Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "100% MS Office compatibility" was the prerequisite to entry into the marketplace.
Well, now you know better. MS Office is THE standard for businesses pretty much worldwide. Microsoft has cornered the market on office suites. Aside from the occaisional Word Perfect user, practically nobody uses anything else but MS Office on Windows. If you can give a few examples of large corporations using something else to exchange documents with other businesses, then perhaps I'll have to rethink my position. So far, the only other format to make much headway is PDF, and its used almost exclusively for read-only purposes. Everyone needs to be able to read and write MS Office documents in order to be compatible with everyone else. Classic example of network effects.
After all, no matter what they do to Office, it's still going to be 100% MS Office compatible, and thus sell like hotcakes!
In case you hadn't noticed, MS Office DOES sell like hotcakes. It's standard for business PCs, and most home users get some version of it as well.
On the other hand, if 99% isn't good enough for you, we can work on implementing the bugs, security holes, and talking paperclips, to satisfy whatever inner masochistic desires you might have.
I don't know of any office suite on Linux that is even 99% compatible. Sure, there are some that work for most simple documents, but as soon as you get one that uses any of the more complex or esoteric features, it's gonna crap out.
Sounds like a market-based solution. When they sell bandwidth, they should assume it will be used, and prepare their infrastructure accordingly. This sounds just like the crap that was pulled by many an ISP over the years of selling more bandwidth than they actually own. Basically an ISP would sign up a ton of 56K customers, but not own enough bandwidth to provide more than a fraction of them with the amount of bandwidth they'd purchased at once. If the fraction is small enough, then they can get away with it. If not, then their customers will experience problems. This is not the fault of the customers, it is the fault of the ISP for overestimating its ability to handle the simultaneous demand for the bandwidth it sold. The customers are simply using what they paid for.
If a company that I champion now ever becomes a monopolist, then I'll be right there in front calling for them to be smacked down as well. For now though, Microsoft is monopolist that needs to be smacked down.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!! There are a lot of ignorant people on Slashdot! Hmm.. maybe that should be inserted in your post right after "the sky is blue." This has nothing at all to do with normal business tactics used by everyone. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They play by different rules. That's why it's news when a Microsoft exec says something like this, but not when someone else does. Besides, most non-monopoly corporations aren't in any position to use these kinds of tactics. They don't have the kind of power that a monopoly does. The whole free market idea is pretty neat, but it only works when there is a good amount of competition in the market. Microsoft has very little competition, in part due to the fairly unique qualities of software. Linux is a fairly strong competitor if you look just at the desktop OS market. But you can't stop there. The office suite market is also strongly tied to the desktop OS market. Then there's PC hardware drivers. These also need to be created for a particular OS before that OS can be a legitimate competitor. There are HUGE barriers to entry in the desktop OS market, and therefore there should be MUCH LESS tolerance of monopolistic behavior than there might be in other markets. Read up on network effects if you need more clarification.
Until Linux has an office suite that is 100% compatible with MS Office, Linux will remain a tiny tiny fraction of the market. Aside from that, Linux already has pretty much everything else it needs to succeed. Well, aside from games, but if Linux gets into the business side of things, people will use it at home more too. Then the games will start showing up.
The problem is that Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. People pretty much have to deal with them if they want to be compatible with everyone else. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty damn hard to buy a PC from a major dealer that doesn't include Windows in the price. Until we have an administration with the balls to really put the shackles on Micrsoft (and if you believe in free markets, you should be behind this since such markets don't work without a significant level of competition) they will continue to laugh off these settlements and go right back to business as usual. I'd like to ask the DOJ what exactly there is in the settlement that would prevent them from doing just that. I expect they could not provide any response other than that they think Microsoft will actually comply this time. Fools.
I think the point is that it doesn't make any difference what's on the CD. If it's a screwed up CD, then the drive should just refuse to read it. Catastrophic failure such as that described in the article should never be permitted. Someone else used the example of sticking a pizza in the drive, but I say that's just a straw man. Nobody is saying that the drive should function no matter what is inserted. They're saying that if you put a disc that is within the size and shape specs of a CD into a drive, the drive should either read it or not read it. No damage should occur.
Man and science cannot, and will never have an answer to the ultimate ex nihilo origin of life, without some pre-existence of some eternal form
I can agree with you up to a point here. Perhaps our universe does exist as a raindrop in some larger universe. Perhaps there is some force at work that we can't comprehend. To me, it doesn't really matter at this point. I consider myself to be agnostic. Basically, I don't think we have enough evidence to make a decision about the existence of any supernatural beings, even those who supposedly take special interest in the rather screwed up inhabitants of some dinky planet on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy. Perhaps we are the only life in the universe. But given the size of it, I wouldn't bet a nickel on that.
Education is moving in a direction opposite of what you are advocating. Students are encouraged to learn through discovery, through an exposure of many different viewpoints.
Where exactly is education moving in this direction? From what I've seen, it's moving back towards the cookie-cutter approach at a pretty fast rate. Standardized testing is practically the only concern of most schools now. They drill their students daily to prepare for the tests. The students' test scores determine the funding for the school. I don't see anyone (aside from a few rather unique schools) moving towards more creative teaching.
True enough. That's pretty much the same way it works for me. I have read posts by people here on/. where they talk about bands they like. Often they're pretty obscure. So I hit Gnutella and look for some tracks. Sometimes I like them. I too have bought CDs this way.
Of course then not only will they have to pay for the recording and promotion themselves
They already pay for the recording and promotion themselves. They don't see a penny of the sales money until the label recoups its expenses and then some.
MP3.com was kinda like that at first. But then they decided to start fucking the artists over by giving them a smaller and smaller cut. Now mp3.com looks like the music section at Best Buy.
I'm reminded of musician Lars Ulrich who once said, "If I ever hear that someone on the other end of this world downloaded my songs and listens to them on their computer, I'm gonna come over there and like kick his fucking ass, man!"
They got free exposure and that leads to CD sales. They pay a crapload to get exposure from the record labels, and the label takes all the money to pay for that exposure and other costs before the artist sees a penny. Then, and only then, if there is anything left, the artist gets a portion of it. Of course, many artists don't even get any exposure from their label anyway. Either way, P2P doesn't look too bad. It helps to sell CDs. Now if artists could get their shit together and give the fans some support, we could probably make some headway against the record labels. Then they wouldn't be able to hide behind the "we're protecting the artists" bullshit. Artists could probably get a better deal, and fans could get what they want as well. The ability to try before they buy, and the ability to do whatever the hell they want with the music they own.
Prove it. Most people I know actually buy the cds from the artists that they discover on P2P services. They just aren't buying the cds that the record industry is hyping the most. Maybe that's why they have their panties in a wad.
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
I would love to see their evidence for this. I assume it would be the same crap they've been whining about for months, which is that their sales are slightly less record-breaking than they'd hoped. Whooptee... it's a recession. Guess what kind of stuff is the first to get cut from people's budget? Yep, overpriced crappy music.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "100% MS Office compatibility" was the prerequisite to entry into the marketplace.
Well, now you know better. MS Office is THE standard for businesses pretty much worldwide. Microsoft has cornered the market on office suites. Aside from the occaisional Word Perfect user, practically nobody uses anything else but MS Office on Windows. If you can give a few examples of large corporations using something else to exchange documents with other businesses, then perhaps I'll have to rethink my position. So far, the only other format to make much headway is PDF, and its used almost exclusively for read-only purposes. Everyone needs to be able to read and write MS Office documents in order to be compatible with everyone else. Classic example of network effects.
After all, no matter what they do to Office, it's still going to be 100% MS Office compatible, and thus sell like hotcakes!
In case you hadn't noticed, MS Office DOES sell like hotcakes. It's standard for business PCs, and most home users get some version of it as well.
On the other hand, if 99% isn't good enough for you, we can work on implementing the bugs, security holes, and talking paperclips, to satisfy whatever inner masochistic desires you might have.
I don't know of any office suite on Linux that is even 99% compatible. Sure, there are some that work for most simple documents, but as soon as you get one that uses any of the more complex or esoteric features, it's gonna crap out.
Sounds like a market-based solution. When they sell bandwidth, they should assume it will be used, and prepare their infrastructure accordingly. This sounds just like the crap that was pulled by many an ISP over the years of selling more bandwidth than they actually own. Basically an ISP would sign up a ton of 56K customers, but not own enough bandwidth to provide more than a fraction of them with the amount of bandwidth they'd purchased at once. If the fraction is small enough, then they can get away with it. If not, then their customers will experience problems. This is not the fault of the customers, it is the fault of the ISP for overestimating its ability to handle the simultaneous demand for the bandwidth it sold. The customers are simply using what they paid for.
If a company that I champion now ever becomes a monopolist, then I'll be right there in front calling for them to be smacked down as well. For now though, Microsoft is monopolist that needs to be smacked down.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!! There are a lot of ignorant people on Slashdot! Hmm.. maybe that should be inserted in your post right after "the sky is blue." This has nothing at all to do with normal business tactics used by everyone. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. They play by different rules. That's why it's news when a Microsoft exec says something like this, but not when someone else does. Besides, most non-monopoly corporations aren't in any position to use these kinds of tactics. They don't have the kind of power that a monopoly does. The whole free market idea is pretty neat, but it only works when there is a good amount of competition in the market. Microsoft has very little competition, in part due to the fairly unique qualities of software. Linux is a fairly strong competitor if you look just at the desktop OS market. But you can't stop there. The office suite market is also strongly tied to the desktop OS market. Then there's PC hardware drivers. These also need to be created for a particular OS before that OS can be a legitimate competitor. There are HUGE barriers to entry in the desktop OS market, and therefore there should be MUCH LESS tolerance of monopolistic behavior than there might be in other markets. Read up on network effects if you need more clarification.
I don't think he meant all memos. Just the ones that advocate or detail dirty underhanded tactics.
But McDonald's is also nowhere near being a monopoly. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Until Linux has an office suite that is 100% compatible with MS Office, Linux will remain a tiny tiny fraction of the market. Aside from that, Linux already has pretty much everything else it needs to succeed. Well, aside from games, but if Linux gets into the business side of things, people will use it at home more too. Then the games will start showing up.
The problem is that Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. People pretty much have to deal with them if they want to be compatible with everyone else. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty damn hard to buy a PC from a major dealer that doesn't include Windows in the price. Until we have an administration with the balls to really put the shackles on Micrsoft (and if you believe in free markets, you should be behind this since such markets don't work without a significant level of competition) they will continue to laugh off these settlements and go right back to business as usual. I'd like to ask the DOJ what exactly there is in the settlement that would prevent them from doing just that. I expect they could not provide any response other than that they think Microsoft will actually comply this time. Fools.
I think the point is that it doesn't make any difference what's on the CD. If it's a screwed up CD, then the drive should just refuse to read it. Catastrophic failure such as that described in the article should never be permitted. Someone else used the example of sticking a pizza in the drive, but I say that's just a straw man. Nobody is saying that the drive should function no matter what is inserted. They're saying that if you put a disc that is within the size and shape specs of a CD into a drive, the drive should either read it or not read it. No damage should occur.
He should seek professional help. Soon. That's right up there with self-mutilation.
Man and science cannot, and will never have an answer to the ultimate ex nihilo origin of life, without some pre-existence of some eternal form
I can agree with you up to a point here. Perhaps our universe does exist as a raindrop in some larger universe. Perhaps there is some force at work that we can't comprehend. To me, it doesn't really matter at this point. I consider myself to be agnostic. Basically, I don't think we have enough evidence to make a decision about the existence of any supernatural beings, even those who supposedly take special interest in the rather screwed up inhabitants of some dinky planet on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy. Perhaps we are the only life in the universe. But given the size of it, I wouldn't bet a nickel on that.
Education is moving in a direction opposite of what you are advocating. Students are encouraged to learn through discovery, through an exposure of many different viewpoints.
Where exactly is education moving in this direction? From what I've seen, it's moving back towards the cookie-cutter approach at a pretty fast rate. Standardized testing is practically the only concern of most schools now. They drill their students daily to prepare for the tests. The students' test scores determine the funding for the school. I don't see anyone (aside from a few rather unique schools) moving towards more creative teaching.
The authorities are responsible for taking out your trash? Where do you live?! I'm moving there!
I think you just illustrated his point.
So if you want to support your favorite artist, go to a Concert.
My favorite bands don't even play in the US. I might be able to catch a concert if I fly up to Canada though.
True 'nuf. We need a panel of 5 judges then. Three that understand the tech issues, and 2 to make sure they kick Microsoft's ass legal-like. :)
True enough. That's pretty much the same way it works for me. I have read posts by people here on /. where they talk about bands they like. Often they're pretty obscure. So I hit Gnutella and look for some tracks. Sometimes I like them. I too have bought CDs this way.
Without critical mass, you can't take advantage of economies of scale and you won't be able to sell your CDs at a reasonable price.
Of course, without marketing, you're also eliminating a major overhead cost, thus making it possible to sell CDs cheaper. Maybe it all balances out.
Of course then not only will they have to pay for the recording and promotion themselves
They already pay for the recording and promotion themselves. They don't see a penny of the sales money until the label recoups its expenses and then some.
MP3.com was kinda like that at first. But then they decided to start fucking the artists over by giving them a smaller and smaller cut. Now mp3.com looks like the music section at Best Buy.
I'm reminded of musician Lars Ulrich who once said, "If I ever hear that someone on the other end of this world downloaded my songs and listens to them on their computer, I'm gonna come over there and like kick his fucking ass, man!"
They got free exposure and that leads to CD sales. They pay a crapload to get exposure from the record labels, and the label takes all the money to pay for that exposure and other costs before the artist sees a penny. Then, and only then, if there is anything left, the artist gets a portion of it. Of course, many artists don't even get any exposure from their label anyway. Either way, P2P doesn't look too bad. It helps to sell CDs. Now if artists could get their shit together and give the fans some support, we could probably make some headway against the record labels. Then they wouldn't be able to hide behind the "we're protecting the artists" bullshit. Artists could probably get a better deal, and fans could get what they want as well. The ability to try before they buy, and the ability to do whatever the hell they want with the music they own.
Prove it. Most people I know actually buy the cds from the artists that they discover on P2P services. They just aren't buying the cds that the record industry is hyping the most. Maybe that's why they have their panties in a wad.
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
I would love to see their evidence for this. I assume it would be the same crap they've been whining about for months, which is that their sales are slightly less record-breaking than they'd hoped. Whooptee... it's a recession. Guess what kind of stuff is the first to get cut from people's budget? Yep, overpriced crappy music.
I'm going to email him a big wet kiss on the lips!!