Between the fact that Xbox sold more in the first weekend of launch than Dreamcast did in its first week, and that Japan has sunk into its worst recession in decades, I think Xbox is doing allright in Japan. Not to mention that if Japanese companies only released products if they were sure they were going to be successful in their home market, they wouldn't be dominating US electronics market like they do. Being successful in the US is plenty enough of success.
Meanwhile, that other console, the Xbox, with built-in broadband, hard drive, and superior graphics, and so ideally suited for FF series, gets no announcement. Square is really hurting for money, but I always understood that they did not support other consoles due to Sony part-ownership and pressure. The fact that they're willing to now release for GameCube appears to be _negative_ news for the GC console to me, as it means that Sony downgraded the threat that GC can cause to it, while Xbox's still remains high.
Of course it is silly, but why should it be counterproductive? It acknowledges that complex and obfuscated code does get created, so we might as well have fun with it. You don't say crossword puzzles are bad for encouraging word mangling, or that belly flop contents encourage overeating, do you? Lighten up:)
I can already see the "but Microsoft is a criminal!" responses to your post, though not from me. You might have been right if the only thing Sun seeking is cash. But they're not - check out what they're seeking, including getting government to force MS to include Java with the OS, open up their source code, and "unbundle".NET (which is like saying, please unbundle use of C++ and DirectX). If that's not "looking for legal action," I don't know what is.
Let me comment on some of what you said, from my "little world."
they hadn't sued then, Java wouldn't exist in a form we'd recognise today.
So, if they forked Java development, Sun's branch would have surely died? It might have definitely added confusion to the mix, but you don't see any scenario where native apps would continue running on Windows, and cross-platform apps would not use Windows native performance extensions? You make Java sound pretty weak by saying it would have died over this.
Once again, if they don't sue, Java will not exist in a form we can recognise in the future.
Well, gosh, things just keep getting worse, it sounds like. So the only thing keeping Java on the market is lawsuits, according to you? I'm hearing "If Sun doesn't keep suing, Java will die." Hmm, it's a pretty well established technology, let's give it some credit. I know it's easy to forget that market forces can allow technologies to survive or fail, why with daily lawsuits, but.NET and Java can coexist, although most likely not peacefully. If the only thing that allows Java to survive is to get MS to bundle it with Windows, then it doesn't deserve to survive (but of course this is not the case).
Actually, in rereading the last 2 paragraphs, I really can't tell if you're joking. If you are, I didn't mean to respond with sarcasm. If you weren't, well... I'm glad MS isn't trying to destroy me in my little world of "Linux, KDE, StarOffice."
No, I don't work for Microsoft. And I didn't say it would create vulnerabilities where there were none before (I knew someone would bring some up), but rather that this would introduce new ones, inevitably. Yes, I know Linux is all open and it gets better code - they're different models of developing software. Unless everyone is going to fix MS's code for them and submit it back to them, and we're all going to be recompiling our NT kernels every few weeks, opening up their source is a bad idea, especially for systems used in production and high security environments.
Well, I'll stand by what I said. I do believe that Sun had a point about MS creating this bastardized version you mention, and they got what they wanted - MS stopped supporting it.
At the same time, while most on here will say that MS was doing it to get Java to fail, I understand why they did it. We all know native code is faster than interpreted. MS was getting comments from most Windows developers saying "What the hell is this? How am I supposed to use J++ instead of VB or C++ when the stuff it produces is so slow?" So they added a possibility of making it native.
Yes, they broke the cross-platform nature, but how about a wild example. I lease a car from a company, but instead of using it for driving, I take off the wheels and try to resell it as an exotic paperweight. I don't think any of my buyers would buy my paperweight if what they really wanted was a car - they'd go back to the original company. People programming J++ wanted fast native code, but liked Java syntax, and they were denied that.
Of course we can look to even more rehashing of this mess when MS adds J# support to the.NET Framework later this year. Which is once again meant to produce potentially native code using Java syntax, but I would put forward that there's really nothing wrong with that.
Criminals should not get away with subsquent offenses merely becuase an inneffective prosecution is already underway
Hmm, perhaps you have called of this little document called The Bill of Rights? They kind of added it to the Constitution after the fact, so you might have missed it. Let's see...
Amendment 5: Grand Jury indictment required to prosecute a person for a serious crime. No "double jeopardy" -- being tried twice for the same offense. Forcing a person to testify against himself or herself prohibited. No loss of life, liberty or property without due process.
I think the "no double jeopardy" part invalidates what you said. This isn't a subsequent offense Sun is discussing, it's still the same IE bundling crap (because we all know an operating system is only meant to open and close file handles and load VGA drivers, web browser functionality should not be included). Of course they're also tacking on the.NET accusation, b/c that's brand new, but this is still the same case that's been dragging on for years.
Let's think about this for a second. Microsoft should make all their technology available only as a separate download, but Sun's technology should be integrated and available in Windows?
I could also understand the argument of unbundling IE, I guess you could have an OS without a browser (nowadays, we'd call that crippled software), but.NET Framework is a development technology. How do you unbundle that? Always make 2 versions of your programs, ones that use COM and ones that use.NET? This is absolute bollocks. Sun is scared of.NET and wants to use this lawsuit settlement as a chance to give Java a boost and set.NET to fail. Perhaps we can let the marketplace sort this out.
Dear sources, please stop giving us reasons to use Netscape, we already know it's a horrible browser with rapidly declining market share. Adding insult to injury is almost.. sad.
This sounds correct, but I still don't find myself feeling any sympathy for Sun. They're a competitor, and a strong one. First they sued so that Microsoft wouldn't include Java in the OS, and now they're suing because they didn't. MS tried with Java, and Sun thwarted them at every step (remember that MS started working with it even before Sun submitted it to standards bodies). So in XP, MS says forget this, we don't need the hassle this time around, and don't include it. And of course they're in trouble for it again.
I sure wish I had some Widget Software and could sue MS every time they released their OS without support for my Widgets. I mean, how dare they, they're putting me out of business here! Now every person who wants to use my Widgets has to download them for his or herself, which is costing me DAMAGES. That just doesn't seem right, does it? Please, dear Government, get this popular OS maker to include my Widgets and a link to my widgets.com site on their desktop.
I think forcing microsoft to release all current source code prior to win2k (including prior NT) to public, and requireing thm to fully document any new API's and file formats as public RFCs for a few years is a better idea.
Yes, I think every popular company should be forced to release for free code they spent millions of dollars writing, and that millions of servers are still running. Not like they didn't use any of that code in XP, so what do they still need it for, right? Hmm, perhaps Sun could lead the way by giving away the source to all their old stuff? Please let me know where I can download this.
Hmm, but how about the fact that this open up an incredible amount of exploits, because it would reveal how NT handles security, user authentication, database replication, and everything else? I sure want my NT servers to replicate to a hacked BDC because of your suggestion. I also want remote users to get get admin rights on my box because they can now do remote registry connects doing undocumented API calls that are hidden for a reason. Or perhaps we shouldn't force open-source solutions on a company that has every right to be closed-source?
Right, because "strong private industries" don't own any politicians. Microsoft is the only one. Man, that part where the MS-owned DOJ almost broke up the company was such a great fake show. And yes, I think Intel especially should sue them, I mean MS is putting Intel out of business with their MS Processor division. Please, next time, back up your facts.
I read the whole (short) review, but where exactly are there spoilers in here, especially from the 3rd act of the movie? The review devotes only a few short sentences to the plot itself, and in most generic of terms. Almost everyone knows the basic premise of this movie, so this does not give anything away. Usually I appreciate the warning about spoilers, but here it's hardly necessary, as no details about the outcome are revealed, or any successes/failures of any of the characters.
another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success,
Well, to be fair, Sun has already achieved plenty of success without the need for litigation. But at the same time, this is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows Sun hates Microsoft, and Microsoft is already taking so much damage from their federal case (please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock).
So, a biased company who is an arch competitor files suit against a company who is already responding to these allegations in a separate suit. This is frivolous. Worse yet, I'd call this harassment. I like Sun, but I don't like this move.
You're certainly right in that there are individuals who have achieved great things and have broken encryption schemes by many a company. I was certainly not making light of individual effort, but rather of the sense blind sense of optimism that b/c Linux is an open sourced system, surely someone will find a way to get these games to work under XWindows. As I pointed out, not only are the games themselves still encrypted, but also the graphics output here is competely different, and there has never been a completely working PS emulator that looked the same or worked for all games. Therefore, I think you are correct overall, but in this particular case, it's a very uphill struggle. Where's Linux on Xbox again? After all, that's just a standard PC, right? Or so the optimists claimed last year.
If only there was a way to get fully supported hardware acceleration for graphics outside of a $200 proprietary hardware kit.. Wait a second, my GeForce2 can run circles around the ancient PS2 jaggies and has a set of open libraries I can code against for game development.
I really don't understand why anyone would get so excited about this outside of the "geek factor." To me, it is a clear ploy by Sony to increase their hipness status in the tech community and to potentially even increase sales. They're not doing this for the public good, and I don't see useful applications for having a proprietary old console with 32MB RAM running Linux for an extra fee. Perhaps other people on here have higher disposable incomes than I do, I guess, and wish to turn as much of it as possible over to Sony.
Hmm, I bet Sony didn't think of that ONE MINOR DETAIL. I always like it when people think they're individually smarter than hundreds of designers and engineers at multibillion dollar corporations. I'm sure this is disabled in the hardware, and besides, the disks have to be booted off of to play. Also, I'm glad to hear that PS2 games support the same rendering techniques as those required to display graphics in XWindows, b/c I just thought it communicated directly with the hardware. Kudos on optimism, but I'm going to remain skeptical here.
Their drive and system does not support CDRs without a modchip, it has nothing to do with software. Therefore it is a hardware issue, not software, and no Linux modification had to be done. I hope that clears it up for you.
It's not part of their TOS, but rather in the statement they make that all contents of the site belong to them in their User Agreement. Now, as far as I'm concerned, this is just a standard disclaimer for "don't steal stuff from our site", but there seems to be a great deal of concern as to whether this covers content to submitted to them as well, which nothing seems to clarify.
Microsoft has not been proven to have done anything illegal involving Passport and.NET (they are still mostly under developement).
Well, besides the fact that I'd disagree with the "under development" part, as Passport is done and.NET has been officially launched, I did not mean as part of the current DOJ proceeding, but rather any future ones, of which the current one does not eliminate the possibility.
Oh, I'm aware why they lost. But this was a technicality. mp3.com didn't steal the music, those cds they had legitimately, and I had the music legitimately as well. But because they made their mp3s available to me, this was unauthorized. So if you have an album but not with you, and I let you listen to my copy of it, we're both breaking the law by this logic. This case affected me even more than Napster, b/c I really liked the convenience and there is no comparable solution from anyone else.
They can hold on to it for checking, sure, but why should it become their property? I don't think the company is malicious in this case, just needs to clarify its TOS and what it can/cannot do with papers - ie "we reserve right to hold on to them for verification in database, but we will not attempt to republish them or make any other revenue or claims to ownership on them."
I think you're missing the point. The teacher might be the one turning it in to check the paper, while the student is the one that has a problem with it because now their work became the property of this site. Of course you could not use the site yourself, but the question here is about the legality of the TOS and options for students.
But if they accomplish the same thing via legislation, it's perfectly legal. Go figure.
I don't understand how something accomplished via legislation could be legal. Wait, isn't it because the law is always legal until changed? Yes, I'm joking.
Slashdot Mirror
Between the fact that Xbox sold more in the first weekend of launch than Dreamcast did in its first week, and that Japan has sunk into its worst recession in decades, I think Xbox is doing allright in Japan. Not to mention that if Japanese companies only released products if they were sure they were going to be successful in their home market, they wouldn't be dominating US electronics market like they do. Being successful in the US is plenty enough of success.
Meanwhile, that other console, the Xbox, with built-in broadband, hard drive, and superior graphics, and so ideally suited for FF series, gets no announcement. Square is really hurting for money, but I always understood that they did not support other consoles due to Sony part-ownership and pressure. The fact that they're willing to now release for GameCube appears to be _negative_ news for the GC console to me, as it means that Sony downgraded the threat that GC can cause to it, while Xbox's still remains high.
Of course it is silly, but why should it be counterproductive? It acknowledges that complex and obfuscated code does get created, so we might as well have fun with it. You don't say crossword puzzles are bad for encouraging word mangling, or that belly flop contents encourage overeating, do you? Lighten up :)
I can already see the "but Microsoft is a criminal!" responses to your post, though not from me. You might have been right if the only thing Sun seeking is cash. But they're not - check out what they're seeking, including getting government to force MS to include Java with the OS, open up their source code, and "unbundle" .NET (which is like saying, please unbundle use of C++ and DirectX). If that's not "looking for legal action," I don't know what is.
Let me comment on some of what you said, from my "little world."
.NET and Java can coexist, although most likely not peacefully. If the only thing that allows Java to survive is to get MS to bundle it with Windows, then it doesn't deserve to survive (but of course this is not the case).
... I'm glad MS isn't trying to destroy me in my little world of "Linux, KDE, StarOffice."
they hadn't sued then, Java wouldn't exist in a form we'd recognise today.
So, if they forked Java development, Sun's branch would have surely died? It might have definitely added confusion to the mix, but you don't see any scenario where native apps would continue running on Windows, and cross-platform apps would not use Windows native performance extensions? You make Java sound pretty weak by saying it would have died over this.
Once again, if they don't sue, Java will not exist in a form we can recognise in the future.
Well, gosh, things just keep getting worse, it sounds like. So the only thing keeping Java on the market is lawsuits, according to you? I'm hearing "If Sun doesn't keep suing, Java will die." Hmm, it's a pretty well established technology, let's give it some credit. I know it's easy to forget that market forces can allow technologies to survive or fail, why with daily lawsuits, but
Actually, in rereading the last 2 paragraphs, I really can't tell if you're joking. If you are, I didn't mean to respond with sarcasm. If you weren't, well
No, I don't work for Microsoft. And I didn't say it would create vulnerabilities where there were none before (I knew someone would bring some up), but rather that this would introduce new ones, inevitably. Yes, I know Linux is all open and it gets better code - they're different models of developing software. Unless everyone is going to fix MS's code for them and submit it back to them, and we're all going to be recompiling our NT kernels every few weeks, opening up their source is a bad idea, especially for systems used in production and high security environments.
Well, I'll stand by what I said. I do believe that Sun had a point about MS creating this bastardized version you mention, and they got what they wanted - MS stopped supporting it.
.NET Framework later this year. Which is once again meant to produce potentially native code using Java syntax, but I would put forward that there's really nothing wrong with that.
At the same time, while most on here will say that MS was doing it to get Java to fail, I understand why they did it. We all know native code is faster than interpreted. MS was getting comments from most Windows developers saying "What the hell is this? How am I supposed to use J++ instead of VB or C++ when the stuff it produces is so slow?" So they added a possibility of making it native.
Yes, they broke the cross-platform nature, but how about a wild example. I lease a car from a company, but instead of using it for driving, I take off the wheels and try to resell it as an exotic paperweight. I don't think any of my buyers would buy my paperweight if what they really wanted was a car - they'd go back to the original company. People programming J++ wanted fast native code, but liked Java syntax, and they were denied that.
Of course we can look to even more rehashing of this mess when MS adds J# support to the
Criminals should not get away with subsquent offenses merely becuase an inneffective prosecution is already underway
.NET accusation, b/c that's brand new, but this is still the same case that's been dragging on for years.
Hmm, perhaps you have called of this little document called The Bill of Rights? They kind of added it to the Constitution after the fact, so you might have missed it. Let's see...
Amendment 5: Grand Jury indictment required to prosecute a person for a serious crime. No "double jeopardy" -- being tried twice for the same offense. Forcing a person to testify against himself or herself prohibited. No loss of life, liberty or property without due process.
I think the "no double jeopardy" part invalidates what you said. This isn't a subsequent offense Sun is discussing, it's still the same IE bundling crap (because we all know an operating system is only meant to open and close file handles and load VGA drivers, web browser functionality should not be included). Of course they're also tacking on the
I also love the fact that Sun wants MS to:
.NET
.NET Framework is a development technology. How do you unbundle that? Always make 2 versions of your programs, ones that use COM and ones that use .NET? This is absolute bollocks. Sun is scared of .NET and wants to use this lawsuit settlement as a chance to give Java a boost and set .NET to fail. Perhaps we can let the marketplace sort this out.
1) Stop bundling
2) Start bundling Java
Let's think about this for a second. Microsoft should make all their technology available only as a separate download, but Sun's technology should be integrated and available in Windows?
I could also understand the argument of unbundling IE, I guess you could have an OS without a browser (nowadays, we'd call that crippled software), but
Dear sources, please stop giving us reasons to use Netscape, we already know it's a horrible browser with rapidly declining market share. Adding insult to injury is almost .. sad.
This sounds correct, but I still don't find myself feeling any sympathy for Sun. They're a competitor, and a strong one. First they sued so that Microsoft wouldn't include Java in the OS, and now they're suing because they didn't. MS tried with Java, and Sun thwarted them at every step (remember that MS started working with it even before Sun submitted it to standards bodies). So in XP, MS says forget this, we don't need the hassle this time around, and don't include it. And of course they're in trouble for it again.
I sure wish I had some Widget Software and could sue MS every time they released their OS without support for my Widgets. I mean, how dare they, they're putting me out of business here! Now every person who wants to use my Widgets has to download them for his or herself, which is costing me DAMAGES. That just doesn't seem right, does it? Please, dear Government, get this popular OS maker to include my Widgets and a link to my widgets.com site on their desktop.
I think forcing microsoft to release all current source code prior to win2k (including prior NT) to public, and requireing thm to fully document any new API's and file formats as public RFCs for a few years is a better idea.
Yes, I think every popular company should be forced to release for free code they spent millions of dollars writing, and that millions of servers are still running. Not like they didn't use any of that code in XP, so what do they still need it for, right? Hmm, perhaps Sun could lead the way by giving away the source to all their old stuff? Please let me know where I can download this.
Hmm, but how about the fact that this open up an incredible amount of exploits, because it would reveal how NT handles security, user authentication, database replication, and everything else? I sure want my NT servers to replicate to a hacked BDC because of your suggestion. I also want remote users to get get admin rights on my box because they can now do remote registry connects doing undocumented API calls that are hidden for a reason. Or perhaps we shouldn't force open-source solutions on a company that has every right to be closed-source?
Right, because "strong private industries" don't own any politicians. Microsoft is the only one. Man, that part where the MS-owned DOJ almost broke up the company was such a great fake show. And yes, I think Intel especially should sue them, I mean MS is putting Intel out of business with their MS Processor division. Please, next time, back up your facts.
I read the whole (short) review, but where exactly are there spoilers in here, especially from the 3rd act of the movie? The review devotes only a few short sentences to the plot itself, and in most generic of terms. Almost everyone knows the basic premise of this movie, so this does not give anything away. Usually I appreciate the warning about spoilers, but here it's hardly necessary, as no details about the outcome are revealed, or any successes/failures of any of the characters.
another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success,
Well, to be fair, Sun has already achieved plenty of success without the need for litigation. But at the same time, this is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows Sun hates Microsoft, and Microsoft is already taking so much damage from their federal case (please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock).
So, a biased company who is an arch competitor files suit against a company who is already responding to these allegations in a separate suit. This is frivolous. Worse yet, I'd call this harassment. I like Sun, but I don't like this move.
You're certainly right in that there are individuals who have achieved great things and have broken encryption schemes by many a company. I was certainly not making light of individual effort, but rather of the sense blind sense of optimism that b/c Linux is an open sourced system, surely someone will find a way to get these games to work under XWindows. As I pointed out, not only are the games themselves still encrypted, but also the graphics output here is competely different, and there has never been a completely working PS emulator that looked the same or worked for all games. Therefore, I think you are correct overall, but in this particular case, it's a very uphill struggle. Where's Linux on Xbox again? After all, that's just a standard PC, right? Or so the optimists claimed last year.
If only there was a way to get fully supported hardware acceleration for graphics outside of a $200 proprietary hardware kit.. Wait a second, my GeForce2 can run circles around the ancient PS2 jaggies and has a set of open libraries I can code against for game development.
I really don't understand why anyone would get so excited about this outside of the "geek factor." To me, it is a clear ploy by Sony to increase their hipness status in the tech community and to potentially even increase sales. They're not doing this for the public good, and I don't see useful applications for having a proprietary old console with 32MB RAM running Linux for an extra fee. Perhaps other people on here have higher disposable incomes than I do, I guess, and wish to turn as much of it as possible over to Sony.
Hmm, I bet Sony didn't think of that ONE MINOR DETAIL. I always like it when people think they're individually smarter than hundreds of designers and engineers at multibillion dollar corporations. I'm sure this is disabled in the hardware, and besides, the disks have to be booted off of to play. Also, I'm glad to hear that PS2 games support the same rendering techniques as those required to display graphics in XWindows, b/c I just thought it communicated directly with the hardware. Kudos on optimism, but I'm going to remain skeptical here.
Their drive and system does not support CDRs without a modchip, it has nothing to do with software. Therefore it is a hardware issue, not software, and no Linux modification had to be done. I hope that clears it up for you.
It's not part of their TOS, but rather in the statement they make that all contents of the site belong to them in their User Agreement. Now, as far as I'm concerned, this is just a standard disclaimer for "don't steal stuff from our site", but there seems to be a great deal of concern as to whether this covers content to submitted to them as well, which nothing seems to clarify.
Microsoft has not been proven to have done anything illegal involving Passport and .NET (they are still mostly under developement).
.NET has been officially launched, I did not mean as part of the current DOJ proceeding, but rather any future ones, of which the current one does not eliminate the possibility.
Well, besides the fact that I'd disagree with the "under development" part, as Passport is done and
Oh, I'm aware why they lost. But this was a technicality. mp3.com didn't steal the music, those cds they had legitimately, and I had the music legitimately as well. But because they made their mp3s available to me, this was unauthorized. So if you have an album but not with you, and I let you listen to my copy of it, we're both breaking the law by this logic. This case affected me even more than Napster, b/c I really liked the convenience and there is no comparable solution from anyone else.
They can hold on to it for checking, sure, but why should it become their property? I don't think the company is malicious in this case, just needs to clarify its TOS and what it can/cannot do with papers - ie "we reserve right to hold on to them for verification in database, but we will not attempt to republish them or make any other revenue or claims to ownership on them."
I think you're missing the point. The teacher might be the one turning it in to check the paper, while the student is the one that has a problem with it because now their work became the property of this site. Of course you could not use the site yourself, but the question here is about the legality of the TOS and options for students.
But if they accomplish the same thing via legislation, it's perfectly legal. Go figure.
I don't understand how something accomplished via legislation could be legal. Wait, isn't it because the law is always legal until changed? Yes, I'm joking.