Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Goes After "Career Pirates"
Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft has filed 21 lawsuits in US Federal courts as part of an effort to stop those who continually pirate its software. The suits span 14 states and target people and businesses that have allegedly sold pirated copies of Microsoft software. Eight of the suits target companies that Microsoft refers to as 'repeat offender software pirates.' The eight firms had already been sued by Microsoft for selling counterfeit software."
Really, that's who they should be going after. The people selling pirated software.
Now I own a Mac, and I'm much happier. A lot of (former) pirates have stopped.
but this is one of the few cases where I agree with Microsoft, assuming the facts they're presenting are correct at least. If you want to argue that information should be free and pirate music/games/software/whatever for yourself, that's up to you to decide. And the same applies if you want to give away copies of whatever you've pirated to others for free. However very few things disgust me as much as people pirating someone else's work and then selling it for a profit to others.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Seriously. I think the best thing Microsoft could do to speed the adoption of Linux and Mac is crack down on those wanting its software at below market prices.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I'd bet that the persons receiving the computers loaded with pirated software would be pretty upset to find out that they didn't have licensed software.
TFA contains the same numbers as the summary, but doesn't name the respondents.
People still pay for pirated software? ;)
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
Avast, me hearties!
This story feels like a dupe (may or may not be, I haven't checked) but that's probably only because there's a story like this every few months. Microsoft (or someone else) sues a bunch of people who should be sued. I mean, is it news because Microsoft is using the courts as they should be used?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is /. not \. I think \. must be some sort of Microsoft forum.
this is the area where piracy really does hurt companies. I am against Microsoft as much as most of slashdot is, but, this is the kind of thing that copyright law is meant to prevent.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Or maybe it's someone who is trying to write a regular expression that matches a literal period. ;-)
I'm all for Microsoft going after those who violate the terms of the license agreements. But what I don't want to see is Microsoft turning into the **AA and sticking it to the petty offenses and shady legal tactics. That would just be bad PR for a company that actually produced something... unlike the **AA.
The game.
Windows IT consultant here to report that yes, people BUY pirated software.
:)
They'll buy it from eBay, because it's cheaper. They'll buy it when they purchase a new "custom built" white box with cheap Office/Windows.
I run into clients over and over who don't want to pay retail price for software. They run profitable businesses and balk at spending $400 (when I charge that much they don't blink an eye).
Side note: I have recommended FOSS and get different responses. I'm everything independent. Just pay me and I'll maintain it.
If Windows is harder to buy at dirt-cheap or free prices (stuff gotten under-the-table at a geek-shop), and getting it P2P is unpalatable (getting an OS that way is begging for a high-hard reaming via pre-installed trojans anyway)... what other options will there be?
Not that its likely that such a scenario would ever happen, but if MSFT had to compete on full retail (or even an actual-charged-for-OS OEM) playing field, Windows would have been seriously struggling by now. Thanks for free copies, 'promotions' and 'discounts', most people perceive (and get) Windows that is at no cost to them.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And sometimes you have to be willing to burn karma to say it. Well said, roster, well said.
damaged by dogma
Nah, Microsoft users write regular expressions like this:
string s = Regex.Replace("abracadabra", "abra", "zzzz");I figured I could become a career pirate if I had a house boat...you know, sail around raping and pilaging yacht owners in the south pacific and eventually make it big by becoming friends with some pacific islanders who would band together and terrorize the sees around asia and india. I'd never have to worry about paying taxes or paying for anything since I could always sail away. Of course my wife mentioned we could be shot and of course attacked by pirates ourselves, but I'm sure my plan would work in the long run...
Ave Molech Setting
They're agreeing to provide someone with legit copies and providing them with something else. Most places call that fraud. Most copyright infringers don't agree to provide anyone with anything, nor do they sell anything, so they're not the same at all.
You might want to examine a legal dictionary someday. Words have meanings and you can't just make up new ones because you don't like someone. Even Alice knows that.
Really, Microsoft: $8 Billion? You really think your software is worth that much?
The guy's full of shit, but he ain't trolling.
They have valid reasons to do this. I wish them luck.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
What's interesting to me isn't the story itself but rather the number of people posting AC to avoid the MS Troll-mods.
MS needs to come up with Windows Lite. Such a product could be their answer to the OLPC and the problem with regional pricing. If they decide to omit Direct-X they better come up with a sticker "Just for Business".
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
When pressed most Microsoft users find there are suitable free alternatives in the open source space. The harder Microsoft struggles, the tighter their bonds become.
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
why not sell Microsoft software at affordable prices so there will be no need of Career Pirates to sell Counterfeit Microsoft software at affordable prices?
Also how about Pirate Amnesty, where people can trade in their pirated copy of Microsoft software in exchange for a discount on genuine Microsoft software?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Some of the programs targeted are referred to by the pirates as "repeat offender monopolist OSs".
... it's the year of Linux on the Desktop
Admittedly, I read that line out of context...
"Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally."
which prompted me to quickly remind people of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=compiz+linux+youtube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
And let people ask WHY vista requires soooo much RAM and CPU power to do what Linux/FOSS/Compiz-Beryl can on semi-modest hardware. I got 3D effects out of Mandriva on a 700 MHz, 256 MB RAM, but new (64MB, I think) ATI vid card in *Nov 2006*.
But, to get THAT much eye-candy out of vista, what would users have to pay? Not with vista home, that's for sure. And what with stores back then re-imaging underpowered laptops and desktops on display with vista, and barely or reasonably doing ok with XP...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who worked in the rail yards and made presents of things which "fell off a train." It gave him quite a boost -- better than any weed. I never cared much for the smell of it myself.
Well if anyone knows what a repeat offender looks like it is Microsoft.
I could list the slashdot articles but it seems like there is a hard limit to the length of a comment
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Microsoft filed law suits against 21 software pirates?
I knew there were a lot of pirates out there, I just didn't realize there were so many.
Yeah, this will put an end to software piracy.
mod parent insightful -- if he's not an economist, he should be.
Give them a break, they are trying to earn a living.
Especially that pirate that wrote the 'Rrrgh' section in the pirate encyclopaedia.
Going through the trouble of counterfeiting Microsoft products is like throught the trouble of counterfeiting a Yugo.
BTW..... I thought Microsoft was supposed to have solved the problem of pirates with server-side authentication, codes, hologram discs, codes physically imprinted on discs, and Windows Genuine Advantage.
Guess not.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Microsoft has a history of taking other peoples code and selling it as their own. Sometimes not even bothering to change the comments in the code.
A butt-pirate being butt-pirated.... On the high seize....
It could get pretty nautically nauseating when you take account of maritime/ship construction terms:
butt
butt weld
seam
bosom
bottom
stern
buttocks
inner bottom
reinforcing ring
stern bossing
shaft
stiffener
girder
horizontal stiffener
bulk head (bulkhead, hehehe)
pulsating thrust
thrust bearing
packing gland
shaft seal
shaft alley
breasthook
headlog
screw aperture
built-up section
rounded slot
Better get your sea legs maytee...
and oh yeh, you better carry lots of IR gear and flares and flare guns to ward off those pirates... after reading "High Seas Security"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Just look at the legal definitions and you can clearly see they are different. However, selling illicitly copied software and claiming it is legit is fraud.
Actually, after I first saw the headline, I thought "Career Pirate" was an off-shored worker. Or, as they say in South Park: "Dey Dook Our Dobs!"
Solomon
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
Even before CD-ROMs existed there was free software. In 1991, when I lived in LA, I sometimes went to a little shop in Venice Beach where I paid $6 for each 5 1/4" diskette with free software. Linux was in version 0.01 by then, I had never heard of it. But I got several of the GNU packages, running in DJGPP, a "DOS extender".
Funny thing, I remember once I was in a meeting with some high-level managers in my company. I had that store's brochure among my papers, and a vice-president saw it before the meeting started. He was curious, so I gave him that catalog. He spent the whole meeting browsing it, giving only some distracted generic answers when anyone spoke to him. So, you see, long before "free software" became popular among geeks, there were managers who became interested in it when they got informed.
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
Phew! Thankfully I'm just a part-timer.
The argument that because copying costs are now lower than before people should no longer charge for creative or intellectual works is essentially flawed. A low cost for reproduction is assumed otherwise copyright law would be unnecessary. Copyright law is a government granted monopoly to the creator of a work saying that you will be the only person who can copy it for X number of years. The government gives you this monopoly as an incentive for you to produce something of value since you know Joe down the street won't be able to set up your content on his printing press or modern equivalent and sell it too making your initial investment worthless (why not just wait for someone else to make something and then sell their thing). This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Where this all doesn't make any sense is when the terms get beyond the original 20 or so years. In fact, extending the term is counterproductive because an author of a really good book/song/painting/program only has a greater incentive to write more if they know they will lose the income from the first one.
Copyright's fine. Open Source / Free Software is fine in that it provides other incentives for progress (recognition, communal sponsoring of something that benefits several companies in tangential businesses such as hardware, consulting, update services, etc as you mention). Each has its place and inherent pros and cons (typically open source software best serves the needs of those who write it - either the uber geeks who use emacs or IBM who sells mainframes. Commercial development typically serves best audiences who will pay the most per unit of effort of a developer).
Where you get into trouble is where a few strongly interested parties (publishers) can successfully lobby to have terms extended beyond serving what a reasonable person would understand the intent of copyright to be. They can do this because they are a small moneyed interest with strong individual motivation to see copyright terms extended. Whereas the general public sees a small benefit if the term is short as originally intended. However the amount of caring per person does not usually even hit the level of staying informed of the issues or even the reason behind having copyright (people often assume it's an ownership issue - I should own this thing I made rather than a public good issue - you get to make money off this thing exclusively so you have sufficient financial backing to produce it and more things in the future). It really doesn't reach the point where the general public is willing to hire lobbyists and since they are uninformed are unwilling to put forth the effort to organize and each contribute the $3.02 that it is worth to each person to provide lawmakers opposing views to those of Hollywood and the **AA's.
The cost of a product isn't just its marginal cost of production. You also have to cover the costs of design. Perhaps you could charge millions for the first copy, and then charge only the marginal cost for the rest. But it's much more common to amortize the cost over the production run of the product.
While I don't agree that Microsoft should provide Windows Vista at the cost of manufacturing, I do think that I should be able to get a copy of XP for $35 or so. Definately not the $139.99 that XP Pro costs (and this is the OEM price at Newegg. The RETAIL version costs $269.99)!
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Making shit up and spelling Microsoft's name with a dollar sign doesn't help. Start writing to your congressman and organize grassroots efforts to change copyright law instead.
(posting AC because if you know about this then you'd probably know who I am, and I didn't get along with any of you except Derrick)
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy.
How is this insightful, and why should someone who ignores the cost of years of development be an economist?
Then structure the product in such a way that people need to pay you for it.
Firstly, it's stupid to sell a product that can be so easily ripped and then complain when it does get ripped (but not complain that suddenly it has become prevalent, thereby creating your market for you).
Secondly, if you had to charge millions for your first copy of a software product in the fear that your easily-rippable product will get ripped, then you need to go back and rethink your product, such as recovering costs by providing support or selling hardware that runs your product beautifully.
If the IP is music, then make money from performance or maybe printing sheet music or something else that is tangible.
"Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value to me before the internet."
Fixed that for ya.
Piracy was going gangbusters before the Internet. Software still sells like gangbusters today. Even companies who use the Internet to distribute their software by selling downloads are still doing great -- just ask Adobe. If you and/or your friends like to pirate software, that's fine, but it's best not to make sweeping generalizations based on this.
"If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price."
The market does determine the price of software.
"Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for."
Compare Microsoft's revenues to those of, say, Red Hat or Ubuntu and you'll see why Microsoft has not chosen this approach. The model you describe exists; and many people are happy engaging in it. But lots of companies do just fine by selling things.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
... why someone selling copyrighted works is considered so much worse than someone giving them away on P2P networks by the hundreds?
The latter ends up being a far faster, more efficient way of spreading copyrighted works, and puts a far greater dent in demand and consequently sales. Selling has its limitations, whereas anonymous P2P is, well, anonymous. If you pay money, you at least have to give some personal details away, so consequently it's more risky. The price tag also serves as a deterrent.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The basic structure of a free market economy dissolves as a monopoly is introduced. If microsoft was producing QUALITY software during those "years of development", then the (free) market price would be much higher, since consumers would want the superior system to work on, and be willing to sacrifice the funds to get there. But, by forcing just about everyone, including just about every fortune 500 company, to use their product or be "cut off from the world", they feel free to develop crap, treat their employees like crap, and charge a very hefty price tag because people NEED the software in order to interact with every other person/company who is also caught in MS's monopoly on closed-source, proprietary software.
When is the last time that an employer asked you to send them a resume/CV in ANYTHING other than MS-Word format? "Please send LaTex formatted resume. Please send CSV plaintext document (as a spreadsheet)??? Nope; "Please send us your MS-overload formats or do not even enter the picture as a potential employee. kkthx!"
Linux/BSD - free, open office - free, TeX - free
OSX Leopard - $99 iWork - $79
Vista Ultimate/XP Pro - $299
MS Office - $449
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for.
Linux vendors don't charge for software updates and security patches. You're suggesting the the vendor of one of the most insecure operating systems charge for SECURITY fixes? I don't think that's such a good idea...
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
"If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy."
A couple of joules to copy, yes, but thousands of man hours to create (which is where the cost comes into play). The actual media is probably the smallest cost in the overall process. It always has been, even before the Internet.
Paper currency technically has the tangible value of the ink and paper, but it's still worth much more.
"They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy)."
Apple likes to keep the hardware AND software proprietary and closed. Do you really want this? Apple made a better unix-based operating system. It works well and looks pretty. This is why they are going to last. They may even beat Microsoft.
"The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade."
Linux vendors survive because programmers donated thousands of man-hours to create the product they are selling. They don't have as much of an initial investment to recoup and have the ability to only charge for service/support.
Linux users also generally don't want to spend money and will download it for free anyway. This is one of the reasons OSX will eventually win OS war. Businesses can sell software that runs on macs and people will actually be willing to pay for it.
I don't think I've heard of any successful commercial linux application vendors.
"Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone."
and why would they want to do this? People are willing to pay $199 or more for Vista and many of their other products.
"Then structure the product in such a way that people need to pay you for it."
You mean like copy protection or locked hardware?
"Firstly, it's stupid to sell a product that can be so easily ripped and then complain when it does get ripped (but not complain that suddenly it has become prevalent, thereby creating your market for you)."
This may work for a few very large companies, but if a small company's product is ripped and spread, they will eventually start losing sales until it drops off to 0.
"Secondly, if you had to charge millions for your first copy of a software product in the fear that your easily-rippable product will get ripped, then you need to go back and rethink your product, such as recovering costs by providing support or selling hardware that runs your product beautifully."
If the the first copy was a million dollars, the person or company that bought it would not be sharing it on the Internet.
"If the IP is music, then make money from performance or maybe printing sheet music or something else that is tangible."
performance is tangible? It's just sounds coming from an artist. Music and movies are on DVDS and CDs..how is this not tangible?
Please stop modding up twitter and his sockpuppets and name trolls.
While we can most all agree that the law, in its current form, is flawed what you're saying is just silliness. It is not silly to expect people to obey the law and then fight for your lawful rights. It is likely trivially easy for someone to break into your home, even if you left your door unlocked that is still a crime. You, good sir, a a blithering sheeple. Listen not to the folks that speak the loudest here at /. but to the words you are actually saying.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Err... You must be new here. Here all things must be free, in both meanings, or some of the vocal few will rage. They're quite obsessed and if you don't agree you are just asking to get flamed. I wish you luck.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How do you figure it's essentially zero cost to ship? Ever see those store shelves with copies of Microsoft and other products? See the trucks that ship them? Any why in the hell should they sell Vista for free (other than that's about all it's been worth, functionally)? This isn't a charity and the Linux providers have nothing close to the type of infrastructure that surrounds Windows and products that run on it. You may be a Linux fan (or not) but it's clearly not the consumer OS of choice nor will it be for the forseeable future. So you cannot compare it with Windows or Office from the perspective of cost to develop, deliver and support.
Throwing its "unauthorized" distributors behind the bus like that.
What?
"Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for."
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...
I hate Microsoft, but that doesn't sound right. And piracy is wrong. It's criminal. Not that Microsoft is hurting for cash, but right is right, and wrong is wrong. If you want a product that someone is charging for, then an honest person should pay for it.
Why would Microsoft do that when the current business model makes billions?
Unsubstantiated bullshit. Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare or does that fit more with how Linux is distributed? Show me.
In other words do think free software is free because it's distrubution costs are low? Or is it free because a bunch of amateur computer programmers cobbled something together resulting in very low development costs?
Umm... Don't all of those also save in .DOC or .DOCX format? (I'm really not sure about the last one but I suspect they do by now, Office 2k7's been out for a while.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Probably because you can't do as much on Linux no matter how much hardware you throw at it. Fro the average computer user Linux is not a the most basic viable option. There is not enough POPULAR, supported software available on Linux. You can't really play anything but the most basic or old 3D games on Linux.
Support for the OS and for the apps is non-existent or very expensive, unless you want to go to some online forum where a bunch of amateurs spend more time showing you how smart they are and how stupid you are. The typical answer to a question being that "man is your best friend" or some such nonsense. I am VERY computer savvy and man pages are of little to no use.
So yes, you can have a 3D accelerated GUI on Linux with less hardware. But no matter what you run you won't have a diverse set of popular and well supported applications. Sorry, good idea that is amateurishly implemented.
I'm sure Microsoft really wants your advice on how to flush money down the drain.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
The sad thing is that that could work for almost any company except Microsoft. For 98% of MS support crap, your average MS user can get it all free from many, many different sources. But, MS provides the most free info about MS products. (Well, duh...) Their problem is any idiot can install their software (both OS and Office products) and really don't need much help afterwards. (And for companies that need to train folks in MS products, there is an entire industry of 3rd party trainers.) So I can't really blame MS for trying to get as much upfront as they can. They do provide worthwhile products otherwise no one would bother pirating most of them.
Please don't think I'm attempting to troll or flame you. Instead - this is a subject that I'm curious about - I'd like to ask you why you think this way. So, well, why do you think you should set the price? The prices are generally determined by folks who are smarter than I and they price them at what they feel the market can bear. I'd like, for instance, to pay LESS for a hybrid car as the tech is already there, the harm to the environment is less, the reasons for it being more widely in use are there, etc... But no, the same model in hybrid form is more expensive. I hate the car analogy but, well, ignore the actual item in the analogy and please let me know why you think that way. Your post is a lot more specific than the folks who say "it must be free!!!" and the likes so I figure you must have something on your mind and I'm curious as to your thinking process.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Like making it theft when you don't pay for it? Is that the structure you crave?
I mean why not steal an old lady's credit card numbers. She is only on the hook for $50 so it's not REALLY hurting her and if she is stupid enough to go to a phishing website then she deserves it.
Then you could charge up all sorts of software on the card, maybe some CD's thrown in, and a few books and magazines as well. It's all just IP, doesn't really matter how you steal it because there shouldn't be any copyright law anyway.
Of course, in US and W. Europe Microsoft will track down software pirates - people there can afford to buy MS software.
But in developing countries the corporation actually depends on pirates - they help to capture vast amounts of marketshare and user base. And id doesn't cost them a penny to establish a close-to-absolute monopoly in said country. It is called dumping and it is illegal and forbidden. But Microsoft can act as a victim while enjoying all benefits of dumping.
Afterwards MS representatives begin to talk with the government urging them to buy the software. First for government organisations then for schools (them may even give some Starter Edition for free - let the pupils know only one OS so they can eventually buy it later in their career). Commercial organisations follow - police raids searching for counterfeit copies are conducted if needed.
Microsoft uses these tactics all over the world. It all starts with pirates. They do dirty job and are fought afterwards.
I think I should get an XJ8 Super V8 for $45,000. How in the world does it matter what you think it is worth? If it's not worth it don't buy it. That doesn't mean I acn steal the XJ because they aren't asking a "fair price." In our current environment the software is property just like the XJ8 is property.
I'm sorry but you sound as though your trying to say the only cost involved with developing software is the shipping. Well let me say that unless you like buying blank CD's for $200 then you must be crazy. Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OS, let alone the amount of man hours that goes into the software development cycle to produce functioning software (and before you get on my back about me trying to imply that MS OS are functioning I'm speaking generally here). Just do some maths, Average salary for a programmer 40k * Maybe 10 for a decent size project, software takes y years to reach distribution that is 40*10*x hundred thousand dollars just in paying the programmers. Lets face it high costs of programs keeps all us geeks and nerds in a job. I like open source software but it scares me at the thought of developers getting exploited for below average wages, because of the nature of "free" soft ware. Lets face it unless the guys are developing in their "free time" (and we all know time is priceless) then the software is not really free. If things turn ugly in the future I see sweatshops without a Nike in sight, but instead rows of computers with poor buggers getting paid pittance to code.
Why do you need a "popular" application? Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
Or do you mean, "popular" applications such as Microsoft Office, that deliberately sabotage compatibility with everything but themselves? Then we are already working on the right solution -- to make those applications, and especially their proprietary formats, unpopular.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Career pirates" here are typically the hole-in-the-wall computer repair shop located in the plaza next to the pawn shop (they don't always look seedy, but they are typically small and not affiliated with any corporate franchise). There are also "computer rental" places and used/consignment stores. The primary business is by and large legitimate--they sell genuine new or used computer parts and systems, do computer repairs, etc. However, they might offer to "bundle" (at no extra charge or for a nominal fee) MSFT software. The software is even genuine in most cases, but it is OEM instead of retail (and may have been used to install the OS on other machines), or corporate/volume or upgrade license or some other non-transferable license.
There is (or has been) a "system builders" for such little shops that affords them the opportunity to include Windows with their computers, however there are specific rules (that change with every Windows release unfortunately) on what qualifies as a valid "system builder's" sale. You can sell it with a motherboard for example, but some shops interpreted the agreement to mean ANY hardware sale, so they'd offer you OEM Windows if you only bought a mouse for example (that is--at least now--considered piracy).
Other common but subtle "acts of piracy" that MSFT will crack down on:
* Selling used software: They'd LIKE to be able to prevent ALL used sales, but at the very least they can crack down on you if you're selling OEM or volume licensed software which have restrictions on resale and transfer--for example, once OEM is installed on a computer it is actually illegal to ever install it on another computer again, even if the computer is broken beyond repair.
* Related to the previous point, Volume License software cannot be on any machine not owned by the volume license holder who possesses the product key. If the computer is sold/disposed of the software installed with a VLK MUST BE REMOVED and a new license must be purchased. Used/consignment computer shops often get dinged with this one by selling old corporate machines with a corporate image installed. Used shops should do due diligence and make sure that corporate images are wiped. To avoid extra cost you don't have to repurchase the OS if you can obtain a "rescue disk" from the PC manufacturer for that exact model (which would be the proper OEM license), however if the computer originally came with Win 2000 or ME THAT would have to go on, not XP, unless you have a retail upgrade license to go with it.
It is in fact a very small minority of "career pirates" that actually sel COUNTERFEIT packaged software, and it is basically unheard of in "bick and mortar stores" in the past 10 years-what does happen The biggest outright counterfeit piracy in N America by far happens over the 'net (eBay, etc). So, to answer your question, pretty much NO kind of moron literally, physically sets up a counterfeit software shop anymore.
My CV is at
CV
But no one is impressed. Perhaps because there's no French translation...
.
- aqk
F U
I thought that was implied by the fact that this is slashdot, and my post was a comment :). Feel free to state your own opinions and justify them as you see fit.
Does MS Word .doc format suck? Yes, it does. But you dont need it for the very few times you need to use it. Open Office handles .doc just fine for simple things like resumes.
This proves the point I've made again and again: Microsoft just gets it compared to the media industry. You don't sue nobodies who download bootlegs; you sue the people who are actively trying to profit from it. It used to be the same for media. Sueing the little guys over every "illegal" copy being used is short sighted and counter productive. You lose respect from potential costomers, provide motivation to engage in piracy on principle and turn generations against the very idea of copyrights. Microsoft on the other hand creates agreements to provide their software to programming students for free. It gives those who can't afford your software a break and gains their respect. Any preference for Microsoft software later becomes an asset as it encourages future employers to buy licenses for the software. In short, winning people's support and respect by using the laws more reasonably is a better long term solution.
Show me how a fully patched Vista system is any less secure then an equally maintained Linux machine when configured for use as a desktop, on a NAT IP, by the average user.
No, the prices are set (indirectly) by you, the consumer. After all, if you're not willing to buy, then the producer has to lower its price until you are.
The reason most people don't complain about the cost of Windows is that they never see it. Computer manufacturers include Windows in the cost of the hardware, and customers never see it when they configure their machines, so many assume that Windows is free.
Second, Microsoft is able to engage in price discrimination because of its position as a monopoly supplier. It charges OEMs like Dell, HP and Lenovo far less than it charges consumers, because OEMs are able to place large orders, guaranteeing a revenue stream.
I bet a lot more people would complain about (and perhaps even forgo) Windows if Microsoft charged OEMs the same amount it charged retail, and the federal anti-trust regulars forced computer manufacturers to offer other operating systems (like retail copies of SuSE, or Red Hat) so that people could compare prices and make an informed choice.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Why do you need a "popular" application?
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
Because it's been 13 years since Microsoft developed anything of moderate value.
Windows XP is just 95 with a retooled engine, but to most people's eyeballs it's the same damned thing with more gradients on the UI chrome.
Vista adds ZERO value, it removes value by crippling the system with far-reaching DRM and disappointing performance. Even its revamped security model is full of holes and users are just as likely to get confused (or annoyed).
If Vista offered anything the users really wanted, we would have stood in line at 12:01 A.M. to buy it. Remember MS-Dos 6.0 ? People stood in line for that one, we all wanted to get our hands on Memmaker, Doublespace and a handful of refinements that actually made our computers work better and play harder. It was worth the money.
Remember Windows 95 ? People stood in line for that one too. It was a leap forward from Windows 3.11 (which stank). W95 was a mess, buggy and temperamental, but it was fresh and offered new opportunities for multitasking and, at long last, long file names. It, too, was worth the money.
Windows XP ? It was just a cheap consumer version of Windows 2000, minus the stability. Not until SP1 was it any usable for more than a day or two, but today it's pretty solid, after SEVEN YEARS of patches. Not really worth the money.
The main reason people upgraded from 95/98/ME to XP was for hardware support. The OS itself didn't offer much in the way of new features, which is why a lot of older computers still run Windows ME or 2000, because that's what they came with and there's no real value in upgrading.
Now with Vista, there's even less of an incentive to upgrade because the new OS has worse hardware support for _current_ equipment than the old OS it supposedly replaced. Vista (32-bit) still doesn't support more than 4gb of Ram, and 64-bit support is spotty. Why the hell anyone would want to run Vista on a non-64-bit-capable machine is beyond me, but stupid makes this world go round.
If I were dying to have blingy blurry jiggly UI chrome, I'd keep XP and load something like WindowBlinds, or whatever the gimmick-du-jour is. Cheaper, more reliable (go figure!) and I'll still be able to do the same things I do today.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Just because employers make irrational demands, does not mean you're forced to oblige them. If a company gives you flak for submitting a CV in non-MS format, my spidey-sense tells me you wouldn't enjoy working there anyway. Plain text works, PDF is relatively safe too.
Me, I have zero tolerance for obnoxiously stupid individuals. Obviously I'm alone, because there are a lot of good people wasting away making very stupid bosses very rich. Thank god for that employee assistance hotline, eh ? What good is a job if it destroys your will to live ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Last time I checked, free markets operated on supply and demand. There is infinite supply for software, because it is a virtual asset - it can be copied until there are no spare bits left in the known universe. That should push the value down somewhat.
There is limited demand for software, because you really only need one copy per machine. There is no consumption behavior with software, you don't buy more of it when you like a certain product. If that box of Vista made you happy, you're not going to rush to Walmart and buy four more to eat later.
The last thing is relative value. A new computer today can be had for a couple hundred bucks. In many cases, Windows costs more than the machine it runs on. That's not right! Without that hardware, Windows would be nothing! But the reverse is not true - you could buy a computer without Windows and enjoy it quite well using a free operating system.
Windows should be cheap... no more than a blockbuster video game - let's say $50-60 retail, $20 OEM. Seriously! If I could sell Windows to my customers for $20 with their new computers, I can tell you I'd sell a whole more of it! The way things are today, I'd guess at least 2/3rds of those who buy computers from me are loading an unlicensed copy of Windows on there - actually a bunch of them probably dual-boot XP and Vista.
The artificially high price directly encourages software piracy. Meanwhile these despicable "retail pirates", these dickless sons of bitches who sell burned copies on the street, are profiting because of that price gap. Eliminate the price gap, and it will eliminate the piracy problem. It won't stop private copying, nothing ever will, but it will squeeze the commercial pirates out of business.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
well, as people are already converse about the possibilities in the new world order, microsoft is losing ground in multiple places. it cant see the enemy now.
.NET trying to bind internet to the PC was countered by ajax and their response is silverlight with ruby. adobe is weakening and the route taken is pleasing - they are warming upto open sauce. ooxml has been well exposed - but action not taken as yet - but has put iso in a quandry.
only thing is the opening of the OS playground has to happen, and i hope that the new generation of cheap laptops breaks the barrier for linux. the good news is the acceptance of linux as mainstream product on laptops with ubuntu in talks with major laptop makers on their dumbed down eeepc clones. thats great news!
thats happenng on one front, on the other the OS is losing relevance slowly - i use google apps since the last 2 years and i dint notice how i rely on it now, ive got scores of people on google apps too. mostly small businesses who need mail/ office apps/ chat. and these are all that they care about. so, they can access their mail on basic wap connection on their handheld sets, laptops and cybercafe - whereever they go. also, they can collaborate - excel sheet and docs and they did that without going through any kind of training. its just happening.
MS cant attack or take back the ajax apps, google - it cant do much about. their move of
times are not as it used to be for MS. the last front where MS needs to be taken on is the way intel is about to be brought to the table by AMD. anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour. only non american companies can do that, and most likely europe - cos they cant be bought off like asian companies. (hopefully)
"Fully Patched"... exactly.
I'm suggesting that MS NOT charge for security patches because they are beneficial to everyone using the OS, not that Windows CAN'T be made to be secure.
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
No they don't work.
Agencies require MS compatible formats so they can redact your contact information and add their own branding.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I don't see a problem if they are going after people for selling bootlegged copys since they are thieves that cause headaches for people who just want some form of media without the excessive overpriced costs. However if like it was pointed out that selling an original cd is what they are after they can go burn. Pirate for thy self and not for thy wallet.
I know a lot of people knock it, but I happen to like the "sound enhancer" feature in itunes.
This is not present in any current oss player, and yes i know about the crystallizer addon for xmms. It is, sadly, vintage '01 and sounds like it.
The best sound drivers i've heard were in mandrake 8.2, and for some reason that beautiful clarity did not survive the transition to 9.0. The closest since have been apple's sound drivers.
Linux hardware support has increased tremendously over the years, but I can't find much to compete with apple for audio on the linux platform.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
In a free market, the price of a product is an agreed value negotiated by both buyer and seller.
In a monopoly, the seller is able to set the price much higher that the true market value. That's why they're called "monopoly rents"
Microsoft has an estimated 87% profit margin on each Windows sale. Typical profit margins in open industries range around 15%. Since most of Microsoft's profits come from OEM sales at around $50/license, I'd say the OP's offer of $35/license would be generous in a free market.
This is borne out by the cost of similar products ($0) which are available to buyers who aren't locked into the monopoly by proprietary formats.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Wouldn't a free market mean that they set the price at what they wanted and if you didn't want to buy it that you'd shop elsewhere for another? Again, I am not attempting to troll or anything. I am actually trying to see other people's views.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Harper Lee has published nothing of significance since To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960.
That single book remains in print to this day. It won her the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The film remains a classic. The play a staple of the festival stage.
What more would you ask of her? What greater incentive could you offer?
The incentive to create is only to be found in money or recognition - but in the certainty that you will retain ownership and control of your creation.
But let us be honest here.
When the rights agencies pursue the geek it ain't for Steamboat Willie.
It is for the movie still in first run theatrical release or new in print on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Guys, I put forward an opinion and I'm glad so many people commented (and disagreed).
Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OSYes, software is labour intensive. Generating software costs money, yes. Marketing costs money, yes. It's all very expensive, yep. I am not saying there should be no way to recover costs for making software, but I am questioning the conventional method. Why has Microsoft put itself in the path of blame for all the botnets, viruses, whatever that are lurking all over the place? By selling the software for money in the first place it is, IMHO, liable for all the defects that persist out there. Instead, if they sold support for a time (eg: if Windows cost $200, and the estimated shelf life is 5 years, charge $40/year for support including software updates), then people would consider that quite reasonable. After all, that's easily how much Linux professional support costs. Those people who don't pay for support and get pwned are nobody's idiot but their own. In many respects that is the defacto status of XP now that it's gradually going out of print.
But people who say "Linux vendors are making money off the blood sweat and tears of people who did it all for nothing" are wrong. They are, by and large, providing a service contract for the software. They support the product for money. Sure, there's free support for home mum's and dads and do-it-yourselfers, (eg: Ubuntu) but we know that isn't where Canonical is hoping to get their $$.
From elsewhere:
Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare..?Well from what I understand, getting Windows as a box set bundled with OEM computers or on PC-shop and even supermarket shelves has been a major determinant in its spread, along with piracy. Open source software is spreading because of the Internet. Microsoft also uses the Internet to spread its licenses without shipping as many physical boxes.
And elsewhere:
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...The various Linux vendors don't see it that way. And just because Microsoft's product cost them a heap of money to make (crap though it is) doesn't mean it should have cost that much. They deserve to sink for producing a dud product, just as any other enterprise would. If Windows was so fantastic, for all its bugs (nobody pretends software is perfect), people would want it on their PC's over anything else, and many do. But instead of going around with a gang of lawyers and frightening the market they depend on, they could just work with the psychology of people out there. People are used to paying for services such as telephone, or mail redirection or some other thing they need. If they are using their computer for anything that they consider to be serious, then nobody will argue with getting support for the product to ensure that it is reliable and safe.
The current situation which leaves most people somehow incriminated (eg: because the freakin OEM windows that came with someone's laptop won't validate.. WTF! so instead they install a friend's XP pro corporate edition that at least works) is broken. No wonder piracy is rife when they set the deal up this way.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
I don't know that I could ever bring myself to own or use 'i'* products. The whole idea makes my skin crawl and the addition of a vowel to the beginning of a word doesn't make me want it more.
See my journal, I write things there
Obviously.
And when a competitor offers a product cheaper, and you have a very large profit margin, your response in a competitive environment is either to reduce your price to that of your competitor, or to improve your product to make it attractive at the price you wish to charge.
Microsoft doesn't have that competition, which is why they can charge high prices for mediocre products.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
While I can understand the point you're trying to make, you lose credibility by saying you're very computer savvy yet can't understand man pages. Granted, some of the tools are somewhat archaic, and some man pages are simply crap, the large majority are clearly written and easy to understand _if you make the effort_
Free software was also pre-PC. Most major vendors had user groups that used to distribute software., generally on half-inch mag-tape (about 80MB). You could get some GNU stuff like emacs and gcc on the tapes from DEC's user group DECUS, (the DEC VAX C compiler cost over $10K in those days) just for the cost of copying as well as lots of other stuff like the LBL tools, etc. I think around that time, there was a fuss because the US decided to export-restrict SPICE variants and they had to be removed from the tapes.
At least lower management knew about this stuff because the tapes used to cost 100$ or so (media plus copying costs) and they had to ok the purchases. They tended to see the benefit in that we were able to implement stuff faster on the back of these tools.
See my journal, I write things there
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"When is the last time that an employer asked you to send them a resume/CV in ANYTHING other than MS-Word format? "
When Google asked for a resume. They wanted it in a "plain text" format. So, they got a XHTML version of that "plain text".
I request that Microsoft stops those who continually use its software.
Why do you people use such stupid pieces of hardware that require fancy software to put music onto them?
I just plug my MP3 player into my computer, it opens a folder and I drop the files in it.
Is that hard for people who know how to use a computer?
iTunes is tied to iPod and tied to iTunes service - they are made deliberately incompatible with anything else ....
... debateable ... no
This is what proprietary means
Is an iPod the best MP3 player
Is iTunes the best interface for an MP3 player - many think not
Is the iTunes service ideal
Only together are they the (current) best solution
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
The performance is not tangible , the ticket that gets me in is ...a CD or DVD (and the packaging, inserts etc ..) it comes with is tangible the contents is just data
...
...
Boxed software on a CD/DVD is tangible, a support contract allowing upgrades and new versions is tangible, the software itself is just data
Most specialised commercial software is sold as a "system" most of the costs are planning, installation, , customisation, maintainence, support etc.. and only a small part is the licence, copying the software would not get you the system so is not done
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Rubbish! Amorak works much better than iTunes with dealing with iPods (it has the craazy idea that screwing up the iPod database might be a bad thing). As for "out-of-the-box-compatibility", that's like saying that iTunes doesn't have out of the box compatibility because it doesn't come pre-loaded with your music (what good is an iPod without music?). You have to click all of 4 buttons to tell it you have an iPod, which if anything is a feature - that you can use other portable music players with it.
I'll concede the linux point though, it's a bitch to set up if the automatic settings don't work (which they hardly ever do).
Why was this voted up if it's evident hes lying?
I just wanted to let you know that you're a moron.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
If you have an ipod or are around family with ipods you will have to use itunes at some point to set it up or restore it. I actually found it harder to explain to my Mum and for everyone else I just put the music on the ipods. Amarok and GTKPOD are much better because you can quite happly put four ipods in it without one being a master. You can then copy the music off the ipod and put it on another one. All legally of course ;).
Although I am an amarok/gtkpod fan I found that the itunes shop was really nice until I remembered that it would be all drmd aac and prob wouldn't run on my nokia/windows mobile/laptop. This just put me right off the whole idea as I prob wouldnt even be able to give it to another family member to listen to like I would with a book. So I would rave on about something like freakonomics and then say go and buy it yourself hmmmmm. die die die drm
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
Because in a free market, the proper cost of a product is how much someone is willing to pay for it; ask for more, and it won't get sold. This cost is clearly influenced by how difficult the product is to get; Internet makes it very easy to get software, so it makes its cost approach zero.
The one thing muddying the matter is copyright, a socialist measure to limit the actions people can take and therefore artificially drive up the price of whatever is copyrighted. I've noticed that the people who are all for globalization and preventing governments from interfering with the market are - for some strange reason - excluding copyright from this fight against interference. I suspect it's because most socialist measures benefit the people, while copyright benefits corporations.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
There are other factors which make software different from "tangible" products, though:
If you spend years designing the proverbial better mousetrap, that will only cost you money if you're a paid mousetrap designer. At the end of this, you end up with a prototype: you still have to put it into production, and will probably have to commit to a substantial production run before you can get a distribution deal - that's the bit that costs phone numbers and will have you selling your soul to investors, and that's the bit that will ruin you if someone copies and undercuts your product.
Software may take years to design, but once that is done, the product is "finished". For a few hundred bucks you have website and a PayPal link to sell it on line... Even before the internet, the cost of bulk copying was negligible. This is why Open Source is viable. I suspect it is also why we have (or have had) huge software companies with stacks of cash: they launched out of garages without selling their soul to investors. Unfortunately, now, they've accrued a huge corporate infrastructure which needs to be kept in the manner to which it is accustomed - hence the "every pirate copy is lost revenue" ethos replacing the reality of the early days when every paid for copy was almost pure gross profit.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Actually, I am impressed. You qualify as a Greybeard, but that's probably one of the reasons you don't get contacted. Someone finding your resume is going to assume that you're too expensive. Heck, I only have 10 years of experience and I'm regularly told that I'm too expensive even though I don't ask more than what I currently earn.
Well, I have my cv online too and I didn't even bother hiding my personal details. However, you'll notice that I do write French, so if you want a French translation, I'd be glad to help.
I don't I accept rtf, pdf & odt I even have copies of our application form available in those formats.
If an agency can't extract the text from whatever and get it into their standard Word headers and footers (demanded by clients) they are pretty poor (and lazy)
"People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy."
Well I don't see the value of a piece of paper with the word "$50" written on it. It's just a fucking piece of paper. And yet they want FIFTY QUID for it. Not only that, its an evil state-run monopoly and its actually ILLEGAL for me to attempt to make an unauthorised copy of the damn thing.
Actually 'people at large' DO understand that software, like everything else, takes considerable effort to produce. the fact that you can likely get away with stealing it doesn't change the basic economics. If you REALLY think that reducing marginal costs of production to zero fundamentally changes the price of a product that was 95% fixed costs anyway, then you need to read some elementary school economics.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
you are correct, but don't expect anything but abuse here on slashdot. Apparently linux is the best O/S in the universe, despite the fact that 99% of people will actually choose to buy a more expensive O/S instead of using it.
Apparently, being able to go buy any piece of hardware, such as a digital camera, and plug it into your PC and the O/S work seamlessly with it, without any required updates, patches or problems, is not something that people want. they prefer an O/S where they have to know about recompiling kernels and other such geekery.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Have these 'career pirates' taken over one of the EA storage building and stolen their CD's/DVD's? Oh wait... MAFIAA...
Here be signatures
Most trolls have much higher UID's.
When was the last time you have tried Ubuntu?
Vista is such a peice of fucking shit. With 8 gigs of ram, and 1 apps running, the fucking thing studders, lags and pukes shit all over my pc's performance.
I'm furious. How many fucking times does vista have to halt to a crawl when only running a single app that is taking 100 MB of ram at most.... The background processes arent eating up 8 GB of ram!!!
Oh vista has to fucking "intelligently cache" my data... which in real world translates to.... SLOW VISTA TO A FUCKING CRAWL when running a single application that is using 100 MB's of 8 fucking GIGS
FUCK!$%@!%$!%!%^!
This has never been fixed. It has never been fucking addressed by MS. There is NO FUCKING information regarding it online.
The performance of Vista is shit.
PIRATE IT all you want, its worth nothing.
Angry fucking rant off.
oh yeah, did i mention i'm running a QX6700 with 8 GB ram, a GEFORCE 8800 GTX... You would think the fucking thing would fly.
XP does... Vista... nope.
This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
That part, about promoting the progress of science and useful arts has been proved again and again to be bollocks. Monopolies don't create progress, they create stagnation, milking their money makers to the end, and then introducing a "new and shine" product which is basically the same with a different UI (see Office 2k7, Vista).
This has nothing to do with copyright being expanded above 20 years. Look back 20 years... That's 1988. That's Windows 2.1. No, not 3.1. Would it change a thing for Microsoft, if the copyright on Windows 2.1 expired this year? Would Windows 2.1 be any kind of competition to Vista? Enough to make them improve Vista one single bit?
No, it most likely won't even run on todays machines. It would be useless. 20 or 70 years, it doesn't make any difference. It's not about the timespan of "temporary", it's about "monopoly". A monopoly created by the government. Just like the phone companies used to be. Just like the entire Soviet Union used to be. It didn't create progress when applied to cars (Compare a Trabi to an Audi), and it doesn't create progress when applied to software.
In short: Monopolies don't create progress. Creating them "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a load of bollocks.
Windows XP is just 95 with a retooled engine
I agree with most of what you say, but XP is as different from 95 as 95 was from 3.11. At the base level, the kernel, it was even more different. Until they bite the bullet and do a complete re-write, XP SP2 is as good as Windows will ever get.
Great, you made me stick up for Windows. Now I have to run to the Church of Apple and pray to His Steveness to forgive my blasphemy...
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
Hey now, watch it buddy. 99% of people will BUY a more expensive OS than use Linux?
I beg to differ.
I'd say it's more like 97% to 98% will USE a more expensive OS, and about 15% will install a non-legal copy, 15% will buy a legal copy and install it, and the other 70% will get it with their Dell, HP, Everex, Gateway, Mac, etc.
Just thought I should clarify a little bit there.
Yes, I do have a machine with Linux on it, BTW. Works fine. I'm not in the majority on a few other things, either.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Not for me - I use a creative zen and napster and I think it is arguably better than an ipod and itunes - although still relying on DRM, it can be better value for money depending how you use it...
>Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for
I hate to remind you, but there is not that much in terms of special abilities at M$!
Have you ever called them for support before?
I have, 8 times, each time was a chore to get them to understand
what the problem was with their own software. I think maybe there is
a high turnover there or something, each time I tried to ask for the same rep
I was told they were not working there anymore.
I understand if this is the problem, but even high turnover comes at a price, for the clients
If I have to wait a few days , I might go bankrupt if my customers can't get access
to the exchange server, meetings are missed, and business is affected!
You say if the market were free software prices would be lower, then mention Linox which is -- free. What you are actually saying is you like MS well enough to use their products (else you wouldn't even be interested in Vista, allowing it to wither and be replaced by less expensive brands), but simply want to force down their prices.
Uh, no. That's the other side of the free market coin. I get to decide the price I want to charge. If I overcharge, I lose.
Don't be such a cock-suck. Thank you.
It's my understanding that countries like China distribute pirated software to their agencies, and Microsoft knows about it. Why doesn't the US go sue China too? I mean, since it's such a big deal right?
Because maybe they select hardware based on the hardware and not the software?
That is just plain wrong.
Almost all agencies have their own CV format because they want all their consultants CV:s to look the same. So they will ask you to either fill in a lot of forms in their stupid, buggy in-house developed web application that will generate a CV, or they will send you a CV template that you are required to fill in. Either way, it is really stupid and a tedious waste of time, but that is how they work.
There are some that will use your CV, but censor your contact information so that the customer is prevented from contacting you directly. But they will still accept CV:s in PDF format as long as your contact details are removed.
That is my experience anyway, I have been in contact with lots of consultant agencies and not a single one has required that the CV be submitted in MS Word format.
Football Odds
wow, what cutting and incisive debating skills you showed there. You must be the original poster, with his childlike inability to comprehend basic economics.
Now clean your room kid.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
But why would they? If Microsoft can make money the way they are doing business now, they will. They CAN'T give up their cash cow like that: as a publicly traded corporation, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make as much money as they can.
If it ever came to pass that the general public were savvy enough to install free software themselves then perhaps Microsoft would drastically reduce their price in order not to lose marketshare, but will that day ever come?
It takes all of 2 seconds to remove any of the DRM on an itunes song.
"Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone." Have you ever used windows? Do you know how many updates and bugs there are? Even if each one was made at a low price there are so many you would end up paying full price of just buying the software in a couple months.
At least I can give and re-sell those pieces of $50 paper after someone used them. Not Windows.
You really should control your own backup processes, you know. Even MS lets you do it! It's free and easy!
Realistically, I've had Vista Home premium since shortly after the release. I built my own system, and installed a purchased OEM edition. My cold boot time is 20 seconds, I never have any crashes or hangups, and all the background processes running ARE ONES I CHOSE TO RUN. I reboot only when neccessary from updates, and I have yet to see bad driver hangups, instability, or major problems. I'm a gamer. I play in a couple of competitive leagues, and use top end tech, and as such can never move away from MS software, but for a slashdot poster to be complaining about your "background processes eating your precious 8gb of RAM", you need to get a grip on yourself. My Vista doesn't even stutter with a measly 4gb of RAM.
And before you drooling fanboys attack me, I also use GNU/Linux and OS X on my ibook, run a myth TV box for my PVR, and I still have a working VIC-20 and Commodore 64 hooked up as well.
...and I use a Creative Zen and rip my CD's to mp3 ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
You're right, I should have slightly rephrased that as "...only has a greater financial to write more if they know they will lose the income from the first."
I certainly agree that there are many other reasons people write and create. But you have to admit that there would probably be fewer books in say the Goosebumps series or from Steven King if no one was making money off them.
You're just arguing whether X years is good or bad.
Personally, I think in the software world, patents maybe should last 3-5 years and copyrights should still last 20 or so (you shouldn't be able to grab windows 3 years after it came out and start selling burned CDs on ebay, but you should be able to use any patented ideas in your own software).
In the end I think it comes down to whether you believe someone should be able to make money and support themselves solely by creative act or if you believe they should be required to do something beyond this (as the GGP suggests that they must offer some related service to their original creation, not just the creation itself - - in music people often suggest performing although I'm not sure what they'd suggest for a novelist). It's harder to justify a copyright-less world when you consider actual people in the creative act (writing novels or composing music) and not just the faceless corporations of the software world.
And sometimes (if you're lucky) a microscopic space fleet.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy.
I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. First, the market does determine the price of software. If you want to be precise, the software market is an oligopolistic one, with few providers, but very real limits to what can be charged for the product. To see this, envision MSFT charging $10,000/PC for windows. If they did that, the PC market would shrink to nothing, because the value received by a casual user doesn't warrant the expense. MSFT has actually driven the cost of OS and productivity software down very low, to where it's actually perceived by the average non geek as being pretty reasonable. You can see this through the bundled sales of Office through channels like Dell and HP, where it's a discretionary purchase, but volume is still high.
The cost of replication of software is indeed tiny. The cost of creation of software is of course, much higher. The cost of replication has always been miniscule in relation to the overall cost of production, and has never affected the value proposition for software. Even back in the day, when a copy of VMS, for example, was shipped on a tape that cost $50, the cost of the tape was minor in relation to the overall cost of the system.
Your argument is essentially saying that, since stealing is easy and cheap, it should invalidate the price that a vendor wants to charge. It's easy and cheap to take GPL licensed work, strip it of the copyright info, and sell it for your own profit. By your logic, that should make it OK to do so. Similarly, it's quite easy to steal your car, and quite cheap for a criminal to do so. Does that make it right?
We may not like MSFT, but for better or worse, they spent a lot of money developing their products. It's completely moral and valid for them to charge what the market will bear for the product, and no more moral for someone to steal their product (through unauthorized replication) than it is for someone to steal your car. If you don't want to pay MSFT, use another product.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
He'd have to first go learn something about economics.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Right, because the price of a good is simply reflective of the cost of the inputs and not what people are willing to pay for it. Wait, that's not right.
You're exactly right: the software market is based on supply and demand.
Linux's share of the desktop market is low compared to Microsoft because there simply isn't enough demand for it. It's as simple as that. But "lack of demand" is a multi-headed beast. One is simply education: there are plenty of folks out there for whom Linux would suit their needs perfectly, but they don't know it exists. Another is availability: there's lots more work to do to get Linux as an option from OEMs. And, the improvements in user-friendliness will continue to address this issue.
Microsoft charges what they charge for Windows because they can. But this can be fixed. Few people thought that Linux would get to the desktop share it has now. Few people thought that there'd be a day when Dell and Wal-Mart would offer PCs with Linux pre-loaded. And many people have surprised that Apple's taking so much share away from Windows PC vendors.
The roadmap is there. As alternative OSes get better, easier to use, and more available, Microsoft will respond by lowering their prices.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Dunno, last time I checked, OpenOffice could save in the .doc format (which is MS Office compatible, btw). So you don't really need to spend $449 on getting that done.
Also, according to Newegg, Office isn't $449
Yes, the big deal "free" software before GPL/BSD was generally termed public domain. Usually free to use and copy, but generally came with no source code.
Shareware was also pretty big around the same time, which essentially gave a user a complete copy (sometimes limited) with nag screens(optionally) to try a piece of commercial software usually from a small outfit, generally what have become indies today. Spiderweb software and some others still sort of do this by allowing demos that allow you to play a game to a certain point or to try a subset of an apps features, or some other sort of combo.
There is a _world_ of difference between variable cost and total/average cost. It may only cost Microsoft a few cents to produce a Vista CD/DVD (not sure what it comes on, been Microsoft free for 4 years now), but the costs of years of development, patent licensing, support, etc. make the actual cost much higher. As for Microsoft's monopoly pricing, an economist did a study a few years ago (sorry, can't find the link, and google's not helpful), which showed that if Microsoft charged _actual_ monopoly pricing (P=2R for non economists), the price of a Windows license would be, IIRC, ~$600-700.
scary that some idiots labelled this insightful.
some reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_costs
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
This is not a troll, I'm just pointing out why people might not be impressed.
The colors are horribly ugly. Try some lighter shades, pastels or something? The print and close window buttons are especially ugly and not needed. Most folks know how to print from a web browser.
Put your education at the bottom since your experience is way more important and your education is not very impressive.
i dont need to get a grip! I work in 3d animation and i do photography. I'm a professional. I deal with very large files and lots of data.
Vista fucking crawls! I've been building pc's since 286 days. I know how to config a pc inside and out, but vista is just evil. I think it's stupid caching scheme is thinking i want to have some 2gig file in ram just in case i want to open it someday.
I cant imagine where the fucking ram goes. Theres not enough processes to eat up 8 gigs of ram. Its caching all of the ram (which i know is be design)... but then even running a simple fucking IM app like Paltalk, will cause vista to run out of free ram, then vista has to dump some of the cache, then this is when the crawl comes.
It happens with so many apps. The stupid os runs out of memory since it gobbles it up into the cache, and when an app needs the ram, it eats up the 2 megs that vista leaves free... and then i have 0 free.. and vista goes to fucking shit. It just slows to a crawl.
Its garbage.
Also, I loved your 'Troll Zoo' article, especially the part where I apparently threatened to have you killed. A wonderfully psychotic read.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Macthorpe is a troll
There ya go: http://secunia.com/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=13223 and http://secunia.com/graph/?type=imp&period=all&prod=13223
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
September 19th be th' trial date?
I don't think I've ever seen a nervous breakdown formatted in HTML before. That is some really scary shit right there.
Twitter doesn't need down-mods anymore, he needs an intervention. Honestly, that is a cry for help.
I'm amused that you wrote a reply to this here as an AC, and another one while logged in to one of your copy accounts on this comment for what seems to be zero logical reason. That comment just so happens to contain the correct link to the Troll Zoo even though DeadZero is meant to be a different person who probably wouldn't bother finding that or caring about it.
Sometimes I wonder what goes in your head - it seriously makes my brain hurt trying to deduce your motivations for doing these things.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
The worse an economy gets, the more interested people become in not having to pay for stuff.
Right or wrong, people generally do what they have incentive to do.
And you can't put them all in prison.
I use iTunes, and my family has an ipod, an ipod nano, an ipod touch, and even an Alpine iDA-X001 'made for ipod' car stereo.
And yet we also rip all our CD's to mp3 and have no DRM'd files.
In your other post you direct me to the wikipedia article on fixed costs.
Fixed costs should not be confused with sunk costs. And from that article:
In business, an example of sunk costs may be investment into a factory or research that now has a lower value or no value whatsoever.
Cost of software development is a sunk cost in an unregulated market. To the extent that it can be considered a fixed cost it is so because of restricted supply (copyright) being used to inflate prices, something we have done with the express purpose of making development costs recoverable.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
My experience is quite the reverse.
I use Ubuntu almost exclusively.
Whenever I need to use Windows, I am appalled by the lack of polish and consistency of Windows applications.
My wireless devices worked out of the box in Ubuntu, but I had to download drivers to make them work in XP.
When I wanted to install applications, I could just point and click in a central repository, and they're all installed in minutes. Security updates work without stupid activations/etc.
Focus stealing still plagues Windows, and that drives me nuts.
Sure Ubuntu isn't perfect and I had to work to make some things work, but it was far closer to perfect than Windows ever was.
Of course these are anecdotes, and I heard of people whose wireless devices worked out of the box in Windows, and not in Ubuntu. But its important to remember that your experience is not the definitive one.
Now for another anecdote which represents an essential difference between these systems. Yesterday I wanted to mount a remote file system via SSH. I did not want to inherit the remote file permissions - because those allow everyone to read/write (which is OK in the remote LAN, not OK in a computer in the large internet). The "umask" feature supposed to do this did not work.
In about 10 minutes, using the great tools Ubuntu has to offer, I managed to report the bug, fix it for myself, and attach a patch. You cannot do this, and will never be able to do this on the Windows platform.
This is where the symmetry breaks.
Both of us have anecdotes about this and that working here and not working there. You have your games running on Windows, and I have apt and a nagless experience almost free of thoughts about security.
But the tie-breaker is freedom.
I have my freedom and you are a Microsoft hostage who can only beg for them to fix the bugs that annoy you.
XP and 95 are virtually identical to the layperson, because they don't even know what the kernel is or does. You and I know the XP kernel is totally unlike the 95 kernel (if we can call it as such), but everyone else just sees the same applications and UI idioms.
The thing that made Mac OS X such a head-turner is that they took an already decent OS (BSD), tweaked it up a bit, added some great usability features and intuitive interface elements, then slapped on the well-known Finder interface and made it look a bit nicer. It offered significant performance improvements, made the whole system more reliable and easier to use, and the eye candy made people want to show off their rig.
Vista only did the latter: they added eye candy. They worsened everything else, and now they want a ton of money for their shiny turd.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
1) NT-based Windows derivatives, like Windows XP were/are dramatically more stable than the 9x line, mainly due to changes made to the driver system. The same is true of Vista, changes made to the driver system were done to increase stability.
2) OSX is based on Next, not BSD per se. It uses a different kernel, different drivers, etc. It is appropriate to say that MacOS X is "POSIX-compliant" and "binary compatible with BSD" but not that it is BSD "tweaked up a bit".
3) Finder on MacOS X is broken.
4) MacOS X was dramatically slower than MacOS 9 on all available hardware when it shipped. It really only ran adequately on G5s and it wasn't until the switch to Intel (years later) that it really ran well. Apple completely lied about the performance of their hardware during this period. Much of this was due to Quartz (the eye-candy) which, unlike Vista, you couldn't turn off.
5) Vista added more than eye-candy, but critics simply choose to ignore those features as "not important". Most of those critics are Mac zealots that regard the same or similar features in MacOS X as "essential" and "revolutionary".
Ah well then here I'd contend that it's the iPod that isn't working with Amarok, not vice-versa
They don't work with each other. What difference does it make who you want to blame for it?
As for dropping the ipod to use something that does work with Amarok? Forget it.
I tried mp3 players that acted purely as FAT32 usb/mass storage devices when attached to a PC. That sucked so much ass it wasn't funny. iTunes meta-data tracking, and smart playlists based on that meta-data are features I like enough to put up with ipods not behaving like that.
Not to mention that I like iPods as hardware devices far more than any other mp3 player I've laid hands on. Regardless of the software to load them, and I've owned or trialed Samsungs, Sansas, Sonys, Xens, and others.
iTunes has plenty of short comings. I'll be the first to admit that. (the ones that bug me most related to multi-user/shared library issues, and multi-computer sync issues). But despite that I find the iTunes/iPod solution to be infinitely better than any otherdevice/amarok solution I've ever seen or tried.