Don't joke. There is a large collection of Windows software that simply doesn't run on Windows XP. I'm talking about software from the Win95-Win98 era. This software does run under Wine! I would love to see a port of Wine to Windows XP.
Now for the insightful part of the post: People have pointed out for years that auto manufacturers are experts at user interface design (though they're not always perfect and Ferarri perhaps focuses on other aspects) so I would expect some revolution in form factor on a Ferarri laptop. Maybe put the touchpad above the keyboard, or be the first to market a laptop with a non-qwerty keyboard, or to implement a new metaphor for interacting with your computer. "Desktop" is so cliche.
I second the thing about the touchpad. Not above the keyboard (where would you rest your wrists?) but I hate the touchpad below the keyboard. I keep tapping it while I'm typing. If I turn off tap (trackpad notap) then I lose a useful bit of functionality.
What I want is a touchpad that ejects from the side of the laptop. Like a flipout thing. So you can "park" it when you're typing and slide it out for mousing.
The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:
As an Australian citizen, aren't I entitled to 'just terms' (ie. compensation) for those public domain items which the governmet is going to try and steal from me?
Microsoft doesn't require a notice in writing delivered by snail mail for a cancellation, though. It's not underhanded; it's what he agreed to. I agree that it's shitty, but he needs to learn to read agreements that he makes himself subject to. Those were the terms, he said "yes", and now he's upset that he's being held to them.
If the "agreement" was illegal (eg, Microsoft wasn't allowed to automatically renew without at least a confirmation phone call or postal letter) then it doesn't matter if he agreed to automatic renewal. You can't be held to an illegal term in a contract.
PS: I'm not saying that the renewal does need confirmation by post or phone, I'm just offering that as an example. My point is that the contract cannot describe illegal actions, else it is not legally binding.
No, 90% is copyrighted. Linux is traded over P2P links. Linux is copyrighted. But trading Linux over P2P is not illegal.
The RIAA is using intentionally confusing language to inflate their figures. This was to be expected. The real figure for illegal trading is undoubtedly lower (though whether it's 1% slower or 99% lower is anybody's guess).
On a personal computer platform, you would probably be correct. However, the X-Box is a console, and differs in a number of important ways. One is that the "OS" and "libraries" are not separate from the application -- they are shipped with the application. In the case of the X-Box, they are statically linked to DirectX.
Oooo, I didn't know that. That makes it more interesting.
Virtual PC gets somewhere in the ballpark of 3 PowerPC cycles per 1 x86 cycle, average case. That would make the 733Ghz XB1 CPU roughly just *barely* runnable on the system you describe. However, Microsoft can't use the average case -- games are real-time systems, and they have to handle the worst case. I doubt they're going to manage emulation of the thing.
Except most of the cycles on the 733MHz (not Ghz!) x86 CPU are spent inside DirectX. The emu layer wouldn't bother emulating DirectX/x86; it would use a native PPC version. The emulation's only going to be necessary for game logic. That probably accounts for only a tiny fraction of a CPU, for most games.
It's much like when MacOS went from 68k to PPC. The PPC CPUs were fast, but not so fast that they could emulate all of MacOS plus the application. The reason the emulation layer was practical was that native PPC code was used for many parts of MacOS. The emulation was only used for some non-critical parts of MacOS and the application logic.
Home game consoles have never really be backward compatible. PS2 is the first real back-ward compatible that I know of (though someone will end up telling me differently).
Well, the line is a bit blurry.
If you count personal computers then the C128 was backwards compatible with the C64. The Atari 7800 was backwards compatible with the 2600. I'm calling these personal computers - because technically they are - but most people treated them as games consoles.
The Gameboy Colour was backwards compatible with the Gameboy. But I suppose that's a handheld rather than a console.
I don't know much about the Sega lineage, but I seem to recall that GameGear games could be played on the Genesis if you had a dongle to make the mini-carts fit into the normal sized slot? Somebody with more knowledge can correct this. I suppose that's not really backwards compatible because the GameGear was effectively a Genesis in a handheld formfactor.
Maybe you're right. I suppose it depends on your definition of "console" and what constitutes "backwards compatible".
Re:What is the *source* of the "RMS" controversy?
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
For some reason, Richard Stallman is demonized in the US as some eccentric loony. Yet the rest of the world actually holds him in very high regard. I have had the fortune of listening to him speak on the issue of software patents and not only was he articulate but he was able to appeal to a large audience made up of people from all walks of life.
He is fairly eccentric. I've met him twice and he's... uhh... he could do with a visit from the Queer Eye TV show.
However I suspect the real reason that he's considered a "loony" in the USA is because he doesn't bow to the almighty dollar. I'm not trolling. Americans seem overly concerned about money. Notice that one of the first things an American asks after learning about free software is "how will programmers get paid?" No thoughts about how it can help less fortunate countries, or less fortunate districts within America. No thoughts about how sharing software would lead to advancements in software because programmers will be freed up to work on new and exciting things. No thoughts about advancing science or technology for the benefit of mankind. Not even thinking that maybe these hobbyists write free software because they want to! An American's primary cause for concern is "where's the personal financial gain?"
I think this is because USA punishes people without money. If you don't make lots of money you live on the streets. There is no socialism. No "safety net" if you lose your job. It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich. Poor people are "losers". That makes it hard for an American to get past the "no cost" aspect of Free Software and start to understand the freedom aspects.
I'm not saying money is unimportant. But RMS sees a balance between money and sharing. Between proprietary interests and the public interest. He tries to communicate that software is not just about technology and "innovation". It's also about political and social improvement. America rewards financial success, not social improvement, and I think that's really sad.
NB: And I'm not saying that Americans only think about money, or that no other culture has similar disdain for slackabouts, or that no other culture pursues financial success as a means of evaluating worth. I'm just saying that it's more exaggerated in Americans. That's just my ignorant opinion (I've never lived in America) but I suspect my ignorant opinion is not unique and not far off the mark.
Scramjets don't push through the air. They suck it in for combustion.
ROFL!
That is just wrong on so many levels.
OK, it was a poor choice of language, a scramjet actually rams the air in (supersonic compressed ramjet). My point was that they don't "push" the air out of the way.
You do realize, don't you, that it is impossible to suck air to a speed greater than Mach 1?
I did fluid dynamics in university, and I know what you just said is not true.
Secondly, pushing through all that air creates drag.
Scramjets don't push through the air. They suck it in for combustion.
Scramjets have some limited use for high speed short range flight but rockets are far more efficient and the only practical way to get to orbit.
Horses were still the only practical means of getting around when the first steam engines were being developed. Times change. Technology improves. Chemical fuel rockets will one day be considered as archaic as steam engines.
Someone should email Bill Gates a link to this discussion...the Slashdot croud is on _his_ side on an issue.
Guess I'd better sharpen my skates, hell is freezing over.
I don't think it's that surprising. Slashdot has a bad rap as being rabidly anti-Microsoft - maybe that's true - but I think Slashdotters do carry the torch for Microsoft often enough.
For example, Slashdotters were predominantly against the Eolas patent. I think the resentment of software patents significantly overwhelms any negative feelings towards Microsoft.
We were split fairly evenly over the DOJ vs Microsoft case. Even though my own reading says Microsoft was as guilty as sin, and I couldn't believe the amount of support they were getting from Slashdotters.
Even recent conspiracy theories, like the one where Microsoft is secretly funding SCO to destroy Linux, seem to get more ridicule than support. Which is good, because I think it's one of the most ridiculous tin-foil hat nonsenses I've ever heard.
In any case, there's enough Microsoft fanboys on Slashdot to hold their own in any argument. You should checkout the Microsoft blogs if you want overwhelming one-sided bias. Makes Slashdot look neutral!
Re:How did this virus spread so easily?
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 1
An infection where the user knowledgeably accepts a substance ( even if considered harmless at the moment of acceptance ) should be called "a poison", not "a virus".
It's already called a trojan, which I think is a much better name than a poison.
Whoa - your friend just proved that despite the efforts of IBM, Red Hat and others to defend Linux against the FUD being spread by its competitors, that some of it is still getting through to the enduser. Her comment about Linux being swallowed by the corporations is a frightening one, and proves (at least to me) that we need to be much more proactive when it comes to explaining the philosophy and history of the Linux distribution, so that people don't continue to make this mistake in their thinking.
The story is a fantasy. Look at the nick. It's a troll.
However if that story was true, I would suggest you explain the cost of Linux. The history and philosophy is not interesting to most people. The $0 cost will get their attention.
The Tux cartoon is not copyrighted--anyone can use it for free
Does that mean that any company (SCO, M$) could copyright the Tux logo and we won't be able to use it anymore?
The Tux logo is copyrighted. Larry just has a royalty-free unlimited license arrangement with... well, everybody.
It's the same with Linux. The article says it is owned by nobody. Linux is owned by lots of people. The copyright notices are all over the place. But the Linux license grants royalty-free copying.
I am indeed, since your post appeared after I updated the killfile with new assholes. I do apologize.
May I suggest there are other people you have added to your killfiles who don't belong there, because of similar identity mistakes you've made.
The dangers of killfiles, neatly illustrated. You're banning the person, rather than listening to their point of view. It's rather silly. You'll notice I don't have any friends/foes because I'm opposed to such indiscriminant censorship.
See, when the actual engineers tell me that they've reviewed a certain feature, measured it, analyzed it, and decided that they don't want it, I'm pretty certain they know what they're doing. Frankly, I don't need to worry about some random slashdotter's opposing opinions, because, well, they're clearly wrong in this situation. I mean, I just got off the phone with one of the engineers, and they're quite pleased that "unneeded and unused features are no longer present, or can be disabled".
My opinion of engineers is that they're like any other field: 90% of them are effing useless. You say they "measure it" and "analyze it"? In my experience, this is rarer than you might hope. These self-proclaimed "engineers" can say things like "oh, you don't need memory protection" but that doesn't mean they're right. I've worked with embedded "engineers" who held open disdain for C. They wrote everything in assembly, claiming that this was "how things were done!". Their code was always late, buggy, and rewritten for the next revision because it was entirely unmaintainable.
I have an example. I didn't work on it, but an embedded engineer friend did. It was an embedded photo scanner. The C prototype had been completed. It worked. It met all requirements. It was neat and maintainable. It ran on the spec'd hardware. It was ready to ship. The senior "engineer" in charge (he didn't have an engineering degree) decided it must be rewritten in assembly. Months later the company folded. The incomplete assembly version was larger and slower than the C prototype.
I have another example, from folklore.org. The Apple II mouse card was prototyped by Burrell and Hertzfeld. They managed to get it working with a single chip and some clever software. Despite a working prototype, the Apple "engineers" decided it could not be implemented in any less than a dozen chips. They believed in hardware, rather than the clever combination of hardware and software.
As a final note, I have an engineering degree (a real one, from a real university) and I don't think you can call yourself an engineer merely because you obtained that piece of paper. Some of my fellow graduands went on to become accountants and computer programmers. What a waste! I'm not saying they're stupid - I consider every single one of my fellow graduands to have been extremely intelligent - but they didn't care about the nuts and bolts. They weren't engineers. Wozniak and Burrell were engineers. They didn't even have the pieces of paper!
So my opinion of "engineers" is not very high. I have more respect for the enthusiasts who actually do stuff - whether they be professional or amateur - as opposed to the wankers who say "I work at NASA" and "I have a PhD in astrophysics" as if that justifies every wrong decision they've ever made. I've worked on enough projects to make my own judgement, so when someone says "you don't need memory protection" I know that 9 times out of 10 they're wrong. When they counter "I'm a rocket scientist, I don't need to justify my conclusions" it merely confirms my opinion that they don't know what they're doing. Real Engineers love to justify their reasoning to everybody.
Windows 2006 will have "integrated" Internet search functionality. This will be pervasive throughout the help system, the file explorer, the Internet explorer, etc. However it will always use Microsoft's search engine.
2 years later, the FTC will notice and declare this is a violation of the 1994 Consent Decree. They will pass it on to the DOJ who will fuck around for 5 years and do absolutely goddamn nothing.
Microsoft will argue that they can't use any other search engine because of some inane reason.
This will be despite massive amounts of evidence brought forth by search engine experts, and a patch floating around the Internet to use Google instead of Microsoft's search engine.
Bill Gates will go on a brainwashing campaign to convince the American Public (god bless their little hearts) that this is all about innovation! That Microsoft should be allowed to innovate in a patriotic demonstration of truth, liberty, and the American way. Millions of Microsoft cheerleaders will rally around Microsoft, saying that Google sucks and the Microsoft's search engine is clearly superior and that it's entirely unfair for the government to be outlawing innovation!
In 2013 Microsoft will be found guilty of violating the 1994 Consent Decree. As punishment they will be told not to do it again. Which they'll promise to do. Just like they promised the last two times.
By then it will be too late. Google will be dead.
Forgive my cynicism... but I've seen this all before!
I find it amazing that a story like this can garner over 100 posts about SCO, yet as far as I can determine nobody is able to view the story. What are you all blathering about?
I read the Groklaw story when it was published yesterday.
Given the popularity of Groklaw I imagine many Slashdotters also read the story yesterday.
Which, of course, is an exaggeration. Any such requirements come from the deal your shop has signed with Microsoft. If the contract stipulates that in order to get OEM discounts you must sell MS Windows with every piece of complete hardware you sell, that's a perfectly reasonable clause.
Except for those pesky antitrust laws, sure.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and DOJ (Department of Justice) got Microsoft into trouble for exclusive OEM deals back in 1994.
The OEM exclusive licensing was part of the FTC investigation. From that link
The major illegal practice cited in the complaint was that Microsoft imposes a per processor license fee on OEMs, which means the manufacturers would have to pay Microsoft a royalty for each PC they sold, even if it did not include a Microsoft operating system. See the section on OEM Licensing Issues for details.
The FTC and DOJ didn't consider per-processor licensing to be "perfectly reasonable". Microsoft settled out of court rather than go to trial; they knew they would lose.
That settlement led to the Microsoft Consent Decree. Basically Microsoft promised never to do it again. This attracted criticism from Judge Sporkin who said:
Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already gained
Of course, Microsoft violated the Consent Decree in 1997 in order to destroy a new company called Netscape. The Consent Decree was worthless (as many people said it was).
Why should I bother addressing any of your points?
Why indeed.
You started your side of the conversation by saying everything I wrote was "Garbage."
You're thinking of somebody else. I never even used that word, much less to describe everything you wrote.
I don't use VxWorks...
I wonder why you'd say that, then say...
I do interact with it [VxWorks] and its designers on a day-to-day basis.
Oh, but you don't use VxWorks. You just "interact" with it. I see.
I read 1984 in junior-high, and in high school, and in two college courses, and I make it a point to read it every year two since. Same with Brave New World and the other standard civil-libertarian-warnings books. Don't really know what your point was trying to be there.
Wow. Have you thought about buying another book? It's not healthy to read the same book over and over again. That's... like... compulsive repetitive behaviour.
See, dude, that's why I'll be adding you to the killfile once I submit this.
Giggle. Does Slashdot even have killfiles?
Go ahead and say whatever you want now, I'm not going to see it.
I couldn't have described you any better if I'd tried. You really summed yourself up beautifully. Even funnier in light of your comment that I'm not open to anybody elses viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
And Basilisk (for 68k MacOS).
Don't joke. There is a large collection of Windows software that simply doesn't run on Windows XP. I'm talking about software from the Win95-Win98 era. This software does run under Wine! I would love to see a port of Wine to Windows XP.
I like how they carefully neglect to mention the IBM lawsuit against them over patents, which IBM will definitely win.
Legally unencumbered? I don't think so.
I second the thing about the touchpad. Not above the keyboard (where would you rest your wrists?) but I hate the touchpad below the keyboard. I keep tapping it while I'm typing. If I turn off tap (trackpad notap) then I lose a useful bit of functionality.
What I want is a touchpad that ejects from the side of the laptop. Like a flipout thing. So you can "park" it when you're typing and slide it out for mousing.
You keep telling yourself that... God boy. However only 7% of scientists believe in a personal god.
So you'd be arguing The Castle defence.
If the "agreement" was illegal (eg, Microsoft wasn't allowed to automatically renew without at least a confirmation phone call or postal letter) then it doesn't matter if he agreed to automatic renewal. You can't be held to an illegal term in a contract.
PS: I'm not saying that the renewal does need confirmation by post or phone, I'm just offering that as an example. My point is that the contract cannot describe illegal actions, else it is not legally binding.
No, 90% is copyrighted. Linux is traded over P2P links. Linux is copyrighted. But trading Linux over P2P is not illegal.
The RIAA is using intentionally confusing language to inflate their figures. This was to be expected. The real figure for illegal trading is undoubtedly lower (though whether it's 1% slower or 99% lower is anybody's guess).
And Linux zealot != Linux criminal.
Oooo, I didn't know that. That makes it more interesting.
Just do Open Firmware you stupid NIH Intelidiots.
Except most of the cycles on the 733MHz (not Ghz!) x86 CPU are spent inside DirectX. The emu layer wouldn't bother emulating DirectX/x86; it would use a native PPC version. The emulation's only going to be necessary for game logic. That probably accounts for only a tiny fraction of a CPU, for most games.
It's much like when MacOS went from 68k to PPC. The PPC CPUs were fast, but not so fast that they could emulate all of MacOS plus the application. The reason the emulation layer was practical was that native PPC code was used for many parts of MacOS. The emulation was only used for some non-critical parts of MacOS and the application logic.
Well, the line is a bit blurry.
If you count personal computers then the C128 was backwards compatible with the C64. The Atari 7800 was backwards compatible with the 2600. I'm calling these personal computers - because technically they are - but most people treated them as games consoles.
The Gameboy Colour was backwards compatible with the Gameboy. But I suppose that's a handheld rather than a console.
I don't know much about the Sega lineage, but I seem to recall that GameGear games could be played on the Genesis if you had a dongle to make the mini-carts fit into the normal sized slot? Somebody with more knowledge can correct this. I suppose that's not really backwards compatible because the GameGear was effectively a Genesis in a handheld formfactor.
Maybe you're right. I suppose it depends on your definition of "console" and what constitutes "backwards compatible".
He is fairly eccentric. I've met him twice and he's... uhh... he could do with a visit from the Queer Eye TV show.
However I suspect the real reason that he's considered a "loony" in the USA is because he doesn't bow to the almighty dollar. I'm not trolling. Americans seem overly concerned about money. Notice that one of the first things an American asks after learning about free software is "how will programmers get paid?" No thoughts about how it can help less fortunate countries, or less fortunate districts within America. No thoughts about how sharing software would lead to advancements in software because programmers will be freed up to work on new and exciting things. No thoughts about advancing science or technology for the benefit of mankind. Not even thinking that maybe these hobbyists write free software because they want to! An American's primary cause for concern is "where's the personal financial gain?"
I think this is because USA punishes people without money. If you don't make lots of money you live on the streets. There is no socialism. No "safety net" if you lose your job. It's shameful for an American to be without money. Success is tied with being rich. Poor people are "losers". That makes it hard for an American to get past the "no cost" aspect of Free Software and start to understand the freedom aspects.
I'm not saying money is unimportant. But RMS sees a balance between money and sharing. Between proprietary interests and the public interest. He tries to communicate that software is not just about technology and "innovation". It's also about political and social improvement. America rewards financial success, not social improvement, and I think that's really sad.
NB: And I'm not saying that Americans only think about money, or that no other culture has similar disdain for slackabouts, or that no other culture pursues financial success as a means of evaluating worth. I'm just saying that it's more exaggerated in Americans. That's just my ignorant opinion (I've never lived in America) but I suspect my ignorant opinion is not unique and not far off the mark.
OK, it was a poor choice of language, a scramjet actually rams the air in (supersonic compressed ramjet). My point was that they don't "push" the air out of the way.
I did fluid dynamics in university, and I know what you just said is not true.
Scramjets don't push through the air. They suck it in for combustion.
Horses were still the only practical means of getting around when the first steam engines were being developed. Times change. Technology improves. Chemical fuel rockets will one day be considered as archaic as steam engines.
I don't think it's that surprising. Slashdot has a bad rap as being rabidly anti-Microsoft - maybe that's true - but I think Slashdotters do carry the torch for Microsoft often enough.
For example, Slashdotters were predominantly against the Eolas patent. I think the resentment of software patents significantly overwhelms any negative feelings towards Microsoft.
We were split fairly evenly over the DOJ vs Microsoft case. Even though my own reading says Microsoft was as guilty as sin, and I couldn't believe the amount of support they were getting from Slashdotters.
Even recent conspiracy theories, like the one where Microsoft is secretly funding SCO to destroy Linux, seem to get more ridicule than support. Which is good, because I think it's one of the most ridiculous tin-foil hat nonsenses I've ever heard.
In any case, there's enough Microsoft fanboys on Slashdot to hold their own in any argument. You should checkout the Microsoft blogs if you want overwhelming one-sided bias. Makes Slashdot look neutral!
It's already called a trojan, which I think is a much better name than a poison.
The story is a fantasy. Look at the nick. It's a troll.
However if that story was true, I would suggest you explain the cost of Linux. The history and philosophy is not interesting to most people. The $0 cost will get their attention.
The Tux logo is copyrighted. Larry just has a royalty-free unlimited license arrangement with ... well, everybody.
It's the same with Linux. The article says it is owned by nobody. Linux is owned by lots of people. The copyright notices are all over the place. But the Linux license grants royalty-free copying.
May I suggest there are other people you have added to your killfiles who don't belong there, because of similar identity mistakes you've made.
The dangers of killfiles, neatly illustrated. You're banning the person, rather than listening to their point of view. It's rather silly. You'll notice I don't have any friends/foes because I'm opposed to such indiscriminant censorship.
My opinion of engineers is that they're like any other field: 90% of them are effing useless. You say they "measure it" and "analyze it"? In my experience, this is rarer than you might hope. These self-proclaimed "engineers" can say things like "oh, you don't need memory protection" but that doesn't mean they're right. I've worked with embedded "engineers" who held open disdain for C. They wrote everything in assembly, claiming that this was "how things were done!". Their code was always late, buggy, and rewritten for the next revision because it was entirely unmaintainable.
I have an example. I didn't work on it, but an embedded engineer friend did. It was an embedded photo scanner. The C prototype had been completed. It worked. It met all requirements. It was neat and maintainable. It ran on the spec'd hardware. It was ready to ship. The senior "engineer" in charge (he didn't have an engineering degree) decided it must be rewritten in assembly. Months later the company folded. The incomplete assembly version was larger and slower than the C prototype.
I have another example, from folklore.org. The Apple II mouse card was prototyped by Burrell and Hertzfeld. They managed to get it working with a single chip and some clever software. Despite a working prototype, the Apple "engineers" decided it could not be implemented in any less than a dozen chips. They believed in hardware, rather than the clever combination of hardware and software.
As a final note, I have an engineering degree (a real one, from a real university) and I don't think you can call yourself an engineer merely because you obtained that piece of paper. Some of my fellow graduands went on to become accountants and computer programmers. What a waste! I'm not saying they're stupid - I consider every single one of my fellow graduands to have been extremely intelligent - but they didn't care about the nuts and bolts. They weren't engineers. Wozniak and Burrell were engineers. They didn't even have the pieces of paper!
So my opinion of "engineers" is not very high. I have more respect for the enthusiasts who actually do stuff - whether they be professional or amateur - as opposed to the wankers who say "I work at NASA" and "I have a PhD in astrophysics" as if that justifies every wrong decision they've ever made. I've worked on enough projects to make my own judgement, so when someone says "you don't need memory protection" I know that 9 times out of 10 they're wrong. When they counter "I'm a rocket scientist, I don't need to justify my conclusions" it merely confirms my opinion that they don't know what they're doing. Real Engineers love to justify their reasoning to everybody.
Windows 2006 will have "integrated" Internet search functionality. This will be pervasive throughout the help system, the file explorer, the Internet explorer, etc. However it will always use Microsoft's search engine.
2 years later, the FTC will notice and declare this is a violation of the 1994 Consent Decree. They will pass it on to the DOJ who will fuck around for 5 years and do absolutely goddamn nothing.
Microsoft will argue that they can't use any other search engine because of some inane reason. This will be despite massive amounts of evidence brought forth by search engine experts, and a patch floating around the Internet to use Google instead of Microsoft's search engine.
Bill Gates will go on a brainwashing campaign to convince the American Public (god bless their little hearts) that this is all about innovation! That Microsoft should be allowed to innovate in a patriotic demonstration of truth, liberty, and the American way. Millions of Microsoft cheerleaders will rally around Microsoft, saying that Google sucks and the Microsoft's search engine is clearly superior and that it's entirely unfair for the government to be outlawing innovation!
In 2013 Microsoft will be found guilty of violating the 1994 Consent Decree. As punishment they will be told not to do it again. Which they'll promise to do. Just like they promised the last two times.
By then it will be too late. Google will be dead.
Forgive my cynicism... but I've seen this all before!
I read the Groklaw story when it was published yesterday.
Given the popularity of Groklaw I imagine many Slashdotters also read the story yesterday.
Except for those pesky antitrust laws, sure.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and DOJ (Department of Justice) got Microsoft into trouble for exclusive OEM deals back in 1994.
The OEM exclusive licensing was part of the FTC investigation. From that link
The FTC and DOJ didn't consider per-processor licensing to be "perfectly reasonable". Microsoft settled out of court rather than go to trial; they knew they would lose.
That settlement led to the Microsoft Consent Decree. Basically Microsoft promised never to do it again. This attracted criticism from Judge Sporkin who said:
Of course, Microsoft violated the Consent Decree in 1997 in order to destroy a new company called Netscape. The Consent Decree was worthless (as many people said it was).
Why indeed.
You're thinking of somebody else. I never even used that word, much less to describe everything you wrote.
I wonder why you'd say that, then say...
Oh, but you don't use VxWorks. You just "interact" with it. I see.
Wow. Have you thought about buying another book? It's not healthy to read the same book over and over again. That's... like... compulsive repetitive behaviour.
Giggle. Does Slashdot even have killfiles?
I couldn't have described you any better if I'd tried. You really summed yourself up beautifully. Even funnier in light of your comment that I'm not open to anybody elses viewpoint.