please try to form your own opinion before lashing out at RMS with uninteresting tidbits and hearsay.
After consecutive straight weeks of hot-air, nothing gained or accomplished, anti-IBM reverse incestuous FUD, underpaidBBStech goes batshit....
C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most companies are going to switch to PC clones, if IBM continues with it's bullying of corporate clients, strong-arming of minicomputer manufacturers and subscription models?
I am so sick of all the "DOS will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you.
Enough said.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
No Microsoft has a monopoly because of what people choose and what people choose is Microsoft.
The problem is that people don't (and often can't) choose due to Microsoft having a racket going with supply to OEMs. Which effectivly puts them in the position of "if you want to supply Windows at all you do so on our terms". Microsoft's terms tend to be "Supply the latest version", "only supply our software", "use only the default install", etc.
Actually for site license enterprise customers they do have a gun to their head. Pay for Win XP and Office XP by October 1st or pay full price after that.
Does Microsoft do an actual site licence anyway? Remember that they have years experience in intimidating and FUDding OEMs. Sounds like they are simply extending their tactics.
Well, perhaps I WANT to buy an HP Kayak WITH LINUX PRE-LOADED! Isn't it a violation of ME the CUSTOMER that I can't buy an HP Kayak with Linux preloaded?
And it gets even sillier. Microsoft wants a situation where they can end up being paid twice for Windows per machine.
Trying to say that an OEM licence dosn't cover putting Windows on the machine using drive imaging software.
ah, but what about the reason that HP won't sell you a non-windows pc: because microsoft says that if they do they lose their OEM license.
If they still want Windows it will cost them considerably more per unit.
The only suppliers likely to be flexable are those too small to have these special OEM deals in the first place. Indeed they might prefer Linux since they can charge a lower price with higher markup.
I think(and i'm just stating my opinion), that's a pretty questionable practice.
The term you are looking for is "racket". Can anyone even find other examples of this kind of thing which do not involve organised crime?
If HP could make a profit selling Kayaks with Linux pre-loaded (i.e. the overhead costs of preinstalling it would be made up for by more sales)
You are missing that the overhead costs of installing Windows are non zero. What makes you think that pre-loading Linux would be more expensive. It's quite possibly less since the process can also perform diagnostics, with Windows you need to put a special image on, rather than a fully working system, so how do you test it?
Microsoft is correct in this case: since companies fund the government, the software created with those funds should be as accessible as possible. The GPL certainly doesn't allow that, because companies aren't allowed to use code governed by it in their own projects (unless, of course, they open the source, which you can't force companies to do).
The GPL isn't "open" enough since it dosn't allow the software to be converted into proprietary software. An interesting kind of "logic". The real reason Microsoft don't like the GPL is that it makes software immune to their normal business practice of "asymilate or kill".
The only parts of their code it would "force" the opening of would be derived works from CPL software. If they don't like this then maybe they should first think about changing the way US copyright law handles "derived works".
This may be forbidden already. It seems to me that allowing Microsoft Word documents to enter or leave a government office is not providing equal protection under the law to all consumers. There's something or other that guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.
That would be anti-discrimination legislation. In the case of the US Federal government the US consitution explicitally forbids any discrimination.
As is i believe that the recent MS liscense which bans "viral" tools from being used with a released API-- which offers a definition of "viral" more extreme than what the GPL is, then gives the GPL as an example of fufilling that definition-- is slander
Or rather libel, since it is written rather than spoken. (A more serious situation.)
Another aspect here is "projection", Microsoft is accusing the GPL of being "viral" when if there is a viral licence involved here it's Microsoft's.
Of course, I turned off the new XP theme immediately. It looks pretty much like Win2K once you get it to calm down.
So what advantages does it actually have over Win2K then?
It dosn't help matters that Microsoft appear to be selling software using the same methods GM invented to sell cars.
Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops
The critical issue here isn't how much DOS sold for, so much as Microsoft's contract with IBM for supply of DOS.
Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer - the mass-market computer, Microsoft truly brought computing to the masses.
The difference here is that the early 80's was a competitive market. Whilst Microsoft were a big player in supply of BASIC they wern't the only player. Indeed the one project to carry the Microsoft name (MSX) fell flat on it's face. MSX machines just couldn't compete with those from Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair, Oric, etc.
As you have said, they have been responsible for bringing computers to the mainstream.
Probably more credit is due Compaq than Microsoft. Who turned the hardware into a commodity product with competition at many levels.
The reason why I dont like MS is because of their "below the belt" business tactics.
The top of the list must be their contracts with OEMs...
You might be so kind as to credit Apple, Commodore, and other GUI companies with the research work that Microsoft has so kindly expropriated
:)
See "search for actual Microsoft innovation threads"
You might note that this was the primary reason behind Apple's UI suit of the early 90s - which, if you recall, they lost mostly because they'd written a license for MS with enough loopholes to drive a small carrier group through.
Did Apple actually write this licence?
The main reason for the binary ones (e.g. .DOC) is that it's easier to tweak
them to load/save more quickly. This isn't as much of an issue as it used to be, but back when most documents were stored on floppies, things
like quicker loading and saving were big selling points.
How does that explain the long standing bug in Word being able to save to floppy?
Open standards allow fair play and use of resources by everbody (a democratic ideal).
Note that "everybody" in this context also includes business. If anything rather than being "unamerica" something like the GPL at least in agreement with the US constitution. Where the whole point of IP protection is the promotion of "science and useful arts".
Making a profit from IP wasn't intended as being an end in itself so much a "carrot" to publish.
1. Microsoft invented (or is it Innovated??) the GUI. Right. I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
There is one in London available too.
2. People hate Microsoft Corporation because they are successful. No. Perhaps some people do. People hate Microsoft for the same reason that some people dislike television. It plays to the lowest common denominator. That does not appeal to me.
People also dislike Microsoft because they find their business practices distasteful, in some cases very similar to those employed in organised crime...
5.Quality is an issue. I know people who love Windows. They think it is so easy to use, that it's easy to install (they think the 20 questions game Microsoft plays with you to register when booting a new machine is 'installing')
It's hardly an endorsement to say in effect that it's easy to do something you should never need to do in the first place anyway...
6.Arcane filesystems. Did I read correctly? Do you have a problem with read/write permissions? I know I love mine. The last thing I need is some script kiddie getting into my machine (with no account even) and having full write access to command.com.
In a corporate environment you want to be able to sit a box on someone's desk and be sure that it isn't easily broken. You just can't do this with Windows, since there is no proper distinction made between "user" and "administrator".
7.Grandmas. I'll grant you that Linux (and the other *N*X flavors aren't *inherently* the most user-friendly thing out there, but that's improving.
Nor is Windows that user friendly. e.g. grandma is upset and insulted when the computer says she did something "illegal".
Also, when set up properly, it's a lot easier for grandma to kill important files in Windows than it is in a non-root account on a *N*X box.
It's trivial for anyone, being a woman or having grandchildren isn't really a factor here
Do you know what the best part was? She could copy the songs to her own 'home' folder (Hmm, a concept borrowed in Windows XP? Innovators...bah.)
XP also "borrows" having a login screen with icons for users from KDM.
If you're hoping to eliminate the public-domainness of the original release, it seems very doubtful that that would have any legal force.
Maybe they were looking at something like making a trivial change, then trying to create uncertainty about which version the corporate actually used...
Whilst this tactic might work when used by a large corporate its unlikely to be useable against one.
It's the kindof abuse of the law where you need deep pockets.
how are they out billions of dollars. OSS is free(typically). Even if the Gov. pays for development it's going to be a shitload cheaper than having to pay for proprietary software that they have to pay again for when they want to upgrade?
Whatever it costs this money is likely to stay in the Brizilian economy, rather than winging its way North.
What is Brazil's current balance of payments situation?
When you're the US government you can demand that MS release its source code for analysis as part of a contract (and they do). From what I hear from my military buddies, though, it takes a hell of a long time to analyze it, as you might imagine. Personally, if I were the government I'd be happier with open source, since its analysis is relatively commonplace, and security implications are well-known.
Also OS code is more likely to be written to be easy for someone to understand. Thus your analysts have less work to do. Let alone if they actually find something they don't like they can do something about it.
Whilst the US military might be able to see MS source code are they able to build custom versions?
You don't want any little surprises when state secrets are on the line.
This applies even more when you are not the US government and have no close diplomatic ties with the US.
What would happen if the GPL was struck down by the courts?
In this case Microsoft would loose, since they would be fighting court battles to protect their own licencing systems.
If it wasn't for the fact that it had been under such a free and liberal license as the BSD license, we might never have seen the rise of such quality, albeit proprietary, operatings systems such as Sun's Solaris or Windows 2000. The nature of the GPL would have forced the companies to give away a lot of the rest of their intellectual property
Complete and utter rubbish. All the GPL would oblige them to distribute under the GPL would be any GPL and GPL derived works they used.
Since IP is a published specification the only changes which would have been likely would be of the bug fixing kind. What GPL does prevent is "embrace and extend".
The only situation where GPL would force giving away their IP would be if they had attempted to contaminate GPL code with proprietary additions. Or their code was complete "sphagetti". It structured modular programming is beyond them then probably best the go out of business anyway!
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
Actually the only way you could actually make it "anti-American" would be to ammend the constitution. The sole reason IP laws even exist in the USA is to promote publication.
According to you, if the BSD TCP/IP stack had been under the GPL, Solaris and Win2K wouldn't be able to access the internet! Do you not realize that TCP/IP is a published standard? Any company or group of individuals can get a copy of that standard and write their own TCP/IP stack which follows the published standard and interoperates with other systems through it.
Anyway even lawyers and judges can understand the concept of modular programming.
MS keeps arguing "everyone should benefit" from the software the government is paying for, and that since companies can't benefit from GPL software, tge government shouldn't be spending any morney on it. Fine.
Fine except that the meaning of "everybody" changes mid sentence...
Microsoft could *never* challange the legality of the GPL, no matter how much money they throw into it.
Certainly not in the USA without a consitutional ammendment. For the simple reason that the GPL is about encouraging publication...
Why shouldn't the term "organized crime" apply to Microsoft?
Simply because it isn't Politically Correct to do so.
I think the definition of "organized crime" needs to be broadened to mean more than just the Mafia... The shoe seems to fit corporations such as Microsoft just as well. Bonus points for RICO action on them (not that that will happen with the current political environment)...
There was another post recently about RICO being applied to a medical charity, so the definition does appear to be broad anyway.
Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you.
But you also have an established attitude of "change everything every 18-24 months", which greatly complicates things. It means that Microsoft's desktop monopoly actually has its foundation built in quicksand....
Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things.
They probably do care when they don't work. They might even care when things can work better with less money being spent.
Until Linux as easy to install,
Except that end users shouldn't be installing operating systems in the first place, in the main they don't. The issue here is education as to why users shouldn't have the chore of installing software and why it's a bad idea in the first place.
use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate),
Not really so critical as it might appear because of the way things keep changing
and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows
Windows is very confusing and intimidating in one critical area. That is when something goes wrong
Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like?
Non intimidating to who? Also it could easily end up being just as intimidating to adults.
The problem is doing this to a "server" is actually part of the problem, not only do you get an interface which does not help system administrators you get a situation where end users think theu know what they are doing...
If microsoft would just stop all this crap with windows being the one and only operating system and get back to the task of developing software NO MATTER WHAT THE PLATFORM OR LICENSE we would all be better off.
Including Microsoft, as someone said on CNN last night.
Lets face it Bill Gates is a very corrupt person and no matter how much money he gives away he will still be corrupt.
He's more someone who is obsessed. Which is not to say the methods used to further the obsession (of Windows everywhere) arn't utterly corrupt.
Let's be honest here -- the GPL is really "philosophy-ware". The people releasing software using it declare that they believe that software should always come with source, and that only if you agree with this philosophy can you use the GPLed work in some software that you release to others.
Since I personally choose to release the software that I write in my spare time with a less restrictive license than the GPL (such as the Artistic license), I would also lose out if publicly-funded software was licensed solely with the GPL (if I wanted to make use of this software in my own open-source project).
So, I firmly believe that government-funded software should be open source and available for anyone to use. This does not preclude it from being incorporated into GPLed projects, but it also does not preclude people who don't want to use the GPL from making use of it as well.
..wayne..
GPL == immortality.
If it's released without any copyright, thus into the public domain, then can't anyone just appropriate it, alter it trivially, and claim copyright on the whole work? And thus GPL their trivially different strain?
I assume so, but so what? Any corporation that wants to use the code can just grab a public-domain copy and do whatever they want with it. The GPL will only protect the changes made to your own derived strain.
If you're hoping to eliminate the public-domainness of the original release, it seems very doubtful that that would have any legal force. Otherwise, corporations would circle like vultures waiting for any any public-domain release, and instantly remove the release for the public domain. This doesn't happen. Instead, corporations must rely on tactics like embrace-and-extend, where the legal rights only apply to their derivative works but not to the original.
After all its OUR money which funds government projects...
Corporations have been known to pay taxes too.
Well, not "immortality" in the sense that it is guaranteed that people will continue to use it, but immortality in the sense, as you allude, that people *can* continue to use it, that anyone can resurrect it at any later date, and that anyone can lift useful bits and pieces of code out of the programs for use in a different GPLed project.
A $5,000 distro?
:)
Well, all I know is that his ideology gets so twisted in the translation through other people, that the only thing I'm sure about him is that he's fat, hairy, and he doesn't take showers.
Not that it makes him any of a lesser person, but he makes a poor spokesperson for the movement among common, shallow-minded people that democratically run the planet (as pawns for the politicians that really run things). Just like many people would rather not stare too at Bill Gates, either.
Then again, it's possible that RMS is a first class hypocrite as he is a first class programmer. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in that dispute.
Did I put words in his mouth? No. I said other people do.
Did I personally attack him? No. I commented on his appearance. Some of my favorite professors in college were fat, hairy, and smelled like they didn't take showers, and yet they're still my favorite professors. You're the shallow-minded one, for taking my comment way out of context, even AFTER I explained it.
But yea, I have to be wrong about putting RMS in anything but a holy light... if that makes you feel better and lets you sleep at night.
That's like saying it's wrong to sell ice cream, but it's okay to sell a waffle cone. An ice cream cone would still cost money. All they would have to do is give out free ice cream to whomever wants it.
And here's how the analogy words: GPL software is like going to Dairy Queen, cupping your hands, and trying to carry home a scoop of pistachio. That is the average user... Linux resembles melted ice cream. Smart programmers would bring their own bowls and would have portable freezers in the trunk of their cars to carry it around... but that would obviously make them "free ice cream hobbyists". And corporations just send a big refrigerated truck over and carry all the ice cream they want back to corporate headquarters, where they save lots of money and run a good business selling books below cost + free ice cream.
Uhh, anyway.
Well, before anyone takes anything I've said seriously... everyone should stop trying to assume what FSF is all about in their own words, cause obviously the FSF is the brainchild of RMS, and you're speaking for him everytime you speak of the FSF or the GPL's intentions. Just like you're speaking for Bill Gates every time you tell people if Microsoft is asking, "Where can we try to drag you kicking and screaming today?"....
You know, when I was in high school, I had an underground newspaper. A lot of kids liked it. A lot of kids didn't care about it. And a few kids were assinine enough to call me names like "fag", "dork", and "ass-kisser" as I handed out my newspapers. Now, there were kids who physically threatened me at times, but I was no pushover... I fought back, and won almost all of the time... but if it didn't come to that, I simply politely ignored them and continued with my business. I figured that I had better things to do than waste my time reacting to every loser who wanted to make me look stupid. In general, my newspaper was a success, and I remember who read it and enjoyed it rather than those who were pricks about it.
So why can't you guys do that with Linux and Microsoft? Sticks and stones (and lawsuits and anti-competitive measures) may break your bones, but names won't ever hurt you. You can't spent a lot of time worrying about this crap. Just write good programs, put together a good operating system to fit peoples' needs, and you will be a success no matter what. I honestly don't know why you get so worked up over nothing, really...
Professors usually have a tenure and are paid to do research work as well as lecturing. It's a step up the food chain from a Post Grad (who is usually earning a PhD and paying for the privilege).
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Damn good point. Now why can't professors see this sort of thing?
Of course, it raises the question on whether companys should benefit from University's research. Also, once the research is done once and GPL'd, it doesn't take much effort to research the results and write your own code from it. You may want to use a chinese wall situation but it should still assist.
Of course, this means University research is highly favoring the Free Software movement, but I've not really formed an opinion on that yet. Someone else want to form one for me?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Ooohhh. Rather a class system you chaps have over there! Wow.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
So Microsoft is attacking the GPL because they can't "embrace and extend" GPL'd programs? I think this is a short sighted view of the whole thing and a conclusion that really doesn't surprise a lot of people or analysts.
I would have expected more from a professor.
Microsoft has many reasons for attacking the GPL but by far the biggest reason is to attack Linux. I don't think they are too upset about not being able to embrace and extend Linux - they could do that anyway by simply putting a Linux ABI on NT (which is entirely possible and less work than most people think). What really concerns them is the increase in server sales of Linux. The best way to stop people using and developing for Linux is to attack the GPL. It's simple really - make people afraid of the license and Linux suffers.
It's naive to think the MS attacks on Linux are somehow special. Look at their site and you'll see plenty of vitriol against Sun/Solaris, Oracle and other systems - just they attack a different way because different systems have different perceived weaknesses. Linux is nothing special in this regard. Microsoft has just started to take notice. Competition is good, but don't complain if the heat gets turned up.
I did like one bit where he brazenly states that adding instructions to a CPU won't speed it up. I think people will find the 386 faster than the 286, MMX faster than non-MMX and Altivec faster than non-Altivec. The comments are silly - of course new instructions can speed up a CPU. They just have to be useful and well implemented.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
What is interesting about .NET is that the runtime is actually being ported to FreeBSD by Caldera. I wonder how long it takes to get an MSIL implementation running on Linux? Given that it is going to be an ECMA standard (unlike Java), it shouldn't be too long until someone implements the full runtime and class library, not to mention creates a gcc back end.
.NET: You have a good point that I didn't consider. I'll remember to factor that in to my future arguments.
.NET. It means so many different things, some good (MSIL/runtime/C#) some bad (subscription services). I wish they hadn't lumped it all under the same handle.
Now the "application services" side of
I hate
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
you know, that would almost make sense.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"Give a presentation on your debugging technology, here's the templates for your presentation."
"Do I have to use these?"
"Yes."
How we know is more important than what we know.
vaguely disappear and never be mentioned in future episodes?
How we know is more important than what we know.
well, it doesnt appear to be a blatant troll. The last section is absolutely correct (being that is copied directly from here and the lawyer actually exists.
How we know is more important than what we know.
hmm.. the artistic license, isn't that the one that says all changes have to be submitted to the original author? Man, the GPL doesn't even say that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Often makes me wonder, why does no-one sell PCs to people who cant afford a grand? When it is common to have a PS2 with keyboard and mouse in every house (and probably with some software protection that makes you actually buy it), who do you think is going to win then?
How we know is more important than what we know.
You've got it right. No one *has* to buy the damned operating system. Linux can do whatever you want it to. If you somehow *need* to buy a copy of Windows, which I've never actually heard of anyone being forced to pay for Windows out of their own pockets with no other alternatives whatsoever, then Win95 pre-IE integration will still run 99% of Win9x apps--and if the concept of a Web browser as a file browser doesn't disgust you, which it shouldn't since KDE and many others do the same thing now anyway, Win98 will run all win9x apps. And of course if you want better stability, without the frills of (oh dear God, the horror) a media player, a firewall, and all the other goodies of XP, then get NT or again if the Web/file browser doesn't make you cringe, 2k.
/. is that most of us dislike Microsoft and its shady practices. And I agree that it's a predatory monoploly that should be broken up or regulated severely. But even if it were split right now into an OS company and an application company, nothing would change. Integration is the future, so the OS company would license the apps and integrate them anyway, at least till they could re-write and replace them. Again, Apple is integrating everything with the OS, too, because that's what the average consumer wants--a computer that has everything one needs there already, without hunting down third-party apps and codecs just to watch a damned video clip, or installing and figuring out a conmplicated CD burning app designed for powerusers when a simplified one in the OS would do. Power users can still get their complicated third-party apps, while the simplified versions will make the lives of Joe Averages everywhere much easier. And again, no one is forcing you to buy it. Stick to Linux, build your friends and grandma Linux boxes, and let the rest of the world have their easy-to-use OS with everything there already. But I have to point out the hypocrisy of a Linux community which on the one hand is schizophrenic about whether they even want to make Linux easy enough for Grandma to use, and on the other hand bashes MS (Apple is doing the same thing) for making an OS designed to eventually be easy enough for Grandma to burn songs to CD, watch streaming video, and even have a firewall to protect her even if she doesn't understand what it's doing and why.
Of course, I repeat, no one ever gets forced to buy Windows. Your company may buy it for you and make you use it. It may come pre-installed on a PC you want. So what. Build your own PC or build a PC for the friend/relative who wants one, and install Linux, *BSD, BeOS, Solaris, DR-DOS, or whatever the fuck you want. Just stop the whiney bitching about how MS is evil for giving its OS customers firewalls and media players and Web browsers and all the stuff that every single modern operating system offers. Linux has them all if you want them. And don't say Windows has them even if you don't want them, because just because it gets installed doesn't mean you can't install and use something better. I do on my Win partition.
Last time this argument came up someone started complaining that OS users shouldn't have to pay for this extra stuff that they may not use. Well, then don't buy Windows, and don't buy a machine pre-installed with it. Lord knows anyone who can handle a screwdriver can assemble a better computer more inexpensively than HP, Packard-Hell (glad they left the US PC market, aren't you), Compaq, and the rest. And if you're incompetent to handle a screwdriver, then you can get your local small PC shop to build that better machine for you. Again, no one *forces* you to pay for Windows or any of its components.
And beside, Apple is ahead of Microsoft in most forms of application/OS integration, yet they don't get demonized for it. Let's face it--people want their PCs to just work. They want to have a CD burner built into the OS, a la what Apple and MS are doing, not have to buy one or figure out how to install and use the one that came with their new drive. Ditto for firewalls--it's great that MS is finally including one, since most PC users wouldn't ever get one. If it's easy to configure and has reasonable defaults, then intrusions and DDOS should go down measurably--and isn't that a good thing? And people want a media player. Why should Joe Schmoe have to find and download and install one, and then find and download and install all the codecs? Bullshit. It should be on the PC already in the case of everyday users, and corporate users who don't want it don't have to use it, and corporations who don't want it used will disable it. And if you want to use QuickTime or some open-source thing instead, no one is stopping you from installing it. There will be incompatibility problems with the new OS at first, but they'll get fixed.
The long and the short of it is that integration is *good* from the perspective of the average user. The only reason people bitch about it on
I'm a Windows user because I want ease of use, and I want stuff to work with minimal fiddling, and I want the platform which has the widest game compatibility. I also dislike some of MS' behavior, especially Bill Gates' despicable crap during the trial, which puts me between a rock and a hard place. I'd be willing to give up much of my gaming, if only Linux were as easy to install, use, update, and configure, as Windows. Yet after waiting almost 3 years, Linux still is not ready for us point-and-click types who don't want to have to type unless we're writing something. Damn it, Jim, I'm a writer, not a programmer. I've installed Linux four times in the last three years, and it's impressive, but not ready for everyday use by people who don't want to have to fret every time we add a new piece of hardware or want to see a video in an odd codec. And the way I see it, Linux will fall behind even more unless projects like Nautilus go further and faster. Integration is the future, at least for non-programmers, and bitching about it won't change it. In fact, while I was waiting for Linux to get ready for my desktop, Apple came out with OS X and it's so promising that the next time I buy hardware, it might have the Apple logo, and it'll probably never see the Linux I was so looking forward to a couple years ago.
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
It would be more expensive because HP and most other big manufacturers do not build computers to order, they have assembly lines. If you're only installing one OS, that's simple. If you're installing two, then you have to fork the assembly line and keep separate inventories of the same machines with different OSes. Forking the assembly line adds cost because you need extra equipment and extra workers to handle the extra OS. Keeping separate inventories of the same PC with different OSes causes overhead.
/. So if enough geeks aren't willing to buy VA Linux hardware for them to stay in the hardware business, then enough geeks definitely wouldn't buy HP Linux desktops to make it worth them even considering maybe possibly doing it sometime in the distant future. Be realistic.
And no, there are no diagnostics done. Why would anyone do that? This is an economy of scale--you set up one PC to have a crisp OS install, and since the hardware in all the others for that model will be identical, you image the drive and duplicate it down to the bit for each and ever PC that has the same hardware. If the hardware is imperfect the store or buyer will send it back--it's cheaper that way than testing each PC, since they churn them out by the thousands and only a tiny fraction will be flawed.
So the point is, it doesn't benefit most companies anything to add a Linux option. It adds cost to have two OSes instead of just one, even if the second OS is free it still costs an incredible amount of overhead compared to just having to install one, since we're talking about having to fork one assembly process into two. If there were a large enough demand for Linux desktop PCs, then companies like HP would make them. But there is not enough demand to offset their costs, since almost all customers want Windows--as I pointed out, few geeks buy desktop systems from big manufacturers, and geeks and their associates are the only end users who would run Linux in all likelihood. So, there's no profit. Hell, even VA Linux just got out of the hardware business--not enough geeks were buying Linux machines from them for them to make a profit from it, and we're talking VA Linux here, the company whose banners have been right here in the heart of geekdom since before they even bought
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
The problem is not the fact that Microsoft is bundling, as evidenced by the acceptance of RH et al.'s approach. The problem is in who makes the software that is bundled. Ask yourself that and you'll end up with two different questions depending on which company is considered.
In one, the OS is leveraged to promote the same company's products in an anticompetitive (see Jackson's upheld FOF and COL) method. In the other, the distribution is leveraged to promote software made by someone else, which violates nothing and in total amounts to slightly less than BFD.
This is silly! Many government offices work with programs that are not for release to the general public. Most of these use a proprietary format (usually binaries of the structures). Data is archived in this format because it makes it easier for those who work with the programs to read the data. One such program I used to work on has more information in the proprietary data format than any of the document formats (that is why we use it). It is also important to note that such data is not distributed to the public, but used internally.
More importantly, many projects in government offices are done for private companies. Some companies give their programs to the government workers that they have contracted to do their work. They cannot release information about these programs without the consent of the company. In this scenario, the company paid for the work that was done, not the government(and ultimately the people).
As long as commercial software exists, proprietary formats will exist. Forcing government workers to not use these formats is only crippling their work. In a competing world, I would prefer that my country has every advantage it can get!
You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
Where I perhaps disagree is with the second half of the statement. Even though you and I choose not to use their software, we would be wise to keep an eye on the single company that controls > 90% of the desktop computing marketshare. It would not be hard for any powerful company to change the computer landscape for a comparatively smaller segment like Linux/BSD users. If we could argue that we are 'Microsoft-free', we could also argue that we must remain vigilant for that choice to always remain.
Funny..
Last time I checked RedHat/Debian/Etc. came with a browser, media player, fire-wall, and e-mail client.
I actually like the fact the Windows comes bundled with stuff like that. It makes a re-install go quicker.
And if I don't like the stuff it came bundled with, I can always use something else.
Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
I think the general consensus amoung technical people that Microsoft is evil and that Bill Gates is Satan. Microsoft continually slams the GPL and Open Source, does this effect anyone's opinion of it, or does it make GPL programmers fight harder? A rehtorical question of course :)
Does anyone in the entire country actually trust Microsoft?
--
microsoft, it's what's for dinner
bq--3b7y4vyll6xi5x2rnrj7q.com
it's a sig, wtf?
I was thinking nationally not globally...
Does anyone on the planet actually trust Microsoft?
--
microsoft, it's what's for dinner
bq--3b7y4vyll6xi5x2rnrj7q.com
it's a sig, wtf?
It is an analogy. Like all analogies, this one has its limitations on how far one can extend its premises through reasoning. I think it did a fairly good job of comparing the two within the realm which it did. At least the author bothered to check most of his facts, which is more than can be said for a lot of articles I've read online lately.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
I hate to burst everyones bubble here but the only thing that (most) folks care about anymore is how stuff affects the bottom line, with perhaps the exception of those of us who enjoy the free software movement and all it offers. Because businesses have a more observable impact on the economy, the federal government will do anything to make them happy. I submit the DMCA as evidence.
;-) You'd better beleive that just as sure as he read that article (and perhaps our comments ;-) Hi Bill!!), he's got his lobby-drones buzzing the members on capital hill to look into this and if they decide on specifics, that the BSD license be the one of choice.
While the federal government recognizes the role of the consumer, we are not the first group they think of when it comes to economics. It's a shame, because if nothing else, every American is a consumer first. Bill Gates has one of the largest companies in the history of the US. Due to his marketing department, and perhaps a few sales, M$ appears to have a great impact on the nations economy. One must keep in mind the lobbying power that Bill has in Washington (DC that is
Keep in mind Microsoft gives the appearance to economists that it is key, or at least very important, to the US economy. And those economists are advisors to various of your elected officials. As such, they'll make suggestions to said officials that if a decision need be made on which license(s) to use for "government code" it be one that benefits equally businesses and individuals. The BSD license would be fantastic for the very reason mentioned in this article; Bill's already stolen/used (your choice) BSD code. Our only hope is that the (19) states sue the Fed for its assistence in building the worlds largest monopoly of all time. Yeah right, like that'll happen...
Bob
which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.
Solution: Don't buy the thing for fucks sake. Has anyone ever had a gun stuck down their throat by an MS employee and been forced to purchase MS software? No so what the hell is the big deal?
Placing a firewall with all these moronic attacks taking place is a good thing definitely nothing wrong with MS doing so. Bundling a media player, OH MY GOD SAY IT ISN'T SO! Don't you think people would appreciate listening to music on their PC. Again no one is stopping anyone from using alternatives they can download, MS never threatened anyone for creating an alternative MS based media player.
OH MY GOD STOP IT!! An email client!! NO!!! What will they think of next, heaven knows no one really needs an email client. Nope they need a bare bones OS they can spend hours on end downloading everything from scratch. Evil Microsoft, how dare they.
All this bashing is making me sick. Shit I don't use MS, way I see it, out of sight out of mind, my opinion is let them be, they can self destruct on their own.
Want Root?
Hm. Frankly, I couldn't care less about them. Really. I run GNU/Linux and free software apps on my workstation at work, on my desktop computer, on my firewall, on my laptop, on my PDA, on every damn thing in my house that has a microprocessor and memory, and I've done so for quite a long time. And before GNU/Linux I had OS/2. Microsoft has never seen a cent from me.
:-)
And there's a constantly growing crowd of others like me, who switch to free software and stay with it. We're forming a community, we have a voice loud enough to make governments listen. People are becoming more aware of critical issues in the software world, and less likely to blindly believe everything Microsoft throws at them. More and more industry heavyweights are pushing for adoption of open standards and transparency exactly where Microsoft would like to have its proprietary "extensions" hooked. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it. From their point of view, the GPL *is* like PacMan. You keep eating the ghosts and they keep popping right up again, over and over, until one of them eventually eats *you*.
So yeah, I think that 1) the GPL scares the living sh*t out of them (the sound of their latest statements is the sound of panic) and 2) the best thing we can do about Microsoft is completely ignore them. Ignoring them would save us a lot of time, and would probably scare them even more.
I applaud Dr. Pfaffenberger's insight. The focus is on GPL because Linux won't last forever but GPL will. GPL is an exquisite pain in Gates' groin and he can't stand it any longer. In the wake of today's court announcement that Microsoft will not be broken up, we should expect a legal challenge by MS against GPL soon on constitutional grounds. We must be prepared to support the FSF legal team with every penny we have.
Haven't there been numerous successful attempts to get government source code released by invoking the Freedom of Information Act? If it's publicly funded and not classified, I seem to recall it usually becoming available after enough requests.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Whenever you base your analysis on faulty or shaky premises, you will get horseshit.
Same here. Amdahl/IBM were both playing in the same arena under the same rules of business, i.e. both were in for the money and both were willing to exclude you from using either product if you were not willing to pay for it. Try to apply that to the GPL...
I don't think MS has to steal OSS software to cut their development effort/time/money. They have sufficient money and resources to produce their own. Also, if MS likes and incorporates BSD-licensed software, great! That's what the authors intended when they slapped the license on.
Cheers Ms. Sophie...
As I have pointed out in a paper I wrote a few years ago (www.seiferth-ryan.com) the Government doesn't directly distribute ANY GPL. It must be released by a third party usually an individual since few organizations until the last few years released anything GPL'd. Federally funded software is most generally distributed without a copyright of any kind (Title 17, Section 105).
It seems to me that companies with centralized control mechanisms are much much better suited to responding to industry threats. Meanwhile, all the "open-source movement" does is look up "interesting reads" on slashdot. What's the damn point? Who's going to counter any move by a single company with a single focus? Even if an alternative strategy comes up to attack the various upcoming microsoft initiatives, there's bound to be endless complaining, and back-and-forth. "Well, it uses a BSD license" or "Well, it's GNOME and I like KDE" or "Well, it would be better done in X fashion" ad nauseum.
Blah. I just have to get this off my chest, I guess, but I think there's a lot more pointless hot air in the "open-source movement" floating around in discussions and debates, while companies worried about bottom lines are getting shit done, like, now. In my mind, it's been proven that companies with some financial interest in their product put in more effort and produce high quality, useable (read: not fucking beta!) stuff.
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
The situation is compounded by the use of proprietary software with its ever-changing formats (MS Word being the most prominent offender). The National Archives could give proprietary formats a poke in the eye, reduce costs, and improve service if they would choose an archival digital format (CD-ROMs might be acceptable, given appropriate testing), and state that they will accept digital submissions in formats that are published and blessed by standards bodies.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
They don't have to find that the GPL is illegal, they just have to find that the GPL is unenforcable. That would make it pretty much useless. If would also make it very hard to relicense a lot of software which was written through the combined efforts of different developers. I don't think that this will happen, but IAMAL, so I'm mostly rambling about something I don't know much about.
Microsoft spends Millions if not Billions of dollars trying to improve their public image. I can just see it in the press now, "Microsoft violates the license used by Linux!", "Microsoft steals code from starving programmers in latest application!". These topics are becomming mainstream enough to effect Microsoft's core customers' opinion of them. They'll just wait until someone else violates the GPL, and use their lobying and PR efforts as best they can to discredit the GPL.
I guess I have a different opinion on subscription based licensing of software than some people here. When I worked in computer support about 5 years ago, we were licensing MS software through Microsoft Enterprise Licensing Program. It worked very well in a large corporate environment, and was very cost effective. You bought licenses at avolume discount, and you could run whichever MS OS you felt was appropriate on the machines you had licensed it for, except server versions. That meant that you could load Win95 or NT4. When Win 98 came out, you could switch to it if you chose to do so. What made it work was that the prices for the subscription were cost effective for us opposed to buying the OS with the computers, and then upgrading the OS on some of them later. Another large benefit was that it greatly simplified keeping trace of software licenses. We were spending 10s of thousands of dollars keeping track of licenses, and we still failed every internal software audit, every time. Once you get to the point where you have hundreds of employees, just keeping track of how many computers you have is a challenge, knowing what OS and software they are running is nearly impossible. There is other software that I've purchased as a subscription, where it worked well. One example is the recently maligned MSDN. You pay around $500 for a professional level license. It includes everything you need to develop device drivers but the compiler. You still purchase Visual C++ seperately. You also get a license to load up to 5 computers with MS OSs in order to test your software. This includes Windows 9X right up to Win XP server beta 2. Advanced server and datacenter versions are not included. The software and documentation you are sent is constantly being updated, and you receive these updates as part of the subscription price.
I guess my point is that sometimes a subscription is a good way to purchase software. It depends on the software, and the price. As long as MS continues to offer the software on a non-subscription basis as well, and they don't artificially inflate the price, this my work out well for many consumers.
I pay taxes too. What if I want to take the code and put it in my software. The code should be released into the public domain because the public paid for it. I can then use that code and release the software under any license I choose. That could be BSD, GPL, or a closed source license.
If you limit government funded to being released under GPL, then you prohibit that software from being used in software under almost every other license.
Microsoft did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year!
While this is true, it's kind of misleading. Microsoft didn't pay income tax because they were able to count the stock options they gave their employees as an expense. This just shifts the tax burden to their employees. This means that although Microsoft itself didn't pay any taxes directly, Microsoft still generated an enourmous amount of this country's tax base.
The government has been moving away from funding development and trying to buy off the shelf products. They are doing this because they can get comercial software cheaper than custom built software. The reason for this is that commercial software is writen for a wider customer base, and therefore the development costs are spread out over a wider number of customers. If you force all the software the government uses to be GPL (which is something Greyfox didn't necessarily propose, but other posters did). How do you pay the developers, or who pays the developers? You can say that people will pay developers to add the features that they need added. Developers are expensive, why would they pay someone to write code, when they know someone else needs the same thing, and when it gets written for them, you'll get it for free. What you end up with is a bunch of hackers writing code for the joy of it, while having to have other jobs, and the government paying for the rest of the development. That's a horrible way to fund software development, and doesn't really encourage investment in innovation. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government can't provide all of it. The govenment can't even provide much of it unless it has a tax base. For them to have a tax base, people have to be making money. Where does the money come from.
The standard answer I hear to this is that the money will be made through selling hardware and support. The problem with this is that is doesn't spread the costs out among the people who need the software very well. You'll always have those who won't pay for the software to be developed, and then undercut the prices of those who do. It's not a level playing field. It is possible for a few companies to make money selling hardware and services for GPLed software, but it's not something you can base your economy on. The system isn't self limiting. Those who chose to not pay for the innovation have the lowest costs, and can make the most money. This discourages innovation, even though the tools for innovation (the source code itself) are more available.
If you think I'm wrong then let me know. I will read your posts and listen to your facts and opinions. If you flame me or just repeat some unsupported dogma, then my opinion isn't likely to change.
Guys, Netscape already tried to recover stock price and marketshare by attacking Microsoft instead of creating quality product of their own. It didn't work.
PS. God bless run-on sentances.
There was an article here last week about the .NET vs. NC issue and MicroSoft's reason for bashing the GPL. (I suspect an "all of the above", myself.)
IBM still uses FUD on the mainframe compatible issue, but they're starting to realize that their credibility is, well, absent...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
Linux just happened to be the first project that got completed. NSA has been playing with different ideas for secure systems on several different OS's.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
A large part of my gripe is that it would be really easy for the government to start doing business using proprietary, closed file formats and protocols. This would effectively shut me, a taxpaying and voting citizen who happens to want to use something different, out of the process. That'd be a hell of a lot worse than what I suggested, in my opinion.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Furthermore, storing or distributing any files in a proprietary file format should be forbidden for all government offices. They should only be allowed to use a given file format if full specs for the format are publically and freely available and are unencumbered in any way by patents or other IP law.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I call Windows XP "Windows for Dummies". Of course, that's redundant. :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
What Microsoft doesn't want you to understand is that by playing their rational game, you lose, they win.
Doing business is much like playing games. No wonder some praise Go or other strategy games for learning business tactics. It's not just business, but all competition, such as evolution, is much based on "games".
Game theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with identifying winning strategies and situations in games, such as business.
Drama theory is a generalization of the game theory that takes into account irrationality. Irrationality, in this case, means just short-term irrationality. On long term, or on another scale, it's very rational.
Drama theory gives explanations to why people get mad, envious, revengeful, bullying, and what not. These are usually considered very negative aspects of life, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be, but their function really is just level the playing field when you get stuck in a losing situation. They are rational at some level.
Revolutions, violent demonstrations, and wars (''war is just a continuation of politics'') are examples of trying to change the rules. Others more accepted ones are boycotts, work strikes, and so on. Religions are not usually rational - but amazingly they are often helpful to the followers. Even if a certain God of Vows (such as Mithra) doesn't exist, believing in his powers and making business deals or marriages in his name helps in building a strong society. Irrationality pays, big.
Microsoft wants businesses to play by the traditional rules of the business game. Supporting the proprietary business model may be rational in many cases. But the problem is that Microsoft has attained a game-theoretically sustainable winning position. You can only win by changing the rules, which may require slight "irrationality".
It's perfectly rational to get red mad at Microsoft, and give up short-term business opportunities, to perhaps be able to compete in a healthy market later.
Microsoft is also trying to talk generally about the ''best'' business model for software industry, although Linux and Open Source movements are an ad hoc response of the IT world to combat specially against Microsoft's unhealthy monopoly. The rationale for general context is completely irrational and irrelevant for the current specific situation in the operating system industry.
GPL means changing the rules, especially for this particular situation. It means starting a revolution, which may in some cases mean giving up the proprietary model even where it might have been useful otherwise. The target is Microsoft.
This is what Microsoft is afraid of.
P.S. Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like? *shudder*
It doesn't matter. You will use it. So will most other people. Quality got nothing to do with it. Here is the plan.
1) Stop support and new device drivers for all old operating systems
2) Do not allow OEM sales of anything except XP.
3) Only allow Office XP to be set up on Windows XP.
This simple strategy will force all users into Office XP and Windows XP within 3 years. It will be horribly coercive. Ever notice Windows NT doesn't support LCD monitors ?? How about new sound cards/new NICs ??
All new hardware will be only supported under XP. Old office will not be supported or compatible with Windows XP.
All your $$ belong to BG & Co.
That depends on the LCD. The head of our academic center upgraded to 2000 against his best intentions to support HIS LCD screen.
The point remains though - new hardware for which drivers do not yet exist will only work under XP. This is a critical part of the strategy, just as forcing all OEMs to use XP is.
This article really misses the boat.
If we backstep 3-5 years, we see a different computing environment. Microsoft OWNS the desktop and office. UNIX OWNS servers.
Then, we look back another 15 years. CP/M is the best OS available. Microsoft buys DOS for $50000, ports BASIC to DOS, and undersells CP/M by a substantial amount, and owns desktops.
Then, to 1995. OS/2 comes out. Windows 95 comes out. OS/2 is good, Windows 95 is junk. Windows 95 sells for under $100. OS/2 sells for a few hundred. Microsoft owns graphical user interface environments. Mac could have owned it, but they made the same error made by CP/M and IBM - they went after the high end.
The low end takes over. This pattern has repeated itself over and over.
Back to the mid to late 1990s. Microsoft was concerned. As networking became more relevant, they needed a network presence. Hence Windows NT. It rapidly looked like NT would take over the low end server market. It didn't matter that it sucked badly compared to UNIX - it cost a third of UNIX. The low end would rule again.
However, as NT was starting to make ground, enter linux. UNIX admins EVERYWHERE set up linux boxes to do server tasks for free instead of tolerating NT. This ate into Microsoft's market.
Microsoft would OWN the low end server market today if it were not for open source OSs, primarily linux.
And now Microsoft is attacking the GPL. They are attacking it because it owns markets that otherwise would rightfully belong to Microsoft, following the age old rule that the cheaper system wins independently of function. They can now see the writing on the wall. Linux (and *BSD) has eaten the low end server market, and Microsoft is not getting it back. You cannot undersell free, and Microsoft has never won by competing on quality of software.
This is alien to their entire business strategy. They make crappier products, sell them cheaply, provide no support, and own the market. Once they own one market, they leverage into other markets as strongly as possible.
This strategy today makes them a PROFIT ABOVE TAXES OF A BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. And Microsoft wants more. If they could merely keep new quality software out of the GPL, they have a chance.
The GPL, you see, does not prevent a business from using software. But it does assign the IP to the open source community. And that scares Redmond to death. Open source has already eaten markets Microsoft had earmarked. They are now worried about the home base - the main monopoly, the billion dollar a month monopoly.
Now THAT is something to worry about.
This definitely raises the question of whether or not Microsoft recieves any federal funding. Everyone ready to donate money to the FSF? I wonder if the FSF could get federal funding to help fight this.
But the GPL, Gates says, "breaks that cycle--that is, it makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work. So what you saw with TCP/IP or Sendmail or the browser could never happen. We believe there should be free software and commercial software; there should be a rich ecosystem that works around that."
Anyone can build on it, you just have to follow a license for a change. If you use the sourcecode, you gotta adhere to the GPL. Otherwise, you can do it from scratch, as you should if you absolutely have to play hide'n seek with your code. The specifications and protocols will remain open for anyone to implement, until Microsoft extends them of course. Why not split your parts up into components and truly share your modifications with others on core technology? You can add as many evil NSA-backdoors and fluffy doubleclick-ads you like in the application and kernel anyways.. The article made a very good point that GPLing government code would indeed prevent predatory behaviour.
Clue: Sharing is not a one-way process.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
To specifically prevent Microsoft, or thier toadies, from including any code, technology, or algroithms that are BSD licensed in Microsoft products. Turnabout is fair play, they want to 'embrace and extend'? Prevent them from using any freely available code. Let anyone not associated with Microsoft freely use the code (within the specifics of the BSD license) but specifically exclude Microsoft from using it. Just like the new license that came out of Redmond last week that prevents 'viral' assocations with Microsoft giveaways.
Think. Places like NASA and the U.S. Navy already using Open Source systems to base their mission critical apps on, with very little likelihood of them switching back to MS stuff. If the entire government switches to non-MS stuff, they have absolutely no reason to stop the antitrust suite against MS.
I am !amused.
The GPL is based on copyright law. They could change copyright law, couldn't they (hell, the do every time disney asks them to)? I'm sure dubya wouldn't mind helping out if one of his big business buddies asked him to. Something along the lines of "copyright law applies as long as the work in question is purchased, if it is given away free then the owner forefits copyright on the work." Also the GPL has never been tested fully in court and M$ have access to a LOT of lawyers.
My girlfriend was talking to her mom about it. I overheard my gf saying things like "people like [me, her boyfriend] don't like Microsoft because of things they've done and..." etc. When she got off the phone I asked what her mom thought of the decision reversal. My gf said that her mom didn't think anything of it. "My mom likes Microsoft." I almost shat myself. Like M$??? How?! Can't she see the abuse of power? Can't she smell the greed coming out of Redmond like limburger cheese stuff in old gym shoes??
And the simple answer is no. To her mom, a computer is just a computer. It sends her e-mail, she can put picture from her digital camera on it, but she doesn't even think about things like licensing or freedom. It's not that she doesn't care, she just doesn't know. Even if I explained it to her it would still be no big deal. Its this sort of attitude that will keep M$ around for a long time.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Government funded software that is public domain shouldn't restrict the code's incorporation into the software that my business uses. I'd be annoyed as hell that my corporate tax dollars were being spent towards software that is useless.
BSD licensed software on the other hand, would be great. I wonder if the courts will rule the the GPL illegal for existing software that is federally funded and developed under the GPL.
-- Sean Chittenden
Well Linux is really just the kernel, no external apps at all including shells. Hence the debate on classifying a distribution as Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux, since the kernel alone doesn't allow for much productivity.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
In addition to that you said yourself that you installed everything, that's uneccessary (I do it too, so if I learn about a new tool I don't have to bother installing it), but you are given complete freedom to install just the OS or the OS plus any extra software you want (that is provided that is).
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Well, US has a law against using software products from non-US based companies in sensitive areas of government (if not in all govt.) The only reason why other governments didn't have such law is that there was no such option. Now that there is open source software, that is the next best thing to having it produced by your own citizens. So NATURALY every sane government is pushing to use such software when they got the chance. Thats no surprise.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
You know, if you want to buy a Windows PC, then yes, it *IS* your fault and your problem that it isn't available without Windows. Buy another machine, build another machine, or even better complain to HP and tell them to sell you a computer without an operating system pre-installed. If they won't, well, don't give them your business and eventually, when they get lots of calls and letters from people who want a Windows-less option, they will realize that they're missing out on a significant market. But it is their right to put whatever OS they want on their brand of PC. Bitch to them, not to me.
Of course, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I was talking about in this thread (Yep, that's me too--forgot the account password, so my work PC has a cookie for SirWinston, and my home PC has a cookie for Sir_Winston--but anyway), which is the integration into the OS of functions which have before now been done by external apps.
But, NO, it is not a violation of you the alleged "customer" that HP will probably not sell you one of their shitty PCs without Windows installed, because they as the company get to decide what they want to sell, and you as the customer get to decide whether you want to purchase it or to buy something else. It's a free market, my friend, and there are many comparable choices for almost every computer product. You can get Linux preloaded on everything from a handheld to a set-top box to a PC to a high-end IBM RISC machine. So forgive me if I don't see it as being such a cruel and unforgivable plight if you cannot buy a shitty nonstandard HP machine with Linux preloaded. If there's a sizable market, they'll do it. So start writing to them and stop whining. You have plenty of choices, like the choice to buy a competing product or to support online vendors or screwdriver shops, instead of a company like HP which is actually at least as bad as Microsoft in terms of customer support and which is in bed with Intel over their Itanium piece of crap and all manner of other negative things. You can also choose to let HP know that you want a Linux option, instead of complaining here where it makes no difference. As I said, HP wants to make money like every other company, so if enough people ask then they'll damn well give you your option, since the many options from other sources don't seem to be good enough for you.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
But that doesn't matter because Microsoft, in this political climate, cannot get away with it like they got away with pressuring IBM many a year ago. HP, with its sizable resources, could afford lawyers as good as Microsoft's and get not just a judgement against Microsoft for illegal anticompetitive practices, but a judgement for actual and punitive damages more than large enough to cover attorney's fees and reinvigorate their bottom line. After all, MS may have gotten the break-up order vacated on appeal because of improper actions by Judge Jackson, but they've still been found guilty of anticompetitive practices and await resentencing.
Microsoft can pull that shit with the little guys, but not with the big ones, not in this day and age. Aside from which, they wouldn't want to pull that stuff with the big boys--they make too much money off HP, and the Linux market would be just a niche market overall--which is why HP doesn't sell Linux desktops in the first place. Not enough people want them.
Hell, not enough people wanted them to keep VA Linux in the hardware business, either, and they had a ton of ads here, in the heart of the Linux community! You don't need to attribute to malice what can easily and more provably be explained by a simple lack of market. Aside from some businesses and some government entities, the only people using Linux on the desktop are geeks. Geeks almost always either build our own PCs, or buy them from specialty sources, not from mainstream vendors. therefore it wouldn't be cost-effective for most mainstream vendors to offer Linux desktops. Why interrupt your perfect assembly line somewhere so that you can install Linux on a tiny fraction of one percent of the machines? It's not worth the overhead. And then, factor in support--why on Earth would HP want to provide Linux support staff in addition to its Windows people? I guess they could sell the Linux boxen sans support services, but then a fraction of users would still be returning the hardware because of some software glitch, and they'd have to have Linux staff to track down the issue and determine whether it's the hardware or the software, and then they'd have to resell the machine at a markdown. What a pain in the ass.
See, that's why most big manufacturers don't do Linux desktops. It isn't fear of Microsoft--look at what IBM and other companies, who do use MS software in some of their products, are doing to promote Linux, without a fear of MS. It's just that the Linux desktop userbase is already smaller than their Windows base, and most of them wouldn't buy an HP or Compaq or whatever box in the first place, being technically savvy and able to roll their own or buy online or from a local shop at a very reduced price.
So if you rweally want an HP desktop without Windows, get a whole lot of people to ask HP for one. Then they'll offer it. But it's not going to happen because there aren't enough interested people. HP deals in economies of scale, not in what a small subset of a small subset of PC users may or may not want as an option.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Ok, I'll admit it... I'm a BSD and GLP Leach Deluxe. And so are the people that hire me. So you have about 30 different computers running Free software and yep... I haven't contributed on line of code. But hear me out just a bit.
Because we use Free software we give it 'weight'. When on of my clients hears that someone else's WinNT server crashes, they tell that person that there is an alternative. So yeah, I do feel a bit guilty, but don't brush off freeloaders too much - we help with the evangelizing.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I think the definition of "organized crime" needs to be broadened to mean more than just the Mafia... The shoe seems to fit corporations such as Microsoft just as well. Bonus points for RICO action on them (not that that will happen with the current political environment)...
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
1) Kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and others 2) Shell of user's choice (csh, bash, ksh, etc.) 3) GNU toolset.
That's it folks. Anything else you get is at the whim of the distributor.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I was under the impression that it was just 1). Since you really don't need a shell or gnu toolset (well, unless you actually wanna do something with your computer)
No competition! Microsoft ONLY bundles items to kill off competitive products.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
I tried the same thing. I installed a fresh copy of WinME, doubled-clicked on IE and got a "Sign up for MSN" super-wizard thing. Every combo of "cancel"s, "next"s either ended in getting to an MSN username/account info page or exiting the super-wizard and thus unable to use IE (next time in, same process).
/renew_all, and so on, but IE was still hosed. Doing properties on the network, no dice, all was correct. Internet Options had "use LAN connection" already checked, but you still get the sign-up rigamarole.
In the CLI, you can ping around, ipconfig
Eventually, somehow it just seemed to work. My guess is MS has either a time based or a number of tries based system that eventually gives up on forcing you to choose MSN or nothing. It's probably never supposed to give up pushing MSN and just had a bug which let me squeeze through.
Either way, by that point most consumers will have either signed up for MSN or returned their computer to Win98 (unable to get a refund for WinME since the box was opened, MS gets another $90).
What a racket...
-node 3
There was no such option. I know this option is in Windows 2000, I've clicked it many times. But this is WindowsME, unadulterated from Microsoft. I had a Sony VAIO that came with a Sony-fied version of WinME that did let you get out that way. It's obvious MS doesn't care whether users hate them or not, while Sony (and Compaq, Dell, etc) do have to care. It's much more likely a user will switch from Dell to Gateway (or vice versa) than from Windows to one of the Unixes.
-node 3
Ever notice Windows NT doesn't support LCD monitors ??
Where did you hear that? Perhaps you're confusing LCD (SVGA) with Flat Panel (DVI) displays. Not that it would matter if you did, since Matrox is supporting DVI on NT4 with their G200MMS.
I don't see any problem with using ordinary LCDs with NT. As far as the graphic card knows, it's just another monitor, and beyond that, the operating system doesn't care.
I can assure you that NT doesn't have any problems with LCDs, as I've used it my self for several years.
---
Slagborr
Microsoft made the conscious, corporate-level choice to attack Linux and its philosophical and community underpinnings on a legal front. It falls to the Linux / Free Software community to respond in kind. Simply ignoring them and taking the high road here will not work, since Microsoft is adept at changing the rules of whatever game it plays to its own liking. Should Free Software advocates simply play wait-and-see, they will undoubtedly find the political and marketplace climates turning very chilly, very quickly.
Free software is winning on its own merits; it's Microsoft that recognized its own basic inability to compete fairly and has resorted to bringing out the All-Terrain Assault Lawyers.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
Yes. And it was identified as a serious threat in the famous Microsoft "Halloween memo".
one rule if you have a lot of market share, another if you don't? How...unamerican.
Bill Gates, "The ecosystem where you have free software and commercial software--and customers always get to decide which they use--that's a very important and healthy ecosystem"
... which is why Windows XP will come bundled with a browser, media player, fire-wall, email client, and ISP.
_f
Why in gods name would they have to start over because they had previously used a different license? I also figured if you created something you could license it however the heck you wanted. For instance release it under the GPL and then grant another company the right to produce a closed source version. Your code is yours right?
Now if they were using the GPL because they were using source from an already GPL'd program your right they'd have to reimplement the portions that were GPL'd and belonged to others.
But is it possible to change the licence underwhich a program is produced from the GPL to something else if it is federally funded? As far as I know it's not. So the government would have to start all over from scratch because useing any of the code from the origional project would necisitate the new one being released under the GPL also. So basically the government would have to drop everything it's doing and start all over again. First of all this makes no sense, and second with the government having decided Microsoft is a monopoly and working out a punishment, why would they take their advice on what to do if it A) costs them more and B) is to Microsoft's benifit?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
GPL is merely a license, and not a law. The government would have to find that all "free software" (free being freedom, not money) is illegal.. if I recall, wasn't the US the land of the free?
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
MS keeps arguing "everyone should benefit" from the software the government is paying for, and that since companies can't benefit from GPL software, tge government shouldn't be spending any morney on it. Fine.
But what I can't understand is how if the government buys 10M copies of Word, how anyone but MS benefits. So by their own logic, I think MS software AND GPL software should be banned from the purchasing choices of the government. That still leaves quite a few choices, all of which are better than MS.
Tha ability of GPL'ed software to outlast companies and organizations that create them is an interesting feature to focus on. Because of this capability, GPL software would seem to have more chances to "get it right" than Microsoft's traditional competitors.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Or they could have read the RFCs and *gasp* written their own code for a TCP/IP stack. Or they could negotiate with the author and *gasp* pay him to use the code under a different license.
Of course, if a piece of software is GPLd, Microsoft would be crazy to spend their time and money on extending it with an expectation of monetary profit. The GPL denies them that option. (There could be ancillary benefits, such as enhanced recognition or just getting the fratzen job done, but such probably wouldn't motivate a company like Microsoft.)
Without the ability to charge for extending GPL code, companies most likely won't do much extending. Then you get into a philosophical debate: Supporters of the GPL would say that if extensions need be proprietary, then they're worse than leaving the code unextended. In other words, you automatically lose more by closing the source than any functionality you gain through the new resources thrown at the problem.
I think it's far from proven that such is the case, but it's an interesting view of the world. One must remember that the GPL and its backers are not philosophy-neutral; they have a vision of what "right programming" is.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
People forget that things like freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, the sanctity of one's home, and accountability of governance were all "revolutionary" in their day. And, for we American readers, as Independence Day approaches, we should probably recall that, from time to time, "in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
Or, in other words, when The System is corrupt, Revolution can be good.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Insert witty comment here
Bryan Pfaffenberger does himself a disservice with the uncalled-for sideswipes at the BSD license.
"If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux,Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux"
Interestingly, there is no FreeBSD++ or FreeBSD# or FeeBSD, and there never will be, but because of the distribution model, not the license. You're not really supporting your case here Bryan.
"There should be free software that we can appropriate and modify--we just love BSD stuff--as well as Microsoft software"
Ok, so now I'm beginning to think you have an axe to grind against the BSD license. The BSD license applies to everyone who wants to use the code. It means some distinctly unpleasant people get to benefit from it, but so do others. People who release code under BSD do so in the full knowledge that Microsoft, or Apple, or Sun, or even Linux developers may use, modify, adapt, sell it or whatever. Really, truly free code in fact. *BSD has not been embraced into non-existence because of its license.
So I guess your pissed off because MS have incorporated the *BSD TCP/IP stack. Well, good. At long last they're using a quality code base, recognised universally as being fast, stable and seceure. That is generally to be considered a Good Thing. Linux is perfectly entitled to do the same thing, as is any competing OS. At long last it seems that we're seeing the adoption of a standard based on solid code. And you have to bitch about it? Keep your eyes on the enemy, not on your allies.
4.Price is an issue. You mention Microsoft's cutting of prices. I think you are confused. Are you aware of the cost of Microsoft software? Their operating systems start at US$150 and go up from there. Microsoft Office, well, that starts at around US$350 or so, and the new leasing program, well, do you want to continually pay for your software? I do not. The last thing I need is to get locked in to some contract in which I keep feeding a company my money.
Maybe you better look into how Stallman wants free software to be payed for then. It's alot worse than licensing -- and it isn't voluntary (essentially it would become like Social Security, but I'm sure you already knew about that)
It is the other governments in the world, deciding they'd rather not turn over their assets to a company in Suburbia, US run by a megalomaniacal geek with a penchant for the nasty reality of Getting It Done.
The European Union, Brazil, Japan, China, the USSR, the Third World...those are places where Microsoft's appeal ends and the future begins. India and China alone accomodate half the world's population. The US, economically, is strong; but the US is weak in so many other ways....discernment, taste, tradition, justice.
Microsoft won't be Big Brother...Big Brother knows how to fake a videotape.
P.
Actually, I had a whole semester of COBOL. I hated it so much. I think it's the only time in my life I can think of where the Caps Lock key actually became useful.
J
The problem is that 95% of people ARE "retarded" (they don't know enough to see what's really going on), so Microsoft actually has a pretty good business strategy going for them...
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he, by peddling second-rate technology, who led them into it in the first place."
Things haven't changed much at all.
All things considered, I'd rather have Douglas Adams.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Both [individuals and businesses] pay tax[e]s. Both should have equal rights to federally funded software.
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on this issue, but don't both individuals and corporations have equal rights under the GPL no matter who funded the development of the software in question? Is there something in the GPL that treats individuals differently than corporations?
There is nothing in the GPL that says corporations can't use GPL'd code.
That's what I thought. I'm also well aware of the restrictions the GPL places on distribution of code. Now we're still left with the delusional rantings of AIXadmin who seems to think that businesses and individuals are treated differently and therefore the GPL is evil.
I suppose it makes sense for publically funded software development to be released in the public domain. This whole "the GPL turns everyone who reads it into a mindles socialist zombie BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA" is a bit tiresome, however.
Solaris and HP-UX are only the first...
http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp
...and I'll bet Bill Gates can count the number of downloads without taking his shoes off.
Microsoft does support UNIX... just UNIXes that they no longer perceive as threats...
My current salary comes from government sponsored research. The details of the grant my University recieved, specify that any software we produce under the grant is to be open source. In one specific grant, our end-result software is to be GPLed. I'm assuming most government sponsored research will continue in this manner (however, I can still see Microsoft attempting to change this).
First it was "un-American"; now it's "virus", a "cancer" and--are you ready for this--"Pac-Man".
Imagine such creativity used for constructive reasons...
...a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore ~H2G2
yes, they do think we're retarded. "we" being the computer ignorant public! they bottle feed us everything we "need" and buy their shoddily made products for lots of money. the bait and switch is a classic tactic, but the defame and switch seemss to be working out even better for microsoft.
There is nothing in the GPL that says corporations can't use GPL'd code. However if a corporation wants to use that code in a project it must release that projects code as well. This is alright if thats what the company wants but if they want to keep the code proprietary they can't really touch the gpl'd code.
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
There is one reason and one reason only why MS Windows is the dominant product on the market today -- software standards. All software developers develop to MS standards as their main plan, and anything else only as a subsidary. The solution is to force MS to open source any standards it creates or has created for how programs interact with its operating system -- system calls, routines, etc etc. This way, competing companies can effectively compete to make programs that work under MS Windows(because they'd have free, unhindered access to the standards), and alternate operating systems could compete because they could include compatability features that would allow programs written to run in Windows, to run in an other operating system.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
All-Terrain Assault Lawyers
ROTFLMAO
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
So Microsoft doesn't want to have publically funded GPL projects?
Pro:
Microsoft payed taxes too, and those publically funded projects could be indirectly funded by M$.
Con-to-Pro:
So what? Microsoft can still use those projects, it just can't sell them. It could runHotmail on Linux if it wanted. It just had to donate changes back
Con-to-Pro-2: GPL project owners can still sign a commercial use license, which could be done to allow government developped technology in both commercial apps and Open Source protected by GPL.
But Microsoft wants it cheap, and for themselves alone. I'm member of a GPL project, and Microsoft hasn't approached us for a commercial license yet.
(which we would be happy to honor)
"Ill-gotten gains! Ill-gotten gains!"
This is why people hate Microsoft. It's the mean-spirited, FUD-producing, criminal business practices, stupid! It's the breaking of antitrust law, stupid! It's the thumbing of noses at federal/state laws and the well-being of the general public, stupid! It's the "embrace-and-extend-instead-of-true-innovation" crap, stupid!
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
They do it for the same reasons that they attacked Sun's Java and IBM Network Computers!! They bash everyone else until the fad passes, then they slap a new name on it and release it as their own. Look at .NET. It is the same idea that IBM and Sun were pushing about two years ago, and MS got it so that people said they would ne ver do it. Now MS come out with the same idea and a new name and expect everyone to buy it. Do they think we're retarded??
Deven Phillips, CISSP
Network Architect
Viata Online, Inc.
Wherever you go, there I am...
And don't forget about NSA's version of Linux. Why Linux? NSA's official job includes safeguarding the secrets of the US government. (They approve all of the methods, systems, codes, etc, for guarding sensitive information.) They've come to the conclusion that because they can't see what Windows is doing (closed source), that it can't be trusted. Sounds logical to me too. If NSA doesn't trust MS, (they only trust what they can get their paws on), the GPL/Linux will be allowed to exist.
Think bureaucrat logic: In both cases you have to do massive code review. M$ = 49 million lines, Linux = (I don't know, but have to assume it's a lot less...). Linux saves money. Also, to even get your hands on M$ code, you have to... sign big contracts, pay lots of money, and promise not to tell anybody anything. Given that the whole goal of the NSA is to advise the rest of the government, that sort of defeats your purpose.
I didn't know you could get much less than NoNe!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ile=/ch ronicle/archive/2000/10/09/MN3707.DTLZ
See above URL - the html wasn't workin' for me.
Dumbass.
THAT is a religious statement if ever I've seen one. I was running Win 3.0 and a Mac side by side in 1991, and quite frankly, I wanted to run the Mac OS on my PC hardware. The Win 3.0 (then 3.1, then 3.11) interface wasn't easier to use, or more intuitive. It lacked a lot of the really handy features available for the Mac, and it really showed that it didn't have as much "beaten on" in the UI testing side of the house.
Motif/CDE, as I understood it, didn't feel like picking another separate) legal fight with Apple - they decided to hide behind MS's legal skirts on that front. It wasn't a "which one is better" argument, but rather a "which one is cheaper, and fits better with lying on top of a character-mode interface (which the MacOS was never designed for anyway).
I have to agree that MS spends a great deal on research these days - they've learned that lesson, and understand that that basic research underpines a lot of their downstream product development. My point was that, when Windows was originally developing, MS wasn't spending the research $$ - they were leeching the research from someone else - a lot of someone elses.
Also have to agree with the consequences of an Apple win on the look-and-feel lawsuit. Linux, tho, wouldn't have been illegal - all those that would have thought of suing would themselves have been vulnerable on the same grounds (look-and-feel of BSD, the original developers - it's related to patenting vs. prior art).
Actually, you might thank Borland for bringing lower-cost spreadsheet programs to the market, back when Lotus still charged an arm-and-a-leg for 1-2-3.
Microsoft is by no means the sole and unique source of research in how people use computers. The fact that they're on top of the heap for the moment, and thus spending large amounts of money to stay there, doesn't give them sole right to the credit, or even the implementation.
Either your logic is extremely flawed, or you have no respect for the programming capabilities of Sun and Microsoft. According to you, if the BSD TCP/IP stack had been under the GPL, Solaris and Win2K wouldn't be able to access the internet! Do you not realize that TCP/IP is a published standard? Any company or group of individuals can get a copy of that standard and write their own TCP/IP stack which follows the published standard and interoperates with other systems through it.
The only thing having the BSD TCP/IP stack freely available for MS to copy did was allow MS to save money on R&D. Sorry, but companies don't have a right to save money on implementations.
As for taxes, large corporations don't pay any. Middle-class citizens do. Check MS's financial records.
Sorry, but your analogy to Red Hat is flawed: if Red Hat swipes some GPLed Linux code and makes changes to it, it has to make those changes publicly available. If someone swipes the Linux TCP/IP stack and uses it in a larger project, the GPL forces them to GPL their whole program.
Even worse, you have an incredibly short memory (or you're just really ignorant about computing history). MS operating systems have only had a TCP/IP stack since 1995! The internet's been around a lot longer, and certainly not on any MS systems. By your logic, if MS hadn't swiped the BSD TCP/IP stack and used it in Win95, they could have just left it out altogether and forced everyone to use MSN instead! Sure...
Can you spell hypocrite? Apparently not!
I'm looking to look the other way for Red Hat because they can't take advantage of GPL code. If they use it, they have to give back. When MS uses BSD code, they don't give anything back.
I was running telnet on MS-DOS back in '91 too, but DOS doesn't require TCP/IP in the kernel since DOS isn't a real OS (more like an application loader). All those DOS telnet and FTP clients were freeware made by universities.
Not everyone uses the BSD TCP/IP stack. BSD isn't so special that its implementation is the best, and it certainly isn't inconceivable that someone else would make one equally good. Prior to '90, most systems on the internet were Unix or Vax systems; the lack of a BSD stack wouldn't have prevented them from creating one since the goal with universities and government institutions was to interoperate, not compete for marketshare, and those were the customers of the Unix and Vax vendors.
Your whole argument hinges on the assumptions that people 1) can't possibly create fully compatible implementations of a standard, and 2) can't possibly create a stack as good as BSD's. These are ridiculous. There are standards all over the face of computing, with all kinds of fully-compatible implementations by different people and companies, and they sure aren't whining about needing free access to code to do it for them.
All this has little effect on Microsoft. They simply take the same offence to it as I do. There is little that they say thay I agree with but this is one.
which leads to:
"Microsoft can't play its "embrace and extend" game with GPL-licensed software because the company can't appropriate and modify the code. If Linux had been released under the BSD license, Microsoft would have probably already released a version of Linux, Linux++ or Linux# or L-Nux, with a variety of maddeningly incompatible oddities that taken together would make it even more difficult to develop applications for Linux."
(The first half of the article drew a parallel with IBM in the old days, when it changed its processor code not to become more efficient than upstart Amdahl, but to make it incompatible, allowing IBM to capitalize on the fact that if you wanted a processor that ran all code written for the IBM, you needed to buy an IBM.)
It's an interesting story, though, and the author tries very hard to keep it interesting. ("But I've included lots of subheadings so you can skim around, if you like."..."Still with me?"..."Doubtful? Read this:")
Of course this isn't news for any of us who remember ASCII back when it was ASCII (ie "standard", as opposed to duffed just enough by Microsoft to make any Windows text outside what's on a keyboard totally nondeterministic when used between DOS and Windows).
One question for the gang: the author seems to assume that you can GPL a standard (he mentions "HTML, JavaScript, CSS", which last time I checked weren't source codes but standards), which keeps Microsoft from adding proprietary extentions. Is this in fact the case? I certainly haven't heard of a standard that's GPL'd. And if it is, does that mean Microsoft can use a binary implementation of the standard to add its proprietary hooks onto, as an "extention"? This can't affect the GPL, because it doesn't even USE the source code, let alone modify it. (IE, if ASCII were a binary standard, could it find an implementation of this standard with a nice API, then write a wrapper which uses it but makes each #!xyz!# series, where xyz are 000-999, show up in a Microsoft, incompatible, way, with a special symbol associated with it instead? It's not modifying the standard, it's just using an executable made with it...)
...what about LGPL? Can it "#include <REAL LGPL'd ASCII.h>" inside "MSASCII.h", where MASASCII duffs up the standard, and end up with something incompatible on a source level, but not in violation of LGPL because "REAL LGPL'd ASCII.h" doesn't change??
But see, I think the the author's wrong: even if Microsoft were making linux, the GPL'd linux we all know and love, then its MSLinux, which would be commercial, although the source-code would be distributed, would still be incompatible with every other linux. So what if you have the source code? We don't have the source code to MS-Word, but we've certainly reverse engineered it enough that we might as well have -- we have filters that translate Word into any other format you want. Doesn't mean that Word doesn't have more market share because of the fact that it doesn't output richtext by default: on the contrary, that's what keeps it on every one of my coworker's desktops. We need to read our attachments!
~
He is pretending that the (US) government, hence the US people, is funding research that includes writing code. These researchers are GPL'ing the code (he claims) and thereby taking away all its value (to Microsoft) and are thereby stealing it from the American people (big business).
This is pure FUD and has nothing to do with the GPL. When such research produces code, somebody owns it. If the researcher or his institution owns it, they can do what they like. If the gov't owns it, then it is illegal for the researcher to release it under the GPL. The question is who owns the code. Probably the institution does, and Mundie doesn't like that, but that has nothing to do with the GPL.
It is all anti-linux FUD. The "Round Table Discussion" (see above url) consists of the microsoft mouthpiece (Mundie), one careful, thoughtful OSS advocate (Bruce Perens), and bunch of nattering half-wits. (Feel free to mod this up, Bruce :-)
wow.
Don't read this!
Yes, and also the basic for the (far more hackable) Tandy Color Computer. Furthermore, '84 was hardly early days for either Microsoft or the personal computer. Microsoft, or more correctly Bill Gates and Paul Allen, wrote the first succesful basic interpreter for the Altair back in '77 or so. Doesn't justify releasing new versions of stuff that won't work with the old version's files.
I suppose the major argument is that free code begets proprietary extensions to the code which begets profits which begets university endowments and R&D which begets more free code, and the GPL's elimination of the corporate middleman is somehow disrupting the ecosystem. How inconsiderate -- not to mention environmentally unfriendly and terribly Politically Incorrect -- of us.
Oh well, maybe when we're through with that and then with nuking the gay whales, we'll have enough left to put the crybabies at MS out of their misery. Until then, realize that you can undo pretty much all the damage these FUD attempts cause in a good face-to-face discussion. Just don't miss your chance at throwing a little good advocacy out there when you get the chance.
(And don't forget to remind people which company originally made popular the marriage of "virus" and "computer" in the first place).
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Gates has been FUDing his way to the top for the last 20+ years. He's always been a whiney spoiled brat and everyone's always known it, but it sure didn't take him long to become the richest man in the world. It's as if every time he whines we forget about the last time he fucked us, and just start focusing on the new dick in our ass, but never punish him for the last one, and so he rapes us to infinity.
And then, EVERY TIME, there's the simplistic idiots who have no idea what they are talking about saying shit like "Hey, no one came to my door and put a gun to my head and made me use Windows, and yet I use it, so Microsoft can't be a monopoly." Extremely depressing how much influence idiots, who always come in great and vocal numbers, can have in this country.
has anyone created a simple list of the things that m$/off-ice/compilers vs. lynn-ix/star-off-ice/compilers?
what are the pluses, what are the cons?
Releasing under GPL does NOT prohibit commercial software companies from using, extending or simply redistributing software for profit. The GPL is a perfect guarantee that work submitted to the public domain stays in the public domain. It would be in our government's best interest to build upon the work which the GPL has already started. To guarantee that work which was funded by public dollars be accessible to those who funded the project (tax payers), perhaps the US government insist that the GPL apply to all projects funded with federal dollars!
Our country is one driven by capitalistic profit and greed. Our perceived worth as individuals and as a nation is largely measured by our financial successes and our wealth. Even the very word 'success' conjures up images of money and status. We are a capitalistic society, after all. To the core. Anything else flies in the face of our predominant national ideology.
And the GPL does exactly that: flies in the face of capitalism. Here's something that you can't buy or sell or even steal! It can only be given away. Un-american? HELL YES! Of course it's un-American.
And frankly, folks, I'm delighted! Bring it on. Let's give those greedy bastards a run for their money. Meanwhile, perhaps the GPL will give people pause to consider that there are other ways to conduct life and pursue happiness that don't somehow involve the almighty dollar. There's more to life than money and property. Sometimes life can just be about doing good things, sharing, and having fun. And the GPL is here to prove it.
That IBM paid Microsoft to develop OS/2?
Microsoft is attacking the GPL with FUD because it threatens its business model, given.
What i'd like to know is, what is the Open Source community doing to couteract this negative attention? It's all very well and good to have Important People from the community contribute their replies to statements and speeches made my MS, but i think further steps have to be taken.
Is there any sort of "war chest" for counter-propaganda? It's about time we stopped plugging along, assuming that Open Source will "win" on its own merits, assumptions can be dangerous. It would be quite the wake-up call to suddenly find that all the campaign contributions and lobbying has culminated in a fatal blow to the GPL. Don't think MS isn't investigating ways to have the GPL made illegal in some way. This is a corporation that has always shown that it will employ all means necessary to exercise its will.
Let's hear from anyone who knows about any feasible alternatives to sitting back and watching the fight. I want to get involved in preventing a wonderful system from being trampled in the name of greed and domination.
--- it's pelvis to be cube
Billy gates: we can make a product as good as Linux
.......
Microcrap attacking the GPL is just plane funney in my opinion. I have seen better products come from people using the GPL then from microcrap. They claim to be the best of everything, but are still not able to come up with fully working operating system. The window ME is a joke. And they say it is the best Os for the home user. Microsoft attacking the GPL to me is a joke. They can't figure out how to compete with the GPL so like the power hungers monopoly they are, they play unfair and try to get the US government to basically say the GPL is not valid. But the attacks are taking place correct. Will I got one good thing going fore me then I AM CANADIAN.
Everyone : Will why don't you
Billy Boy gates:
my 2 cents plus 2 more
I test almost every major NOS for compatibility with my company's server and RAID card line, and we've been testing "Whistler" (AKA Windows XP Server) for the last 3 months...
My impressions:
1. The GUI, as you said, looks like it was designed by Miss Shirley for Romper Room. Makes someone as experienced as me with computers feel stupid for using it.
2. Windows XP is a VERY VERY minor upgrade from 2000. In fact, the installer is virtually identical! I guess the new retardo GUI (see above) was slapped on so as to make the user THINK that the OS is something new and more "advanced" than 2000. I in fact, happen to like the 2000/ME GUI, and think the XP one is a definate step backwards. But then I have a brain, and so I'm NOT the person MS is marketing to.
3. When you keep in mind the freedom XP takes AWAY from you: forced activation, tying to your motherboard and hard drive (no hardware upgrades without getting approval from Redmond), breaking of cd-burner software, among others, unless you NEED the added compatibility with `9X games that XP has over 2000 (which, IMO, will likely make XP less stable than 2000, and thus less suitable for servers), there is NO reason to upgrade!
4. If you read this story ( ) from The Register, MS plans to force the enterprise to "upgrade" to their new rental scheme by basically telling them" "Upgrade or we send in the stormtroopers from the BSA"
The bottom line: MS thinks that they will get away with tons of mass marketing to get Joe "I can't find the power switch" to upgrade. They also think their new draconian licensing and "rental" schemes will force the enterprise to upgrade.
But, I think XP will certainly fall short of MS's expectations. For one thing, the consumer will be disappointed with the loss of compatibility with some `9X games. Their heavy-handed, mafia esque treatement of the enterprise, IMO, will cause many to think of alternatives. Who likes being blackmailed?
Also, if MS fails to get punished by the new judge hearing their case, I believe that a new and even MORE damming anti-trust suit will be started by the states against them over XP (this has already been hinted at by the state Attorney's General who participated in the
current case).
Really, I don't understand why MS is so stupid as to think that they can DO what they are doing right now and get away with it... They are pulling a Rambus in many ways... Their threats of extortion against enterprises, their heavy handed treatment of OEM's, their outright contempt for their customer WOULD kill any company that is not a monopoly.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
This also has to be true of major corporations,
especially foreign ones
This line of reasoning should be used with all potential Linux users.
This also has to be true of major corporations,
especially foreign ones
This line of reasoning should be used with all potential Linux users.
espo
--
espo
...to kick MSFT's ass with software than it is to do the same with the law? Y'all act like free software can't win on its own merits.
Actually, i think things aren't exactly going that way.
It's even worse. I've seen (too) many techies fond of MS stuff. I've even seen security experts fond of MS stuff !!! Because MS fog around the exact possibilities of their software, clean and nice windows make those people THINK the product itself is as clean as the UI, and as new and innovative as MS claims it to be. We all know it isn't.
Moreover i've heard some executives techies saying "well, seen what happened to IBM ? thereofore i'll stuck with MS as i'd used to stuck with IBM until someone else clearly becomes the 'industry standard'".
Finally, i would just add one thing: what made MS software succeed at home ? nice UI ? comfort of use ? certainly not, Apple was there before for that. What made MS succeed at home use is that they succeeded at work use: people don't wanna make the effort to "learn" two different "computers", and they wanna be able to bring back home progs and docs from work.
>If the US does that, taxpayers will be out >billions
poppycock! balderdash!
You have absolutely no understanding of the system you live in! How the hell can the tax-payers be out billions because they are buying (through govt. departments) cheaper software?
"Microsoft will pay less taxes" I hear you whine, well what do they pay the taxes with? taxpayers money...
Listen, if you believe what was posted (and i know it was a throwaway post, but maybe someone will read this) then you probably reply to all the crappy pyramid $5 in 5 envelopes spam you get. Moving money around may make an individual (Bill Gates, whoever) or an elite richer (like a casino) but it does not add wealth to a society or the world. Wealth is created through human labour, creativity, and effort. If lots of people develop OSS without big financial incentives (adding real wealth and value)... great! There is no need to spend more money on more expensive ways to duplicate some of that effort.
Really, think about it
m
And let's not forget MS Access, a pretty decent database that MS sold for $99 until it drove all the other databases out of business. Then the price went up. A lot.
Sure, Internet Explorer is free but they make money on a lot of tools for the Internet that only work with IE, like ActiveX controls.
In any case, don't give MS too much credit for lowering the cost of software. Maybe YOU bought a spreadsheet for $1,000 back in the day, but I got a pretty good one for $10 and of course now I use Gunmeric which is free.
By the way, my mother and my nieces have used my Linux workstations with no problems when they come to visit.
Hmm. The Slashdot moderators think a post accusing someone of being a Scientologist (with absolutely no evidence of anything) is worth more than a post outlining the various corporate crimes which are far worse than the much-hated Microsoft.
I can see modding down the original post (Offtopic, perhaps?) but modding up that "you sound like you're from a cult" drivel? What, anything to discredit someone who isn't on the Open Source team?
In many ways, the Open Source movement and the anti-globalization movement are on the same team... fighting corporate abuse, the expansion of corporate beasts that exist only to make more money. Maybe even transforming society into something that isn't based solely on profit.
And as a cog in that movement, the Open Source movement is important as a means to prevent the corporate control of the information infrastructure. But there are a lot of other battles out there, and they're bigger than the OS battles, or even the normal Left-Wing, Right-Wing schizms. Perhaps Slashdotters should try to learn a bit more about this.
No matter if you're Pro-Microsoft, Pro-Linux, Democrat, Republican, there are abuses being carried out by corporate entities that offensive to anyone - and that's what, for example, the Seattle and Quebec City protestors are protesting about. Even if you are staunch Republican, even if you think you think you disagree with the protestors because they're the same people who protest for too much union power or gun control or more welfare, trust me, there are many issues you probably agree with them about.
--
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
The article here almost implies that there is something wrong with the government distributing its own work under a license other than the GNU GPL. Honestly, what's wrong with using something like the BSD license?
First off, let's take the biggest and most obvious example of why GPLing gov't funded software would've been a bad idea: the BSD TCP/IP stack. If it wasn't for the fact that it had been under such a free and liberal license as the BSD license, we might never have seen the rise of such quality, albeit proprietary, operatings systems such as Sun's Solaris or Windows 2000. The nature of the GPL would have forced the companies to give away a lot of the rest of their intellectual property, thus making it impossible for them to use the "standard" implementation, and forcing them to create their own implementation and standard.
Also, what's wrong with companies profiting off of taxpayer-funded work? Last time I checked, large corporations pay taxes just like the rest of us do. I think it would be an affront to our freedom as American taxpayers and entrepreneurs if the governement released their software under such a restrictive license as the GPL.
In conclusion, one can't really argue with the fact that the GPL is a pretty viral license, because with examples like TCP/IP, where it is actually a part of the core operating system, rather than a seperate component. Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
Is your company running tools written by ma
how are they out billions of dollars. OSS is free(typically). Even if the Gov. pays for development it's going to be a shitload cheaper than having to pay for proprietary software that they have to pay again for when they want to upgrade? Not only that they can fix bugs when THEY WANT TO, not be at the mercy of another companies whims. The government can customize the software to suit its needs for free. how is OSS more expensive than proprietary software, i want to know.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
is that a troll in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
ARRRGH. C'mon people. Ask yourself, and really think about this. Do you really think that most people are going to switch to Linux, if MS continues with it's smarttags, self-avoiding cookies, subscription models, and forced registration?
I am so sick of all the "linux will win out in the end" fervour. It's not happening anytime soon, guys. Market penetration and an established userbase are working against you. Look, I firmly believe that any MS server platform is and will continue to be utter SHITE. But, most people that use computers are not even interseted in the damn things. It's just part of their job. They go home and vegetate in front of the TV. They are office drones and are concentrating on the BBQ this weekend, not contemplating the IPO of Mandrake. Mandrake what? All they know about Linux is the FUD they will hear about from major online news feeds, and sorry to say, but for the majority of computer (L)users, /. is not their source for news that matters.
They have no idea what the GPL is. Or what a BSD license is. --Now, this next part is crucial-- if they see the words "linux" and "virus" in the same sentence, you can bet that their 6'oclock-news-conditioned brains are going to latch on to that real tight. All the discussion on these MS topics for the last while has been never-ending posts about how wrong MS is and endless justifications about how much better Linux is than windoze. That's nice, but the users DON'T KNOW THAT. Let me state this another way, with extra emphasis -- MOST PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT THEIR COMPUTER. (In fact, 90% of respondants to my fictional survey said they find computers downright uninteresting.) File that away in your brain for future reference please. Because although we are knowledgeable and they are not, they pay our salaries, they make the bulk of the purchases, they run the companies we work for.
Those bad hackers use Linux, hippies use Linux, RMS never showers, chicks dig Windows, Linux is a virus, GPL kills the U.S. economy, GPL kills market innovation, Linux is bad for the ecology, Linux-distro IPO overvalution burst the .com bubble. You name it, MS will say it, people will eat it up. If not MS, someone else would. Hell, I wouldnt be suprised if MS went to court ( on a pretense just to test the GPL in court) and argued that Linux is leveraging it's "free" ( as in beer) status and bundling everything under the fscking sun into its OS, and is therfore anti-competitive to the software industry as a whole.
So the ultimate test is this:
Until Linux as easy to install, use and has the applications that we all know and love (or hate), and is no more confusing or intimidating as Windows, AND have a defensive marketing strategy to fend off whatever crap MS or whoever else is threatened by Linux, OSS, GPL, or whatever, then maybe you have a chance of making MS eat our collective shorts. In short, until the OSS movement IS Microsoft.
P.S. Has anybody used XP yet? It looks like an OS for toddlers. Big, gawdy Fisher-Price/Tonka Truck icons and buttons. Very non-intimidating, and I'm using the professional beta. They really dumbed the OS down. I wonder what the final "server" release will be like? *shudder*
When you're the US government you can demand that MS release its source code for analysis as part of a contract (and they do). From what I hear from my military buddies, though, it takes a hell of a long time to analyze it, as you might imagine. Personally, if I were the government I'd be happier with open source, since its analysis is relatively commonplace, and security implications are well-known. You don't want any little surprises when state secrets are on the line.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
It's 1977, Bill Gates is fresh from dropping out of Harvard, and IBM is the big bad company, throwing around its corporate weight to discourage new entrants (like Amdahl) with competing technology. Within a decade the PC revolution and antitrust suits have brought IBM to its knees, from which they recover through innovation and (reasonably) fair corporate practices.
It's 2001, the Internet is an emerging technology, Microsoft is trying to take control while chasing off antitrust suits and a bad corporate image. Suppose the .NET initiative falls on its face (or suppose, like the PC, it is too successful and slips out of their grasp), and Linux starts to pick up some serious steam.
It's not farfetched to imagine, in 2024, that MS will be a good corporate citizen, having learned lessons about innovation and co-operation the hard way. It's also not hard to see that Linux and the GNU effort can have a role in such a positive transformation, by presenting an immovable obstacle to MS.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I hope I've addressed the major issues with your post, and I hope I've been conclusive and not too redundant. Good night.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
you know, i'll admit right up front that i am a Microsoft fan, so maybe i can see what they are doing here a little more clearly.
TROLL!!!
They are trolling, and every person in the linux community is biting. not only that, but biting and biting for months on end. even going so far as to form a "roundtable discussion" for a response. do you actually think MS didn't know what the reaction would be? they were counting on it. they get bashed and bashed over and over and sit and take it. then they suddenly bash back, and everyone goes into a frenzy. which, to an uninformed public, looks better? more mature?
if you were a CIO, which would you want? someone who makes an okay product, and who sits and takes criticism calmly...or someone who makes a great, free product, but any time anyone says anything negative, or even just constructive, they go into a fit, stop up their ears, close their eyes and scream to the high heavens so they might not have to face the cold reality that their Godlike OS(tm) might not be as perfect as they believed. so here is some advice from a windows whore...
STOP TAKING THE BAIT!!!!!!
-
sean
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
If I and everybody else pay taxes that fund the software you develop, you shouldn't be allowed to release it under a license that has a politically charged agenda loaded into it. It should be released to the public domain for anybody who wants to do anything they want with it.
I genuinely want people to start citing specific instances where software that started out public domain was 'stolen' from public domain in any fashion. If someone adds to it in a substantive way and wants to release it in object form only that should be their perogative. Just like you and me they cannot prohibit anybody from grabbing the Public Domain code just like they did and making it into whatever they want out of it.
Specific examples, people. Not just whiney 'I don't want my code making someone else profits!!! That's a bullshit arguement if you release it as public domain. It isn't your code if it was funded by means that require it to be public domain.
Release your OWN code under the GPL if you wish. Don't cram your political agenda down everybody else's throat by political fiat.
People fund the government, either directly (income taxes), or indirectly (higher price for consumer goods).
You are correct that software created with tax money should be as accessible as possible, which is why the government can not hold a copyright! Any tax-funded changes made to a GPL'ed product, are available for free. You just have to seperate out the government funded portions from the non-government funded portions.
The GPL certainly doesn't allow that, because companies aren't allowed to use code governed by it in their own projects (unless, of course, they open the source, which you can't force companies to do).
Indeed, congress can force companies to open their code. All it takes is a simple ammendment to title 17 of the United States Code. Congress would be well within their constitutional rights to do so. I just wanted to point that out. I'm not actually suggesting it.
So you want companies like Microsoft paying to fund software that only benefits you as a user? That's the definition of a pork barrel project.
Microsoft did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year!
You, Microsoft, and any one else can benefit from using GPL'ed software. As long as you don't modify the code, its use and copying are free and without restriction.
Many businesses can benefit from distributing GPL'ed software bundled with another product.
Software companies can sell support for GPL'ed software, and market themselves as actively improving the product.
Finally, as indicated above, the government-funded code has no copyright and any one can use it without restriction. Closed source companies can take the tax-funded code and incorporate it into their own products. Their only restriction, is that if they wish to close source non-government-funded code, they must get permission from the person(s) who dontated their time to the GPL'ed project.
In summary, upgrading GPL'ed code is far better than outsourcing software development to a closed source company. When outsourcing development, the contracting company, and whichever government agency funded development, are the only ones to benefit. That, AC, is the definition of a pork barrel project.
However, no matter how much hype it spews, isn't worried as long as entries in the SourceForge trove are missing that one essential thing ...
The killer app ... and/or the killer programming language or language interface development environment (IDE for you app only folks !-)
Back in the old-days, what made CP/M driven Apples and Trash80's sell was VisiCalc and dBase II.
Part of what drove the popularity of MS-DOS was the ability to conjure up software with wonderful language tools such as Borland's then light but powerful TurboC compiler & IDE (please note, I am not not to saying that there weren't killer apps that helped MS-Duh along).
Similarly, with the successful port of MS-Word, Excel ... and with the invitation of programming for the (uncleansed) masses via Visual Basic ... Windows 95 flourished ... albiet with some crappy and dangerous, but really inexpensive and often useful home-brewed applications.
For Linux and it's ilk to survive, it needs that killer app and language IDEs. Note, I didn't say killer languages ... I mean who doesn't have fun shooting themselves in the foot with Java, Perl and a host of other tools ?
NO, I'm talking about something that would compel Joe blue-suit and Grandma Jones to invite little Billy to their keyboard, low-level format or partition their drive, and install some form of a Linux variant because they just can't live without a particular application.
Then again, I could be wrong.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Aguably (and I'm sure some will) when comparing word-processing, presentation, printing, etc features, MS Office beats StarOffice.
HOwever MSFT has given StarOffice a serious advantage with regards to 'IT/Desktop configuration & control' due to it's insidious XP registration process.
Which reminds me ... isn't this pretty much the way Word and Excel stomped WordStar and Lotus into the dust back in the 80's ? That is, it wasn't until they dropped their copyright protection schemes that they successfully wacked the competition.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Then, as in the early 80s, when Microsoft were instrumental in the first truly personal computer - the mass-market computer, Microsoft truly brought computing to the masses. For the first time, the elderly, the young, and the technically illiterate were empowered to use computers. Although computers still betrayed some of their arcane origins of a time when computing was the real of those with genius IQs and degrees in mathematics, the computer was now almost as much a part of the home as the television and the microwave. This was achieved by always providing what the market needed. The Microsoft formula was to pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap. This formula was applied again and again over the years, slashing the price of software until everyone could afford it. Microsoft's success came through out-maneuvering the competition. Revolutionary was the approach that said that a spreadsheet, which at one would have cost over a thousand dollars, could be sold for a fraction of the price. This approach drove the computing revolution of the 80s and the net revolution of the 90s. Microsoft's aggressive approach made computing far more affordable, leading to today's society, where we truly can afford to have a computer on every desk. While competitors floundered - as IBM pursued their lumbering corporate path, as Apple chose to marginalize themselves by charging a premium for their product, and as the Unix vendors were tied to standardization committees and relics from the 60s - Microsoft recognized the potential of computing for the masses. By the launch of Windows 95 (at which time Linux was little more accessible to the masses than the punch-card computers of the 1950s), Microsoft's approach of providing the product the market wanted right now had made Bill Gates richer than Croesus, and the youngest billionare in history. Since that time Microsoft have continued to pursue their agenda of expedient computing, empowering thousands of small businesses, often without the funds to employ dedicated IT admin staff, to manage their own computer networks and to sell themselves on the web, via Microsoft's standardized point and click administration interface. Similarly, Microsoft's masterful integration of the internet within Windows means that for most people the internet MEANS Internet Explorer. This typifies the Microsoft approach - to first bring down the cost for the consumer (in this case to zero - it is now bizarre to think that web browsers could cost money), and to subsequently consolidate their position by making their product vastly superior to the competition. This brilliant formula has never failed - the consumer sees that he is benefiting and is happy to acquiesce. Over the past two decades, Microsoft have driven the computing revolution, generating billions of dollars in revenue, not just for themselves, but for the companies, small and large, who were able to compete thanks to the low barrier to entry erected by Microsoft. Fast forwarding to the present day and the imminent launch of Microsoft's new product, Windows XP, described as an end to frustration for the millions of computer users, who, unlike most of the readers of this article, have neither the time nor the inclination to discover the highly logical (but also deeply complicated) way that computing systems such as Windows or (especially) the *nix family of operating systems, work. Millions of dollars of research, of observation, funded by Microsoft's amazing success and commitment to research and development (currently four billion dollars a year), have gone to create an operating system that is the most intuitive yet, especially for people new to computing. For instance, Microsoft's testing uncovered the fact that 80% of users never discovered the functionality of the right mouse button, which has, since Windows 95, offered a variety of useful shortcuts to expedite common tasks. As such, the new operating system provides a new menu system replicating this functionality. The millions of dollars of research have been used to find what people do with their computers, and attempt to empower them to do that in an intuitive way, making computers more accessible than ever before. The new operating system is the most integrated ever, pursuing the Microsoft vision of a truly cohesive entertainment and networking center - a product where computing is a natural experience rather than a painful one, with effortless remote maintenance and inter-computer interaction. At the same time that Microsoft is on the brink of launching of a product that makes them feel 'super super excited', the competition is still hopeless, incapable of competing against the company that ensures its success by daring to give the consumer what he wants and at a price he can't refuse - Apple is still determined to occupy an overpriced niche, while the 'great open source hope', Linux, looks as far off as ever from being something your granny or a class of 11-year-olds could use. Particularly for Linux, the outlook looks bleak. No longer buffeted by the heady currents of the internet goldrush, Linux-based companies - which have never made any appreciable amount of money - appear to have reached their darkest hour yet. Just as the markets have started to recognize the absurdity of valuing websites with no apparent means of making money at billions of dollars, and are instead examining the underlying worth of companies, they are also recognizing that companies required by their underlying philosophy to give their product away, do not have significant revenue opportunities. As a result, the development of the interface (the most important part of a system for end users) of open source products - without a cent to spend on research - relies on ideas stolen directly from Windows. Despite this blatant copying (seen in all the popular open source desktop environments such as KDE and Gnome) and enormous goodwill to shoddy workmanship and incomplete and buggy software (the likes of which would not be tolerated from commercial software), even in supposedly 'complete' distributions, these desktops seem but a pale shadow of the real thing. The in-fighting and lack of commercial rigor of the Unix and open source world has left a system of wild inconsistencies and rough edges, with little consistency between 'competing' 'toolkits' and 'desktop environments' making Linux an operating system suitable only for those with patience with computers, a good deal of computing experience, and a stubborn streak. For everyone else, Linux remains something that is frustrating to use, with its bewildering array of arcane concepts (file permissions, symbolic links and compilers to install software (something users used to InstallShield would find troubling)) and inconsistencies that, because of the lack of revenues to fund research, haven't been ironed out. And although use of Linux would certainly be painful for most people, administration would truly be a nightmare. The almost total lack of co-operation between projects means that there is no consistent graphical configuration tool to match Windows' Control Panel. Despite all this, the overwhelming majority of those in the nerd and geek community - experts on computing who take joy in computing for its own sake - harbor deep-seated resentment of 'Micro$oft', peddler of 'Winblows', a resentment most ordinary people are unware of, and one that would they not understand if they were. The cause of the massive hatred of Microsoft is not entirely clear, but it appears to be a combination of factors. The ultimate cause of it in many cases is probably human nature, as there is no doubt that we are programmed to be resentful of success and to be envious of those who succeed - the hatred directed at other successful people demonstrated only too well how personal insecurities and feelings of inferiority, and, ultimately, that the person has failed as a human being by not succeeding, manifest themselves in hatred of people who have succeeded. That these feelings should be directed at a company largely responsible for the massively improved levels of prosperity brought by bringing computing to the masses, and without which, the world as we know it would be drastically different, is of no consequence, since as humans are essentially selfish beings, personal reassurance is a far more important emotion than altruism. There is no doubt that this is a very powerful emotion behind much of the Microsoft bashing - in the same way that other successful and life-enriching companies such as Starbucks have been attacked, apparently purely on the basis of their success, Microsoft's overwhelming success has also attracted it hatred. But it is more than that. What many geeks object to is Microsoft's new broom approach. For instance, there is a great deal of resentment at Microsoft's 'replacement' of the Netscape browser with a free alternative. For the end user, for the consumer, this was an enormously positive event, just as the advent of the mass-produced Ford motor car was a positive event in the early years of the 20th century, or Kodak's affordable camera was a positive event for mass photography, providing access to a camera for just 5 cents, the overpriced products made obsolete by a high-quality mass-produced and, most imporantly, dirt-cheap replacement. The resentment, which probably was in the past confined to those involved with the makers of the products that were made obsolete, now finds voice in a wider community of highly intelligent and articulate 'geeks', resentful in part that computing should become accessible to the uninitiated, thereby devaluing their skills, and in part too of the lack of regard for the old institutions - the willingness to boldly sweep away the archaic relics of the computing past, just as Henry Ford swept away the expensive and unreliable handbuilt cars with his production lines almost a century ago. And all the while things continue - small businesses and stock traders with adoration for Microsoft, the ordinary person with blithe indifference, and the geek community with pure hatred. Slashblots are only intended for entertainment purposes only! They can be seen about three times a day!
Slashblots are only intended for entertainment purposes only! They can be seen about three times a day!
Nada, if GPL doesn't survive then someone will create a new free, public license because when all comes to all the monopolies, governments and large corporations won't outlive the people, the masses.
Look a monkey!
Most people i know. Microslaves and GNU'heads
:P)
Hasnt updated their windows version since 98.
The reason why the GNU-heads has it is that win98 is a good game consol. And a good place to look at all the junk mail u get (when in Rome...
The microslaves dosent update their win version them eighter. That because them more MS is integrating all the aps they get bigger problems to use the apps they wanna use.
Well then, maybe you should start climbing back down the trees and showing the users the leather balls you found up there, rather than taking away the bushes they're playing with down there... or maybe even fashion a rope or ladder in order to help them on their way up...
... seeing each other and their situation. If they were free to do so, they would break free of their chains and the cave and would overthrow the masters. So they had to kill anyone who broke free of their confines.
Interesting depiction of Plato's Republic but not quite complete. When he (Socrates) crawled out of the cave and saw the light he was blinded for some time but learned of all the beauty above as compared to all the bad in the cave. He knew he had to climb back down into the cave to tell his fellow men of the beauty above. When he did so, what do you think happened to him?
He was killed! The masters that had complete control over the masses (in the cave) could not allow their slaves to discover a better world. Could not let them see the truth and be free. In the cave the masses were chained to the walls of the cave where they lived a daily esistence of repetitive (specialized) routines. They could not see anything but shadows as there was a fire in the center of the cave that prevented them from seeing others as human beings. This prevented the masses from communicating
Our system of market democracy (which is neoliberal), is top-down democracy giving greater freedom to those of priviledge (rights of property as opposed to rights to property). The masses are permitted to enter the democratic process as "spectators" only and only those *respectable persons* may "participate" in the real decision making processes. Read more in Noam Chomsky's Profit Over People (1999).
This is why Microsoft will probably be able to squelch the GPL. It is anti-capitalist and gives the masses an alternative to so-called free market enterprise. And some of you actually cling to the thought that you live in a democratic society? There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
Ring true here?
Government - especially the US government are not about to include the masses in the democratic process because democracy is a myth. The DOJ will bow down to anything MS or any other monopolistic corporation wants because they own government.
It's an age old addage that still holds true today --- that the oligarchial minority rule the masses and democracy is linear - top down. How else would the elite protect their wealth and power? If you want equality then go socialist in the purest Marxist sense. However, even that is impossible in the NEW *cough* global economy. Just look what happened to Nicuagra in the Reagocentric years. Do you really believe it can't happen here or it isn't happening here? Tell me otherwise when the DOJ settles with MS, and eventually AOL/TW and GE and IBM and any other monopolistic corporation. They'll play the game in the best interests of the players that count. To believe otherwise is naive.
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.
Apple was a bullshit outfit. Two hippies invented the home computer between tokes.How or why Texas Instrument let cuastomers cop the pc when they were the first with a computer on a chip, I don't know but taking a coupl'a biasing resisters & a lo float power pack to a qwerty keyboard isn't an invention its a steal.
I B M & its trained squirrel Microsoft were main frame oriented & only begrudeingly got into the pc business when it became excedingly evident that the C64 was going to own them in a few years despite being banned from sale in all the major markets. C64 had a full color, stick controled machine with spread sheet, word & & a gazillion games before I B M made its first pc. These features that have proved themselves vital on the c64 were still add on in the pc until a few years ago. Windows still doesn't recognize cd but will boot to a sys.floppy praise the Lord. Hell the pc still has to write a driver for its basic lo memory. Someday, maybe I B M & Windows will decide what constitutes a basic laptop configuiration & double its speed by bypassing unneccessary drivers for what is the basic backplane board. good writting preppie... and a lot of it too.
In summation this is just one more way that the millions of psychotic attornies attempt to steal the code from the thousands of students who first worked out the algorithms that make windows work.
the more users I can h4x0r. Imagine what I can do with those "secure" passport acounts, once they are on my HD. :) So you see, it is actually good for us.
Remember, when you are downloading MP3's, you are downloading communism!!!
badness 10000
Well right now you have the choice of alternatives to built your computers. But just wait until they starting using more of their power on what hardware you can buy. Just remember what they did earlier this year about computer stores selling computer hardware without windows installed. They no exactly what there doing, and what the competition can do against them. It will be a M$ policies world untill enough people feel the company breathing down there throat right next to them as consumers try to something outside the box. http://slashdot.org/articles/older/9806101112228.s html
-------------------
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
Impact to the average slashdot reader? No.
Impact to business people who actually allocate money to buy things? Yes.
The average person assumes monetary success is the only success that matters. That's why people spend $$$ buying expensive status symbols like SUV's and huge houses.
Face it; even among slashdot readers, I doubt many people dream "I want to be poverty stricken my whole life while I write GPL'd software."
Business Logic: Microsoft makes lots of money. Therefore they must be successful. Therefore, they are the best people to help me be successful, make lots of money and waste it on a house in Atherton. If they tell me GPL'd software is bad, I'll give them more credit than some penniless granola telling me that MS is wrong. I mean really; if MS was wrong, they wouldn't make lots of money, would they?