They couldn't have done well in the education market, because their platform was too open to games or software that teachers would view as cheating. That's why things like touch screens and IR aren't allowed in standardized tests, and consequently, are banned from most classrooms. Advanced hardware features typically implies the capability for software that is too advanced for most teachers.
Draconian NDAs like this one are usually laden with unconscionable terms, and are the most common symptom of bad community/developer relations. Once the public knows your product is coming, you want third party developers to be able to start working as soon as possible, and you want them to be able to publicly extol the benefits of developing for that platform.
A sample of 30 people isn't statistically insignificant, even though it is a very small fraction of those who have played WoW. The problem is that it is not a random sample, and is in fact a heavily biased sample.
I don't think CERN has ever been big on using Windows on the desktop. After all, it was at CERN that the World Wide Web was created, on a Unix workstation.
Under this scheme, people would just end up complaining that their firefox works, but none of their other apps will start. Under the hood, the Linux system will be fine (since Windows can't touch it) but Windows will be crashing in the background when it doesn't like the environment it's told to boot in.
By ensuring that the first thing the user sees is a running Linux desktop, before Windows starts to boot, people won't blame Linux, because as far as they're concerned, it's just built in to their machine, and it's Windows that broke.
The problem isn't with getting rid of such a rootkit. You can always physically replace the chip it resides on. The real issue is detecting the rootkit before your credit card number is stolen. By using SMM and VT and not storing any data except on the flash chip itself (which very few users can read from), a rootkit can hide itself from all but the most determined experts.
Re:GPL'd code available only by request?
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not like it matters how easy they make it to access the source. Since it's under the GPL, there will be easy-to-use and easy-to-install community projects spun off from this, just like for wireless routers. Only people wanting to sync the project they manage with the manufacturer's source will need to try to acquire the manufacturer's code. Everybody else will get it in the form of a third-party improved distribution.
You should try to see how many of your favorite websites still work at all in IE5. A big part of why things seem slower today is that your software (even the web apps) do a whole lot more than they used to.
I think the situation is a little bit different: Nerds have created open source alternatives specifically because they don't want to continue using Microsoft products. The reason the open source alternatives are competing with Microsoft's core products is that those are the products that the most nerds want to break free from.
Microsoft wants their browser to be popular because their business is all about world domination.
Google wants their browser to be popular because they want more brand recognition, and they want to make sure that nobody like Microsoft can control the means by which people access all of Google's other products.
Apple wants a good browser because nobody will take their platform seriously without one, and they can't trust anybody else to develop a sufficiently Mac-like browser for them.
Mozilla wants their browser to be popular because that's what their company is all about. They're basically the orphaned ugly stepchild of Netscape.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. It's not often that IP laws or the application thereof are struck down due to hindering rather than promoting progress, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that they can be. It's just really tricky to prove. However, in the context of antitrust enforcement, it's probably quite a bit easier to prove (though still hard). I would not be surprised if it ends up that this is the easiest way to eliminate or significantly weaken software patents, since Justices are harder for the MAFIAA to buy off than congresscritters.
I still don't see the *need* to split up MS or even to pursue antitrust arguments against MS.
Compared to so many other industries, the software world is remarkably open with such a low barrier to entry. I see absolutely nothing wrong with MS even using hidden APIs for its own benefit. All is fair as far as I am concerned. MS slacked on the web, Google popped up. MS's strategy of providing the software while others fought for low margins on hardware worked for a while, until people craved a tight integrated hardware solution like Apple. It's not just Microsoft. Remember how MS stuck it to those old players who tried to bundle the OS and hardware? MS changed the game by breaking that monopoly. I worked for telecoms before and everyone knew the game. Our customers would play one vendor against another. They knew not to put themselves in a position to be subservient to a monopoly.
So, because Microsoft hasn't managed to stifle all competition for the past 15 years, they don't need to be regulated at all, and they can keep using their copyrights and patents to prevent new competition from cropping up? Are you at all aware that using patent law to the detriment of the entire industry is prohibited by the US Constitution, and that their IP portfolio can be invalidated simply for hindering overall technological progress?
I was using the XBox more as an example of the power Microsoft has as a result of their ill-gotten gains elsewhere. But by no means was the XBox a clean deal. For example, since the XBox used what was essentially DirectX as it's apis, Microsoft had something of an advantage over other console manufacturers when it comes to attracting third-party developers, since PC game devs could more easily port their stuff to the XBox. Then there's the fact that the video game division that makes the XBox didn't turn a profit until after the release of Halo 3. That's even counting all the XBox related software and licensing fee income. Selling your stuff at a steep loss in order to suffocate smaller competitors is frequently illegal - eg. Intel is currently in hot (er, tepid) water for, among other things, selling some of their chips below cost.
Microsoft would had never had the money to launch the XBox as a successful invasion of the video game market if it were not for the combined cash cow monopolies of Windows and Office. (And ironically, if they hadn't been able to move in on the video game market at that time, then the Halo series would have stayed on the Mac platform.)
Breaking up Microsoft might not be worth the effort today, but then again, having a natural monopoly has never been the (legal) issue. It's abusing that monopoly to take over other markets that is illegal, and it certainly is necessary to make sure that Microsoft can't continue that pattern.
This has nothing to do with technological immaturity or firmware bugs. It's simply a matter of SSDs using an optimization that hard drives can't due to their non-trivial seek times, and people are starting to realize that that optimization doesn't always work.
What are you worried about? It's not like we're talking about ionizing radiation, since 60Ghz is well below even visible wavelengths. And for LAN use, the necessary wattage will be far below the levels needed to cook somebody. (Consider that the Active Denial System at 95Ghz requires megawatts just to make you feel hot, and it concentrates it's energy in one direction, unlike a wlan.)
Generating dangerous amounts of omnidirectional microwave radiation requires the use of components that couldn't fit inside a laptop, let alone be powered by one.
It's not labeled as the File menu. In fact, it defies all pre-existing conventions for what a file menu is supposed to look like, and indeed, to the untrained eye, it looks just like a conceitedly large logo. (I'll admit, on Windows the logo in the top left corner does activate a menu, but the only functionality in it is from the window manager. And the logo is supposed to be 1/4 the size of the Office 2007 logo.) Microsoft essentially hid all of the most important functionality in a completely non-obvious way.
The phrase "gratis of charge" is redundant. "Gratis" suffices, although it has the unfortunate side effect of making you sound like a pretentious scholar that likes to toss around latin words that nobody knows.
Very few species make any significant modifications to the world around them. Almost all species are limited to at most building temporary nests or things like that. Humans are almost unique in that they find it easier to change the rest of the world than to change themselves.
When people describe nature as self-correcting, they aren't usually referring to any inherent right or wrong. What gets corrected is imbalance, such as restoring a predator-prey system to equilibrium. It seems to me that discussing natural equilibria doesn't have to involve intent, purpose, morals, or anything else that would make it anthropomorphic to say that nature is self-correcting.
And the income disparity isn't caused by any cultural differences? It's pretty obvious that Asian-American families have lower tolerance for gang membership, deadbeat dads, and and most of the other hallmark problems with stereotypical African-American culture. The cultural differences that make the parents more successful (and leads to higher income) are the same ones that lead to the kids getting a better education (which eventually leads to them having higher incomes, too).
It's far from just a self-perpetuating income disparity where the rich are better educated. Just look at how over-represented people of Asian descent are compared to whites in higher education institutions, and how common entitlement beliefs are among the richer whites. Being rich certainly helps, but the cultural component is significant.
Slashdot Mirror
They couldn't have done well in the education market, because their platform was too open to games or software that teachers would view as cheating. That's why things like touch screens and IR aren't allowed in standardized tests, and consequently, are banned from most classrooms. Advanced hardware features typically implies the capability for software that is too advanced for most teachers.
Draconian NDAs like this one are usually laden with unconscionable terms, and are the most common symptom of bad community/developer relations. Once the public knows your product is coming, you want third party developers to be able to start working as soon as possible, and you want them to be able to publicly extol the benefits of developing for that platform.
A sample of 30 people isn't statistically insignificant, even though it is a very small fraction of those who have played WoW. The problem is that it is not a random sample, and is in fact a heavily biased sample.
I don't think CERN has ever been big on using Windows on the desktop. After all, it was at CERN that the World Wide Web was created, on a Unix workstation.
I've booted off of Symantec anti-virus installation disks dating back at least to 2002. They use something based off WinPE.
As for the BIOS issue, one of my motherboards has two BIOS chips, and which one is active is controlled by a jumper.
Under this scheme, people would just end up complaining that their firefox works, but none of their other apps will start. Under the hood, the Linux system will be fine (since Windows can't touch it) but Windows will be crashing in the background when it doesn't like the environment it's told to boot in.
By ensuring that the first thing the user sees is a running Linux desktop, before Windows starts to boot, people won't blame Linux, because as far as they're concerned, it's just built in to their machine, and it's Windows that broke.
The problem isn't with getting rid of such a rootkit. You can always physically replace the chip it resides on. The real issue is detecting the rootkit before your credit card number is stolen. By using SMM and VT and not storing any data except on the flash chip itself (which very few users can read from), a rootkit can hide itself from all but the most determined experts.
It's not like it matters how easy they make it to access the source. Since it's under the GPL, there will be easy-to-use and easy-to-install community projects spun off from this, just like for wireless routers. Only people wanting to sync the project they manage with the manufacturer's source will need to try to acquire the manufacturer's code. Everybody else will get it in the form of a third-party improved distribution.
You should try to see how many of your favorite websites still work at all in IE5. A big part of why things seem slower today is that your software (even the web apps) do a whole lot more than they used to.
I think the situation is a little bit different: Nerds have created open source alternatives specifically because they don't want to continue using Microsoft products. The reason the open source alternatives are competing with Microsoft's core products is that those are the products that the most nerds want to break free from.
Microsoft wants their browser to be popular because their business is all about world domination.
Google wants their browser to be popular because they want more brand recognition, and they want to make sure that nobody like Microsoft can control the means by which people access all of Google's other products.
Apple wants a good browser because nobody will take their platform seriously without one, and they can't trust anybody else to develop a sufficiently Mac-like browser for them.
Mozilla wants their browser to be popular because that's what their company is all about. They're basically the orphaned ugly stepchild of Netscape.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. It's not often that IP laws or the application thereof are struck down due to hindering rather than promoting progress, but the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that they can be. It's just really tricky to prove. However, in the context of antitrust enforcement, it's probably quite a bit easier to prove (though still hard). I would not be surprised if it ends up that this is the easiest way to eliminate or significantly weaken software patents, since Justices are harder for the MAFIAA to buy off than congresscritters.
You're complaining because the changes aren't superficial?
I still don't see the *need* to split up MS or even to pursue antitrust arguments against MS.
Compared to so many other industries, the software world is remarkably open with such a low barrier to entry. I see absolutely nothing wrong with MS even using hidden APIs for its own benefit. All is fair as far as I am concerned. MS slacked on the web, Google popped up. MS's strategy of providing the software while others fought for low margins on hardware worked for a while, until people craved a tight integrated hardware solution like Apple. It's not just Microsoft. Remember how MS stuck it to those old players who tried to bundle the OS and hardware? MS changed the game by breaking that monopoly. I worked for telecoms before and everyone knew the game. Our customers would play one vendor against another. They knew not to put themselves in a position to be subservient to a monopoly.
So, because Microsoft hasn't managed to stifle all competition for the past 15 years, they don't need to be regulated at all, and they can keep using their copyrights and patents to prevent new competition from cropping up? Are you at all aware that using patent law to the detriment of the entire industry is prohibited by the US Constitution, and that their IP portfolio can be invalidated simply for hindering overall technological progress?
I was using the XBox more as an example of the power Microsoft has as a result of their ill-gotten gains elsewhere. But by no means was the XBox a clean deal. For example, since the XBox used what was essentially DirectX as it's apis, Microsoft had something of an advantage over other console manufacturers when it comes to attracting third-party developers, since PC game devs could more easily port their stuff to the XBox. Then there's the fact that the video game division that makes the XBox didn't turn a profit until after the release of Halo 3. That's even counting all the XBox related software and licensing fee income. Selling your stuff at a steep loss in order to suffocate smaller competitors is frequently illegal - eg. Intel is currently in hot (er, tepid) water for, among other things, selling some of their chips below cost.
Microsoft would had never had the money to launch the XBox as a successful invasion of the video game market if it were not for the combined cash cow monopolies of Windows and Office. (And ironically, if they hadn't been able to move in on the video game market at that time, then the Halo series would have stayed on the Mac platform.)
Breaking up Microsoft might not be worth the effort today, but then again, having a natural monopoly has never been the (legal) issue. It's abusing that monopoly to take over other markets that is illegal, and it certainly is necessary to make sure that Microsoft can't continue that pattern.
Note the OJ reference that dates the incident to 1994. Not many college students could afford cell phones back then.
This has nothing to do with technological immaturity or firmware bugs. It's simply a matter of SSDs using an optimization that hard drives can't due to their non-trivial seek times, and people are starting to realize that that optimization doesn't always work.
What are you worried about? It's not like we're talking about ionizing radiation, since 60Ghz is well below even visible wavelengths. And for LAN use, the necessary wattage will be far below the levels needed to cook somebody. (Consider that the Active Denial System at 95Ghz requires megawatts just to make you feel hot, and it concentrates it's energy in one direction, unlike a wlan.)
Generating dangerous amounts of omnidirectional microwave radiation requires the use of components that couldn't fit inside a laptop, let alone be powered by one.
It's not labeled as the File menu. In fact, it defies all pre-existing conventions for what a file menu is supposed to look like, and indeed, to the untrained eye, it looks just like a conceitedly large logo. (I'll admit, on Windows the logo in the top left corner does activate a menu, but the only functionality in it is from the window manager. And the logo is supposed to be 1/4 the size of the Office 2007 logo.) Microsoft essentially hid all of the most important functionality in a completely non-obvious way.
The phrase "gratis of charge" is redundant. "Gratis" suffices, although it has the unfortunate side effect of making you sound like a pretentious scholar that likes to toss around latin words that nobody knows.
Very few species make any significant modifications to the world around them. Almost all species are limited to at most building temporary nests or things like that. Humans are almost unique in that they find it easier to change the rest of the world than to change themselves.
When people describe nature as self-correcting, they aren't usually referring to any inherent right or wrong. What gets corrected is imbalance, such as restoring a predator-prey system to equilibrium. It seems to me that discussing natural equilibria doesn't have to involve intent, purpose, morals, or anything else that would make it anthropomorphic to say that nature is self-correcting.
And the income disparity isn't caused by any cultural differences? It's pretty obvious that Asian-American families have lower tolerance for gang membership, deadbeat dads, and and most of the other hallmark problems with stereotypical African-American culture. The cultural differences that make the parents more successful (and leads to higher income) are the same ones that lead to the kids getting a better education (which eventually leads to them having higher incomes, too).
It's far from just a self-perpetuating income disparity where the rich are better educated. Just look at how over-represented people of Asian descent are compared to whites in higher education institutions, and how common entitlement beliefs are among the richer whites. Being rich certainly helps, but the cultural component is significant.
TimeWarner does that in my area. Who's the cable provider you're complaining about?