It's awesome that you use FOSS software at home and save money doing so. Unless you're planning on employing all of your university's students upon graduation you need to consider what they should be familiar with to be competitive in the job market.
By all means provide FOSS alternatives, but keep in mind that you are truly disservicing every single design student that you don't expose to OS X, as well as every business major you don't expose to MS Office, and every comp sci major that isn't exposed to OS X, windows, and Linux.
If your university cares at all about its students it'll be a lot easier to convince them to adopt some FOSS alternatives than it will be to get them to drop their current licensed software. Thus I think the money angle is a bad one.
You're assuming they'll attempt to leave the solar system on the.0001% chance that they'll find another planet suitable for human habitation.
It's far more likely they'll attempt to travel back in time to a point when the sun was still operational, in which case they'll either fail and the rollover will make them think it was a success providing them with a few hours of hope before their inevitable demise, or they'll succeed and all of their clocks will be conveniently set to match their new place in time.
Cox is aware of all possibilities. He's engineered a spectacular win/win.
To my mind the only market with a significant portion of customers that actually care about the "openness" of open source software is the business market, and even there it is severely limited.
If it's a matter of pricing to be competitive keep in mind that for the average home user Windows already appears to be free. They bought a computer from Dell and Windows was already on it. I imagine most folks aren't going to care enough to calculate how much of the price they paid for their new computer went toward making that happen. To them Windows == Computer.
The deal isn't as good as it sounds. There are so so many ways for the company to compromise the quality of their offer without actually breaking their agreement and exposing themselves to legal risk (diluting the shares, sneaky divestment clauses), whereas your end is so straightforward that you're going to have a hard time breaking it without exposing yourself to substantial legal risk.
You could get a lawyer involved but that's more likely to flat out end negotiations than it is to actually mitigate the above mentioned factors.
Let me know when IE stops being a stick in the mud so this will actually matter. No one in their right mind would bring a Firefox only web app to market.
If my life is any indication lots of gamers still like playing games but can't really dedicate that much time to them. I might be able to play an hour or two a week, and if that's the case solving the same puzzle I started a month ago isn't what I would consider an efficient use of my unwinding time.
Now ten years ago... I'd spend a whole damn week chipping away at those video games.
Anyone else have a similar experience or am I just crazy?
Just another clever attempt to get people who are normally for "regulating the internet"(Net Neutrality people) to contradict themselves.
You can be against the Usenet bans without making this joker credible.
Investing is a risk, that's part of why it gets rewarded, disclosing personal information to help investors hedge their bets can be done at your leisure or not at all.
There seems to be a strong line of thought in this country that investors should be rewarded even if they aren't taking any risks. See: Colorado State Mortgage laws, which all but guarantee repayment.
If you want to make money by doing nothing, you have to accept the risk and not get all bent out of shape when other people aren't interested in helping you mitigate that risk.
I always like it when they assume that every piece of pirated software is lost revenue. Given that the pirates have already demonstrated that they don't find the software valuable enough to pay for, it seems more likely that if the option to pirate software is removed a good portion of these people would find a free alternative or another solution to their problem... or they would just go without.
Neither does Apple. Microsoft makes game consoles and music players, and neither of those are upgradable at all.
Same with Apple products (ipod and iphone)... what's your point?
The last video card I bought to upgrade my Mac was $150, by the way. The last one I bought for my Wintendo was $250.
This really doesn't mean anything unless you're gonna bother getting in to details which I'd prefer you didn't.
Hey, what do you think about Microsoft kicking everyone who bought into "Plays for Sure" in the nuts when they came out with the Zune?
I think it sucks.
what's the point then?
The point is Microsoft doesn't have a locked down and rigid approach to using their software... which means your response to the anonymous coward is invalid, though your responses to me have proven your point that Apple doesn't either, The "MS is worse" line is just hogwash, you can't deflect criticism by saying it's ok because someone else does it... even moreso when it isn't true.
A 50-50 split market isn't really that much better. It comes down to the lesser of two evils decision, and both companies will know that the alternative is generally not acceptable to their customer-base and so they're safe.
If you really want competition and innovation to lead the market place both of these companies are going to have lose their market shares to a much more diverse group of players... see the video game console market, both back when it was basically Sega vs Nintendo and now. A lot more interesting stuff is getting done now.
The question at hand was whether or not Microsoft enforces a "my way or the highway" approach to computing. I don't really see how ownership of the tools that allow you to customize your PC and/or the Windows OS is really relevant to that discussion.... please do enlighten me.
Why does DirectX need a response? From a user's point of view? OpenGL and other number of open source graphic APIs work just as good on windows as directx does... so it's not like there aren't options for the users and developers.
From a developers point of view? That's not really relevant to this discussion. You have to ask Software Developers why they choose to use an API that isn't easily portable... I really wish they wouldn't.
You upgraded the video card in your XBox or your Zune, or other Microsoft hardware? I mean, I like my Microsoft mouse and keyboard (and they work just fine on my Mac, there was no explosion when I plugged them in) but I don't think they even have video cards.
No microsoft doesn't make video cards, however when I want to change my PC entirely it's usually pretty cheap for me to do, and there's always windows drivers for the hardware I buy. In fact one of Microsoft's big problems is that any old asshole can go about releasing hardware with bad drivers for their OS. Compare that to Apple however you want the bottom line is that it is indicative of a "my way or the highway" approach to computing.
Microsoft doesn't sell personal computers, but when they DO sell hardware they're even more tightly locked up than Apple. And their OS is pretty tightly loked up. Try and poke around in the Vista kernel and see how fast you can hit a tilt switch. Try to poke around in the OS X kernel... well, Apple ships source for most of it.
I don't actually own any MS hardware but that doesn't really surprise me at all. However, if you ask me or most folks to think of an example of really asshole-ish hardware locking they're probably gonna mention iPhone bricking.
As for Stardock, you think there's no third-party products to customize OS X?
Doesn't matter, as I never said Apple had a "my way or the highway" approach, just said that from a user's point of view Windows probably doesn't.
The way these conversations go never fail to remind me of the American political process.
I was just thinking about that today as I upgraded my vid car for fifty bucks after using stardock's object dock to create an apple like toolbar on my desktop in place of that lame task bar.
I was saying to myself: "Damn you microsoft for making me do everything your way!"
I really can't see how anything but goodness can come from this. Afterall, if you really want to gain ground against an evil closed-source monopoly that charges too much for it's products, it makes perfect sense to switch to another company that even more protective of its source, charges even more for its products, and even has a nasty habit of keeping its platform as proprietary as possible.
It's called due process, so you still have to prosecute him anyway.
Secondly, he probably won't do time and have to pay fine.
Third, being convicted of a felony DOES take away his right to vote.
Actually, if anything everyone I know with these online profiles tend to me overly social. In my book having 100 "close" friends is just as broken as having no friends.
Slashdot Mirror
It's awesome that you use FOSS software at home and save money doing so. Unless you're planning on employing all of your university's students upon graduation you need to consider what they should be familiar with to be competitive in the job market.
By all means provide FOSS alternatives, but keep in mind that you are truly disservicing every single design student that you don't expose to OS X, as well as every business major you don't expose to MS Office, and every comp sci major that isn't exposed to OS X, windows, and Linux.
If your university cares at all about its students it'll be a lot easier to convince them to adopt some FOSS alternatives than it will be to get them to drop their current licensed software. Thus I think the money angle is a bad one.
You're assuming they'll attempt to leave the solar system on the .0001% chance that they'll find another planet suitable for human habitation.
It's far more likely they'll attempt to travel back in time to a point when the sun was still operational, in which case they'll either fail and the rollover will make them think it was a success providing them with a few hours of hope before their inevitable demise, or they'll succeed and all of their clocks will be conveniently set to match their new place in time.
Cox is aware of all possibilities. He's engineered a spectacular win/win.
To my mind the only market with a significant portion of customers that actually care about the "openness" of open source software is the business market, and even there it is severely limited.
If it's a matter of pricing to be competitive keep in mind that for the average home user Windows already appears to be free. They bought a computer from Dell and Windows was already on it. I imagine most folks aren't going to care enough to calculate how much of the price they paid for their new computer went toward making that happen. To them Windows == Computer.
The deal isn't as good as it sounds. There are so so many ways for the company to compromise the quality of their offer without actually breaking their agreement and exposing themselves to legal risk (diluting the shares, sneaky divestment clauses), whereas your end is so straightforward that you're going to have a hard time breaking it without exposing yourself to substantial legal risk. You could get a lawyer involved but that's more likely to flat out end negotiations than it is to actually mitigate the above mentioned factors.
Let me know when IE stops being a stick in the mud so this will actually matter. No one in their right mind would bring a Firefox only web app to market.
What was the deal with the rolls-royce?
If my life is any indication lots of gamers still like playing games but can't really dedicate that much time to them. I might be able to play an hour or two a week, and if that's the case solving the same puzzle I started a month ago isn't what I would consider an efficient use of my unwinding time. Now ten years ago... I'd spend a whole damn week chipping away at those video games. Anyone else have a similar experience or am I just crazy?
Just another clever attempt to get people who are normally for "regulating the internet"(Net Neutrality people) to contradict themselves. You can be against the Usenet bans without making this joker credible.
Investing is a risk, that's part of why it gets rewarded, disclosing personal information to help investors hedge their bets can be done at your leisure or not at all. There seems to be a strong line of thought in this country that investors should be rewarded even if they aren't taking any risks. See: Colorado State Mortgage laws, which all but guarantee repayment. If you want to make money by doing nothing, you have to accept the risk and not get all bent out of shape when other people aren't interested in helping you mitigate that risk.
Well then, my comment was appropriately titled.
I always like it when they assume that every piece of pirated software is lost revenue. Given that the pirates have already demonstrated that they don't find the software valuable enough to pay for, it seems more likely that if the option to pirate software is removed a good portion of these people would find a free alternative or another solution to their problem... or they would just go without.
Neither does Apple. Microsoft makes game consoles and music players, and neither of those are upgradable at all.
Same with Apple products (ipod and iphone)... what's your point?
The last video card I bought to upgrade my Mac was $150, by the way. The last one I bought for my Wintendo was $250.
This really doesn't mean anything unless you're gonna bother getting in to details which I'd prefer you didn't.
Hey, what do you think about Microsoft kicking everyone who bought into "Plays for Sure" in the nuts when they came out with the Zune?
I think it sucks.
what's the point then?
The point is Microsoft doesn't have a locked down and rigid approach to using their software... which means your response to the anonymous coward is invalid, though your responses to me have proven your point that Apple doesn't either, The "MS is worse" line is just hogwash, you can't deflect criticism by saying it's ok because someone else does it... even moreso when it isn't true.
A 50-50 split market isn't really that much better. It comes down to the lesser of two evils decision, and both companies will know that the alternative is generally not acceptable to their customer-base and so they're safe.
If you really want competition and innovation to lead the market place both of these companies are going to have lose their market shares to a much more diverse group of players... see the video game console market, both back when it was basically Sega vs Nintendo and now. A lot more interesting stuff is getting done now.
The question at hand was whether or not Microsoft enforces a "my way or the highway" approach to computing. I don't really see how ownership of the tools that allow you to customize your PC and/or the Windows OS is really relevant to that discussion.... please do enlighten me.
Why does DirectX need a response? From a user's point of view? OpenGL and other number of open source graphic APIs work just as good on windows as directx does... so it's not like there aren't options for the users and developers.
From a developers point of view? That's not really relevant to this discussion. You have to ask Software Developers why they choose to use an API that isn't easily portable... I really wish they wouldn't.
You upgraded the video card in your XBox or your Zune, or other Microsoft hardware? I mean, I like my Microsoft mouse and keyboard (and they work just fine on my Mac, there was no explosion when I plugged them in) but I don't think they even have video cards.
No microsoft doesn't make video cards, however when I want to change my PC entirely it's usually pretty cheap for me to do, and there's always windows drivers for the hardware I buy. In fact one of Microsoft's big problems is that any old asshole can go about releasing hardware with bad drivers for their OS. Compare that to Apple however you want the bottom line is that it is indicative of a "my way or the highway" approach to computing.
Microsoft doesn't sell personal computers, but when they DO sell hardware they're even more tightly locked up than Apple. And their OS is pretty tightly loked up. Try and poke around in the Vista kernel and see how fast you can hit a tilt switch. Try to poke around in the OS X kernel... well, Apple ships source for most of it.
I don't actually own any MS hardware but that doesn't really surprise me at all. However, if you ask me or most folks to think of an example of really asshole-ish hardware locking they're probably gonna mention iPhone bricking.
As for Stardock, you think there's no third-party products to customize OS X?
Doesn't matter, as I never said Apple had a "my way or the highway" approach, just said that from a user's point of view Windows probably doesn't.
The way these conversations go never fail to remind me of the American political process.
No, please stop making it difficult for me to live out my OS warrior fantasies.
Yeah, you're right, but you see how I was going for the three of three there? Don't piss on my parade.
PS which OSX distro do you run?
I was just thinking about that today as I upgraded my vid car for fifty bucks after using stardock's object dock to create an apple like toolbar on my desktop in place of that lame task bar.
I was saying to myself: "Damn you microsoft for making me do everything your way!"
I really can't see how anything but goodness can come from this. Afterall, if you really want to gain ground against an evil closed-source monopoly that charges too much for it's products, it makes perfect sense to switch to another company that even more protective of its source, charges even more for its products, and even has a nasty habit of keeping its platform as proprietary as possible.
Success!
Bible schmible.
Prostitution was perfectly legal in this country until the damn Christian Women's Temperance league got all uppity.
This is the same group that got prohibition passed, so biblical had nothing to do with their sense of moral righteousness.
Marijuana, by the way, is among the other things they got banned during this time period.
It's called due process, so you still have to prosecute him anyway. Secondly, he probably won't do time and have to pay fine. Third, being convicted of a felony DOES take away his right to vote.
You get MUCH more money for American Idol votes...
Actually, if anything everyone I know with these online profiles tend to me overly social. In my book having 100 "close" friends is just as broken as having no friends.
Talk about setting the bar high. Maybe if they had said third date I could save some money.