if the computers are the same cost - where's the extra money going?
Into Dell's pocket of course.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Hardware margins are already thin. Pocketing both the Windows Tax and the cost of not supporting Windows on this box is very attractive to the hardware maker. Thus they will fight very hard to offer this option to their customer.
It will give Dell competitive advantage. Thus Dell's competitors now will fight very hard to have this option.
Once everyone is doing it, and it is accepted practice, then someone will be first to offer Windows-less boxes for less money. Then that competitive trend will have an effect on everyone else.
Isn't competition on commodity items wonderful? Too bad we don't have any when it comes to software.
The fact that is so much more profitable to Dell to offer this option at the same price means that Dell will fight harder to ensure that they are able to offer this option.
This can only be a good thing, even if in the short run it doesn't save Linux users any money.
It also makes Dell more competitive, and therefore encourages their competition to do likewise. The profit margin in the hardware business is very thin. Pocketing the Windows Tax and support costs is probably very attractive to hardware makers.
Dell is taking a risk here by smacking the tiger on the nose
Doesn't Microsoft now have to offer uniform and non-discriminatory licensing? Or is that just one of the proposed remedies? I don't recall. I remember articles about this where some OEM's would end up paying a bit more and others a bit less because of uniform licensing. The only factor that can influence price is volume, but not how much Microsoft likes you.
About a thousand years ago, in the 1970's, I did something similar, but with no transistors.
Juse use a mechanical relay switch. I wired it as a buzzer so that when the relay coil engergized the pair of contacts it opened cut power to the coil so that the spring pulls the relay switch closed again, re-energizing the coil. Rinse, Repeat.
Wire the flyback primary across the relay coil. When the relay coil power is cut, there is a huge inductive kickback.
I also got a couple inch long spark in a very tiny box powered by four AA cells. It was cool for frying bugs with. Almost a crude predecessor to today's stun guns.
Imagine a computer small enough to fit in your pocket. Imagine a computer in your car. Imagine a computer in your glasses! It sounds like science fiction...
I no longer have the exact quote, but it goes something like this...
While computers today have over 18,000 vaccum tubes and weigh 1 ton, in the future computers may have as few as 1,000 vaccum tubes and weigh only 1/2 ton. --Popular Mechanics 1949
Whatever your view of each operating system, the end marker is that they are tools. And when you're selecting the right one you need to be independent, you need to consider all the alternatives, and most of all you need to be unbiased.
They are tools. Like most tools in most professions, sometimes people have preferences and recommendations. People in other professions share information both good and bad about their tools. This exchange does play into the tool selection process along with other factors. The reputation of a tool among professionals is a legitimate factor to consider along with other factors in making a decision.
Choosing Linux just because you're been told its the best by some RMS wannabe might well be a very bad business decision.
Choosing Photoshop because you've been told it is the best by other graphic artists (or wannabes) might well be a very bad business decision.
Choosing Craftsman (or insert other brand here) wrenches because you've been told they are the best...
Choosing Hoover (or other brand) vaccum cleaners because you've been told they are the best....
Maybe they just forgot to change the user agent string in the source code before they compiled it. Isn't their QA supposed to catch problems like this.
My question is exactly what would this 'better system' look like?
Well, first a volunteer graphic designer needs to be found. The program needs to be themable. This should be right at the top of the requirements document. It should offer a remote api (CORBA?) so that other programs can send it messages to change the appearance of the buttons, scroll bars, etc. There should be a web interface so that you can use another computer in case you cannot use your own monitor because the default color scheme is unacceptable for professional work.
Sheesh, you make this sound like it was some Microsoft problem. EVERYONE had to "play fast and loose" with the Mac API because the APIs were brain damaged. It's not entirely Apple's fault, since there was so much momentum behind them, and after all, they were pretty much the first APIs made for GUIs.
This is simply not true.
While the Mac API's are not perfect, it IS possible, with an ordinary amount of effort to write programs that are backward and forward compatible with the Mac OS over a period of about 10 years. With additional effort, you can make your program work over an even larger base of Mac OS.
As evidence of what I say, many (most?) mac programs are compatible over a vast array of Mac OS versions. Typically a program written in the mid-80's will run on Mac OS 3.1 or newer. A program written in 1987 (when Mac II, color QD, etc.) will run on either 3.1 or 4.1 or newer, including the PPC emulation of 68K or the classic emulation of PPC under OS X. Programs such as MacWrite and MacPaint in 1984 were known to run as recently as System 7.5. (Don't know about the latest 9.1, 9.2 or OS X.) I wouldn't be surprised that many of the 1984-87 era. programs would run fine.
I have never seen an OS with such good compatibilty over such a long range of time and version numbers, with so many new technologies being introduced. (And I'm talking about binary compatibility.)
While the Mac API's are not perfect by any means (I could name numerous shortsighted design decisions -- probably driven by the "byte saving" mentality of a 128K memory footprint) it is not necessary to abuse the API's to write a normal working program that follows Apple's published guidelines. We're not talking about low level system software here. We're talking about word processors and spreadsheets. Programs that make use of the normal api services to draw graphics, manage windows, read/write files, etc.
What I am pointing out is a Microsoft problem. It should not be Apple's responsibility to kludge the OS to make Microsoft's software continue to run. Eventually Apple published a Tech Note that they were going to quit doing this for 3rd party developers -- even of popular software. There were a number of guilty parties, but it was well known that Microsoft was the biggest offender.
Microsoft, for example, was instrumental in helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X, the next-generation version of the Macintosh operating system released in March 2001.
Could this mean helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X being able to run MS Office?
Back in the late 80's that was the norm. Apple had to doctor the OS in order to keep existing MS programs (Word,Excel) running properly. MS was well known in the industry to play fast and loose with the Mac API. (I was privy to seeing some of this first hand, related to a product I worked on at the time.)
Well of course it is doing very well..... When a company controls both the hardware and the software they control what the user gets as soon as they decide to upgrade..... Microsoft could only wish to control the hardware and the software.
This is about advertising. There are no ethics in advertising. It's a business. They probably feel like disclosing who paid for the ad is the same as devaluing the ad.
This is about business. There are no ethics in business. (Except to enrich executives.)
They probably feel like if you knew who paid for the search result you wouldn't click it and so you would be STEALING!!!
Really? Like Carnivore, perhaps? I can't remember the last time I saw a government software project go up in flames for all of us to see. When it fails, it's vigorously swept under the carpet.
That's a good argument.
Working backwards then, that raises the question, Why don't they just hush up, cover up, etc. the rocket/plane test failures?
Maybe because it is not easily concealed. (Of course, you could just machine gun all the photographers along the perimiter fence.) Maybe large expensive software projects should not be allowed to happen in secret, so that the failures and successes are transparent to the public. Nah. It will never happen.
If your first software runs were very expensive, and some (all?) of it were public money, you should expect someone to be around to photograph the BSOD's.
IIRC the shuttle uses both engine gimballing and the control surfaces on the orbiter. Notably for the initial roll it makes immediatly after lift off.
Correct. (Wish I had a link handy.) An extensive article I read about the guidance software describes how things change during liftoff. Initially the control surfaces are used along with engine gimballing until some altitude.
The shuttle is also not shaped like a typical rocket which could account for why.
The SSMEs which can gimbal only provide about 15% of the liftoff thrust. Question: can the solid rocket boosters gimbal?
Fortunantly, H2K2 will be over soon, and AT&T staff can go back to not worrying about what information they give out. Whew! Come monday morning, they can relax again.
I like what I can eat on this diet. I've never been a big bread fan. I view bread as something to dillute real food with, just like you would use water to dillute liquid. Just a psychological thing or some kind of ingrained preference, I guess.
I do personally know people who like some of the things you can't have on this diet.
But compared to low-fat diets, I can eat a lot and never feel hungry. I've tried low fat diets before and it never works. On Atkins I've lost 60 lbs and still going. (By the time The Matrix Reloaded starts showing, I am on track to be down to zero!:-) )
I personally like some things I can't have like potato chips and french fries. Oh well, in time I'll be able to have them. Right now, I eat one or two occaisionally just for a taste.
Believe me, this diet is better than starving, and then finally going on an eating binge and gaining all that weight back.
I can do without most juices. Crystal Light has zero of everything, including carbohydrates. (Check out the label -- pure chemicals.) I can have all the cheeseburgers (no bun) that I want. All the spices I want. Certian low-carb taco shells just loaded with meat. Extra meat, spices, salsa, cheese, etc. on the side (no shell). Eat until I'm full -- no, stuffed. A couple chips don't hurt. (2g x 2 = 4g. Sometimes three for 6g.)
Oh, btw, I do have a sandwitch for breakfast. Two slices of cheese and one of egg between two "buns" of sausage, all wrapped in paper to keep fingers from grease. Yum, yum. I suppose it depends on what you like. I'm definitely healthier and feel better. Lab results are great now.
Slashdot Mirror
if the computers are the same cost - where's the extra money going?
Into Dell's pocket of course.
Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Hardware margins are already thin. Pocketing both the Windows Tax and the cost of not supporting Windows on this box is very attractive to the hardware maker. Thus they will fight very hard to offer this option to their customer.
It will give Dell competitive advantage. Thus Dell's competitors now will fight very hard to have this option.
Once everyone is doing it, and it is accepted practice, then someone will be first to offer Windows-less boxes for less money. Then that competitive trend will have an effect on everyone else.
Isn't competition on commodity items wonderful? Too bad we don't have any when it comes to software.
The fact that is so much more profitable to Dell to offer this option at the same price means that Dell will fight harder to ensure that they are able to offer this option.
This can only be a good thing, even if in the short run it doesn't save Linux users any money.
It also makes Dell more competitive, and therefore encourages their competition to do likewise. The profit margin in the hardware business is very thin. Pocketing the Windows Tax and support costs is probably very attractive to hardware makers.
Dell is taking a risk here by smacking the tiger on the nose
Doesn't Microsoft now have to offer uniform and non-discriminatory licensing? Or is that just one of the proposed remedies? I don't recall. I remember articles about this where some OEM's would end up paying a bit more and others a bit less because of uniform licensing. The only factor that can influence price is volume, but not how much Microsoft likes you.
Who appointed Microsoft as the regulatory agency for the computer industry anyway?)
Microsoft did, of course. And believe me, it for your own good.
About a thousand years ago, in the 1970's, I did something similar, but with no transistors.
Juse use a mechanical relay switch. I wired it as a buzzer so that when the relay coil engergized the pair of contacts it opened cut power to the coil so that the spring pulls the relay switch closed again, re-energizing the coil. Rinse, Repeat.
Wire the flyback primary across the relay coil. When the relay coil power is cut, there is a huge inductive kickback.
I also got a couple inch long spark in a very tiny box powered by four AA cells. It was cool for frying bugs with. Almost a crude predecessor to today's stun guns.
Imagine a computer small enough to fit in your pocket. Imagine a computer in your car. Imagine a computer in your glasses! It sounds like science fiction...
I no longer have the exact quote, but it goes something like this...
While computers today have over 18,000 vaccum tubes and weigh 1 ton, in the future computers may have as few as 1,000 vaccum tubes and weigh only 1/2 ton. --Popular Mechanics 1949
Shuttle SS51 Reviewed
My first thought was: isn't it a little bit late?
Didn't they review this thing to death after shuttle 51 blew up 108 seconds after liftoff in 1986? Wasn't the shuttle fleet grounded for two years?
What exactly would you patent?
"A method for adding numbers"?
"A method for deciding who gets to run the country"
Both.
Mozilla spell checker hasnt been released yet. Humm.
I'm much moore inturestid in seeing thu slashdot spel checkker released.
It has ben kept captiv for far to long. You know, the spelcheker that the editors use before posting artacles.
If Open Source becomes mainstream, not only Microsoft is screwed. We all are.
How pray tell is this?
We are being screwed right now. Open Source will stop us from being screwed.
Whatever your view of each operating system, the end marker is that they are tools. And when you're selecting the right one you need to be independent, you need to consider all the alternatives, and most of all you need to be unbiased.
They are tools. Like most tools in most professions, sometimes people have preferences and recommendations. People in other professions share information both good and bad about their tools. This exchange does play into the tool selection process along with other factors. The reputation of a tool among professionals is a legitimate factor to consider along with other factors in making a decision.
Choosing Linux just because you're been told its the best by some RMS wannabe might well be a very bad business decision.
Choosing Photoshop because you've been told it is the best by other graphic artists (or wannabes) might well be a very bad business decision.
Choosing Craftsman (or insert other brand here) wrenches because you've been told they are the best...
Choosing Hoover (or other brand) vaccum cleaners because you've been told they are the best....
Peru: We've decided to check into a drug rehab center.
MS: Here, have some more drugs -- for free.
Maybe they just forgot to change the user agent string in the source code before they compiled it. Isn't their QA supposed to catch problems like this.
My question is exactly what would this 'better system' look like?
Well, first a volunteer graphic designer needs to be found. The program needs to be themable. This should be right at the top of the requirements document. It should offer a remote api (CORBA?) so that other programs can send it messages to change the appearance of the buttons, scroll bars, etc. There should be a web interface so that you can use another computer in case you cannot use your own monitor because the default color scheme is unacceptable for professional work.
The patent cannot be found invalid unless they decide to sue someone for infringement.
Oh, wait.... they are.
Sheesh, you make this sound like it was some Microsoft problem. EVERYONE had to "play fast and loose" with the Mac API because the APIs were brain damaged. It's not entirely Apple's fault, since there was so much momentum behind them, and after all, they were pretty much the first APIs made for GUIs.
This is simply not true.
While the Mac API's are not perfect, it IS possible, with an ordinary amount of effort to write programs that are backward and forward compatible with the Mac OS over a period of about 10 years. With additional effort, you can make your program work over an even larger base of Mac OS.
As evidence of what I say, many (most?) mac programs are compatible over a vast array of Mac OS versions. Typically a program written in the mid-80's will run on Mac OS 3.1 or newer. A program written in 1987 (when Mac II, color QD, etc.) will run on either 3.1 or 4.1 or newer, including the PPC emulation of 68K or the classic emulation of PPC under OS X. Programs such as MacWrite and MacPaint in 1984 were known to run as recently as System 7.5. (Don't know about the latest 9.1, 9.2 or OS X.) I wouldn't be surprised that many of the 1984-87 era. programs would run fine.
I have never seen an OS with such good compatibilty over such a long range of time and version numbers, with so many new technologies being introduced. (And I'm talking about binary compatibility.)
While the Mac API's are not perfect by any means (I could name numerous shortsighted design decisions -- probably driven by the "byte saving" mentality of a 128K memory footprint) it is not necessary to abuse the API's to write a normal working program that follows Apple's published guidelines. We're not talking about low level system software here. We're talking about word processors and spreadsheets. Programs that make use of the normal api services to draw graphics, manage windows, read/write files, etc.
What I am pointing out is a Microsoft problem. It should not be Apple's responsibility to kludge the OS to make Microsoft's software continue to run. Eventually Apple published a Tech Note that they were going to quit doing this for 3rd party developers -- even of popular software. There were a number of guilty parties, but it was well known that Microsoft was the biggest offender.
Microsoft, for example, was instrumental in helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X, the next-generation version of the Macintosh operating system released in March 2001.
Could this mean helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X being able to run MS Office?
Back in the late 80's that was the norm. Apple had to doctor the OS in order to keep existing MS programs (Word,Excel) running properly. MS was well known in the industry to play fast and loose with the Mac API. (I was privy to seeing some of this first hand, related to a product I worked on at the time.)
Well of course it is doing very well..... When a company controls both the hardware and the software they control what the user gets as soon as they decide to upgrade..... Microsoft could only wish to control the hardware and the software.
*cough* Palladium *cough*
This is about advertising. There are no ethics in advertising. It's a business. They probably feel like disclosing who paid for the ad is the same as devaluing the ad.
This is about business. There are no ethics in business. (Except to enrich executives.)
They probably feel like if you knew who paid for the search result you wouldn't click it and so you would be STEALING!!!
I recommend that corporations disclose their true performance in their accounting and sec filings.
Really? Like Carnivore, perhaps? I can't remember the last time I saw a government software project go up in flames for all of us to see. When it fails, it's vigorously swept under the carpet.
That's a good argument.
Working backwards then, that raises the question, Why don't they just hush up, cover up, etc. the rocket/plane test failures?
Maybe because it is not easily concealed. (Of course, you could just machine gun all the photographers along the perimiter fence.) Maybe large expensive software projects should not be allowed to happen in secret, so that the failures and successes are transparent to the public. Nah. It will never happen.
If your first software runs were very expensive, and some (all?) of it were public money, you should expect someone to be around to photograph the BSOD's.
IIRC the shuttle uses both engine gimballing and the control surfaces on the orbiter. Notably for the initial roll it makes immediatly after lift off.
Correct. (Wish I had a link handy.) An extensive article I read about the guidance software describes how things change during liftoff. Initially the control surfaces are used along with engine gimballing until some altitude.
The shuttle is also not shaped like a typical rocket which could account for why.
The SSMEs which can gimbal only provide about 15% of the liftoff thrust. Question: can the solid rocket boosters gimbal?
Fortunantly, H2K2 will be over soon, and AT&T staff can go back to not worrying about what information they give out. Whew! Come monday morning, they can relax again.
I suppose it depends on what you like.
:-) )
I like what I can eat on this diet. I've never been a big bread fan. I view bread as something to dillute real food with, just like you would use water to dillute liquid. Just a psychological thing or some kind of ingrained preference, I guess.
I do personally know people who like some of the things you can't have on this diet.
But compared to low-fat diets, I can eat a lot and never feel hungry. I've tried low fat diets before and it never works. On Atkins I've lost 60 lbs and still going. (By the time The Matrix Reloaded starts showing, I am on track to be down to zero!
I personally like some things I can't have like potato chips and french fries. Oh well, in time I'll be able to have them. Right now, I eat one or two occaisionally just for a taste.
Believe me, this diet is better than starving, and then finally going on an eating binge and gaining all that weight back.
I can do without most juices. Crystal Light has zero of everything, including carbohydrates. (Check out the label -- pure chemicals.) I can have all the cheeseburgers (no bun) that I want. All the spices I want. Certian low-carb taco shells just loaded with meat. Extra meat, spices, salsa, cheese, etc. on the side (no shell). Eat until I'm full -- no, stuffed. A couple chips don't hurt. (2g x 2 = 4g. Sometimes three for 6g.)
Oh, btw, I do have a sandwitch for breakfast. Two slices of cheese and one of egg between two "buns" of sausage, all wrapped in paper to keep fingers from grease. Yum, yum. I suppose it depends on what you like. I'm definitely healthier and feel better. Lab results are great now.