Why would it be Microsoft's responsibility to tell you how to configure a Linux server?
It's nothing to do with the Linux server, but the W2K clients. It's their OS, so wouldn't you think they'd want to help you get it configured in you network which runs Samba servers? Nah, they'd rather have you use Corel Linux on the desktop, then W2K, if they can't have everything.
I've got counter emails from people saying it it's a hoax, and I haven't heard anything from CERT, Norton or McAfee, so I am assuming it is safe.
It's a hoax. I got it too. Symantec has a write-up on it.
-Brent
Re:IE's marketshare seems to be growing fast.
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 2
With a 21 Meg source code footprint I serriously doubt that Mozilla will compete on the embeded market any time soon.
I would like to say -- "Get a clue":)
Although the complete source code package has a size of 21 meg, this includes a lot of stuff. It includes all the OS specific trees, e-mail, editor, newsreader, front-ends. Embedded applications won't need nearly all that code. Probably only need gecko, and a few other modules, and gecko is under 2 meg.
So, what do you think *does* compete in the embedded market now? If you say IE, I'll scream...
Every day that IE 5 is out there and Communicator 5 is not, is a victory for Microsoft and its legions of FUD-spewing zombies.
Not really. A web browser is a commodity product. Like bread. You buy one brand of bread one week, but another brand the next week. Nothing keep you using one brand of bread over another expect your own preference. It's the same with a web browser. There is no technical reason forcing you to use a certain web browser. Use IE this week, Mozilla the next. Even if IE had 100% marketshare, it wouldn't mean anything when Mozilla was released.
I agree with you about MS FUD though. They'll try to milk as much from IE as they can. DIE, baby, DIE!!
-Brent
Re:IE's marketshare seems to be growing fast.
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 2
Not to bash Microsoft for being Microsoft, but they're mindshare of IE is growing terribly fast. Communicator is buggy and lacking in features. They really need to get a rock solid product out the door and never look back.
IE's marketshare is growing because it is the *only* browser out there. To claim that Communicator competes with IE is to claim that a '96 model Chevy competes with this years model Ford. Sorry, it'll never fly.
We all know now that it won't work to compete against Microsoft on features alone. If IE and Mozilla are identical, no one will use Mozilla. Mozilla needs to compete in areas that Microsoft can't. Outside of just plain old web browsing. Mozilla will need to use applications like Internet Appliances, wireless phones, web pads, administration front-ends, as a wrench to get in the market. From there, they'll be able to overtake MS. Nokia, AOL, Zope, and other companies will be using Mozilla in their applications. As a plain browser, Mozilla and IE can be used interchangably. So there is no loss if everyone uses IE for web browsing. When Mozilla is finished, people will use it. But embedded is harder to replace. Mozilla needed to focus, not on just browsing, to the work with the companies that will embed mozilla to make mozilla the best embeddable browser ever.
But hasn't Netscape/AOL shown a complete lack of interest in fixing bugs in Communicator? Haven't a lot of the same bugs persisted from 4.5 to 4.6 to 4.7? I believe a lot of people have given up on them.
That's not surprising. The Communicator base has no future. It's a dead product. Why fix bugs in something that you don't want anyone to use anyways. Communicator is only used for 20% of surfing anymore either, as people have started to use IE while mozilla is being developed. Put all efforts into mozilla so that when it is released everyone will be able to drop IE for a real browser.
That's all that IE is anyways. An up-to-date crutch to use while waiting for Mozilla. A big thanks to Microsoft for providing a browser while we take the time to do it right!
Of course, then you have to decide whether you want to put up with the marketing monitors & spam which would show up on your appliance (if a singing, dancing spam shows up on my toaster, I'm taking it out for target practice).
Wait until Microsoft tries to port WindowsCE to your microwave. Then you'll really see the paperclip in action!
Paperclip: Greetings, please choose your food type.
*push 'potatoe'*
Paperclip: *teewang* Please choose how you would like your potatoe done.
So.. Since BeOS is not open source fat-time (the guardian of cheese and open source) was urged to murder the salesman? If this is what Open Source(TM) is to become, I want no part of it.
Take it easy. This is just some lame attempt at humor. Chuckle and move on. Thanks...
Besides whats the point of networking all of your appliances together. It seems like a big waste of time to me. I mean so you want to make a couple of pieces of toast or warm up a bowl of soup in your microwave.
There's a lot of good reasons to network together appliances. And not just remote administration. Perhaps you want that bowl of soup to be warm when the toast is done. So the microwave can check the toaster and keep the microwave on "warm" until the toast is done. *Then* it can pop up a message letting you know your meal is ready.
Hop on your computer wait for it to boot up and then program the silly microwave to cook for 2 minutes on high?
If you'd be using BeOS you wouldn't need to wait 2 minutes for it to boot:) Of course, it is more likely that the appliances will have a administration panel on the front that you will use.
Appliances need networking like I need another hole in my head.
Nope, we *need* networked appliances. We also need networked heating/cooling, lighting, security, cars.
the e-mail Slashdot readers sent did a lot of good.
In every group there are always those bashers that are ready to send hate mail to anyone who isn't "for" their cause. *Those* e-mails probably didn't do a lot of good at Fox. However, it sounded like a lot of people took the time to write quality level-headed e-mails to the right people. And for that I have a big thank-you to everyone.
You would also need to have some way for all the independant servers to communicate who is online/offline.
It's really not a big deal. The username could be like an e-mail address. For instance, my IM address could be bmetzler@pluto.twistedpair.net. Now you would have my ID on your IM client list. When you went on, it would grab the IP for pluto.twistedpair.net, and then query the server for my status. It would then repeat this for each user on your list. In this way, each ISP could have their own IM server, and/or users could get accounts from 3rd party services, like they do for e-mail now. To make it even better, companies could require a certain client to use their service, just like e-mail. That way, if you used an ISP's server, you could choose any client you want, since you'd be paying for the service. But AOL could still offer it to anyone for free, but you'd have to use their client. (Like Juno does with e-mail.)
I'm beginning to wonder if a standard will be developed for instant messaging, much like was done for email so many years ago.
No doubt about that. A real multi-vendor IM protocol is needed. Unfortunately, AOL's IM protocols aren't, and other companies should stop making it sound like it is. Until there is a true multi-vendor protocol, if companies what to interoperate with AOL, the answer is simple. Go to AOL, talk, work out a licensing agreement, chuck over any cash agreed on. It sounds like AT&T has followed licensing agreements. We'll have to see what AOL has to say. Microsoft, OTOH, did not.
Who knows; perhaps when Internet 2 opens up, your ISP will assign users an email address and an IM address?
I see this happening. For IM to be truly open, each ISP would have to run their own server, and give each user their own account.
I was exposed to Slackware when I was a newbie, and it didn't scare me at all
My first Distro was Slackware too, and I was a MS-lovin Windows bigot.
UNIX hasn't changed much, but are today's newbies different from the newbies we had four or five years ago?
Yes they are. Newbies today that the CNet article is focusing on are those how think/or heard that Linux is important. They don't "learn" Windows, so why should they learn Linux. 5 years ago, anyone who used Linux would be interested in learning all about it.
We shouldn't assume that all newbies are stupid.
Of course not. There'll always be people who really want to learn Linux. But as Linux becomes more popular, there'll be people wanting it use it without knowing what a kernel is.
But again, the most hack-inclined will climb up to different distros, pretty much like natural selection.
My point exactly. Something that is dumbed down is going to cause a motivated hacker to look for something better. But something that is a little more challenging will just scare those who don't want to learn off.
A console-based installer is not inherently difficult. That's the most idiotic trend I think I've ever seen in product reviews.
I agree with you. Except for one point, and that is that a graphical install allows you to lay out more information on the screen better, say help windows or whatnot.
We (Slackware) had a bunch of guys come up to the booth at Comdex and tell us how difficult our install was (or so they'd heard). So we let them install it. After making some cracks about our "outdated" installer, they got it up and running, into KDE and browsing the web (this was a full installation) within 20 minutes. Then they left.
I just installed a Slackware system and *did* have a major problem. I quick the install after selecting the target drive. When I restarted, I started at the source media where I left off, not realizing that the target menu actually mounted the drive. (Silly me!) The install didn't tell me that it failed because the target media wasn't mounted so it took a while to figure out what was going wrong.
But anyways, that has nothing to do with a console based install, so overall, I can't say that graphical installs make a lot of difference.
Too bad they had to give out number ratings. I'm sure this will steer people away from excellent distributions such as Slackware (my fav) and Debian.
Oh I don't think so. It's like my friends trying to get me to get into snowmobiling. They build their snowmobiles, but don't expect me too. I'll buy a snowmodile fully assembled, play around with it, and then when I get more comfortable with it perhaps then I'll build my own.
It's the same with Linux distributions. For newbies, they aren't interested in assembling their own Linux system, like you and I are. Instead, they use Corel, learn about it, and then when they know more, they will be interested in checking out more "flexible" distributions.
Just like if I had to assemble my own snowmobile, I wouldn't do it, so would exposing newbies to Slackware and Debian would turn them off. There's just something for everyone here.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but throughout the case the government seemed to be more concerned with how Microsoft harmed competitors than with how they harmed consumers.
I've been watching this case for a long time, and have not *yet* seen an instance that could be claimed that the DoJ was acting in the interest of competitors over consumers. The DoJ focused on the real issues involving anti-trust violations very well, as we can see in the FoF. Now, on the other hand, I've seen plenty from Microosft claiming that the DoJ was just being the bully.
My concern is that the remedy the government forces apon Microsoft will solve the problem by forcing Microsoft to stop innovating.
This won't happen. There's not even doubt here, that the DoJ will somehow prevent MS from innovating. It is just simply not going to happen. It would take a *lot* to have a sentence that would stifle innovation. Now hopefully the DoJ will at least somewhat force Microsoft to stop violating anti-trust laws, which I might add forces the competitors to stop innovating.
You see, Microsoft was right, this case *is* about innovation. But not their innovation, and not the DoJ stopping their innovation. It is about the competitor's innovation, and Microsoft forcing *them* to stop innovating.
Microsoft loses control of their APIs and can no longer decide how their OS will change and evolve, they will stagnate.
If Microsoft is broken up, they will *not* lose control over their API. they'll have to treat how they "protect" their API's different, yes. But they won't lose control. They'll be innovating, they'll just have to innovate with other companies. I know that's hard to comprehend, but it works. There are lots over applications that interact fine with others. Most of the internet, for instance. There's nothing different about Windows. The Linux kernel is developed by multiple companies/hackers, and it seems to be holding together.
If Microsoft has a natural monopoly, should the govenment be trying to break the monopoly, or simply trying to find a way to keep them from using that monopoly power illegally.
Microsoft needs to settle the case before the verdict. They could, but they said that wouldn't if it infringed on their ability to violate anti-trust laws in the future. If they don't settle, the verdict will undoubtedly be guilty, and as a lack of willing compliance to previous settlement talks, I think the DoJ will see the only thing that will force Microsoft to comply would be to break Microsoft up.
Also, keep in mind the the DoJ anti-trust lawyers are undoubtedly top experts in anti-trust law, and when their actions differ from our opinion, it is us that are wrong.
It's not like you were prevented from selling your product, it's just that your competitor was giving away its version for free.
No, you are wrong. Giving away the browser free was just one of the things Microsoft did. And giving awa the browser, or even, I must say, bundling it with another piece of software is not wrong. Loki is bundling SuSE 6.3 with Quake III. Sun is giving away StarOffice. No problems with either of those.
But Microsoft recognised that it wasn't just enough to give away IE. Indeed, OEM's were still choosing to bundle Netscape instead of IE. That's why they decided to make it impossible for OEM's to bundle Netscape. They did this by threatening to without licensing agreements if the OEM preloaded Netscape, and also by paying the penalties that the OEM's incurred by breaking their contracts with Netscape.
That was an anti-trust violation. The OEM's business depended on Windows, and Microsoft used that to get the OEM's to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done. And that violation is the *only* thing the case is about. It wasn't about giving IE away. It was even about bundling, although the issue of bundling had to be defined in the case. If Microsoft had simply given IE away and bundled it with Windows, there wouldn't have been a case.
As to which browser is better, currently IE is noticeably better than Netscape.
Netscape 4.x maybe. But that's a dead product. There'd be something dreadfully wrong if IE *wasn't* better then Netscape. But Mozilla is a different story.
Right now it is perfectly acceptable to supply the browser as part of the operating system (yes, MS won).
Will this be the only point I concede on?:) I must admit, I didn't realize that the trial has had such an impact already. I gave Gateway a call, and was more then pleased to find that the sell their systems with Netscape *and* IE preloaded. Later all have to talk with all the OEM's and see what the response is. Certainly though, that is a good sign, that whether or not Microsoft is found guilty, that the trial has, for a time, hindered their ability to continue violating anti-trust laws.
Netscape currently really, really sucks
Well, I agree with you here too. It does. It didn't 2 years ago when it was released, because it was more or less up to date then, just like IE 4 was. However, I think IE 4 sucks too. IE 5 is just so much better. Mozilla will be better too, because it'll support all the current technologies. It's like going out and buying a '98 model car. That would've been great in '97, but not today.
How does one go about choosing which version of Windows when one has nothing to base one's decision upon?
Since the idea is that any one of the OS's can be replaced by another, each OEM will only sell one version. The vendor they license from will be the vendor that is willing to work with them the most. It'd be sort of like the processor market now. OEM's decide which lines will have Intel chips and which ones will have AMD chips. The consumer just buys the model they want.
Look at e.g. Beta vs. VHS wars -- only one could live.
I think you just did a great job proving my point. VHS won, not because it was better technology, but because it was supported by multiple vendors. And yet I don't see any incompatibilities with my VCR because multiple companies manufacture them. Same with Windows. If Windows was broken into into multiple companies, that wouldn't cause incompatibilities *at all*. And the dominant players, would be the "VHS" ones. The ones that all worked together, not the "Beta" one, that tried to control the market.
Certainly there will be a dominant OS, but there's nothing to prevent that OS from being developed, marketed and sold by more then one company.
My point is that even if the interface exists, the complexity of efficiently interacting with something so complicated as an OS (or even a video card driver/hardware) is such that you really, really want a single standard base.
Come ON!! You've talked about a "single standards base" several times now. But you seem to miss the point that if it's "standard" then it shouldn't matter how many developer's implement it. A call to say, send email, may look like this send_mail(char *to_address, char *body). And it'll be like that, no matter how many companies implement it in their OS. The number of different names Windows is sold under, isn't going to change the fact that a function call send_mail, implemented to send mail, will send mail.
Netscape died a horrible death (I don't know of a fate much worse than being bought by AOL) and the whole browser thing is irrelevant by now.
You would die a horrible death to is you had a product, but were prevented by your competitor from selling it. And I don't know what you mean by the browser thing being irrelevant. Do you only want to web to be accessiable from Windows machines??
It was basically a pretext for the DoJ to go after Microsoft. Browser bundling is not an issue any more.
It was an anti-trust violation. And it is the DoJ's responsibility to punish companies that violate the law.
However, it is good to hear that you don't think browser bundling is an issue anymore. That should mean I won't have a problem buying a Gateway PC with Netscape 5 preloaded, right?
when MS forced a certain OEM to bundle IE instead of Netscape, their support calls went up considerably
And what does this have to do with breaking up Windows into competing flavors?
If there would have been multiple companies selling windows compatible OSes, invariably, there would have been a company which would have been more then willing to let the OEM define the terms of the sale. The would have allowed the OEM to bundle Netscape, and other changes to make the PC more intuitive for the consumer, which would have reduced their support calls.
Yes, splitting the company would likely stop the forced bundling, but the government can require Microsoft to stop their bundling process without splitting them up.
I don't believe that splitting up Microsoft is needed. The trial was about anti-trust violations, and as long as Microsoft is prevented from violating anti-trust laws, justice is served. If it can be done with Microsoft staying intact, then that's okay with me. However, this will probably requirement a settlement, which Microsoft has stated they are unlikely to agree too, unless they are free to continue violating anti-trust laws. In the absence of a settlement, I think that the DoJ will push for breaking up Microsoft to be the best way to curb violations.
I think that if Microsoft *is* broken up, it is going to be their own fault. They have opportunity to settle the case.
Better compatibility? You've got to be kidding me. Did you use a computer in the late 80's when Microsoft had a lot more competion in the Word processor arena? Compatibility was a joke. It's actually much better now.
Yes, I used computers back then. And I can't say I've seen any improvement now compared to then. We still have a different file format for every word processor, Wordperfect, StarOffice, Applix, AbiWord, Kword, Word 95, Word 97, Word 2000, MS Works. Notice the last four apps? These are all MS apps and yet all incompatible. I don't see how splitting Office into 4 different companies could possibly make it worse then it already is. Instead I see those four companies doing their best to keep current compatibility and to set the standard for others to follow.
I however don't believe that those actions were the determining factors in them acheiving their current monopoly.
I agree. They provided a low-cost OS when one was needed. Capitalism is wonderful. But that doesn't excuse their anti-trust violations that they had once they've became a monopoly.
I don't think the AGs really understand the problem, or know how to solve it.
I doubt that the AGs are doing much more then being a "spokesperson" for the case. The actual lawyers involved in the case, I dare say, have studied anti-trust law for a *long* time and probably know much more about it then you or I could ever imagine.
Before you support the government splitting up Microsoft, think about wether you really like the idea of the government shuffling around the computer industry whenever a bunch of competing companies clash. The government is supposed to be looking after consumers, not helping out competitors because they can't compete, and some of their features are better, and customers should have the benefit of those features
This case has absolutely nothing to do about competitors failures. I don't know how any can say it does. Unless, of course, you consider it a failure that Netscape was unable to get OEM's to bundle their browser because Microsoft prohibited it.
No, this case was about me, as a consumer. It was about my ability to buy a PC from Gateway with Netscape preloaded. It was about my ability to buy a PC from Dell with BeOS *and* Windows preloaded. It was about my ability to buy PC's from IBM that had Windows 95 preloaded. It was about my ability to buy a Mac with Netscape as the default browser. It was about my ability to benefit from improvements that Intel made to take advantage of their processors.
This case is all about the consumer. It has nothing to do with Sun, or Linux, or Netscape, or Apple, other then they happen to try to provide innovation that Microsoft denied the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nothing to do with the Linux server, but the W2K clients. It's their OS, so wouldn't you think they'd want to help you get it configured in you network which runs Samba servers? Nah, they'd rather have you use Corel Linux on the desktop, then W2K, if they can't have everything.
-BrentIt's a hoax. I got it too. Symantec has a write-up on it.
-BrentI would like to say -- "Get a clue" :)
Although the complete source code package has a size of 21 meg, this includes a lot of stuff. It includes all the OS specific trees, e-mail, editor, newsreader, front-ends. Embedded applications won't need nearly all that code. Probably only need gecko, and a few other modules, and gecko is under 2 meg.
So, what do you think *does* compete in the embedded market now? If you say IE, I'll scream...
-BrentNot really. A web browser is a commodity product. Like bread. You buy one brand of bread one week, but another brand the next week. Nothing keep you using one brand of bread over another expect your own preference. It's the same with a web browser. There is no technical reason forcing you to use a certain web browser. Use IE this week, Mozilla the next. Even if IE had 100% marketshare, it wouldn't mean anything when Mozilla was released.
I agree with you about MS FUD though. They'll try to milk as much from IE as they can. DIE, baby, DIE!!
-BrentIE's marketshare is growing because it is the *only* browser out there. To claim that Communicator competes with IE is to claim that a '96 model Chevy competes with this years model Ford. Sorry, it'll never fly.
We all know now that it won't work to compete against Microsoft on features alone. If IE and Mozilla are identical, no one will use Mozilla. Mozilla needs to compete in areas that Microsoft can't. Outside of just plain old web browsing. Mozilla will need to use applications like Internet Appliances, wireless phones, web pads, administration front-ends, as a wrench to get in the market. From there, they'll be able to overtake MS. Nokia, AOL, Zope, and other companies will be using Mozilla in their applications. As a plain browser, Mozilla and IE can be used interchangably. So there is no loss if everyone uses IE for web browsing. When Mozilla is finished, people will use it. But embedded is harder to replace. Mozilla needed to focus, not on just browsing, to the work with the companies that will embed mozilla to make mozilla the best embeddable browser ever.
-BrentThat's not surprising. The Communicator base has no future. It's a dead product. Why fix bugs in something that you don't want anyone to use anyways. Communicator is only used for 20% of surfing anymore either, as people have started to use IE while mozilla is being developed. Put all efforts into mozilla so that when it is released everyone will be able to drop IE for a real browser.
That's all that IE is anyways. An up-to-date crutch to use while waiting for Mozilla. A big thanks to Microsoft for providing a browser while we take the time to do it right!
-BrentDidn't the article mention that he hadn't even opened the package yet?
-BrentWait until Microsoft tries to port WindowsCE to your microwave. Then you'll really see the paperclip in action!
Paperclip: Greetings, please choose your food type.
*push 'potatoe'*
Paperclip: *teewang* Please choose how you would like your potatoe done.
*smash*
-BrentI know, but since the poster decided to attack the concept of kitchen appliances, I decided to balance his view.
Naturally, those won't be marketed by Compaq and won't use Be.
-BrentYep, silly words, they are. These are, I guess, appliances that allow content to be delievered from remote servers to you.
-BrentTake it easy. This is just some lame attempt at humor. Chuckle and move on. Thanks...
-BrentThere's a lot of good reasons to network together appliances. And not just remote administration. Perhaps you want that bowl of soup to be warm when the toast is done. So the microwave can check the toaster and keep the microwave on "warm" until the toast is done. *Then* it can pop up a message letting you know your meal is ready.
Hop on your computer wait for it to boot up and then program the silly microwave to cook for 2 minutes on high?If you'd be using BeOS you wouldn't need to wait 2 minutes for it to boot :) Of course, it is more likely that the appliances will have a administration panel on the front that you will use.
Appliances need networking like I need another hole in my head.Nope, we *need* networked appliances. We also need networked heating/cooling, lighting, security, cars.
-BrentI don't know, why don't you download it, follow the installation instructions, and try again.
As for RealAudio they say that we should have a working G2 version by the end of the millenium or early next millenium.I've been using the G2 player for months. Sure, they call it "alpha", but it is better then the Windows port, almost. Download and install.
-BrentIn every group there are always those bashers that are ready to send hate mail to anyone who isn't "for" their cause. *Those* e-mails probably didn't do a lot of good at Fox. However, it sounded like a lot of people took the time to write quality level-headed e-mails to the right people. And for that I have a big thank-you to everyone.
-BrentIt's really not a big deal. The username could be like an e-mail address. For instance, my IM address could be bmetzler@pluto.twistedpair.net. Now you would have my ID on your IM client list. When you went on, it would grab the IP for pluto.twistedpair.net, and then query the server for my status. It would then repeat this for each user on your list. In this way, each ISP could have their own IM server, and/or users could get accounts from 3rd party services, like they do for e-mail now. To make it even better, companies could require a certain client to use their service, just like e-mail. That way, if you used an ISP's server, you could choose any client you want, since you'd be paying for the service. But AOL could still offer it to anyone for free, but you'd have to use their client. (Like Juno does with e-mail.)
-BrentI was wondering how they picked up my name too. It's not like any of the projects I'm involved in are huge visibility projects. Now I know.
Of course, I didn't get any shares. *sigh*
-BrentNo doubt about that. A real multi-vendor IM protocol is needed. Unfortunately, AOL's IM protocols aren't, and other companies should stop making it sound like it is. Until there is a true multi-vendor protocol, if companies what to interoperate with AOL, the answer is simple. Go to AOL, talk, work out a licensing agreement, chuck over any cash agreed on. It sounds like AT&T has followed licensing agreements. We'll have to see what AOL has to say. Microsoft, OTOH, did not.
Who knows; perhaps when Internet 2 opens up, your ISP will assign users an email address and an IM address?I see this happening. For IM to be truly open, each ISP would have to run their own server, and give each user their own account.
-BrentMy first Distro was Slackware too, and I was a MS-lovin Windows bigot.
UNIX hasn't changed much, but are today's newbies different from the newbies we had four or five years ago?Yes they are. Newbies today that the CNet article is focusing on are those how think/or heard that Linux is important. They don't "learn" Windows, so why should they learn Linux. 5 years ago, anyone who used Linux would be interested in learning all about it.
We shouldn't assume that all newbies are stupid.Of course not. There'll always be people who really want to learn Linux. But as Linux becomes more popular, there'll be people wanting it use it without knowing what a kernel is.
But again, the most hack-inclined will climb up to different distros, pretty much like natural selection.My point exactly. Something that is dumbed down is going to cause a motivated hacker to look for something better. But something that is a little more challenging will just scare those who don't want to learn off.
-BrentI agree with you. Except for one point, and that is that a graphical install allows you to lay out more information on the screen better, say help windows or whatnot.
We (Slackware) had a bunch of guys come up to the booth at Comdex and tell us how difficult our install was (or so they'd heard). So we let them install it. After making some cracks about our "outdated" installer, they got it up and running, into KDE and browsing the web (this was a full installation) within 20 minutes. Then they left.I just installed a Slackware system and *did* have a major problem. I quick the install after selecting the target drive. When I restarted, I started at the source media where I left off, not realizing that the target menu actually mounted the drive. (Silly me!) The install didn't tell me that it failed because the target media wasn't mounted so it took a while to figure out what was going wrong.
But anyways, that has nothing to do with a console based install, so overall, I can't say that graphical installs make a lot of difference.
-BrentOh I don't think so. It's like my friends trying to get me to get into snowmobiling. They build their snowmobiles, but don't expect me too. I'll buy a snowmodile fully assembled, play around with it, and then when I get more comfortable with it perhaps then I'll build my own.
It's the same with Linux distributions. For newbies, they aren't interested in assembling their own Linux system, like you and I are. Instead, they use Corel, learn about it, and then when they know more, they will be interested in checking out more "flexible" distributions.
Just like if I had to assemble my own snowmobile, I wouldn't do it, so would exposing newbies to Slackware and Debian would turn them off. There's just something for everyone here.
-BrentI've been watching this case for a long time, and have not *yet* seen an instance that could be claimed that the DoJ was acting in the interest of competitors over consumers. The DoJ focused on the real issues involving anti-trust violations very well, as we can see in the FoF. Now, on the other hand, I've seen plenty from Microosft claiming that the DoJ was just being the bully.
My concern is that the remedy the government forces apon Microsoft will solve the problem by forcing Microsoft to stop innovating.This won't happen. There's not even doubt here, that the DoJ will somehow prevent MS from innovating. It is just simply not going to happen. It would take a *lot* to have a sentence that would stifle innovation. Now hopefully the DoJ will at least somewhat force Microsoft to stop violating anti-trust laws, which I might add forces the competitors to stop innovating.
You see, Microsoft was right, this case *is* about innovation. But not their innovation, and not the DoJ stopping their innovation. It is about the competitor's innovation, and Microsoft forcing *them* to stop innovating.
Microsoft loses control of their APIs and can no longer decide how their OS will change and evolve, they will stagnate.If Microsoft is broken up, they will *not* lose control over their API. they'll have to treat how they "protect" their API's different, yes. But they won't lose control. They'll be innovating, they'll just have to innovate with other companies. I know that's hard to comprehend, but it works. There are lots over applications that interact fine with others. Most of the internet, for instance. There's nothing different about Windows. The Linux kernel is developed by multiple companies/hackers, and it seems to be holding together.
If Microsoft has a natural monopoly, should the govenment be trying to break the monopoly, or simply trying to find a way to keep them from using that monopoly power illegally.Microsoft needs to settle the case before the verdict. They could, but they said that wouldn't if it infringed on their ability to violate anti-trust laws in the future. If they don't settle, the verdict will undoubtedly be guilty, and as a lack of willing compliance to previous settlement talks, I think the DoJ will see the only thing that will force Microsoft to comply would be to break Microsoft up.
Also, keep in mind the the DoJ anti-trust lawyers are undoubtedly top experts in anti-trust law, and when their actions differ from our opinion, it is us that are wrong.
-BrentNo, you are wrong. Giving away the browser free was just one of the things Microsoft did. And giving awa the browser, or even, I must say, bundling it with another piece of software is not wrong. Loki is bundling SuSE 6.3 with Quake III. Sun is giving away StarOffice. No problems with either of those.
But Microsoft recognised that it wasn't just enough to give away IE. Indeed, OEM's were still choosing to bundle Netscape instead of IE. That's why they decided to make it impossible for OEM's to bundle Netscape. They did this by threatening to without licensing agreements if the OEM preloaded Netscape, and also by paying the penalties that the OEM's incurred by breaking their contracts with Netscape.
That was an anti-trust violation. The OEM's business depended on Windows, and Microsoft used that to get the OEM's to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done. And that violation is the *only* thing the case is about. It wasn't about giving IE away. It was even about bundling, although the issue of bundling had to be defined in the case. If Microsoft had simply given IE away and bundled it with Windows, there wouldn't have been a case.
As to which browser is better, currently IE is noticeably better than Netscape.Netscape 4.x maybe. But that's a dead product. There'd be something dreadfully wrong if IE *wasn't* better then Netscape. But Mozilla is a different story.
Right now it is perfectly acceptable to supply the browser as part of the operating system (yes, MS won).Will this be the only point I concede on? :) I must admit, I didn't realize that the trial has had such an impact already. I gave Gateway a call, and was more then pleased to find that the sell their systems with Netscape *and* IE preloaded. Later all have to talk with all the OEM's and see what the response is. Certainly though, that is a good sign, that whether or not Microsoft is found guilty, that the trial has, for a time, hindered their ability to continue violating anti-trust laws.
Netscape currently really, really sucksWell, I agree with you here too. It does. It didn't 2 years ago when it was released, because it was more or less up to date then, just like IE 4 was. However, I think IE 4 sucks too. IE 5 is just so much better. Mozilla will be better too, because it'll support all the current technologies. It's like going out and buying a '98 model car. That would've been great in '97, but not today.
-BrentSince the idea is that any one of the OS's can be replaced by another, each OEM will only sell one version. The vendor they license from will be the vendor that is willing to work with them the most. It'd be sort of like the processor market now. OEM's decide which lines will have Intel chips and which ones will have AMD chips. The consumer just buys the model they want.
-BrentI think you just did a great job proving my point. VHS won, not because it was better technology, but because it was supported by multiple vendors. And yet I don't see any incompatibilities with my VCR because multiple companies manufacture them. Same with Windows. If Windows was broken into into multiple companies, that wouldn't cause incompatibilities *at all*. And the dominant players, would be the "VHS" ones. The ones that all worked together, not the "Beta" one, that tried to control the market.
Certainly there will be a dominant OS, but there's nothing to prevent that OS from being developed, marketed and sold by more then one company.
My point is that even if the interface exists, the complexity of efficiently interacting with something so complicated as an OS (or even a video card driver/hardware) is such that you really, really want a single standard base.Come ON!! You've talked about a "single standards base" several times now. But you seem to miss the point that if it's "standard" then it shouldn't matter how many developer's implement it. A call to say, send email, may look like this send_mail(char *to_address, char *body). And it'll be like that, no matter how many companies implement it in their OS. The number of different names Windows is sold under, isn't going to change the fact that a function call send_mail, implemented to send mail, will send mail.
Netscape died a horrible death (I don't know of a fate much worse than being bought by AOL) and the whole browser thing is irrelevant by now.You would die a horrible death to is you had a product, but were prevented by your competitor from selling it. And I don't know what you mean by the browser thing being irrelevant. Do you only want to web to be accessiable from Windows machines??
It was basically a pretext for the DoJ to go after Microsoft. Browser bundling is not an issue any more.It was an anti-trust violation. And it is the DoJ's responsibility to punish companies that violate the law.
However, it is good to hear that you don't think browser bundling is an issue anymore. That should mean I won't have a problem buying a Gateway PC with Netscape 5 preloaded, right?
And what does this have to do with breaking up Windows into competing flavors?If there would have been multiple companies selling windows compatible OSes, invariably, there would have been a company which would have been more then willing to let the OEM define the terms of the sale. The would have allowed the OEM to bundle Netscape, and other changes to make the PC more intuitive for the consumer, which would have reduced their support calls.
-BrentI don't believe that splitting up Microsoft is needed. The trial was about anti-trust violations, and as long as Microsoft is prevented from violating anti-trust laws, justice is served. If it can be done with Microsoft staying intact, then that's okay with me. However, this will probably requirement a settlement, which Microsoft has stated they are unlikely to agree too, unless they are free to continue violating anti-trust laws. In the absence of a settlement, I think that the DoJ will push for breaking up Microsoft to be the best way to curb violations.
I think that if Microsoft *is* broken up, it is going to be their own fault. They have opportunity to settle the case.
Better compatibility? You've got to be kidding me. Did you use a computer in the late 80's when Microsoft had a lot more competion in the Word processor arena? Compatibility was a joke. It's actually much better now.Yes, I used computers back then. And I can't say I've seen any improvement now compared to then. We still have a different file format for every word processor, Wordperfect, StarOffice, Applix, AbiWord, Kword, Word 95, Word 97, Word 2000, MS Works. Notice the last four apps? These are all MS apps and yet all incompatible. I don't see how splitting Office into 4 different companies could possibly make it worse then it already is. Instead I see those four companies doing their best to keep current compatibility and to set the standard for others to follow.
I however don't believe that those actions were the determining factors in them acheiving their current monopoly.I agree. They provided a low-cost OS when one was needed. Capitalism is wonderful. But that doesn't excuse their anti-trust violations that they had once they've became a monopoly.
I don't think the AGs really understand the problem, or know how to solve it.I doubt that the AGs are doing much more then being a "spokesperson" for the case. The actual lawyers involved in the case, I dare say, have studied anti-trust law for a *long* time and probably know much more about it then you or I could ever imagine.
Before you support the government splitting up Microsoft, think about wether you really like the idea of the government shuffling around the computer industry whenever a bunch of competing companies clash. The government is supposed to be looking after consumers, not helping out competitors because they can't compete, and some of their features are better, and customers should have the benefit of those featuresThis case has absolutely nothing to do about competitors failures. I don't know how any can say it does. Unless, of course, you consider it a failure that Netscape was unable to get OEM's to bundle their browser because Microsoft prohibited it.
No, this case was about me, as a consumer. It was about my ability to buy a PC from Gateway with Netscape preloaded. It was about my ability to buy a PC from Dell with BeOS *and* Windows preloaded. It was about my ability to buy PC's from IBM that had Windows 95 preloaded. It was about my ability to buy a Mac with Netscape as the default browser. It was about my ability to benefit from improvements that Intel made to take advantage of their processors.
This case is all about the consumer. It has nothing to do with Sun, or Linux, or Netscape, or Apple, other then they happen to try to provide innovation that Microsoft denied the consumer.
I dare anyone to deny my conclusions.
-Brent