OK...since you seem to want to demonize all Microsoft employees as Destroyers of the Free World(tm), should I categorize all Open Source / Free Software programmers and advocates as overtly zealous, non-compromising people who make RMS and ESR seem normal?
So maybe you think all Microsoft employees are out to destroy the free world as we know it. And you know what, I'm not going to try to convert you, as you're obviously steadfast in your moronic views. But I doubt you've ever met a Microsoft employee, have you?
And you know what "bubba?" You may not like my tone regarding the DMCA, but as I've said before, no matter how much it does suck, it's law. So kwitcherbitchin' and deal with it.
"Please bear in mind that many Microsoft employees are perfectly nice people. For all we know, the nice people at Microsoft may yet persuade the not-so-nice ones that there are times when it's better to work with others to establish industry-wide standards than it is to act as if the freedom to innovate belongs only to Microsoft."
I particularly enjoyed this statement. It's nice to see that Microsoft's employees aren't being demonized here. Yes kids, all Microsoft employees aren't evil. I went to the Redmond campus last summer when I was visiting a relative who works for Microsoft, and the employees there are indeed down-to-earth nice people. A lot of the employees there do have opinions which differ from Microsoft's corporate opinions (I saw one guy with a stuffed Tux in his office!). Hell, a few of their engineers even invited me to play some Midtown Madness with them.
As for the Microsoft v. Slashdot madness, I do agree that Microsoft is going a bit overboard with this lawsuit, but hopefully it will let Slashdot know that they should be more careful in the future with such posts. Like it or not kids, there's laws we have to follow, no matter how much they suck.
Me? I just hope Emmett doesn't turn himself into Jon Katz II. The last thing we need is another Jon Katz:)
Ya know what, I'm not one for censorship. I was against the CDA and the COPA back in the day. And I'm none too fond of the DMCA either. But let's face the facts here, whether you want to hear it or not...
THE DMCA WAS PASSED INTO LAW
Microsoft is merely following the provisions of the DMCA. Maybe if the DMCA wasn't passed into law, Microsoft would have one less leg to stand on. Rather than whine about Microsoft in traditional Slashdot-bias-fashion, why not actually do something about Microsoft's legal leg, the DMCA? Go contact your congressional representative, and tell them why the DMCA sucks. Bet you haven't done that yet, have you Emmett?
Your editorial may have been good enough to raise the ire of all of the teenage Katz groupies who think they're so 3l33t because they have Napster and can write 3l33t 5kR1PtZ!!1!, but that's all it's good for. Get off your fucking soapbox, and DO SOMETHING Emmett.
The last thing Slashdot needs is another Jon Katz wannabe.
"Becuase a majority of the population didn't know better. All they knew is gasoline cost them X and Phone service cost Y and they coulnd't buy their own phone."
Well, now people know that they can choose a non-MS OS. Macintosh, various Linux distributions, FreeBSD, BeOS, etc etc. Microsoft isn't stopping those people either.
"The fact that 19 states haved filed suit against M$ shows that there are SOME people out here that do know and care about what M$ has done."
Either that, or they're just looking for some fast cash. Allow me to offer some examples:
Krause & Kalfayan, a firm in San Diego, filed suit against Microsoft because "These arrangements have enabled Microsoft Corporation to exclude other developers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems from obtaining the supply of such generic drugs' active pharmaceutical ingredient."
Shelbee & Cartee, a firm in Birmingham AL, also filed suit against Microsoft. They claimed that Microsoft's business was located in Texas (?!), an asserted that they had a right to represent customers injured by past purchases of Win2K (which was not released at that time) and customers of the "Macintosh Computer Company" (Apple).
Seems like these boys were looking for fast cash. To quote a MS spokesperson, "It seems like all of these cases were written under the influence of an active pharmaceutical ingredient."
"Netscape and IE both were (and still are) available for free."
Ahhh, misunderstanding on my behalf. IIRC, Netscape was free to single users, while companies and the such had to pay $49 for it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
"IE had the upper hand of "already being there" due to it's bundling with the OS.. thereby eliminating the need for Netscape's presence on the computer."
I won't disagree with your "upper hand" statement. However, when Netscape saw that their need for a presence on the computer was eliminated by Microsoft, they should have tried to combat this by producing a superior browser that would make people want to switch back to using Netscape (IMHO). Rather than doing that, they started whining to the DOJ about how Microsoft won't play fair.
There's a lot of things about Microsoft practices that I don't agree with. However, the bundling of a browser with Windows was a great move on their part. As I mentioned in my first post, this move gave Netscape some serious competition, as they were the dominant browser in the days when Microsoft was still trying to code a browser that didn't suck. And now we have this legal battle.
How ironic that Netscape helped bring Microsoft to "justice" in the name of competition, when they couldn't handle competition from Microsoft.
...Netscape couldn't deal with a little competition.
[ WARNING: Possible flame material may follow ]
You can say what you want, but if Internet Explorer was really that bad a browser, then wouldn't people have stuck with Netscape? People did stick with Netscape in the IE 2.0 and below days, because IE just plain sucked.
So Microsoft bundles their browser with their system. And while I don't particularly care for the fact that the browser and system are integrated, it was a smart move by Microsoft nonetheless. Why pay $49 for Netscape when IE comes free? Cry "monopoly" all you want, but it did give Netscape some serious competition...competition is what this is all about, right? They offered their browser for free and even opened up the source, yet IE still prevailed.
Was it because of this stupid integration idea? Could be. But nothing's stopping those IE users from installing Netscape. Hell, my college library has computers running Windows 98 and Netscape. Same goes for the labs. Microsoft didn't stop them, did they? IE prevailed because it was free, and before Netscape could adjust, people had made the switch to IE, and Microsoft wasn't twisting their arms either.
So what does Netscape do? Improve their browser to reclaim the IE crowd? Nope, they run off crying to the DOJ about how Microsoft monopolized them off the market. And here we are today. Honestly, has there been any massive protesting from consumers and/or consumer groups? The only people protesting are a small, but vocal, number of Linux users.
If this post is going to be flamed to hell and back (I'm expecting this) and get moderated to a -1 (Ditto), I'd just like an answer to that question. Has there been any widescale protesting by consumers and consumer groups? It doesn't make sense to claim that Microsoft has harmed consumers when the consumers aren't speaking up.
"The poll, conducted by Zogby America for Americans for Technology Leadership, found that 67% of those interviewed said the government's decision to pursue court action against the world's largest software company was a poor use of public funds."
...and...
"Only 16% said they believe consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's business practices, which the government called monopolistic. Another 55% said the company has helped consumers."
And for the sake of it, another poll shows that 68% of the people polled have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates. Additionally, 58% oppose any breakup.
"What is the most common question you are asked by friends and acquaintances, when the find out that you study/work in the computing field?"
"Four out of Five computer professionals surveyed say: "Can you fix my [Windows] computer?" (While the comment is a little toung in cheeck, among the rather large number of computer professionals I know, the statistic would be 37 out of 37 surveyed)."
Well, I can't say I'm no stranger to that. However, you're conveniently leaving out the fact that some of those "Can you fix my computer?" comments may not be related to Windows itself. Of all the times that I've been called over to a friends' or relatives' house to fix their computer, it's either been software related (be it a bug in Windows or not) or hardware related. Just because someone asks you to fix their computer doesn't mean that Windows is the culprit behind it all. [Enter needless flame] Way to spin doctor though:)
As for your comments about how easy it is for everyone to use Linux, so be it. However, for further reading, I suggest you check out this link about ease of installing Linux. This is also a good link to check out. But you'll probably dismiss it as pro-Microsoft bias. *rolls eyes* Oops, more needless flamage:)
Oh yes, for the record, no, I'm not a Microsoft droid. But after posting a pro-Microsoft opinion here and there, people seem to assume so.
"Microsoft is popular because it is easier for non-techies to use. Not True. I personally have several examples (a pilot friend, a sister, a mother, and a friend's grandmother) of people who were very uncomfortable with computers running windows because, whenever it would crash, they felt they were making mistakes. The result - they were afraid to use the machine much for fear of "breaking" it. In all cases they found Linux running X and gnome or KDE to be far easier to use, because it works reliably and consistently. They work in confidence that, unless they are doing something as root (and teaching them to understand what that means took all of about 30 seconds), they cannot break the machine. Net result - they are using their machines more, with greater confidence, and, though still illiterate by our standards, they are picking a few things up while being able to get the work done they need to. Most of all, they are no longer afraid of their machines."
Here's a little story for you...
My parents are probably the definition of the clueless newbie. They can run programs and surf the Internet, and that's about it. They use Windows 98 SE on their computer at home, and you know what? They have yet to tell me about getting a Blue Screen O' Death. Windows may stall on them, it may freeze on them, but they haven't gotten any of the problems that Linux zealots claim every Windows user experiences. In spite of these occourences, they still use Windows.
Why?
Because they know that they can run their favorite programs and get work done. You can preach all about how Linux is the best and how reliable it is. But if my parents can't send e-mail, use programs like TaxCut and Word, play their games, or use their digital camera, they will not use Linux. My parents have a hard enough time dealing with figuring out how to send attachments or how to format a document in Word. You think they want to deal with the fact that their printer or digital camera isn't recognized under Linux?
My parents are able to work in confidence, as you put it, because they know that they can't "break" the computer unless they tried. It took myself a few minutes to explain to them what they should and should not do. And it's worked. I haven't come home from school to the sound of "The computer is broken!" My parents aren't afraid of their computer, hell, they've been doing more work on it now than they have before.
My parents aren't the only people to be used as an example. I have several friends and other family members who are quite happy with Windows. They haven't told me about having a system meltdown either. So much for Linux zealotry.
My points here? Linux is a good OS, there's no denying that. But if people can't run their favorite programs and use their hardware under Linux, they won't use it. The average clueless newbie could give two shits about stats which prove that Linux is reliable, they want to know if those stupid games someone sent them via e-mail will work. And if they can get their work done, they're happy, regardless of what OS they use, be it Linux, FreeBSD, or God forbid I say this in such a Linux-centric setting...Windows.
...expecting this post to be moderated down to (-1, Pro-Microsoft Opinion)...
OK, didn't Jon Katz post a story similar to this a few weeks ago, albeit a few hundred lines less?
That comment not withstanding, the whole point of the story is the same as the last one...we should all be able to download MP3s as we please, because it's some kind of "evolution of an entirely new kind of cultural system." I hate to have the unpopular opinion in this matter, because I too have a decent collection of MP3s on my drive, but theft is STILL theft, no matter how much utterly boring verbiage Katz uses to justify it. At least this time Katz acknowledges that some people knowingly download MP3s, rather than his last argument of "Well, they didn't know!"
As you put it Katz, "culture is already being transmitted freely all over the Net." That doesn't mean that downloading MP3s from the latest Filter album is justified. I too would like to see a change in the current law on copyrights, but rather than babble on Slashdot about your absurd utopian views which drag three flames for every regular post, how about DOING something about it?
Yes, Microsoft opening up their source code to CE doesn't exactly match what Linux zealots consider "true" open source. Quite frankly, do you even expect that they would open up the source code to any of their programs and say, "Here, take it and redistribute our programs for free?"
Microsoft is in this for the money. If they're going to open up the source to their flagship programs, then it'd be stupid not to expect that there will be heavy licensing and the such attached with it. Do you think Microsoft could afford to let their programs go open source...at least as defined by the Linux crowd?
Microsoft has stockholders to keep happy, and they sure as hell aren't going to keep them happy by losing money by open sourcing their flagship programs.
...expecting this post to be moderated down as "Unpopular Opinion," or something related...sense the cynicism?
"Throwing away circulars is more of a problem than deleting spam. Circulars are made of paper & ink, they go in the trashcan, they go in a trash-collecting truck, they go to a landfill, they take up space in the landfill, they rot slowly, they hurt the environment. Spam is made of.......umm, electrons, it forces users to hit the delete button/key, it goes away forever. Which one of the two seems less of a problem to you?"
Ah, a common argument...well, here goes.
First off, you're assuming that people don't recycle. There you go, simple solution...recycle and save space in the landfills. And here's some news..."just hitting delete" doesn't get rid of the spam. Sure, it deletes that little message, but it won't stop the spam from coming.
Let's talk cost. Let's say you want to send out 5000 mailings via snail mail. At a rate of 33 cents (bulk rates not withstanding), that comes out to $1650. That's just the mailing cost, other costs (paper etc) aren't included. If you sent those 5000 mailings via e-mail, all it costs you is the $20 you spent for the account, and possibly $100 or more for the Sooper-Stealth-Spam-Machine spamware you bought.
So what does this mean? It means that traditional junk mailers are going to be more careful who to send to. Why waste $1650 on people who aren't interested? It'd be more feasible to mail to people who are interested, right? That's what we call opt-in. Now for the spammer, the cost issue isn't there. They can send as much mail as they can, and it only costs them $20. So, why would they care to target their crowd by going opt-in? For them, it's much easier just to spam a lot of people and hope that they get some responses. If not, then they're just out $20...provided that their account gets nuked. And if it does, they can just spend $20 more for another.
The spam problem won't go away. Why? Because spammers, in theory, have unlimited resources, and they don't have to pay the costs that traditional mailers do. If junk mailers could send that much mail for $20, my mailbox would be stuffed with junk mail. Spammers can send that much for $20, and that means my inbox...an inbox that I'm paying $20 to use...is going to be filled with mail I don't want. I'm not paying $20 a month so that some spammer can use my inbox as his marketing forum.
Judging by the comments, everyone's saying that this is a free speech issue, and that spammers have every right to say what they want.
Technically, they're right.
Let's remember one thing here. The Constitution does allow freedom of speech. But, it doesn't allow you a platform from which to speak. You can picket my business if you want, but I can keep you off my property. You can run for political office and make up a bunch of signs, but you can't put them on my property without my permission. You can make up a message to put on a highway billboard, but if I own the billboard, I can tell you that you can't put your message on it.
So, if I want to keep a spammer from his alleged right to spam me, which utilizes my resources and my time, I can, and there's nothing that the Constitution can do about it.
But hey, if Palmer Robinson wants to give the green light for spam, so be it. He shouldn't have any problem with spammers sending spam to palmer.robinson@metrokc.gov, should he?
I realize that my sentiments may have already been expressed...but anyway...
"The kids who download free music from a young age as a matter of course have little awareness that they are appropriating someone else's property...how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it?"
Just because you don't know it's wrong doesn't make it right. So, by your logic, if someone offers me a stolen bag of $5000 out of the blue, and I take it, it's perfectly fine? I realize the comparison is a little odd, but the idea is still there. No matter how you try to twist it or justify it, stealing is still stealing.
And yes, I too am guilty of having MP3s. Again, that doesn't make me innocent though.
"Corporatists are the biggest modern menace to free speech and individualism, more powerful and predatory than most governments."
Oh please, now you're just being paranoid. There are hundreds of laws designed to keep corporations and other such entities in check, and you're telling me that corporations are out there to destroy the world? If you're so against corporations and what they supposedly stand for, stop crying about them and do something.
"If corporatism has an Achilles heel, it seems to be that it is astonishingly short-sighted, spewing legal warnings, lawsuits and copyright infringement claims and lobbying intensely for legislation to curb the open distribution of software and ideas."
You think it's wrong for a corporation to enforce a copyright they rightfully own? That's what a copyright is supposed to do, protect someone's property. Is it wrong for someone like Microsoft to stop an illegal distribution of Windows 2000? By your standards, it is. So tell me Jon, should we all just toss copyrights out the window and become some utopian society where we say "Screw you" to the economy?
"They [corporations] also have a tendency to mow down smaller craft in their path."
Welcome to the wide world o' Capitalism Jon. You can dream of your little utopian society where everyone plays nice and everything's free, but wake up and smell the profits. Nobody said business was fair. I don't agree with total monopolization or anything like that (that's why the government stopped them over 100 years ago), but if your business can't keep up and gets swallowed by someone else, that's just tough shit.
"A new breakthrough in the cloning process has seen the introduction of 5 baby cloned pigs. Some of the claimed benefits would affect organ transplants such as heart, liver, kidney etc, and also diabetes."
Let's not forget that this will also mean increased ham and bacon production. To quote Homer Simpson, "Mmmmmm...cloned meat products *drool*"
"Get this tho, one of the pigs has been called Dotcom. I dread to think what names are gonna come up in the future if they have to call one in the first batch 'Dotcom'. I mean, running out of names already..."
Christ, this whole damn "dotcom" shit is getting out of hand! First we have that Mr. Dotcom nerd in Dallas shacking up for a year, and now we're naming pigs dotcom. Yeesh!
But if you think that's bad, I recall an Ann Landers or Dear Abby column where some lady wanted to know who the hell "Dot Com" was, and why everyone's talking about her.
OK, the title of your post is slightly deceiving. So Microsoft has a deal with these schools...are you going to attack Coke and Pepsi next for having similar deals?
But besides that, I'm VERY familiar with that above situation. When I was still in high school, the same no-disk policy applied...nobody cared though, and school officials never did enforce it. We also used CyberPatrol for a while, until the students found their ways around it. IIRC they're using WebSENSE now, which has also been circumvented. The machines were even worse. Nearly every student-accessible machine there was a 486DX2-100 (and a few DX-80's). The only exceptions were eight Pentium 166's in the library. God knows what our connection was. Now that's just sad.
The school also claimed that I had infected several computers with viruses and put porn on them. They searched me, and found nothing. It was a lot of fun when they had to call the parents to inform them they had searched me. My mother basically tore apart the principal over the phone, and my father actually left work to come into the school to threaten a lawsuit to the principal and vice-principal's face.
"Would any Microsoft employees care to disclose the whereabouts of a certain "Mr. Tux the penguin," and perhaps say which freezers he favors while in Redmond?"
Damn, if I was Tux, I'd favor 'em all. Anyone who's been to the campus knows that Microsoft has fridges and freezers stocked with sweet sweet sweet (end Simpsons allusion here) free drinks and food! Who said Microsoft was all that bad?:)
"Better yet, would any Microsoft employees like to comment on how many internal-to-Microsoft servers Mr. Tux currently powers?"
Well, I'm no microserf, but a relative is...and according to him, Microsoft does have some internal R&D Apache-running Linux boxes. Even though this isn't internal, Hotmail is being powered by a Unix box as well.
"There is a mindlessness to these flames that many people comment on and ask me about...but I'm not sure I know how to answer."
Well, here's my opinion...pardon me if I rant.
There's nothing wrong with your articles. They do stir up discussion (even if most of it are "Die Katz Die" flames), and raise some points.
But they don't fit in here.
Think about your demographics. For the most part, your articles are aimed towards the class known as the clueless newbies...people who don't get this whole technology thing. Slashdot is comprised of the nerd and geek class...people who know about technology and the changes of it. Your article proclaiming that a new "middle media" is here is an idea that a lot of people already know about (judging by the posts). Coming in here and telling everyone what they already know will irritate those people, and perhaps even insult their intelligence. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it's like teaching the basics of physics to Stephen Hawking.
This is why a lot of people on Slashdot can't stand you.
You may write some rather provoking articles Jon, but Slashdot isn't the place for a lot of them.
Re:Try reading the text closer...
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 1
"Jon's article isn't saying we should be 'bowing down to' this middle media."
One word: Sarcasm.
Re:Just because it's obvious to you...
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 1
"So Hypermedia has been around for years. Does that mean Katz can't call it Middle Media and write a piece to generate discussion on this topic?"
Katz can call it "A Sooper Dooper New Media Teknology (tm)" for all I care. But that's not the point. My gripe with the article is that he thinks that this whole "middle media" thing is new and exciting, when in reality it's already been in practice.
Furthermore, I still don't see this "middle media" anywhere. So what if a few dot coms are printing catalogues? That doesn't mean that the "middle media" is upon us. Hell, Sears has been printing catalogues since the 1880's, and they have their Wishbook catalog on the web...so where's the Katz commentary on that?
I'm not understanding this...
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 3
OK, so according to Jon Katz, we now have some kind of "middle media," where the old (print) media and the new (electronic) media have somehow merged together.
Four words: been there, done that.
This "middle media" you rant about has existed long before you started getting flamed on Slashdot Jon. Take a look at buying from TV. Home Shopping Network and QVC have been doing this "middle media" stuff for a while now. Rather than leaf through a bulky catalog for your favorite Hawaiian shirt, you can turn on the TV and see that shirt right there...they even have someone to walk around in it so you can see just how it looks! If you don't want to buy it from TV, you can always visit their store (QVC has one in Lancaster PA) and buy the same shirt you saw on TV. And yes, they do have catalogues to browse through. There you go, you have TV and the print media working together, an idea they've been doing since the mid 1980's.
And NOW you're popping up telling us that there's some new "middle media" that we should all be bowing down to? What rock have you been living under?
Ever wonder why a lot of people on Slashdot don't like you Jon? This article is just one reason. But feel free to enlighten me, as I'd be interested in what you have to say.
CuteFTP does this as well. You can pay or just use as is.
Pay: No annoying banner ads Use As-Is: Annoying banner ads
Of course, these ads are easily stopped with a few software cracks:)
And with that in mind...I don't believe the whole "ad in the software" will work either. It's one thing to be viewing a website that has some annoying DoubleClick ad (easily blocked with the IJB proxy), but when they code the damn ads into the software, then I get pissed, and then download a crack to eliminate the ad. With the "ad in the software" model, you can't eliminate the ad through normal means. You can either download a crack to kill it, or you have to use a hex editor and poke around and hope you got rid of the code.
Rest assured, if I get stuck with adware, you can bet I'm going to AstaLaVista to find the crack to kill the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
OK...since you seem to want to demonize all Microsoft employees as Destroyers of the Free World(tm), should I categorize all Open Source / Free Software programmers and advocates as overtly zealous, non-compromising people who make RMS and ESR seem normal?
So maybe you think all Microsoft employees are out to destroy the free world as we know it. And you know what, I'm not going to try to convert you, as you're obviously steadfast in your moronic views. But I doubt you've ever met a Microsoft employee, have you?
And you know what "bubba?" You may not like my tone regarding the DMCA, but as I've said before, no matter how much it does suck, it's law. So kwitcherbitchin' and deal with it.
raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com
"Please bear in mind that many Microsoft employees are perfectly nice people. For all we know, the nice people at Microsoft may yet persuade the not-so-nice ones that there are times when it's better to work with others to establish industry-wide standards than it is to act as if the freedom to innovate belongs only to Microsoft."
:)
I particularly enjoyed this statement. It's nice to see that Microsoft's employees aren't being demonized here. Yes kids, all Microsoft employees aren't evil. I went to the Redmond campus last summer when I was visiting a relative who works for Microsoft, and the employees there are indeed down-to-earth nice people. A lot of the employees there do have opinions which differ from Microsoft's corporate opinions (I saw one guy with a stuffed Tux in his office!). Hell, a few of their engineers even invited me to play some Midtown Madness with them.
As for the Microsoft v. Slashdot madness, I do agree that Microsoft is going a bit overboard with this lawsuit, but hopefully it will let Slashdot know that they should be more careful in the future with such posts. Like it or not kids, there's laws we have to follow, no matter how much they suck.
Me? I just hope Emmett doesn't turn himself into Jon Katz II. The last thing we need is another Jon Katz
raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com
Ya know what, I'm not one for censorship. I was against the CDA and the COPA back in the day. And I'm none too fond of the DMCA either. But let's face the facts here, whether you want to hear it or not...
THE DMCA WAS PASSED INTO LAW
Microsoft is merely following the provisions of the DMCA. Maybe if the DMCA wasn't passed into law, Microsoft would have one less leg to stand on. Rather than whine about Microsoft in traditional Slashdot-bias-fashion, why not actually do something about Microsoft's legal leg, the DMCA? Go contact your congressional representative, and tell them why the DMCA sucks. Bet you haven't done that yet, have you Emmett?
Your editorial may have been good enough to raise the ire of all of the teenage Katz groupies who think they're so 3l33t because they have Napster and can write 3l33t 5kR1PtZ!!1!, but that's all it's good for. Get off your fucking soapbox, and DO SOMETHING Emmett.
The last thing Slashdot needs is another Jon Katz wannabe.
raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com
...suing Iomega because their Zip disks and Zip drives help facilitate MP3 trading?
Bunch o' clueless dumbfucks...
raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com
"Becuase a majority of the population didn't know better. All they knew is gasoline cost them X and Phone service cost Y and they coulnd't buy their own phone."
Well, now people know that they can choose a non-MS OS. Macintosh, various Linux distributions, FreeBSD, BeOS, etc etc. Microsoft isn't stopping those people either.
"The fact that 19 states haved filed suit against M$ shows that there are SOME people out here that do know and care about what M$ has done."
Either that, or they're just looking for some fast cash. Allow me to offer some examples:
Krause & Kalfayan, a firm in San Diego, filed suit against Microsoft because "These arrangements have enabled Microsoft Corporation to exclude other developers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems from obtaining the supply of such generic drugs' active pharmaceutical ingredient."
Shelbee & Cartee, a firm in Birmingham AL, also filed suit against Microsoft. They claimed that Microsoft's business was located in Texas (?!), an asserted that they had a right to represent customers injured by past purchases of Win2K (which was not released at that time) and customers of the "Macintosh Computer Company" (Apple).
Seems like these boys were looking for fast cash. To quote a MS spokesperson, "It seems like all of these cases were written under the influence of an active pharmaceutical ingredient."
Further reading can be found here.
"Netscape and IE both were (and still are) available for free."
.. thereby eliminating the need for Netscape's presence on the computer."
Ahhh, misunderstanding on my behalf. IIRC, Netscape was free to single users, while companies and the such had to pay $49 for it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
"IE had the upper hand of "already being there" due to it's bundling with the OS
I won't disagree with your "upper hand" statement. However, when Netscape saw that their need for a presence on the computer was eliminated by Microsoft, they should have tried to combat this by producing a superior browser that would make people want to switch back to using Netscape (IMHO). Rather than doing that, they started whining to the DOJ about how Microsoft won't play fair.
There's a lot of things about Microsoft practices that I don't agree with. However, the bundling of a browser with Windows was a great move on their part. As I mentioned in my first post, this move gave Netscape some serious competition, as they were the dominant browser in the days when Microsoft was still trying to code a browser that didn't suck. And now we have this legal battle.
How ironic that Netscape helped bring Microsoft to "justice" in the name of competition, when they couldn't handle competition from Microsoft.
...Netscape couldn't deal with a little competition.
[ WARNING: Possible flame material may follow ]
You can say what you want, but if Internet Explorer was really that bad a browser, then wouldn't people have stuck with Netscape? People did stick with Netscape in the IE 2.0 and below days, because IE just plain sucked.
So Microsoft bundles their browser with their system. And while I don't particularly care for the fact that the browser and system are integrated, it was a smart move by Microsoft nonetheless. Why pay $49 for Netscape when IE comes free? Cry "monopoly" all you want, but it did give Netscape some serious competition...competition is what this is all about, right? They offered their browser for free and even opened up the source, yet IE still prevailed.
Was it because of this stupid integration idea? Could be. But nothing's stopping those IE users from installing Netscape. Hell, my college library has computers running Windows 98 and Netscape. Same goes for the labs. Microsoft didn't stop them, did they? IE prevailed because it was free, and before Netscape could adjust, people had made the switch to IE, and Microsoft wasn't twisting their arms either.
So what does Netscape do? Improve their browser to reclaim the IE crowd? Nope, they run off crying to the DOJ about how Microsoft monopolized them off the market. And here we are today. Honestly, has there been any massive protesting from consumers and/or consumer groups? The only people protesting are a small, but vocal, number of Linux users.
If this post is going to be flamed to hell and back (I'm expecting this) and get moderated to a -1 (Ditto), I'd just like an answer to that question. Has there been any widescale protesting by consumers and consumer groups? It doesn't make sense to claim that Microsoft has harmed consumers when the consumers aren't speaking up.
Poll: MS case a waste of money
...and...
"The poll, conducted by Zogby America for Americans for Technology Leadership, found that 67% of those interviewed said the government's decision to pursue court action against the world's largest software company was a poor use of public funds."
"Only 16% said they believe consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's business practices, which the government called monopolistic. Another 55% said the company has helped consumers."
And for the sake of it, another poll shows that 68% of the people polled have a favorable opinion of Bill Gates. Additionally, 58% oppose any breakup.
Food for thought.
"What is the most common question you are asked by friends and acquaintances, when the find out that you study/work in the computing field?"
:)
:)
"Four out of Five computer professionals surveyed say: "Can you fix my [Windows] computer?" (While the comment is a little toung in cheeck, among the rather large number of computer professionals I know, the statistic would be 37 out of 37 surveyed)."
Well, I can't say I'm no stranger to that. However, you're conveniently leaving out the fact that some of those "Can you fix my computer?" comments may not be related to Windows itself. Of all the times that I've been called over to a friends' or relatives' house to fix their computer, it's either been software related (be it a bug in Windows or not) or hardware related. Just because someone asks you to fix their computer doesn't mean that Windows is the culprit behind it all. [Enter needless flame] Way to spin doctor though
As for your comments about how easy it is for everyone to use Linux, so be it. However, for further reading, I suggest you check out this link about ease of installing Linux. This is also a good link to check out. But you'll probably dismiss it as pro-Microsoft bias. *rolls eyes* Oops, more needless flamage
Oh yes, for the record, no, I'm not a Microsoft droid. But after posting a pro-Microsoft opinion here and there, people seem to assume so.
"Microsoft is popular because it is easier for non-techies to use. Not True. I personally have several examples (a pilot friend, a sister, a mother, and a friend's grandmother) of people who were very uncomfortable with computers running windows because, whenever it would crash, they felt they were making mistakes. The result - they were afraid to use the machine much for fear of "breaking" it. In all cases they found Linux running X and gnome or KDE to be far easier to use, because it works reliably and consistently. They work in confidence that, unless they are doing something as root (and teaching them to understand what that means took all of about 30 seconds), they cannot break the machine. Net result - they are using their machines more, with greater confidence, and, though still illiterate by our standards, they are picking a few things up while being able to get the work done they need to. Most of all, they are no longer afraid of their machines."
...expecting this post to be moderated down to (-1, Pro-Microsoft Opinion)...
Here's a little story for you...
My parents are probably the definition of the clueless newbie. They can run programs and surf the Internet, and that's about it. They use Windows 98 SE on their computer at home, and you know what? They have yet to tell me about getting a Blue Screen O' Death. Windows may stall on them, it may freeze on them, but they haven't gotten any of the problems that Linux zealots claim every Windows user experiences. In spite of these occourences, they still use Windows.
Why?
Because they know that they can run their favorite programs and get work done. You can preach all about how Linux is the best and how reliable it is. But if my parents can't send e-mail, use programs like TaxCut and Word, play their games, or use their digital camera, they will not use Linux. My parents have a hard enough time dealing with figuring out how to send attachments or how to format a document in Word. You think they want to deal with the fact that their printer or digital camera isn't recognized under Linux?
My parents are able to work in confidence, as you put it, because they know that they can't "break" the computer unless they tried. It took myself a few minutes to explain to them what they should and should not do. And it's worked. I haven't come home from school to the sound of "The computer is broken!" My parents aren't afraid of their computer, hell, they've been doing more work on it now than they have before.
My parents aren't the only people to be used as an example. I have several friends and other family members who are quite happy with Windows. They haven't told me about having a system meltdown either. So much for Linux zealotry.
My points here? Linux is a good OS, there's no denying that. But if people can't run their favorite programs and use their hardware under Linux, they won't use it. The average clueless newbie could give two shits about stats which prove that Linux is reliable, they want to know if those stupid games someone sent them via e-mail will work. And if they can get their work done, they're happy, regardless of what OS they use, be it Linux, FreeBSD, or God forbid I say this in such a Linux-centric setting...Windows.
OK, didn't Jon Katz post a story similar to this a few weeks ago, albeit a few hundred lines less?
That comment not withstanding, the whole point of the story is the same as the last one...we should all be able to download MP3s as we please, because it's some kind of "evolution of an entirely new kind of cultural system." I hate to have the unpopular opinion in this matter, because I too have a decent collection of MP3s on my drive, but theft is STILL theft, no matter how much utterly boring verbiage Katz uses to justify it. At least this time Katz acknowledges that some people knowingly download MP3s, rather than his last argument of "Well, they didn't know!"
As you put it Katz, "culture is already being transmitted freely all over the Net." That doesn't mean that downloading MP3s from the latest Filter album is justified. I too would like to see a change in the current law on copyrights, but rather than babble on Slashdot about your absurd utopian views which drag three flames for every regular post, how about DOING something about it?
Yes, Microsoft opening up their source code to CE doesn't exactly match what Linux zealots consider "true" open source. Quite frankly, do you even expect that they would open up the source code to any of their programs and say, "Here, take it and redistribute our programs for free?"
...expecting this post to be moderated down as "Unpopular Opinion," or something related...sense the cynicism?
Microsoft is in this for the money. If they're going to open up the source to their flagship programs, then it'd be stupid not to expect that there will be heavy licensing and the such attached with it. Do you think Microsoft could afford to let their programs go open source...at least as defined by the Linux crowd?
Microsoft has stockholders to keep happy, and they sure as hell aren't going to keep them happy by losing money by open sourcing their flagship programs.
"Throwing away circulars is more of a problem than deleting spam. Circulars are made of paper & ink, they go in the trashcan, they go in a trash-collecting truck, they go to a landfill, they take up space in the landfill, they rot slowly, they hurt the environment. Spam is made of.......umm, electrons, it forces users to hit the delete button/key, it goes away forever. Which one of the two seems less of a problem to you?"
Ah, a common argument...well, here goes.
First off, you're assuming that people don't recycle. There you go, simple solution...recycle and save space in the landfills. And here's some news..."just hitting delete" doesn't get rid of the spam. Sure, it deletes that little message, but it won't stop the spam from coming.
Let's talk cost. Let's say you want to send out 5000 mailings via snail mail. At a rate of 33 cents (bulk rates not withstanding), that comes out to $1650. That's just the mailing cost, other costs (paper etc) aren't included. If you sent those 5000 mailings via e-mail, all it costs you is the $20 you spent for the account, and possibly $100 or more for the Sooper-Stealth-Spam-Machine spamware you bought.
So what does this mean? It means that traditional junk mailers are going to be more careful who to send to. Why waste $1650 on people who aren't interested? It'd be more feasible to mail to people who are interested, right? That's what we call opt-in. Now for the spammer, the cost issue isn't there. They can send as much mail as they can, and it only costs them $20. So, why would they care to target their crowd by going opt-in? For them, it's much easier just to spam a lot of people and hope that they get some responses. If not, then they're just out $20...provided that their account gets nuked. And if it does, they can just spend $20 more for another.
The spam problem won't go away. Why? Because spammers, in theory, have unlimited resources, and they don't have to pay the costs that traditional mailers do. If junk mailers could send that much mail for $20, my mailbox would be stuffed with junk mail. Spammers can send that much for $20, and that means my inbox...an inbox that I'm paying $20 to use...is going to be filled with mail I don't want. I'm not paying $20 a month so that some spammer can use my inbox as his marketing forum.
Now what sounds like less of a problem?
Judging by the comments, everyone's saying that this is a free speech issue, and that spammers have every right to say what they want.
Technically, they're right.
Let's remember one thing here. The Constitution does allow freedom of speech. But, it doesn't allow you a platform from which to speak. You can picket my business if you want, but I can keep you off my property. You can run for political office and make up a bunch of signs, but you can't put them on my property without my permission. You can make up a message to put on a highway billboard, but if I own the billboard, I can tell you that you can't put your message on it.
So, if I want to keep a spammer from his alleged right to spam me, which utilizes my resources and my time, I can, and there's nothing that the Constitution can do about it.
But hey, if Palmer Robinson wants to give the green light for spam, so be it. He shouldn't have any problem with spammers sending spam to palmer.robinson@metrokc.gov, should he?
I realize that my sentiments may have already been expressed...but anyway...
"The kids who download free music from a young age as a matter of course have little awareness that they are appropriating someone else's property...how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it?"
Just because you don't know it's wrong doesn't make it right. So, by your logic, if someone offers me a stolen bag of $5000 out of the blue, and I take it, it's perfectly fine? I realize the comparison is a little odd, but the idea is still there. No matter how you try to twist it or justify it, stealing is still stealing.
And yes, I too am guilty of having MP3s. Again, that doesn't make me innocent though.
"Corporatists are the biggest modern menace to free speech and individualism, more powerful and predatory than most governments."
Oh please, now you're just being paranoid. There are hundreds of laws designed to keep corporations and other such entities in check, and you're telling me that corporations are out there to destroy the world? If you're so against corporations and what they supposedly stand for, stop crying about them and do something.
"If corporatism has an Achilles heel, it seems to be that it is astonishingly short-sighted, spewing legal warnings, lawsuits and copyright infringement claims and lobbying intensely for legislation to curb the open distribution of software and ideas."
You think it's wrong for a corporation to enforce a copyright they rightfully own? That's what a copyright is supposed to do, protect someone's property. Is it wrong for someone like Microsoft to stop an illegal distribution of Windows 2000? By your standards, it is. So tell me Jon, should we all just toss copyrights out the window and become some utopian society where we say "Screw you" to the economy?
"They [corporations] also have a tendency to mow down smaller craft in their path."
Welcome to the wide world o' Capitalism Jon. You can dream of your little utopian society where everyone plays nice and everything's free, but wake up and smell the profits. Nobody said business was fair. I don't agree with total monopolization or anything like that (that's why the government stopped them over 100 years ago), but if your business can't keep up and gets swallowed by someone else, that's just tough shit.
"A new breakthrough in the cloning process has seen the introduction of 5 baby cloned pigs. Some of the claimed benefits would affect organ transplants such as heart, liver, kidney etc, and also diabetes."
Let's not forget that this will also mean increased ham and bacon production. To quote Homer Simpson, "Mmmmmm...cloned meat products *drool*"
"Get this tho, one of the pigs has been called Dotcom. I dread to think what names are gonna come up in the future if they have to call one in the first batch 'Dotcom'. I mean, running out of names already..."
Christ, this whole damn "dotcom" shit is getting out of hand! First we have that Mr. Dotcom nerd in Dallas shacking up for a year, and now we're naming pigs dotcom. Yeesh!
But if you think that's bad, I recall an Ann Landers or Dear Abby column where some lady wanted to know who the hell "Dot Com" was, and why everyone's talking about her.
*shakes head*
OK, the title of your post is slightly deceiving. So Microsoft has a deal with these schools...are you going to attack Coke and Pepsi next for having similar deals?
:)
But besides that, I'm VERY familiar with that above situation. When I was still in high school, the same no-disk policy applied...nobody cared though, and school officials never did enforce it. We also used CyberPatrol for a while, until the students found their ways around it. IIRC they're using WebSENSE now, which has also been circumvented. The machines were even worse. Nearly every student-accessible machine there was a 486DX2-100 (and a few DX-80's). The only exceptions were eight Pentium 166's in the library. God knows what our connection was. Now that's just sad.
The school also claimed that I had infected several computers with viruses and put porn on them. They searched me, and found nothing. It was a lot of fun when they had to call the parents to inform them they had searched me. My mother basically tore apart the principal over the phone, and my father actually left work to come into the school to threaten a lawsuit to the principal and vice-principal's face.
Ahhhh...satisfaction
"Would any Microsoft employees care to disclose the whereabouts of a certain "Mr. Tux the penguin," and perhaps say which freezers he favors while in Redmond?"
:)
Damn, if I was Tux, I'd favor 'em all. Anyone who's been to the campus knows that Microsoft has fridges and freezers stocked with sweet sweet sweet (end Simpsons allusion here) free drinks and food! Who said Microsoft was all that bad?
"Better yet, would any Microsoft employees like to comment on how many internal-to-Microsoft servers Mr. Tux currently powers?"
Well, I'm no microserf, but a relative is...and according to him, Microsoft does have some internal R&D Apache-running Linux boxes. Even though this isn't internal, Hotmail is being powered by a Unix box as well.
Now that's surprising!
"There is a mindlessness to these flames that many people comment on and ask me about...but I'm not sure I know how to answer."
Well, here's my opinion...pardon me if I rant.
There's nothing wrong with your articles. They do stir up discussion (even if most of it are "Die Katz Die" flames), and raise some points.
But they don't fit in here.
Think about your demographics. For the most part, your articles are aimed towards the class known as the clueless newbies...people who don't get this whole technology thing. Slashdot is comprised of the nerd and geek class...people who know about technology and the changes of it. Your article proclaiming that a new "middle media" is here is an idea that a lot of people already know about (judging by the posts). Coming in here and telling everyone what they already know will irritate those people, and perhaps even insult their intelligence. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it's like teaching the basics of physics to Stephen Hawking.
This is why a lot of people on Slashdot can't stand you.
You may write some rather provoking articles Jon, but Slashdot isn't the place for a lot of them.
"Jon's article isn't saying we should be 'bowing down to' this middle media."
One word: Sarcasm.
"So Hypermedia has been around for years. Does that mean Katz can't call it Middle Media and write a piece to generate discussion on this topic?"
Katz can call it "A Sooper Dooper New Media Teknology (tm)" for all I care. But that's not the point. My gripe with the article is that he thinks that this whole "middle media" thing is new and exciting, when in reality it's already been in practice.
Furthermore, I still don't see this "middle media" anywhere. So what if a few dot coms are printing catalogues? That doesn't mean that the "middle media" is upon us. Hell, Sears has been printing catalogues since the 1880's, and they have their Wishbook catalog on the web...so where's the Katz commentary on that?
OK, so according to Jon Katz, we now have some kind of "middle media," where the old (print) media and the new (electronic) media have somehow merged together.
Four words: been there, done that.
This "middle media" you rant about has existed long before you started getting flamed on Slashdot Jon. Take a look at buying from TV. Home Shopping Network and QVC have been doing this "middle media" stuff for a while now. Rather than leaf through a bulky catalog for your favorite Hawaiian shirt, you can turn on the TV and see that shirt right there...they even have someone to walk around in it so you can see just how it looks! If you don't want to buy it from TV, you can always visit their store (QVC has one in Lancaster PA) and buy the same shirt you saw on TV. And yes, they do have catalogues to browse through. There you go, you have TV and the print media working together, an idea they've been doing since the mid 1980's.
And NOW you're popping up telling us that there's some new "middle media" that we should all be bowing down to? What rock have you been living under?
Ever wonder why a lot of people on Slashdot don't like you Jon? This article is just one reason. But feel free to enlighten me, as I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Anyone notice that Slade hasn't popped up on irc.gamesnet.net lately? Wonder why? :)
"...I think I might enjoy a patch to remove the ad in ReGet, even if I buy the product later... Can anyone give a jump start in my search?"
AstaLaVista should get you started.
HTH
CuteFTP does this as well. You can pay or just use as is.
:)
Pay: No annoying banner ads
Use As-Is: Annoying banner ads
Of course, these ads are easily stopped with a few software cracks
And with that in mind...I don't believe the whole "ad in the software" will work either. It's one thing to be viewing a website that has some annoying DoubleClick ad (easily blocked with the IJB proxy), but when they code the damn ads into the software, then I get pissed, and then download a crack to eliminate the ad. With the "ad in the software" model, you can't eliminate the ad through normal means. You can either download a crack to kill it, or you have to use a hex editor and poke around and hope you got rid of the code.
Rest assured, if I get stuck with adware, you can bet I'm going to AstaLaVista to find the crack to kill the ad.
How desperate are advertisers anyway?