Slashdot Mirror
ESR on his trip to Microsoft
Thanks to Norm J for the pointer over to ESR's post-Microsoft interview. Fairly typical situation, but it's interesting to comments from "the inside".
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
A question to those who've heard ESR speak before...is he a reasonably effective persuasive speaker? I saw the talk and must say that I kind of expected more after his writings. It wasn't bad, I enjoyed it a lot and I think there are a good number of others around here who did too, but I just don't think he had the kind of arguments that could be expected to be necessary to be effective in front of a Microsoft audience. The ideas were good and he seems like a really smart guy, just seemed to lack preparation to support and defend those ideas in many cases. Has anyone seen him talk for other hostile/skeptical groups and have anything to say about it?
Andrew Beyer [beyera@rpi.edu]
For the short term, closed source will make you money. At least at the OS level, I'd be surprised if that survives a decade. I think once companies realize the benefits of not having their OS controlled by any one party, they'll start demanding open source at the OS level. You may be able to get away with closed source apps indefinitely, as long as they have relatively open file formats (XML maybe.)
I don't deal with nagware period. I don't care any one application is, 99 percent of the stuff is pure unadulterated crap. Sell it commercially and I may buy it or open source it, anything in between I simply won't touch. Nagware seems to be mostly a closed source OS phenominon. The only shareware I've ever seen on Linux was xv and AFAIK no one uses that thing anymore.
If ESR's bribe was dinner with Greg Bear and Neal Stephenson, what bribes did Microsoft offer them?
In your not so humble opinion, of course.
Actually in almost everyone's opinion here. And yes, I work for a software company and know EXACTLY what it is and what software worth.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Well actually, when I read all the posts here, most of the ACs seem to claim to be from MS.
What makes you think he was talking about technical merits?
MS is an economic entity. Like any other company, the reason for their existence is not helping the customer out of goodwill, but simply to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with this - most of us who are employees work for companies whose entire existence is based on making profits, except for the very small % who work for non-profit organizations.
From that perspective - earnings/employee is a very valid and important thing, more so then technical merit. You're being ignorant by jumping to the conclusion that they were concerned about technical merit.
What's so frustrating about this, is that if Windows adopted a DLL versioning/numbering scheme it would solve a LOT of stability issues, and create a very minimal amount of problems. This is something that's fixable with almost no effort, and just a little discipline...
It already has one - but a lot of ISV's ignore it.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
But the point still stands - it's still not as good a business model!
BUT, I wish somebody would explain to me how closed source development could POSSIBLY result in better code. All OSS means is that you make the source available to others so they can improve it. And you don't have to incorporate their improvements if you don't want to. At the very worst, it will give the same results as closed source.
The prospect of free improvements to your code is very attractive. However, it's not necessarily a clear cut advantage:
1) If there's not enough interest in a project for a free version to be developed, then you're going to hire people to code it up. This is expensive, but the only way to get the software you want in a timely manner.
2) After funding the entire development, do you really want to give it all away? A competitor of yours may need the same software (or be in the same business) and find a zero-cost solution very attractive now that you've released for all to "improve".
What does this mean? Even if you're not selling the software (but especially if you are), you're out of the initial development costs only to be on even ground with your competitors. This is a very poor way for a company to remain competitive. This is why you'd want to keep the code to yourself -- you paid for it and you want to benefit from it.
One possible exception to this is the case where a company would like to establish an industry standard. History says you need be very open to do this, even though releasing all of your source code under public abusal licenses is not necessary... I'm losing my thread here, and nobody reads posts this deep in the threads anyway...
Dude, become a DCOMmunist! DCOM solves all that! DCOM is your friend. C'mon over here and give DCOM a little kiss, it gets awfully lonely here at 4:30am when the free coke machine is running low, and the ping-pong paddles are locked up in the workout room.
Even better! DCOM for Visual Basic!
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
Actually we don't ask. They simply give. The starting pay is great.
I use Linux, I love open-Source. but the fact of the matter is SOFTWARE IS NOT LIFE!!! Nor are computers. While the linux-nazis are coming after me for selling out, I hope to save money, get married, and raise a family.
I struggled paying for school, and Microsoft is damn nice to me. And while 10 years down the road I know that my children are be taken care of bu their hardworking father, you'll still be standing outside of Electronics Boutique with REDHAT 2010 signs.
From what I can tell, the NT kernel sounds
pretty cool (I'm no expert). But if you
want a kernel that is modern and full of
bugs, go the HURD.
And I can think OF SEVERAL crappy linux apps and releases.
I saw the talk and thought it was pretty interesting, but several points were not fully addressed.
ESR made the point that developers working on open source care about making their product "better", and I don't think anyone was debating that point. In my mind, the central issue is "what do you mean by better".
The problem, of course, is that different people have different opinions of what makes something "better". If I am running a web server, I might care mostly about uptime and use Linux. But if I am a home gamer, all I care about is "are the latest games going to play on my machine?" In that case, I would use Windows. Thus, a blanket statement saying that "Linux is better than Windows" or vice-versa makes no sense.
The problem for many of us techies is that we often do not respect the opinions of the users. End-users often want things that are abhorrent to developers - a super-simple sugar-coated GUI, for example.
This gets us to what I think is the main concern for the general public about Linux: everyday users are not convinced that open-source-devs are going to work on the features that the users care about. So, the public could clamor the Linux community for a simple GUI, but if all the Linux people think that is stupid, it is never going to happen - or at best, it will not have the cream-of-the-crop putting hours towards it.
This is where the code-for-profit model works so well. People know that MS is motivated by the customer's idea of what is best - the profit-model works well for assuring this. Users can "vote" for new features and improvements with their dollars. If the typical end user cares more about desktop decorations than uptime, MS is not going to say "hey, you users are idiots - UPTIME is REALLY more important". Rather, MS is going to put their best people on desktop decorations, even if the best would rather work on something else. People understand the notion of paying (and being paid) to get stuff done, and as soon as money enters the scene, it is pretty hard to argue with the MS approach.
ESR's answer to this was basically to say that "well, you can make money off of open source software". But as the MS people know, you can make money off of closed-source as well. I mean, Linus will never have to look for work, but hey, neither will Bill Gates.
In my opinion, the most interesting part of the talk came at the end, when ESR conjectured that we are approaching the limits of being able to make money from software as a product, and that in the future, all software will be free (as in, will cost nothing), whether open (like Linux) or not (like IE5). He then gave a plausible argument that as long as the software is free, it is better to have it open-sourced.
All I can say is that it should be interesting to see what lies in the years ahead!
I'll end with two disclaimers: 1) I work for Microsoft, but my opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, and 2) I've had a linux system at home for 2 ½ years, so I am pretty familiar with it.
nobody reads posts this deep in the threads anyway...
I do, because Nested is the One True Way :-)
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
How much time does that take? You copy, paste the very detailed explanation of the BSoD, e-mail to MS and they send you new code within the day. It's really very simple....
You're joking, right?
MS only pushes anti-piracy crusades in countries that CAN pay. In other places (Indonesia & China) they ignore it....no, ENCOURAGE it because they know it creates a user base. Much like heroin dealers handing out free samples outside of primary schools. They know they'll recoup their investment/losses.
BTW, don't thing Indonesia and China will remain poor. The changes over here in the past 15 years have been mind-staggering.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
The quote you put in italics said better code. I was saying that opening source code review would at WORST give EQUAL results to closed source from a _TECHNICAL_ standpoint.
You just argued that it could be a bad idea from a business standpoint, which I conceeded could be argued either way.
So I think we agree.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Right!
Bill asked me to do this. He came by my cube one night at 4:30am, and said ", why not write a version of Office 2000 for Linux for me - by say, tomorrow afternoon?"
and I said,
"why?"
and he said, "oh, I don't know", and left. Just like that.
It would be hard, because as far as I know, there's no DCOM for Visual Basic that runs on Linux.
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
Thereby proving the assertions that Linux has not a single original concept in it.
So? There's something to be said for implementing someone else's ideas well.
As for solid foundation, this isn't a house, you can redo a foundation.
It's a lot harder to rewrite basic code that underlies everything else than to change superficial things, though.
Linux is an incremental add of SMP onto an incremental add of modularity onto a monolithic kernel based on designs out of an ancient
book for an obsolete teaching OS.
As opposed to the NT "micro"kernel where the GUI runs in kernel mode and device drivers can pop up GUI message boxes or call into pretty much any user space code. Where you can't upgrade your system libraries without rebooting. Where you _have_ to upgrade your system libraries (and
therefore reboot) to install nearly any
interesting new piece of software.
Gee, that sounds like a _much_ better design.
A lot of these design issues can't even be fixed without severely breaking backward compatibility, either, and back compatibility is the number one reason the windows franchise goes on.
All they need to do is buy out VMWare, bundle Linux with it and sell it as a "revolutionary NT only solution" and they'd kill two birds with one stone: they have their own "Linux" plus NT is a core requirement. Lovely... *sarcasm intended*
I would suggest leaving the "good" out of the phrase "damned good OS" to get a more accurate picture of Windows 2000. :-)
Why would M$ want to release a Unix look-alike? The company I work for got hit by that worm.explore thing last week, and the IT people are fit and ready to replace Windows with just about anything. (I sat at my Mac G3, continued working, and occasionaly rolled my eyes as well.) NT has its moments, but security against viruses is not one of its strong points.
Meanwhile, the PowerMac 6100 next to the G3 has been running MkLinux for 30+ days now without a reboot or shutdown. I may switch our main dept. server (a PowerMac 8500) to LinuxPPC in a couple of weeks.
Oh BTW, do you know that Microsoft used to sell a version of Unix? This was their first attempt to jettison DOS.
-- Dirt Road
Open-source NT ... cleaning up the spaggetti code ... reusing good ideas buried within the NT code (Not all ideas by MS coders are necessarily bad) ... visibility for the unofficial API's that the MS Office and VisualStudio people put in ... finding the racy anti-mac jokes buried as source code comments ... open specs allowing other systems to be more compatible (and thus making OS selection even more moot) ...
I care about free(speech) software a whole lot more than I care about any particular OS.
To me the most interesting sentence had to be:
It was kind of amusing, really, fielding brickbats from testosterone-pumped twentysomethings for whom money and Microsoft's survival are so central that they have trouble grokking that anyone can truly think outside that box.
This is definitely the defining difference between those that believe in Open Source and those don't. Its about teaching and creating. More about personal, mental and communal gain than about monitary gain. Its ashame that all to often Linux proponents get into a pissing contest over who is better. Its not about telling someone you're better its about showing it.
"I found it interesting that the 2000 development group was defensive about its product. This would be the case in any company when the department's work is challenged. I bet they felt quite intimidated and ESR had a rude awakening by having some comments that were especially critical."
Imagine Bill Gates speaking to a group of Linux hackers. Would they not be defensive?
Just for the record, the release of the DOOM source code did bring a lot of benefits to fans of that game. These included:
So I think Eric had a good example, even if he didn't give enough detail...
Lets do the math.
.003 = 26.28 hrs
365 days * 24 hours = 8760 hrs
8760 *
If you need more than 26.28 hours (in a year for one machine) to fix problems with BSODs then you don't deserve the bonus.
Man, it's gotten so that people can't recognize facetious comments without a smiley.
Lighten up guys!
No. The point does NOT still stand. To compare business models, you need to compare two companies with the same market share and product lines. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to brazil-nuts my friend.
Werd.
Of course, you can boot and run NT and an application on a 640K machine too, right?
Low RAM is ideal for a controller environment. Any idea how much WinCE or the new real-time NT takes?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Careful, there! There are thousands of programs out there that rely on those bugs!
This is why MS would never have to worry about a code fork if they released sources. Any fork would have to be bug-for-bug compatible with their version if it expected to support all the programs that are out there.
Umm, have you eer used commercial Unix? They all have commercial compilers, and genrally they're not cheap. At the company I worked for previously, we developed a GIS product for Solaris, SunOS, IRIX, DEC/OSF, AIX, and HP/UX. Some of the companies gave us basic compiler tools because they wanted our product on their platform (such as HP), but we had to buy the compilers from the rest of them. Companies like SGI charge $2k+ for their graphical debugger (and the license was Node-Locked). I was still using dbx on there for fixing bugs because I couldn't get the company to foot a $10k bill to give the SGI developers a graphical debugger.
- Vincit qui patitur.
My point is that even though it might take a majority of users to influence a giant like MS to move, there no number of mere users that can influence a free software effort like Linux.
With most open-source projects, the users are also developers: Whether they are actually coding, or writing documentation, or giving feedback/bug reports, this "users as developers" paradigm is what has kept Linux feature-rich. If you want a feature, you don't have to "influence a giant company," you just write it yourself. And if you can't write it yourself, find a package that does almost what you want, and suggest the feature to that package's author and offer to test it. I guess in a way non-tech users are at the implementer's mercy, but even today with Redhat getting popular, I'd say most users are capable of contributing to the software they use.
I realize you are probably a troll, but...
Linux, GPL and the whole open source movement has to be the first refreshing thing I have come across since I first got involved with computers. I started with a lowly TRS-80 CoCo 2 with 16K of RAM and a tape drive, all hooked up to my TV. The first thing I did was crack open the book and start to code in BASIC. I had fun. Many of my friends had Apples, or VIC-20s, or even C=64s - but we would swap code, and try to get everything to work - learning a lot in the process. This was over 10 years ago...
Things have changed a lot - M$ seems to dominate all kinds of areas - and are moving quick to dominate others. It seems bleak, and unispiring - everyone using M$ products for everything. Doing development on Windows requires a small fortune, so the kid that wants to code is left out - he has to beg his parents (or parent, these days) to spend $99.00 for the LE of VB or something - then he can't even compile anything. So maybe he plays around with QBASIC - or, if he is lucky - he notices gcc (djgpp) on the net...
The whole movement is about teaching - giving, not taking away. M$ represents greed - and people are seeing it. I see it, and I am doing everything to break away - one day I will be successful (my job is holding me back right now - but I am trying to change that). I want the good feelings I had when I was a kid - the trading of source, trying to get it to run properly - learning.
Linux, GPL and the OS movement is about that - don't you forget it...
And before it is to late - I recommend that you look for another job, while you still can...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I wonder if anyone will actually produce an MPEG/Real version of this? Should be quite an interesting view...
As someone who really works for Microsoft, I can tell you that this parody isn't even close to how any of the people I know here think. Grow up.
yep....
... just cant remember my pw...
its now a black screen....
at least they didnt change the acronym...
EnderWiggnz
not an AC
I found it interesting that the 2000 development group was defensive about its product. This would be the case in any company when the department's work is challenged. I bet they felt quite intimidated and ESR had a rude awakening by having some comments that were especially critical. It was funny that they were reported to sling mud trying to defend (Oracle.) Very revealing and not very professional. I bet the 2000 team will be watched closer by their collegues due to the funny stuff.
"I would think think the goal would be to not see *any* of those lovely (and beloved) blue screens."
They don't see BSODs because M$ changed the color.
Now it's the BRYCFSOD. (Blood-Red-You're-Completely-Fucked Screen Of Death)
:)
The point must be conceded. The best business model from a profit standpoint is definately a monopoly. But that is illegal, and with good reason.
It really amuses me that the people working for Microsoft are so closed to the outside world. It seems like they think MS is the best thing to hit the computing world.
What I found interesting tho, was the fact that "The flamers were a minority, and they occasionally got stepped on by other audience members."
Sounds like there is a definite attitude of respect at the Microsoft campus.
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
I give MS credit for doing it, it shows that they are worried and they are trying to fight it. This isn't a really new thing though, just a radical departure from 18 months ago but they've already acknowledged that GNU/Linux and OSS is a threat. They appear to be trying to figure it out, which is good, they want to defeat the beast by understanding the beast. Who knows how many will convert in that process. There are already microsoft people and there are definitely characteristics that make you fight in there better. You can't be too entrepreneurial or else you'd start your own company, you have to be motivated largely by money, over all quality of life doesn't seem to be a big issue (it's just a money thing to most of them,) you have to be smart and you have to think you're among the best (even if you aren't) {end of huge generalization mode} There are definitely people at MS (I worked with a bunch when I worked there) who will never understand OSS, they just can't. There is also a large group of people who are intelligent to understand it but could never relate to it, they will probably think of OSS hackers as the country bumpkins (or some other kind of eccentrics) of the software industry and whether or not they can come up with a plan to defeat them will be interesting to see. Then there will also be a group which will probably remain small and they will get it and understand it and most likely end up embracing it, I could eventually see that becoming a factor in termination.
You have to realize that in the 70's there was a whole community of computer hounds and it was a lot like the OSS ocmmunity is today. Bill Gates was an outcast from that and he was against it, he was big on the whole issue of selling software, it was always about money to him. That's the core culture of the company, as long as they take their ques from billg they will be purely a money oriented company. That's what companies are by nature but I think the playing field is changing in ways that they aren't prepared for, the real money always has been in service (IBM makes as much on software as MS does and IBM sells far fewer copies, it's the service and the loyalties associated with it) You throw ideology and fun into the mix and it only makes more sense.
I imagine those working on the win2000 team may be starting to feel the pressure. It's not quite a make or break product but it's the first time in quite a while where MS has lost media support and there is another product standing not in their path but in their way. I can understand a few of them lashing out, I just hope that they are ready to deliver for their sake because it's only going to get worse if win2000 isN'T there.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
At last, hard evidence supporting the hypothesis that all those moronic Anonymous Cowards are actually in the pay of Microsoft!
Oops. Better restate that before I get flamed... what I meant to say was that abuse of a monopoly is illegal. Having a monopoly is not. The abuse of a monopoly is the more profitable business model.
That's what I get for posting right after I wake up... :)
I totally agree: OSS is a powerful corrective force to an inefficient software market. I am
tired of reading about "software communism" and wish that this kind of market-forces argument was advanced more often.
To see the economic problem, you only have to compare the market for computer hardware (rapid commoditization, plunging prices, profits only possible at the cutting edge of innovation) with software (lock-in to proprietary standards, stable prices, cash-cow applications like MS Office which can be milked for years without any serious innovation). OSS will push the software market in the same direction as the hardware market, and the consumer will ultimately benefit. There may be other solutions to the imbalance (e.g component software) and I hope that as the software market matures we shall see them.
Microsoft, by virtue of an entrenched monopoly, should not really be used as an example in an argument
since I believe some of the numbers it generates (eg revenue/employee) are completely outside those
of *any* other business, regardless of strategy.
So yes, if you happen to have a monopoly (which oracle doesn't) your opportunity to profit is
magnified...which is a usable strategy for exactly one company.
On the other hand IBM seems to be expecting to turn over a small amount of cash providing primarily
services.
I wish the interview were more specific. It barely scratched the surface of what implications the ordeal could have. For instance, I am wondering what the W2K kids were saying and being offended by and what Eric said to them.
One thing I thought was amusing was that Eric compared ignorant Microsoft workers to Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot.
-Clump
oops.
:-(
sorry.
The virus you describe is an x86 executable that is mailed to users who are then foolish enough to run it. The security breach is the stupid user, not the OS. If I give a Unix (any flavor) or Mac user a random executable and get them to run it, I can trash their machines too. Switching from Windows to Unix won't solve this problem for anyone.
BTW, I have plenty of NT machine with far greater than 30 day uptimes. And I suspect the original poster was well aware of Xenix, that's what his/her comment was about. Reading comprehension skills would help.
The listener's (I don't know his name) comment was that Oracle (which doesn't give away their software,
The listener's (I don't know his name) comment was that Oracle (which doesn't give away their software,I wouldn't call them a "semi-open-source" company) makes some large percentage of their revenue from support. He then went on to point out that their revenue per employee was far less than Microsoft's. In other words, his point was that the business model Eric was proposing isn't as profitable a business model.
Perhaps a more fair comparison would be to compare the revenues/employee from companies that have similar product lines and market positions, but different support vs. product sales revenue breakdowns?
Oracle doesn't have cash cow desktop OS or productivity suite monopolies, you know.
Well, I work at Microsoft and I don't see the attitude here that you are branding us with. In fact, the three "changes" you suggest are already common practice.
Maybe it's your view of Microsoft that is off? Hmm?
if they are starting to grasp the Open Source Model, how long until we see MS-Linux? They could convince the DoJ that there is competition between OSes and expand the base for their applications, plus people would be willing to pay for MS-Linux support. Anyone think it will happen?
Actually, I was just at a Microsoft Office 2000 info-session (Hey, it was free.) An interesting tidbit at the end, when one of MS's marketroids got up to talk about BackOffice 4.5.."Some hardware vendors are now certifying their NT4 boxes to have 99.9% reliability. That's less than 9 hours / year."
9 HOURS PER YEAR! Now, if you assume that a reboot takes about a minute, and you have your NT box rebooted every 17 hours, that's about right....
A simple statement by ESR is hard evidence?
I tried submitting this to slashdot, but no joy so far, anyone want to slashdot /. with some submissions?
The more you know, the less you understand.
365 days * 24 hours = 8760 hrs 8760 * .003 = 26.28 hrs should be: 8760 * .00003 = .2628 hours 16 minutes a year is pretty good.
365 days * 24 hours = 8760 hrs
.003 = 26.28 hrs
.00003 = .2628 hours
8760 *
should be:
8760 *
16 minutes a year is pretty good.
Ummm... Check your math again. What you have calculated is 99.7% availlability. He said 99.997%. That is:
8760 *
(or just over 15 minutes)
Thats allows for one BSOD a year -- not including the time to fix the problem leading to it!
A proprietary software house will usually make much more money than a similar open source software house--unless the houses are in competition. The existence of good open source software drastically reduces the money you can make with proprietary software.
If there is a good open source offering in a market, the proprietary competition can't survive like before. It can survive only if there is some vast technical or other superiority between itself and the open source product. Word survives because of MS's compatibility games; commercial Sendmail survives because it ships with features that freeware Sendmail will never have (funny that, they're both made by the same people...). Other than that, good open source will squash the competition. When was the last time you heard of someone paying for a Unix C/C++ compiler? We can thank Cygnus and GCC for that.
--The basis of all love is respect
rofl true.. but as you can see the shit didn't reply.. ;)
Read Slashdot comments here.
Any other smart-assed comments you want to make? Maybe you should check your sources before posting.
You're joking, right?
So much that I guess it wasn't funny....
+&x
"This is where the code-for-profit model works so well. People know that MS is motivated by the customer's idea of what is best - the profit-model works well for assuring this. Users can "vote" for new features and improvements with their dollars."
Maybe. Unless the market is moving too fast for the customers to control through their dollar votes. Or the customer's need conflicts with the vendor's strategic view. Or any reasonable size group of customers is too small to influence the vendor's actions.
Case in point: customers have been asking, demanding, and begging Microsoft for five years to improve interoperability with Novell products. Customers have been "voting", too, by continuing to buy Novell products. Has Microsoft responded to it's customers' requests? No. In fact, some of us suspect that new dis-interoperability with Netware is included with each version/service pack for Windows. Is Microsoft likely to respond to their _customers'_ requests? Help me understand why not.
sPh
At least we don't have stupid nicknames like "Zarchon". Do you even leave the house?
(Place tounge in cheek)
Having a single OS is a great idea. I'd love all applications to run on the same platform.
(serious note-)The problem is that this can only exist in a legitemate way if there are independent national and/or international standards governing the OS. The OS cannot have a propriatary API.(/serious note)
Windows has a propriatary API: MFC/WFC/etc.
MacOS has a propriatary API: Carbon (but, OS X will be (or could easily become) POSIX compliant).
Linux has a standard API: POSIX
Perhaps Windows should be POSIX compliant, THEN we can have one OS API: POSIX (plus the necessary recompile). Leave your MFC/WFC/COM/Whatever and call it "value added" (i.e. portability subtracted) and there you go, Windoze bassackward compatability.
(P.S. Not even all Windows apps will run on all Windows machines out of the box: NT Alpha--NT i386, so HA!)
(P.P.S. Lets see some embedded computers running real time processing run Windozzze.)
Excpet that you missed a big point. Any software that requires support is a piece of shit. I want to pay for software up front, then have it work. If I have to call for support, then it gets returned. Very simple.
You are absolutely correct about the right to one's opinion. Arguinng about them can lead to some profound wastes of time.
:).
I would suggest that Linux is still growing, despite Mr. Thompson's obversation, which frankly sounded like sour grapes to me. Many have called Linux retro. They are partially correct. However, the implication that Windows is the future requires more scrutiny.
If the only factors that place that Redmond OS above Linux are market size and deep pockets, that doesn't capture all of the reasons software succeeds or fails. Those are excellent reasons for *companies* to prosper or not.
I find a can really do more *work* in linux than in win*. Considering that I spent the morning fighting with NT, Exchange and ArcServe simply to get backups working is truly depressing. In fact, I'm waiting for CA to call me back (maybe the techies will read this
If you can get NT to do what you want, easily and reliably, you have made the correct OS choice. The idea that Linux, with an installed user base that rivals the Macintosh, is a "wannbe" OS is laughable. The idea that NT will be the OS of the future is not set in stone, but it will certainly be around.
Freedom from choice is what you want.
Freedom of choice is what you got.
I'm seeing nothing but "w2k is so awesome!" shit all over the place, totally off topic pro micros~1 garbage not being moderated down, all sorts of anti micros~1 posts (well reasoned or no) being moderated as "trolls" or "flamebait".
Slashdot is dead. Thanks, Micros~1.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Well then, grab a copy of the Linux source code and fix it! Add all those original concepts which are ricocheting around your brain! I'm sure Linus and Alan will thank you for it.
It's easy to say Linux has a "monolithic kernel based on designs out of an ancient book for an obsolete teaching OS"...what's hard is putting your code where your mouth is. If you have a better idea, post it to the kernel development mailing list and get the ball rolling.
But, if you've never looked at the Linux kernel source code / never followed the kernel dev list, don't be dissing it. A lot of very smart ppl have put a lot of time and considerable thought into it. If you have and you still think it's brain-dead, then roll up your sleeves, suck back the coffee and fix it! Then you won't think it sucks, and you'll have the added benefit of being able to say, "Hey! I fixed that!" to anyone who will listen. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
If you think Linux (or some part of it) sucks, at least you have the oppertunity to fix it so it doesn't. That's the freedom of Open Source.
Speaking as an application developer, me and the Linux kernel get along fine. It stays out of my way and lets me get my work done. I've yet to scream any obscenities at it. (The same can't be said for NT and the illustrious Win32 API)
Actually, no, ESR was talking about opening a closed-source pieces of software, and when to do it. Doom was his example. He explained the reasons why it was a good idea for them to open the source when they did.
marijane
Unless you can offer some evidence that Windows 2000 "personal edition" will be Windows 9x-based, I say you're all wet.
And "Windows 98 Second Edition" does equal whatever you FUDmeisters are calling Windows 99 or whatever. It sounds like you are getting your news from IRC rather than the trade press.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
As a person that lived most of his life in the Soviet Union, I'd like to tell that OSS IS communism. When I read at fsf.org this:
"There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming"
That's exactly what communism is. Everyone gets reasonable pay and equal share of goods and services.
You, folks in US, tend to think that communism is a lack of democracy. Communism, actually, is a lack of money making - business and greed are considered evil. Lack of democracy is just a result of it - communists need to suppress democracy to prevent money making tendencies.
...I'm spoiled by new hardware, but when I ran Office on my old system (pentium 100, 24 mb ram) "nicely" wasn't ever a word that entered my mind. Windows 98 wouldn't even run "nicely" by itself. It was usable, but rather sluggish. Way to continue advocating Microsoft on a generally *nix site and come off not looking like a troll, though. Takes some talent, and I'm sure you've fooled a lot of people. I look forward to reading more of your out of place posts.
Hey, have a nice one, guy.
I could really use a shit-driven laptop when I'm out in the field. Give me a shit-driven cel phone and I'll be one happy-ass mofo!
**>>BELCH
Oh, they finally changed the color?
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
Unix and NT are the same in this regard, only those files writable by the user runing the app can be trashed (this is technically more than the user's home directory, but your intent is taken). So I'll agree that all Windows users should switch to NT, but there's no point in going to Unix (and it's a backwards step to go to Macintosh).
That won't work. He would have to be old enuf to drive to get to your house in the first place :P
I have to return some videotapes...
But that was a very long time ago, when MS had only a few employees.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
I vaguely recall a movie in which the good guys were led to believe the bad guys new weapon was vulnerable. The line I vaguely remember was something like ". . . see a demonstration of the fully functional Death Star."
A well orchestrated plan Mr. Gates. The MS employees weren't the audience, ESR was the audience. We will soon see a smuggled release of the speech once MS has done its editing to highlight what their message is. We will see the MS actors poorly veiled innuendos that 2000 has problems.
Ooops sooorrry, thought this was Segfault.
"Paranoid Schizophrenics out number their enemies by at least 2-to-1" (Should actually be Paranoid's with Multiple Personality Disorders)
I mean, really -- is ESR being persuasive gonna induce Msofties to give up their stock options and start another company building "open source windows"? No. Even if you place the bar as low as getting Redmond to back off its FUD and embrace/destroy tactics, basically just to be a polite competitor interested in succeeding on its merits (which do exist :-S), well, there will still be hardcore people who will never be convinced. Especially when their livelihood is centered around the success of a different model!
I didn't see the talk, but from the reports here it sounds as if he was asked to explain open source in as fair a spirit as would be expected anywhere, by Microsoft employees who are not personally involved in or beholden to the overall strategic plan. If they sought to prove that all Microsoftians don't think alike, they succeeded. For ESR's case, by accepting the invitation in the same spirit, he proved that not everyone on his side of the aisle was closed-minded, either. Another success.
"Effective" doesn't have to mean shutting down everyone's objections, a la Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
If they had wanted Unix, they would have developed and kept Unix years ago.
Actually they did with SCO help -- Xenix. It sucked as much as their other products, MS abandoned it, SCO tried to develop it further and finally dumped in favor of Unixware (that is a descendant of "original" SVR4.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Well, if you understood that as "Free software and non-sucky software are mutually exclusive", you certainly gave it a different reading than I.
It sounds like just the opposite to me! i.e. "People would rather make free, non-sucky software precisely because non-sucky is more important to them than non-free", or put another way, people would rather make good software than get paid for making crap.
As I noted elsewhere, this talk wasn't about "converting" all Microsoft drones by proving them wrong every time they breathe out. It was about opening the lines of communication, and by the accounts here, it was a success.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Mr. Hamilton, do you realize that you are illustrating his point exactly? The point being that humans are running and coding the software. Other factors will determine what is used to as great (or greater) a degree than what works best in an objective sense. Dogma and tantrums don't make converts of anybody you'ld actually want on your side.
Talk about a "brickbat"...
I'm so glad I don't fall into this category, since
My linux workstation is a 64 bit Digital.
"LINUX
"COMMUNITY" (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PACK OF RETARDS USING
486 OR AMD-SHIT DRIVEN PC'S"
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Wow...you actually had enough brain matter left to use hyphens! Thanks for the great laugh, "retard". :)
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
My understanding is that a lot of the Mozilla code looks fairly awful to someone who didn't grow up with it but that it's not as bad as NT's code is reputed to be. If that's really the case, since the Mozilla source code doesn't seem to be inspiring hordes of OSS programmers taking the source under their collective wings and making it into something incredible, what chance do we have of the OSS community doing something incredible with the plateful of NT spaghetti code?
MS might release NT code as OSS and just might score some brownie points with the media, but I don't think it's going to do much more than that.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The Registry can be updated on the fly? That's news to me... Sure, it could (and I think it should have that ability), but as far as I can tell, you can't make changes to the Registry on-the-fly; they require a reboot to take effect. I'm speaking from personal experience: I was trying to help someone change the Win95 keyboard layout to Dvorak whenever he logged in to one of the public computers in the computer lab here. I isolated the Registry entry for the keyboard layout, wrote a Registry patch to change it to US-Dvorak, and put a "regedit [patch].reg" line in his login script. It consistently refused to work: the keyboard would still be in QWERTY mode. One time I got frustrated and rebooted the machine after running my Registry patch, and what do you know? When the machine came up again it was now using the US-Dvorak keyboard layout!
My theory is: Registry patches change the copy of the Registry on disk: the SYSTEM.DAT file. But Windows keeps another copy of the Registry in RAM, and you can't change that -- at least, not with REGEDIT patches. You can change it with the Control Panel, of course, but if you want to install Registry patches the way I did, all you can do is reboot so that the RAM copy gets reloaded from the on-disk copy.
If anyone's experience contradicts mine (in other words, if you've been able to make on-the-fly changes to the Registry with REGEDIT), I'd love to hear from you.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Actually in almost everyone's opinion here. And yes, I work for a software company and know EXACTLY what it is and what software worth.
Going off your homepage, I hope you don't speak for everyone. And IIRC, I'm pretty sure that some of the other regulars here disagree with your viewpoint too.
So, pray tell, what software company do you work for? And what do you do there? It'd be interesting to know for comparison's sake.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I never suggested NT or WinCE for embedded systems either. I was just saying that Linux is not ideal.
I'd probably use either DR-DOS or one of the OS's specially designed for embedded systems.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"...OPPOSED TO WORD 97, RIGHT. YOU FUCKS."
Who would even WANT to use Word97?!? I use WP8 on Linux and WP2K on WinXX at work.
I have to return some videotapes...
Don't subscribe to the hype. While I can't talk about the Mozilla source code, that is not the reason there are a lack of developers.
Firstly, there are a lot of people on the periphery. Widget controls, active testing, bug reporting, sending patches, looking for bugs/footprint reductions, making suggestions, etc. They are just as important as developers. At the moment it's probably *good* that most developers are in NS. Adding more programmers can slow it down and all that.
Even if no more programmers come, this alone makes the free software move a success. The fact that it's later than hoped has little to do with the fact its become free. People told NS to ditch the old layout engine, and they did.
But the plain and simple reason there aren't a lot of developers is because there has been no stable release. When hackers have a decent open source browser in their hands, they will come (and come quickly I suspect). Especially since Mozilla is fairly componentised. But at the moment there is a lot that has not been finalised. We're in for a hell of a ride over the next year, from now to the initial release to the frenzied hacking period. Moz 5 is going to be cool, but Moz 6 is going to *rock*.
PS I'm nothing to do with NS, this is just the opinion of someone who is watching closely.
Well, that's an interesting data point. Since Microsoft's products clearly aren't seven times better or their employees seven times more productive than Oracle's, all that goes to show that the market is either not efficient or not in equillibrium, and that means that customers are paying inflated prices for Microsoft products.
For customers of Microsoft, it makes no sense to keep paying those prices, and one way for them to equillibrate is for them to join together in a consortium and develop their own operating system software.
Open source and Linux provide one mechanism by which that can be achieved, and it seems to be working well. It's a convenient, simple, mechanism for sharing development effort.
Open source doesn't mean the end of commercial software or commercial software companies, it simply is one of several ways in which the market can equillibrate and become efficient and approach the true incremental cost of producing additional copies of software, which is near zero.
For Microsoft, it means that Microsoft can't use Windows as a cash cow forever, unless they distort the market by using monopolistic practices.
>Unless you can offer some evidence that
/stories/news/0,4538,2200149,00.html
>Windows 2000 "personal edition" will be
>Windows 9x-based, I say you're all wet.
>And "Windows 98 Second Edition" does equal
>whatever you FUDmeisters are calling
>Windows 99 or whatever. It sounds like you
>are getting your news from IRC rather than the
>trade press.
Okay, asshole, here you go:
http://www.zdnet.co m/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1013810,00.html
Last paragraph of http://www.zdnet.co m/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014169,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/sr
All from ZDNet, not exactly known for spreading anti-MS FUD.
That's the first 2 pages of a 5-minute search on AltaVista. I've seen dozens more articles in InfoWorld, PCWeek, PC Mag, etc... And all the other trade journals that YOU apparently don't read.
If you saw my response as a flame, I apologize. THAT one wasn't intended to be. It was intended to provide information that you apparently missed. But given your response, the best way I can think of to close this is:
So who's all wet now, asshole?
--
No matter how hard you work to make something idiotproof, someone will always come along and make a better idiot.
And you can add http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2288 004,00.html to that.
Sorry, threaded the msg wrong. This is a reply to rnturn's message which is a sibling of my original reply.
Well, don't keep us in suspense! Tell us all about the amazing new design of ScrytchOS! What brainstorms are awaiting our appreciation? Oh, I can't wait any longer, please throw me a tarball or a CVS, even a spec would tide me over...
See Subject line above.
> Well then, grab a copy of the Linux source code and fix it!
In logic class, there was a fallacy called "Missing the point". Well, this has nothing to do with logic, but my point was looking down over your head and saying "gee they look like ants down there".
Did it penetrate through yonder cranium that my entire point was that sometimes you just gotta start over? Linus's rants against microkernels are particularly instructive here. Apparently he hasn't noticed the microkernel BeOS, which is even written in C++ (yet somehow small and fast).
I noticed cracks in the structural walls in my apartment, but I guess I'm not qualified to point that out since I can't put up a new wall.
Jesus, how about nonblocking I/O for one? Maybe a little structured exception handling too? A journalled filesystem with metadata support (oh but hey, in true vapor fashion, that'll be coming Real Soon Now).
But I guess I'm not qualified to complain about those things because I can't write them myself.
Linux: Do it your damn self and stop bothering us.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You should look at Windows 2000 before thinking too much more about MS-Unix. They've pretty much reinvented everything that Unix has got. (Except maybe the uptimes.)
Also, don't forget that the OS is only part of MS's business. Microsoft BSD doesn't do them alot of good if Exchange or SQL Server doesn't run on it.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
If Windows 2000 becomes open source, it would be the fast death of Linux, that's to be sure!
Remember, Windows 2000 will support the features of today's X86-compatible motherboards easily (AGP video port, USB and IEEE-1394 ports, etc.), something that most Linux versions have a hard time supporting unless you starting installing a lot of patches. Given the fact that Windows is already the de facto standard for 85% of the world's computers, you can guess what OS most of the open source crowd will end up supporting if they do want to make something called money. ^_^
Raymond
I suspect ESR was referring not so much to the fairly recent release of the full source code to Doom, but more to id software's reasonable licensing terms (restrictions on "commercial exploitation" but a lot of flexibility otherwise) and the partial "opening of the source" early on that led to the widespread availability of map/game editors and resulted in a mass of maps and mod hacks of all kinds. It seems to me that one of the reasons for Doom's amazing success and longevity was its "hackability" from the get-go. Sure, nobody was digging in and improving the base code, but the availability of all those maps and mods kept Doomers fragging for a long long time - and the public perception of id as something other than a faceless corporate cash factory (thanks in part to a certain level of responsiveness to users and less tendency to treat them like idiots) continues to serve them well.
Wow, my first post not as an AC. I feel so special...
have you had much success reading in postscript files to XV? It seems to pixel-ate them at an annoyingly low resolution that produces ugly output. I've sometimes needed to do a bit of processing on a postscript file. (This was 2 years ago, though).
Almsot everyone pays for comercial compilers. GCC and Cygnus make up a very small part of the market. The optimizations of GCC on say the Sparc architecture suck. Outside of the world of free unices, people pay for compilers most of the time. Sometimes they come bundled with the OS (this practice predates gcc) and sometimes they don't.
It's so nice to see that the modern age has not yet managed to destroy the art of poetic literature. Even Shakespeare himself would be proud of such beautiful imagery, such subtle rhyme and such precise, yet thought provoking language.
Alas, as with the great Bard himself, I couldn't understand a word of it!
Regards
Mark
Posted by rik e:
I've been using beta 3 for over a month and am loving every minute of it. i had to reboot a couple times the first week while installing certain pieces of software (why oh why does most win software force a reboot - it isn't needed! the registry can be updated on the fly). the system has been turned on and logged in for 3 weeks now, and i run about 20 apps at once, including shitty debug versions of software i'm developing, on a PPro 200 w/ 128MB. if you have any system from ppro to celeron to p2 on up and RAM to spare (c'mon, the stuff is cheap now) - get thyself a copy of W2K Pro when it's released. (best of all: it'll have DX6, maybe 7, i forget which version).
"On some subjects, their brains just shut down -- the style reminded me a lot of the anonymous cowards on Slashdot."
Cool...he even mentioned my name! I didn't even know I had a style!
Anonymous Coward
When was the last time you heard of someone paying for a Unix C/C++ compiler? We can thank Cygnus and GCC for that.
Few weeks ago. gcc is nice on some plafforms, not so nice compared to native compilers on others and simply lacks the support of some CPU features on few. OTOH, a lot of commercial Unix C and especially C++ compilers are just pathetic, so developers use gcc instead of them (ex: C++ in HP softbench).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Last I saw (I work with some MSDN members) was beta 3 RC 1. I'm wondering if it's Release Candidate for beta 4 or the real release.
-Ted
Hmmm, did they rename it?
I would think think the goal would be to not see
*any* of those lovely (and beloved) blue screens.
I know there were other projects that came out of that, but how detailed was ESR's comment?
DOOM certainly pioneered the idea of games with free "add-ons" like third-party maps, which extended the game's viability many times long past the usual four-to-six-month lifecycle in the industry. If he was speaking in a more general sense, perhaps this is what he really alluded to. I certainly think the maps contributed more to that success than the individual enhanced game products, simply in terms of number of users reached.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Nice try. Does M$ give you a style sheet for this?
Unfortunately, the changes listed are almost impossible with the Redmond mindset...
> Acknowledging that all ISV that write software
> that runs on WinXX as partners and should
> be treated with respect.
Microsoft has made killings over partnering with software companies..Until MS decided that that was an area that they needed into and then they either bought someone, or just turned on their partners. Look at IBM and OS/2 for just one example.
> Work on improving the quality of their products
> instead of replacing defective products with
> newer defective products
Why would they do this when they make so much money on bugfixes and upgrades. There is no financial reason for them to do so. That it is 'the right thing to do' doesn't cut it.
> Treat standards with the respect they deserve
> not things to be destroyed on their march to
> domination
Past history shows that Microsoft views standards as things to keep other people busy developing while MS forces a defacto on their userbase. Remember how long it took MS Exchange to support SMTP and POP well? Look to the Halloween documents for other MS views on standards.
MS is out for world domination and complete control of the computer industry. This has been reflected in most of MS's business decisions, in MS's products, and in every conversation, press release, or anticdote relating to them.
That is my personal beef with Microsoft....
jf
I know of LOTS of people who would (and have) pay good money for a better compiler on Linux than gcc. Something like Intel's "Proton" compiler would be invaluable.
Of course, none of this is backed up by anything more than the fact that you're posting it as an anonymous coward.
I have no problem with his opinon or point. I just said that I don't agree with the way he tired to expresse his point. I don't agree with his stereo typing all teenagers. He seems to beleive that all teenagers that are good at computers as snot-nosed. Its also stupid of him to beleive that teenages think like his example of not liking somthing just because their parents had or have somthing to do with it that unix is a old Operating System reeking of being coded parents.
I'm actually just pissed. Because of ignorant, sterotyping bastereds like him.I can't get a decent job. I have to work at homedepot as a damn cashier. Every placed that I applyed to was intrested when they saw my resume and talked to me via phone/email but they second they found out I was 18 I never got a reply back.
Ummm, Microsoft Word survives because it's a pretty good word processor. It dominates because of compatability games.
There isn't a good open source word processor. There are fairly good closed source word processors that run on open source OSes like Linux, and there are kinda-sorta-there open source word processors (which are improving regularly.) And there are fantastic typesetting programs like TeX. But that runs on almost any platform you can imagine. Knuth is God, BTW.
Neither of them are necessary. The user of an Internet Display doesn't need an OS any more than the viewer of a TV needs an OS. You guys are all wet. Stay Tuned.
- Microsoft has announced it will _not_ be unifying Win95/98 and NT with Windows 2000, but rather there will be yet another consumer version based on the old 95/98 code (Windows 99?)
It's called "Windows 98 Second Edition", and I think it's out.
As for 9x/NT unification - it's going to happen, unless Windows 2000 bombs bigger than MS-DOS 4.0
(And you're right, many games are going to break. Perhaps they will include a "DOS Mode" in Win2000 Home User Edition. What's more likely in the long term from Microsoft is is WinCE-based home producivity/game/internet devices that don't have the complexity of 'real' computers.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
There's a really easy way to get a truly useful
...
new feature into Linux -- pay someone to program
up a stellar clean version of it, and Linus
will put it in. Remember, its free speech, not
free beer. So, what don't you like about this?
-- You have to pay? Free speech, not free beer.
-- Even if its coded up well, it won't get in,
even though the majority of the userbase wants
it (by your own example)? I don't believe it --
show me the counterexample, where something
didn't get into Linux even though it was coded
up well and 50% of the users wanted it.
-- Linus doesn't put poorly coded things into
the source tree? This is a feature, not a bug
I can't believe the w2000 team is angry at him. I tried w2000 beta3 server edition and it took 109 megs of ram and 375 threads and 2200 handles at bootup time and its 3 to 4 times slower then NT 4 on my 64 meg machine. I shook my head in disbelieve and after awhile put NT 4 back on my NT partition and was quite relieved to have it back. W2000 is probably the worst most horrible Os ever developed and is full of bugs and bloat and uneccesary features just so microsoft can include admin tools in mmc which was probably written in vb so I have vb gloat scattered all across the Os and the tools. Dont fall for this "it boots faster then NT4" crap from Jesse Berst, the same man who know has the "TOP 5 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD LOVE BILL GATES" on www.zdnet.com . Just check his web site. I had an old 486 with 8 megs of ram and I actually thought that it ran w95 faster then w3.1. :-)
After months of hype from Jesse Berst about windows95 and from stuff directly from the ms marketing deparment which was considered fact at the time, I truly thought everyone with a 386 should move to w95 for performance and scalalbility matching unix. I got that from Jesse Berst. So be carefull with the w2000 hype. I know for a fact that no OS should take that much system resources and you should all time bootup with w2000 and NT4 and judge for yourself. W2000 is 300-400% slower in every situation.
Anyway it seems to me that the ms trolls who flame linux users saying stop whining and build a better Os are switching roles.
I think w2000 is tired of linux users saying stop whining wiht mindcraft and build a better Os and they all know that there product sucks and will do anything to change our minds about NT. Its just all up in the head with mindshare. To me thats failure. Linux is the only Os thats based on technical supperiority and not mindshare tactics.
Funny... my soul's just where I left it, thanks very much. Believe it or not, most people here are creators, entrepreneurs, innovators and are highly self-motivated. It's just that we expect a return on our work. Is that too much to ask?
You ask more -- way more -- than your work worth.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
A very well written post, and a frightening vision for Linux lovers, but remember this: People code for Open Source software because it's something they enjoy doing. Is this mythical kid really going to prefer Windows 2000?
Not if it's not a lot better than Windows NT 4.0.
I'm not holding my breath, open source or no.
D
----
Ok, now try putting WordPerfect on it. Didn't think so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by stodge:
what a surprise - Anonymous Coward. Like the other person said, these friends and families are better off without you and your immature, biased, blind opinions.
Microsoft didn't just sell a version of Unix. They produced a version of Unix called Xenix. I ran it a few years ago on an antique Altos box I bought at a swapmeet. Running on an 8086 with 512K of RAM it supported 5 users on terminals over it's 5 serial ports. It was a nice piece of work for the early 1980s. They later sold Xenix off to SCO when they left the Unix market.
Of course. If it wasn't for ESR, we wouldn't know that Bill Gates is a Nazi either.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"I could make a fortune distributing a good Linux-compatible spell checker."
-Jack Bryar
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Exactly!
Microsoft DEPENDS on Windows and Office having majority marketshare. Without those two cash cows, their entire strategy of pushing half-baked technologies and shoddy software down everyone's throat would crumble to dust!
This strength of marketshare is also a great weakness. Eliminate the necessity of having Windows 95/98 and Office and you eliminate Microsoft. Period. The slide down has already begun, witness that Office 2000 now DEPENDS on having Windows NT servers to be fully functional. They are tying a dying horse (Windows NT) to their ultra-fat cash cow (Office) in the hopes of driving sales.
That is the reason I beleive 100% that Microsoft has a version of Office 2000 running on Linux in their top-secret bunkers up in Redmondski. If they drop the ball on commodity servers, they can then fall back to Office to prop up profits while they figure out what to do next.
too bad about your little penis, though
Actually check out ELKS...
Linux can, indeed boot with 640K
Um, sure. Language is so expressive!
-- thinkyhead software and media
It shouldn't be too suprising that there are many professions working for Micros~1. Linux users have to thank Bill and his dilegent programmers for requiring everybody have a 500MHz PIII with 128MB RAM and 10+GB hard drives just to run a word processor. (I remember that WordPerfect 5.X ran fine on an 4MHz 8086 with 640KB RAM.)
That's not just a Microsoft problem. Linux can't do word processing on a 4MHz 8086 with 640KB RAM either. Hell, Linux can't even boot with only 640KB RAM.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
To be perfectly fair, the recent viral infections (Melissa, Worm.Explore) have had little to do with NT security and a lot to do with Exchange/Outlook/Office/VBasic interoperability.
And viral spread has a lot to do with monoculture computing environments, so it's not simply that NT or Office have holes; it's that the software with holes is everywhere. Macs aren't popular right now so aren't good viral targets. (And if there were an Outlook98 and Office97 for the Mac, they would be just as vulnerable on several key fronts.)
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
You would think? When?
Obviously that is the goal.
(why am I even wasting time responding to an AC on a point like this?)
GCC is portable to many architectures, but it lags behind in optimizations for a specific architecture.
A while back, I had heard of an unofficial comparison of various vendor compilers with GCC for various architectures with the SPECINT95 benchmark suite. GCC was quite a bit slower.
There are also quite a few third-party C/C++ compilers being sold out there e.g., KAI or
the Edison Group's C++ front end. These are sold mostly on the basis of better feature support, error checking, development environments and so on, I think.
Now please explain how this would be bad. Microsoft has done everything the community wishes it would in terms of software development. It's opened its source code, allowed outsiders to hack on it and make it better, and released the patches to the community. If after this you still think Microsoft is bad, there must be some reason other than their refusal to open their source code. Maybe you hate Bill Gates because he has so much money, or maybe you just don't like corporations from Washington, but whatever it is you should be honest about it and say so.
I say if Microsoft opens their sources, welcome to them. It's a culture they can't dominate, they can only join and participate. I also say that I won't be holding my breath.
I would have said, "Different motivations for different people.". There are a variety of reasons. Why did Steve Wozniak quit Apple to teach children?
That is the biggest, most blatant stereotype I've seen in a long time. Microsoft is a big company, but certainly there are much larger ones.
The people who work there are from a wide variety of backgrounds and geographical locations. And you purport to know the goals of each of them?
With an attitude like this, you are by far more close-minded than your sterotypical MS person.
Sorry about that characterization of all teen hackers as snot-nosed. I had just had a conversation about script-kiddies and some related problems out on a firewall, so the image had stuck in my mind.
My parents generation never coded, but my friends all do, and most of them have kids. And those kids are doing everything they can to be different from their parents, including doing things like coding for micro~1.oft platforms because it drives their parents crazier than listening to Marlyn Manson music or wearing trenchcoats. I kid you not.
As for job hunting, there was a discussion here a few days ago on geek jobs. The work world is tough, and just because you can code doesn't mean the world will beat a path to your door. You have to know a bunch of other stuff, having a degree, any degree, will help. Go re-read all that advice and see if it helps you get out of homedepot and into a good job. Good luck with it, I remember getting out into the world with my degree in hand and being rejected over and over because I was only 19, the recruiters couldn't understand I started college at age 15.
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
not including the time to fix the problem leading to it!
How much time does that take? You copy, paste the very detailed explanation of the BSoD, e-mail to MS and they send you new code within the day. It's really very simple....
Now if I could figure out why NT reboots, inteads of boots, I'd just be happy.
+&x
The reason is that they replace files that are in use. Win 9x doesn't provide an API function to rename an in-use file, but NT does. Even though the file is renamed and you might have a script to delete the files on the next reboot, there's still a problem.
Program a is already running with version 1.3 of the dll, you install program b, it renames version 1.3 of the dll and copies version 1.4 to the same place as the old one. Now, when you run program b, it will try and load dll version 1.4, but since version 1.3 is already in memory it will try to use that copy first, probably causing a crash.
Is this guy's IP on record somewhere? ;)
Something on the level of this meathead's post, taking down his whole ISP would be considered classy by comparison.
And besides that it would be fun.
To the AC who wrote that: Post another confirming what you said, and I'll tell you how to get to my town. We'll see if you have the brass balls to say that to my face instead of hiding in your dark room in front of your gateway celeron playing with your Win95 key and yourself at the same time.
Jackass.
A friend of mine at the Borg was able to sneak me in. Luckily they weren't checking badges. :)
It was interesting to watch the two cultures collide -- though not all of the Microsofties were hostile to ESR. Most just didn't seem to quite get it, though. Kept bringing up Mozilla as proof that Open Source doesn't work.
Best exchange:
Q: But why would someone work for free when they could be getting paid for the same work?
A: Because they want to live in a world where software doesn't suck?
It was very crowded at the presentationl; for some reason it wasn't in an auditorium of any sort, just a largish room. Standing room only, and there were several clots of people in halls watching the 'live' feed. (I don't know what they were using, but it was 15 seconds lagged, the audio wasn't synched with the video and it flashed every other frame.)
In one of the offices across from the presentation I noticed several Linux Journal's and O'Rielly Linux manuals...
Overall it was a good presentation. ESR spent most of the time giving a sociological explanation for why OSS works, or exists at all. Unfortanately he didn't have time to talk too much about what is currently happening. He got bogged down by arguments over his assumption that OSS creates better software instead.
He did make a very good point that 95% of software development is for internal use only -- and an amussing moment when his survey of the audience did not reflect this. He should have emphasized to the money hungry ones that this implies OSS won't put them out of business. I also wish he has empahsized that fact that most profit from software is the support of it, not in the sale. He did mention Zope, but never explicitly made any conclusions.
Hrm. I had been thinking of submiting a review to Slashdot. Well, here it is, I guess.
I'd give anything (everything but my soul!) to listen to some of these meetings they have on campus. I hear it gets really interesting when the meetings get heated. Is it true Gates and Ballmer really scream profanity during closed door sessions? If so, I bet a fly on the wall gets the best view.
... anyone have a copy of that video feed? :-)
I bashed NT because its all hype made up by abunch of guys who are jealous because they can't make an OS as good as linux and I then boast about linux and labeled as a troll on /.????
My oh my what is the world coming too
Actually, the quote was "On some subjects, their brains just shut down -- the style reminded
me a lot of the anonymous cowards on Slashdot."
I interpreted the above quote to refer to W2K kids that were ignorant in their questions, which is why I referred to them as such. I did _not_ say that Microsoft workers were ignorant nor was that what I meant to imply.
I understand your concern but you assuming how I "think" is ignorant in and of itself and contradicts your reason for replying.
-Clump
I'm confident that a significant portion of inhabitants in microsoft are aware of more than you think - http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/sn/msri pv6/ is just a sample.
Key statement for those who weren't there was:
The flamers were a minority, and they occasionally got stepped on by other audience members.
For the most part, the audience was attentive, laughed with him, and was there to hear ESR, not to argue with him. Yes, there were those who didn't know who he was (thought they just pulled a random guy off the street to talk about free software) and tried to turn it into the spanish inquisition (everyone expected the spanish inquisition!), but every time it got to that point either the rest of us and/or the organizers shut them down.
also: don't pay attention to the fluff spin that Norm puts on it. it wasn't that bad.
Somebody forward this to Mindcraft!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
At last, hard evidence supporting the hypothesis that all those moronic Anonymous Cowards are actually in the pay of Microsoft!
.. come on now, you can't prove that. Your OUTLOOK on the situation is clouded by the fact that you are unwilling to act as a true INTERNET EXPLORER and try somebody else's stuff. Heh .. take my WORD for it and try some commercial software that will really make you EXCEL at everything that you do. CNN and other such prominent MEDIA PLAYERS consistently give good reviews to our software. It lets you ACCESS a whole new world of productivity .. yes, sirree ..
Heh
Come on, get your credit card ready and call 1-800-MS-TRASH. Tell 'em BOB sent you.
The majority of commentary by people who seem to support Linux or other free software is intelligent and fair. I don't see a lot of mindless anti-anything flaming by open source fans. What I do see is whining about any criticism of anything that is not Linux, even when that criticism is valid and well-argued.
I guess you guys figure that if you repeat the same lie enough times, people will believe it. It has worked before...
--
Best exchange:
Q: But why would someone work for free when they could be getting paid for the same work?
A: Because they want to live in a world where software doesn't suck?
Man, if that is the best argument esr has, I'd hate to see what you think the lame exchanges were. Like free software and non-sucky software are mutually exclusive or something.
I certainly hope esr has bigger bullets than this in his gun (how is that for an appropriate metaphor?)
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
> Unfortunately for Microsoft, this doesn't work.
> Witness IBM and Xerox as two examples of how
> sticking to one successful technology can
> disrupt and almost destroy a company when the
> underlying paradigm shifts.
Unfortunately for us, this isn't Microsoft's strategy. Their strategy is to buy/intimidate themselves into every vaguely computer-related computer technology they possibly can.
--
And because a lot of young adults who play here have too little maturity to be anything other than children.
I've been pounding the living fuck out of w2k with notepad and paintbrush, and it has not locked up once on me in over fifteen minutes.
In addition, I am running it on a 386DX40/8MB and Office 2000 is smooth as shit from a duck's ass.
Active Directory simply rox, I've set up web folders on IIS and sharing over all 20 of my 386's. In integration is frankly, awsome. Absolutely none of it would work with my legacy linux and OS2 systems, so I just deleted them and replaced with W2K! W2K is fun! Fun, fun fun!
People, the Blue Screens are a thing of the PAST. The future is here now and the future is W2K.
If I had a penny for evey time linsux bullshit CRAShe
****************************
W2KTRLBOT.EXE has caused an error in module 0000100100fx004b1
The error is in the data:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 11 00 11 10 01 10 00 11 11 01 01 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 11 00 11 10 01 10 00 11 11 01 01 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 11 11 01 10 01 STACK DUMP
DRWATFCK.EXE has caused a General Protection Fault in module 0000010000f0100b01010000100b00c0
.....................................
More Data:
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 11 00 11 10 01 10 00 11 11 01 01 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
01 11 00 11 10 01 10 00 11 11 01 01 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
OK
.................
stay tuned for future releases of wntrlbot.exe
y2k edition features include
- smtp back, cross, multi- and forward spamming
- nntp spamming and trolling and cross-trolling with SMART follow-up
- http link following with auto trolling
- anti-linux NETRAGE technology, follows links from slashdot and flames pundits
- More!
support gun control: take guns from cops
You ask more -- way more -- than your work worth.
In your not so humble opinion, of course.
You know, I wish I could get the people who make comments like yours to actually work at Microsoft for a month, and see the kind of day-to-day decisions, tradeoffs and hell that we go through to try and produce the best products possible.
My work is worth it. And the funny thing is that you can't dispute that nor can you agree, because frankly, you have no idea what I do or who I am.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Wow, this reminds me of some "Linux r00lz m1cr0$0ft sux0rz d00d" posts I've seen lately, but from the other side. Perhaps not all idiots use Linux.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
About 5 years ago I joined a company that didn't
have any TCP/IP access to their network. I could
call up and use the line via seyon/minicom or
whatever and have exactly one window to use.
Then TIA came along(produced by a commercial
company.) TIA did SLIP on shell account. This
worked on Netcom's SunOS boxes but didn't
run on our sun boxes at work for some reason.
Next came Slirp - a GPL'd Slip adapter for
shell accounts - just like TIA with all the
same features.
People were begging for PPP functionality
on TIA - they kept promising it...and were
MONTHS late. The developer of Slirp began
to consider it at which point he received
a port of the Linux PPP code grafted onto
his adapter. Walla - Slip OR PPP with
source code.
Well - the folks that sold TIA wound up
dieing due to the competition from a
GPL'd piece of code that was BETTER and
had more features that TIA did.
TIA was great for awhile, but SLIRP just
did the job better, faster and with
more features.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I know of people who work for MS. They know what they are doing. They are not proud of thier products. They might be proud of the fact that everyone is using what they created, but ignore the fact that people are actually forced to do so.
I have friends and families who work for MS, and I hate to say this, but I don't know if those people are worth it. We are talking about people who sold thier soul for a "stable" salary. these are NOT creators, entrepretres, innovators, self-motivators. They live in another world.
I am running Office 2000 on a 486DX-2 50MHz Toshiba Laptop with 28 MB of RAM in it. It runs rather nicely with Windows 95 on that hardware. The fact that you've never run MS Office on hardware you've paid for yourself sure shows. (I imagine you've never run MS Office at all, and are proud of the fact.)
But anyways, you're an expert on Microsoft products. Don't let me interfere with your pronouncements.
They DID develop a unix clone
years ago..
It's called Xenix.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Actually since Linux is starting from a solid foundation, it could adopt all the best parts of an open source windows. Saying Linux would be finished is not that easy.
No question about it. Closed source software is still a gold mine. But you have to do it a certain way - don't sell small modular programs, sell big expensive "suites" and market them heavily as the "total, integrated solution to all of your ______ needs."
BUT, I wish somebody would explain to me how closed source development could POSSIBLY result in better code. All OSS means is that you make the source available to others so they can improve it. And you don't have to incorporate their improvements if you don't want to. At the very worst, it will give the same results as closed source.
And in business, open source definately has a place where making money is concerned: whenever your main product is not the software in question (like if you are selling hardware which needs the software to run, or a program which needs the operating system to run) make the software in question free. People won't want your device drivers anyway if they don't have your hardware. And they won't want your operating system if there is a commoditized product that does the job better for less.
If you are selling the same exact product that you have opened up, you are without a doubt taking a risk. Then, obviously your money is in service and support, but one could definately make an argument that closed source makes more money.
Bottom line: open source makes much more business sense if you are actually making money on a different but related product. If you are selling the same thing you are opening up, one could argue either way.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
The service level agreement is for no more than 15 minutes per year of unscheduled downtime for the mission critical services running on a mix of NT and solaris.
There are 4 NT clusters designed and installed by micro~1.oft engineers for maximum reliability, they run a service critical to a bunch of components on a large network. But the NT clusters BSoD at least once per month, and there is nothing the micro~1.oft engineers can do to force automatic reboots or have stateful failover. So each time there is a BSoD, the customer support lines start to light up. That gets noticed by the bean counters who have not approved the next phase of the project until micro~1.oft gets their act together, but it is only a few $10 millions. The attitude of the M$ sales people is astounding, they just don't seem to care about $30 million.
The solaris machines have uptimes of 47 or 49 weeks, with the next scheduled downtime for august of 2000. Never one service outage in almost one year. I expect one of the sparc stations to have a hardware problem before the end of the two years.
There is almost a complete second set of the critical equipment in a stockroom next door, so that any hardware failure can be recovered in 15 minutes or less.
Thats what I get paid lots for! And if I could get a nice stable open source NT box, I would be happy, and *nix bigotries would be forgotten.
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Don't say "can't" until it's been tried. If anyone can dominate the OS culture, Bill Gates would stand a good chance at it.
> Remember, Windows 2000 will support the features of today's X86-compatible motherboards easily
> (AGP video port, USB and IEEE-1394 ports, etc.), something that most Linux versions have a hard
> time supporting unless you starting installing a lot of patches. Given the fact that Windows is
> already the de facto standard for 85% of the world's computers, you can guess what OS most of
> the open source crowd will end up supporting if they do want to make something called money. ^_^
I don't forsee an open source NT, but to respond to some of your points:
- Linux 2.3/2.4 does/will support USB, and IEEE-1394 is under development (i.e. inevitable)
- _NO_ operating system can support 100% of the hardware out there anyway. There will always be a need for special patches/drivers/exceptions unless you throw away all your computers and buy only the latest "accepted" hardware.
- Windows 95 is the standard, and not NT. When W2K comes out it the vast majority of Windows software and drivers will be incompatible. (how many of the games sold for "Windows" today really work with NT? how many mass market hardware devices out there have drivers for 95 and not NT?)
- Microsoft has announced it will _not_ be unifying Win95/98 and NT with Windows 2000, but rather there will be yet another consumer version based on the old 95/98 code (Windows 99?)
- I don't think that Microsoft will allow anyone else to make money off NT if it does become 'open source' in some form.
Hey! Look! Somebody's managed to get an original Teletype to work with the Web!!!
Oh and BTW Mr. Anonymous Coward, I have several Linux systems running at home that do not have any DOS-related partitions on them. I doubt very seriously that I'm alone in doing this.
Geez!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I still haven't figured out why more of the Open Source Figures like ESR don't put the economic incentive for open source into their arguments.
China will never pay MS for the 95% share of the pirated software they use over there. They (1) don't have the money, and (2) won't be paying the US billions of dollars for social and political reasons.
That's why Mexican schools are adopting Linux. The World simply can't afford MS and most other closed source, expensive, proprietary software.
ESR spends his time in the clouds when the truth down here on earth is as material as Marx (and no, OSS isn't communism) always said.
Where did you get the 23x6 reliability figure? Oh, you're repeating what you heard somebody else make up here awhile back? What else that you have to say should we not be believing?
> Actually since Linux is starting from a solid foundation, it could adopt all the best parts of an open source windows
Thereby proving the assertions that Linux has not a single original concept in it.
As for solid foundation, this isn't a house, you can redo a foundation. Linux is an incremental add of SMP onto an incremental add of modularity onto a monolithic kernel based on designs out of an ancient book for an obsolete teaching OS. It's just amazing that it works, but it sure isn't revolutionary.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
But then they would have had to pay licensing fees to ATT for every copy sold. MS likes being the recipient of royalties and licensing fees, not the giver of them.
It takes me long enough to compile my kernel on my computer at home...
:)
how long would it take to compile 30 or 40million lines of win2k code?
I'm thinkin anything realistic would be a high-end HP or Alpha system, which means the only people gonna mess witht the source code would hafta be a vendor who could modify it, then recompile and sell their own version of windows. maybe i'm wrong, programming guru i am not.
Matt
I'm job hunting if you have anything please email me
--
A simple statement by ESR is hard evidence?
of course it is. so is anything Linus says and anything posted on slashdot. dont you understand how the unthinking minds of the zealots (they unfortunatly seem to be in the majority these days) works?
*shudder*
So micro~1.oft releases all of the NT source code under the M$GPL, giving everyone a chance to play Linus.
Imagine you are a snot-nosed teenage programmer. You know you are good, very good, and you have already done some clever hackish things. Now you have decided to make a name for yourself, and you have a choice, hack linux or hack nt.
You know linux is a good tight small system, but *nix has been around for 30 years. It reeks of something your parents spent their time coding, and they talk about how great the 70's were, and they still listen to disco music.
You know NT is on 10 times as many machines as linux, it is modern and is full of bugs waiting to be fixed.
So you decide to tackle some existing problem in NT.
You grab something; disk drivers, cpu scheduling, networking code, it doesn't matter. You have before you a steaming pile of the worst spaghetti code ever inflicted on a programmer. You dive in, undaunted by the repulsive use of gotos in the middle of object libraries, and start hacking away. You set up a web site to chronicle your progress, with mailing lists and an FTP site.
Since you are good, and everything you do is an improvement, you soon have people flocking to your site, and hundreds of testers using your code or adding their own improvements. You make it modular, streamlined, commented clearly, and it is good.
Micro~1.oft takes your code and puts it back into their codebase, and it makes release NT2000-M2.
Now you have the job offers streaming in, and the big bad company in redmond is offering you stock options to join.
And within two years, NT is as stable as linux, thanks to 50,000 new programmers throwing their time and skill into the code. So consumers have a choice, micro~1.oft or RedHat or Slackware NT, each comes with a different GUI or several.
And Bill Gates is no longer worth $90Billion, just $20Billion, and still has 75% of the market.
*shudder*
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I think it wouldn't take a huge change of attitude for Micros~1 to become a benevolent force in computing from its current selfish one.
The key changes would be:
Is this a rhetorical question?
Alright, I'll hope I won't reveal anything my NDA covers... :)
:)
This is the first time I've ever watched one of ESR's talks. Pretty interesting, he's pretty quick on his feet, so to speak.
I don't really have anything to say, but someone out there might want to know my impressions.
Some observations:
-He's right, there were some "conflicting views". It was kinda funny watching the 2 sides assert their OS was better. I love Linux as much as the next guy, and I think that both OSs have their relative merits.
-ESR's talk gave you a little something to think about, but a lot of his arguments weren't backed up. I think that if they were, it would've lent more weight to his ideas. (Maybe there wasn't enough time to present them, or maybe there simply weren't good examples behind some of his points)
eg. One of his examples was DOOM. Mentioned how they benifited from open-source. Did not say what exactly was the benifit. (To my knowledge, the only thing that came out of releasing DOOM was glDOOM, which, if kinda neat, is not all that fabulous)
-Microsofties are also pretty quick on their feet, and I think that ESR probably lost a few more arguments than he's used to.
-IMHO, ESR's talk was not extremely convincing - I think there's a lot more money to be made by keeping "private source."
-I don't think he was convincing enough to change anybody's mind. Although I haven't talked to anyone else who also saw the talk.
Ah, before I get massively flamed here, I'd just like to say that I happen to probably like open-source more than most people. (even helped a couple GPL projects) And I find it kinda disgusting that people are releasing unproffesional, unpolished nagware programs, with no real customer support, for a fee. (for instance, a lot of small win32 apps/toys, winCE, Palmpilot programs)
Bottom line, corporations are formed on the premises of making money.
#include "disclaimer.h"
Views are my own, not my employers, yadayadayada...
Incidentally, before someone thinks I'm someone from "high and above", I'm just a MS intern. I don't really know anything about how things are run around here. Just my summer job to keep my busy
--
--
#include <malloc.h>
free(your.mind);
This sounds like a perfect world to me.
I don't hate Microsoft for being themselves. I'm "less than impressed" by some of their business practices, but they're getting their just desserts in court.
My biggest beef with MS is the poor quality of their software. If it would just f&#king work, it wouldn't be so bad.
Why is OS'ing MS's OS a BT? (Bad Thing=)
--Mark
Well, I don't know about you, but I saw MS-Linux a few months ago..
I have played with W2k and I actually like it. It is rock stable on my machine and it *has not crashed yet*. That is with 3 weeks of hard pounding on the machine with Photoshop and Mingw32. I wouldn't mind having open source NT. Many things can be created from the concepts that have in it. Including improvements to Linux.
RB
I agree completely. In fact, the author of Dehacked now works for Microsoft. On Office.
I think that ESR did a good job speaking, although he sometimes forgot that the MS crowd doesn't have the same background as his usual audience.
They were interested in making money, and don'tcare much about any other aims. For example, Netscape releasing Mozilla was seen as a failure because it hasn't helped its marketshare. The fact that Mozilla is now spawning advanced HTML widgets that have similar functionality to the IE ActiveX control isn't know to them, so they cannot see any light in which Mozilla can be seen as successful -- no release, no market share, not an MS concern.
They were *very* quiet every time Apache was mentioned. Either there were no IIS guys there or they were all painfully aware that their butt is being whipped in marketshare.
ESR probably forgot (or never knew) that MS is a very evidence driven company -- the percentage market share of Apache makes them shut up. The earnings per employee of MS vs Oracle makes them speak up.
More philosophical arguments (such as the way the software market is based largely on expectation of future service, and open source has a lot to offer in that arena) are not really viewed as compelling.
One final point -- several people have mentioned that the video feed was jerky and had pink stripes flashing across every second. It isn't usually like that, I have a strange feeling that their servers were overloaded. This talk was the highlight of the day on the local network, and every room seemed to have a bunch of people watching it live from the video feed.
Office2000 has a nagware side to it. 50 uses after which it *MUST* be registered to continue working. I'm curious what this does to Office's market share when everyone has to pay for it (every year)
+&x
well if you just want to *hear* it, i know he has at least the cathedral and the bazzar in real audio on his homepage at the FSF...
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
I think your argument sounds very convincing but it just doesn't seem to be the case in practice. Look at KDE and GNOME as good examples. I certainly wouldn't have thought that geeks would be fired up enough to produce a professional, easy to use, clompletely configurable GUI for X but they have. We are also not so far from HTML based front end for all Unix/Linux administration and a whole host of other features deemed "unsexy" just two years ago. I think we must remember that most geeks are users first or at least have non geek friends nagging them.
Regards
I was there.
Eric was going through a laundry-list of business models via which he claimed companies could go open source and still stay in business (that is to say, make money). One of the models was to give away the software and charge for the support.
The listener's (I don't know his name) comment was that Oracle (which doesn't give away their software, I wouldn't call them a "semi-open-source" company) makes some large percentage of their revenue from support. He then went on to point out that their revenue per employee was far less than Microsoft's. In other words, his point was that the business model Eric was proposing isn't as profitable a business model.
Eric didn't have a good answer for this, he just made some snide comment.
marijane
Minor nitpicks...
Watch your tense -- Microsoft is still developing
Windows 2000. It's only in beta at this point (it is in beta by now, right?)
Secondly, "good" is a subjective term. The previews so far by normally Microsoft-friendly press has been, well, um, mixed. Of course, bear in mind that this isn't a completed product yet (see previous point).
As to why Microsoft would want a Linux distribution, the small to mid-sized server market is probably the reason. 23x6 reliability ain't gonna cut it in the real world (you want YOUR server to be down 15% of the time?) Some shops will be happy with the Microsoft version, others will want something else. Given a choice between RedHat, Debian, and Microsoft Linuxes, since Microsoft supplies their desktops, why not their servers?
Short version: market share.
Actually, a *nix bigot
and before that, a VMS bigot
and before that, an assembly language bigot
If NT (a spoiled step-child of VMS) were to get improved, I would be very happy. I have to work with it on a regular basis, and the BSoD keeps me from getting performance bonuses for 99.997% availability someone wrote into a contract I have to support. I get the bonuses for every solaris box installed, tho.
The AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Since I live in the boonies of computer usage most of the time, I've never seen ESR speak... Does anyone have a video file of him speaking anywhere? The MS one would be cool to see, but I'd just like to hear his talk at this point.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.