, because you have to get the pad, securely, to your recipient somehow.
In the case of a spy or submarine, the pad could be exchanged when the recipient is in a secure location. A spy could be at his home base or an embassy, a sub could be docked in a naval harbor. Exchange pads. Send them on their way. You've got the closest to unbreakable there is.
If an enemy country invades your embassy or confiscates a diplomatic pouch, you're at war then. In order to retrieve a pad from a sub, you'd have to board it, which is pretty unlikely unless you're in a James Bond movie. Past that, you can only sink it, destroying the pad and recipient...
BTW: How is it that a *good* stream cipher can be decoded with a pen and paper? Doesn't sound all that good to me...
The binaries that Corel are release are strictly for beta testing. It's not considered a true software release in the sense of the term. I'd say cut them some slack. Let them get their finished distro out the door, and if they still aren't supplying sources, then maybe complain. But right now, they're really just showing their progress on the project that they've undertaken. I think that once something reaches 1.0, then the GPL release the source clause can kick in, but until then, let the developer choose when and what to release back.
If i download the kernel, decide I want to port it to run on Coleco Vision consoles, and simply rename the sources to reflect the fact, am I obligated to return the "changed" source at the end of each day? Or can I decide (okay, I've made enough progress to release my code).
For instance: Rob doesn't post a new tarball everyday when he fixes a minor glitch here or there. He makes releases as he has time and when he thinks he's made enough progress to merit it.
That's a fluke that shouldn't be counted on as being a way to spot security flaws! I'm positive that subtler intrusion methods either exist, or could exist, in such a way as to draw much less attention to themselves!:)
Doesn't WINE require a Windows install (and therefore license)? Is there a possibility that Corel is or would include WINE with a Win License in order to create a distribution that runs Windows apps as well?
And by the way, if not, who is? Anyone? Or shall I get my hands dirty?:)
Well, in that premise, what if there's a widely reported bug in the driver, which Redhat issues a patch for. The original bug is now gone, but a new one has been inserted (accidentally)... Are you going to recognize this? Probably not, until it's exploited. It's not like these things are commented out like (THE FOLLOWING MODULE SENDS KEYSTROKES TO _ _ _)
Unless you're a certified expert, you need to trust the source-code...
Market cap means nothing in context of this argument. Redhat's valuation is based on the fact that ONE DAY linux could pose a serious challenge to desktop windows. Just like Amazon's and EBay's market caps... They're not based on what they're worth today, its what people hope they'll be worth tomoroow.
$$$ sales mean much more, which Redhat lacks.
Given that RHAT's product is free to copy and download, we'll go by seats it's installed on and still conclude that it's a far cry from actual competition for Microsoft today. Tomorrow could be a whole other issue, but we haven't gotten to tomorrow yet.
One day at a time (and no, if you're curious, I'm not in recovery, or anything!:)
As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I really don't see Linux or anything else as being trully viable competitition to Microsoft in the mainstream business market. This is mainly because Microsoft also own Office, which has become the de facto standard in terms of productivity applications.
I often have to exchange files with people from outside of my company, and therefore need to use MS Office in order to do so. Because of the recent overhaul to MS Office 2000 and a change in file formats, even Office 98 for the Mac is no longer fully sufficient. It's startling to realize how lazy and even dumb some office workers are, when you have to request not once but repeatedly that you need the file saved as Office 97 compatible, not 2000... So many people don't get it.
Linux lacks an easy to use desktop database, a la Access and/or Filemaker... Yes, they're on their way, but they're not here yet.
Because Windows is so entrechened in the work place (because MSFT won't port their software anywhere beyond windows, even though they've got more than enough resources to do so), people naturally buy Windows PC's for home. When a child is getting their first computer, their parents buy them a Windows PC so they'll learn what they'll use latar in life at work.
It won't be until Linux has gathered ALL the things that make windows so attractive to both users and developers that it will pose much appeal beyond the faithful, the server closet, and the power-user.
That's not the case today, i don't think. It won't be the case 18 months from now if Microsoft continues in their activities unfettered. If the case is dismissed, watch every OEM backtrack on their commitments to Linux in fear of retaliation.
And too bad that Redhat hasn't achieved financial success in terms of actual sales. They possess a large market capitalization due to the perception that Linux could one day stand on its own against Windows and therefore Redhat will be at the front.
This is another case of Microsoft doublespeak.
When people compare their own irrational market cap, they deflect the question by staying that the combined sales of their rivals (Sun, IBM, Oracle, AOL, formerly Netscape) dwarfed their own sales.
Now, they're no longer talking of Redhats spectacular sales, which maybe 1/500th of Microsofts. Instead, they've changed the focus back to stock valuations, where Redhat is valued 1/50th of Microsoft's value instead...
Nice how they turn arguments around like that. Now people should start asking how they've survived so long on such a high PE ratio if they indeed face as much serious competition as they claim.
As much as we love Linux here, it's inappropriate to say that Microsoft faces serious competition from Linux for anything other than WinNT, which is a much more specialized product than Windows 98. I know we all want linux to compete with Windows as a whole, but that competition has not materialized.
Microsoft can not defend itself by saying that they face the potential for competition in the future. One of MSFT's primary sources of competition for Windows 98 adoption, according to their own documents, was customer compliance in using Windows 95. It wasn't Linux or Be, it was just their own customers that may not want to upgrade. THAT IS NOT COMPETITION.
AT&T could have said that there existed the potential of creating satelite based communication systems, and therefore they didn't have a monopoly.
Standard Oil could have pointed to the possibility of using Nuclear Power in the distant future and their fore they faced the potential for competition.
The potential is not enough. It's either there or it isn't, and right now, Microsoft does not face serious competition. They should be declared a monopoly, and have all of their future behavior subject to scrutiny. 18 months from now, if the situation has changed, then regulation of them could be rolled back in order to account for the change in market condidtions.
Well, it's difficult to purchase a PC without windows, because, in all honesty, up until this year MAYBE, there hasn't been a viable alternative for OEM's to install.
Even today, because of Microsofts tactics in foreclosing the market with it's licensing practices, most customers demand Windows installed on their PC's. So, OEM's ship PC's w/windows pre-installed. And they get bigger discounts if they purchase windows for an entire product line rather than on a box by box basis.
My guess is that there will be drastic changes in how microsoft is able to sell their products, such that:
1 - they publish their prices, which all OEM's must pay, with the only variation being for volume. (so that OEM's don't face punishment for installing a competitors software)
2 - OEM's being allowed to install and deinstall whatever pieces of Windows that they choose, in order to allow for product differntiation and customer demand.
Even if they can't prove that they've abused their monopoly, simply establishing Microsoft as being an official/legal monopoly would be considered a win by the DOJ.
Microsoft does have some valid arguments in terms of not actually "harming" consumers, per se. They have succeeded in lowering the cost of browsers to zero, which is a plus for consumers.
What remains unproven and unprovale is what the net effect would have been if Microsoft had not thrown it's collective weight towards the goal of squashing Netscape. It won't ever been known what could have developed and therefore aided consumers.
Forgive me by saying this, but if anyone thinks that Microsoft faces serious competition in the OS market right now, you're sadly mistaken. MacOS, Linux, Be, Solaris, etc... have not even scratched the surface. MSFT's licensing practices (model licensing now, vs. per processor licenses before) severley limits the ability of a company to sell systems without a MSFT operating system. Even if Redhat achieves a 20% market share, if 75% percent of that 20% of PC's initially shipped with Win XX preinsalled, that that demonstrates that Microsoft is indeed harming customers by making htem purchase software they don't use because of strict license agreements.
So, even if it can not be shown that MSFT has abused it's monopoly, if the DOJ can demonstrate that MSFT HAS a monopoly, that's good enough. By doing that, just about every action they take (release of software, investing in companies, etc) would be strictly scrutinized by the governmnet to make sure that each act would not have the potential to harm the consumer.
Remember the anti-trust case that never was against Intel? Intel wisely backed down and agreed to all sorts of concessions in order not to be labeled an official monopoly. If Intel was afraid of that, and given that they do actually face more direct competition at this time than Microsoft does now or has in several years, Microsoft will end up being nailed as such. And if that's the case, other companies can unleash private suits against MSFT and submit the fact that they're a monopoly as evidence.
They're already having a hard enough time digesting digital. Right now, and for the forseable future, windows is the premiere for them platform to support.
There is no concrete proof that Linux is more than a passing craze by the ABM crowd (Anyone But Micrsoft)... Windows 2000 isn't out the door yet, so, according to the many reports I've read, it's opened a window of opportunity for Linux. What if Win2000 ships with all the features Microsoft has promised, at the top of which it being their most stable OS ever? There'll be a lot of companies who've embraced Linux backing up (even just a little bit) in order t say that Win2000 is their favored platform. I don't mean to be a downer or anything...
With all that said... I hope Linux thrives. I just don't think that a company with years of foundations laid developing and supporting other platforms, should jump head over heels for Linux. Wait it out and see what happens in the next few years.
Lastly, I can't see how supporting Linux/etc... will actually increase long-term profits. Buyers are wise... They see a WinNT server selling for $3500... Even if $100 of that is the profit margin from them preinstalling NT and $500 is the actual NT cost, they're going to ask why they should spend any extra money above the bare-bones cost of the hardware. After all, most likely they'll just recieve the computer and then re-FDisk it in order to set the partitions the way that they see fit... A few years from now I may realize I just put my foot in my mouth, but today I feel comfortable with that statement.
Shareholder value goes up in accordance with a companeis ability to make money, unless you're a.com company... But even those will be fewer and more far between.
It's plain that they (like many others) are looking at Linux as a fad they can make money from rather than a better way of doing things.
They're a business. Their job is to make money. If they make money by doing things better, that's great. Right now, they like everyone else that's hopping on to the Linux bandwagon (Oracle, Lotus, IBM, etc...) the interest is twofold.
1 - it lessens their dependence on MSFT 2 - it's because customers are asking/demanding it
That's good enough for me. A company that decides that it's going to screw the notion of profitablility in order to only do things in a "better" manner is the one that won't be around next year.
I'll again reiterate my argument that while Windows NT is extremely vulnerable to the threat of Linux, Windows 9x is less so, and the MacOS is even less threatened... Comparing NT Server to Linux showcases NT's bloat. Comparing Linux to Win9x shows how much further Linux must go. I really don't think that Linux/KDE/GNOME/etc will ever approach the current MacOS in terms of ease of use. We're not talking stability or anything else. That's not a fault of Linux, per se. Just it's heritage from Unix, plus its' development by programmers for programmers aren't exactly "user-friendly" in the way the Mac is for the computing neophyte.
Mac's may not be the most stable platform, but in terms of security, they have a point. No remote logins (can't upload malicious CGI's, etc...), no command shell, plus there's a much smaller crowd that knows the workings of IIS or Apache. It's not like they're running a high volume e-commerce site. It's probably just a bunch of static pages, with maybe a search engine attatched.
The price they pay for the security is that they may need to reboot the Macs a few times a week or month
The way their OS handles the keys makes it pointless to have the secondary key. In order for a module to run, it needs to have a valid signature for either key. You can't replace MSFT's root key and still have Windows function, but you can replace the 2nd key (NSAKEY) and have it function fine.
Yes, customers can replace the key aboad in order to implement whatever crypto they want. But a virus could subistitute the second key with one of it's own and then change the default crypto from _____ bit (128 bit?) to 1 bit if it felt like it. Your data would still appear to you as being scrambled, windows would accept this new encryption scheme and everyone involved would think it's all hunky dorey.
Yes bruce is an expert on the topic... We're no longer talking about NSA conspiracies here, and just thinking of Windows security issues. That key will not permit them to run word processing programs without your knowledge. It just is a public key for windows to check the validity of crypto modules. He himself said that in all likelyhood the NSAKEY isn't there for the NSA. So then, why do you want to remove that key, anyways?
This just shows again how Microsoft is content to dick around with the government and consumer alike.
Screwing the customer, by creating a secuirty mechanism that can be easily bypassed (if a replaces NSAKEY with a new one, then all your crypto modules can be replaced with insecure versions)...
On the flip side, they're blatantly disregarding the gov't's export requirements by allowing this key to be replaced abroad. So much for disallowing the export of strong crypto... They can just ship a weakened product and let people oversea's implement the changes.
No matter how you feel about encryption, privacy, etc... THIS IS A BAD THING. Bad for the consumer, bad for the government, and just bad policy. As we touched on in one of the previous discussions, why in the world did they need to create this "backup" key in the digital age?
I'd hope to expect that Win2000 ships with just a single key to compare signed code with, or at least bothers to check the signature of the back up key as well... Though I like the idea of myself being able to implement whatever cryptography I'd like, I don't trust anyone enough to go and implement new & imporved modules without my explicit approval
I could have sworn it says if you don't supply source with your product, you need to make it freely available to those who want it? You can't restrict access to it, and you can't charge extra (beyond maybe the cost of pressing a CD and shipping it)
Someone should turn the screws on those companies, if that's the case
I remember reading in one of the Linux mags (Linux Journal, I think) in an interview with RMS, where he said he didn't really feel compelled fight for opening up the software in set-top boxes, because there was no way that you could change it (due to lack of I/O)... That's my food for thought.
But back to the subject... Sony and presumably the rest of the gaming industry are making plenty of $$$ currently. Their main objective is to combat game piracy, to the point where their consoles are deliberately crippled to not play CD-R's... With that in mind, you'd need to actually have your CD's pressed. Design a cover and manual. At that point, the $25,000 is still a lump, but if you're actually expecting to make money from your project, it shouldn't be insurmountable.
If you're just doing it as a hobby, why not write games for PC's? It's cheaper, they're more abundant, etc...
But now that i just went through that, I wonder, is it $25,000 per company? $25,000 per developer? $25,000 per title? If it were just a company thing, you could form a loosely knit corporation that hired it's (non-paid) employees over the internet.. Upon hiring, they'ed each be issued a SDK. Basically get a bunch of people together to pitch in for it.
If you're really discerning, you won't be happy with MP3... It's whole kick is that it throws away data that falls into the area's where we (humans) shouldn't notice - Kind of like JPEG, MPEG, etc...
You sacrafice a little sound quality for a much smaller file. If your priorities are for the best listening experience rather than the most available music, you'd be best to avoid MP3...
But then if you care that much, you should probably shun CD's and go back to Vinyl...:)
1 - Wouldn't it be a blatant violation of the GPL if Cobalt had ported linux to MIPS and not returned the changes it made to the community? Perhaps they were returned to Linus, who chose not to include their tweaks?
2 - Well, I'm not a Linux developer, so I can't say first hand, but I think the idea of insisting on a gift for contributions to opensource software or products is a BAD THING. Where do you draw the line? Only people who have contributed to the kernel? Apache developers? Documenters? Testers? Those people that download and use every developmental release are just as important as the ones that create it, so long as they contribute by reporting bugs at the very least, and fixing them if they have the time and knowledge.
I've been using Redhat since 4.2... On occassion, I report issues I bump into. Though I don't know how much bearing they have, I don't expect anything in return. That's what the whole free software philosophy is supposed to be. Not doing stuff for free in exchange for shares of companies that use your stuff.
TV's are cheap. Computers & monitors are not. No one wants to spend the $$$ required for a computer just to watch TV.
Past that, I think the two are separate activities, that require different environments - nice couch and maybe a coffee table to watch TV, vs. Desk and chair to use the computer.
Plus, I personally like to watch TV while computing, when given the chance, and going back to the money issue, it's much cheaper to buy a 29" TV than a 21" monitor.
Once HDTV (or whatever it's called these days) appears, and requires television sets to support higher resolutions, which I'm thinking will make the prices between TV's & monitors closer, I'd consider it, but until then TV's are cheap enough that I don't want to have this multifunction device that really doesn't serve a purpose I can see.
They both have screens. The similarity ends there.
Well, in the short term, it'd certainly be advantagous to have 100% of the 10% slice and then take on the other 90%. If they can generate compelling reasons, it'll be much easier to convert existing OpenLinux, SuSE, etc... users to Redhat than the "average" Windows user.
The Linux market is fragmenting... Though mostly compatible, the more companies that spring up, the more MSFT can point to Linux becoming as fragmented as Unix (Which isn't really all that bad)... So it really helps alleviate the FUD factor that Microsoft can pile on if there are fewer rather than more distributions to choose from.
Right now, Redhat's feeling like they can take on the world with due to their market cap (what's been going on with it these past few days? The burling coat factory is OLD NEWS, yet that seems to be the only compelling reason it's stock could make that leap). In a few quarters, if they're not generating decent revenues, their stock will probably get pummelled as investors realize it's not growing to their expectations. At that point, I'd wonder if RHAT will turn on the other Linux distro's. And no one can stop them. The GPL doesn't allow "anyone may use this source for anything, except if you're so-and-so"
Problem is that we elect officials that look the other way or outright allow the intellegence community to abuse our percieved rights. Though I'm not actually convinced that a national photo database in and of itself is a bad thing, if it were, I'd rather holler at my congressional reps rather than CIA, SS, NSA, FBI, etc...
It's their jobs to collect information. If congress/senate/president insist on bending over backwards to accomodate their requests, we should oust them from office. I'm actually quite comfortable with all those 3 letter agencies existances... I just wish that our elected officials would say no to them (at least once in a while
Not knowing otherwise, I'm wondering if one has to pay $$$ to license OpenGL from SGI to implement on Linux? Or are they releasing it as free/open source software?
Without knowing that status, while it seems cool that the "Official" OpenGL is making it's way to Linux, it'd be a shame that it couldn't be included in all the distros.
Slashdot Mirror
, because you have to get the pad, securely, to your recipient somehow.
In the case of a spy or submarine, the pad could be exchanged when the recipient is in a secure location. A spy could be at his home base or an embassy, a sub could be docked in a naval harbor. Exchange pads. Send them on their way. You've got the closest to unbreakable there is.
If an enemy country invades your embassy or confiscates a diplomatic pouch, you're at war then. In order to retrieve a pad from a sub, you'd have to board it, which is pretty unlikely unless you're in a James Bond movie. Past that, you can only sink it, destroying the pad and recipient...
BTW: How is it that a *good* stream cipher can be decoded with a pen and paper? Doesn't sound all that good to me...
The binaries that Corel are release are strictly for beta testing. It's not considered a true software release in the sense of the term. I'd say cut them some slack. Let them get their finished distro out the door, and if they still aren't supplying sources, then maybe complain. But right now, they're really just showing their progress on the project that they've undertaken. I think that once something reaches 1.0, then the GPL release the source clause can kick in, but until then, let the developer choose when and what to release back.
If i download the kernel, decide I want to port it to run on Coleco Vision consoles, and simply rename the sources to reflect the fact, am I obligated to return the "changed" source at the end of each day? Or can I decide (okay, I've made enough progress to release my code).
For instance: Rob doesn't post a new tarball everyday when he fixes a minor glitch here or there. He makes releases as he has time and when he thinks he's made enough progress to merit it.
That's a fluke that shouldn't be counted on as being a way to spot security flaws! I'm positive that subtler intrusion methods either exist, or could exist, in such a way as to draw much less attention to themselves! :)
Doesn't WINE require a Windows install (and therefore license)? Is there a possibility that Corel is or would include WINE with a Win License in order to create a distribution that runs Windows apps as well?
:)
And by the way, if not, who is? Anyone? Or shall I get my hands dirty?
Well, in that premise, what if there's a widely reported bug in the driver, which Redhat issues a patch for. The original bug is now gone, but a new one has been inserted (accidentally)... Are you going to recognize this? Probably not, until it's exploited. It's not like these things are commented out like (THE FOLLOWING MODULE SENDS KEYSTROKES TO _ _ _)
Unless you're a certified expert, you need to trust the source-code...
Market cap means nothing in context of this argument. Redhat's valuation is based on the fact that ONE DAY linux could pose a serious challenge to desktop windows. Just like Amazon's and EBay's market caps... They're not based on what they're worth today, its what people hope they'll be worth tomoroow.
:)
$$$ sales mean much more, which Redhat lacks.
Given that RHAT's product is free to copy and download, we'll go by seats it's installed on and still conclude that it's a far cry from actual competition for Microsoft today. Tomorrow could be a whole other issue, but we haven't gotten to tomorrow yet.
One day at a time (and no, if you're curious, I'm not in recovery, or anything!
As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I really don't see Linux or anything else as being trully viable competitition to Microsoft in the mainstream business market. This is mainly because Microsoft also own Office, which has become the de facto standard in terms of productivity applications.
I often have to exchange files with people from outside of my company, and therefore need to use MS Office in order to do so. Because of the recent overhaul to MS Office 2000 and a change in file formats, even Office 98 for the Mac is no longer fully sufficient. It's startling to realize how lazy and even dumb some office workers are, when you have to request not once but repeatedly that you need the file saved as Office 97 compatible, not 2000... So many people don't get it.
Linux lacks an easy to use desktop database, a la Access and/or Filemaker... Yes, they're on their way, but they're not here yet.
Because Windows is so entrechened in the work place (because MSFT won't port their software anywhere beyond windows, even though they've got more than enough resources to do so), people naturally buy Windows PC's for home. When a child is getting their first computer, their parents buy them a Windows PC so they'll learn what they'll use latar in life at work.
It won't be until Linux has gathered ALL the things that make windows so attractive to both users and developers that it will pose much appeal beyond the faithful, the server closet, and the power-user.
That's not the case today, i don't think. It won't be the case 18 months from now if Microsoft continues in their activities unfettered. If the case is dismissed, watch every OEM backtrack on their commitments to Linux in fear of retaliation.
And too bad that Redhat hasn't achieved financial success in terms of actual sales. They possess a large market capitalization due to the perception that Linux could one day stand on its own against Windows and therefore Redhat will be at the front.
This is another case of Microsoft doublespeak.
When people compare their own irrational market cap, they deflect the question by staying that the combined sales of their rivals (Sun, IBM, Oracle, AOL, formerly Netscape) dwarfed their own sales.
Now, they're no longer talking of Redhats spectacular sales, which maybe 1/500th of Microsofts. Instead, they've changed the focus back to stock valuations, where Redhat is valued 1/50th of Microsoft's value instead...
Nice how they turn arguments around like that. Now people should start asking how they've survived so long on such a high PE ratio if they indeed face as much serious competition as they claim.
As much as we love Linux here, it's inappropriate to say that Microsoft faces serious competition from Linux for anything other than WinNT, which is a much more specialized product than Windows 98. I know we all want linux to compete with Windows as a whole, but that competition has not materialized.
Microsoft can not defend itself by saying that they face the potential for competition in the future. One of MSFT's primary sources of competition for Windows 98 adoption, according to their own documents, was customer compliance in using Windows 95. It wasn't Linux or Be, it was just their own customers that may not want to upgrade. THAT IS NOT COMPETITION.
AT&T could have said that there existed the potential of creating satelite based communication systems, and therefore they didn't have a monopoly.
Standard Oil could have pointed to the possibility of using Nuclear Power in the distant future and their fore they faced the potential for competition.
The potential is not enough. It's either there or it isn't, and right now, Microsoft does not face serious competition. They should be declared a monopoly, and have all of their future behavior subject to scrutiny. 18 months from now, if the situation has changed, then regulation of them could be rolled back in order to account for the change in market condidtions.
Well, it's difficult to purchase a PC without windows, because, in all honesty, up until this year MAYBE, there hasn't been a viable alternative for OEM's to install.
Even today, because of Microsofts tactics in foreclosing the market with it's licensing practices, most customers demand Windows installed on their PC's. So, OEM's ship PC's w/windows pre-installed. And they get bigger discounts if they purchase windows for an entire product line rather than on a box by box basis.
My guess is that there will be drastic changes in how microsoft is able to sell their products, such that:
1 - they publish their prices, which all OEM's must pay, with the only variation being for volume. (so that OEM's don't face punishment for installing a competitors software)
2 - OEM's being allowed to install and deinstall whatever pieces of Windows that they choose, in order to allow for product differntiation and customer demand.
Even if they can't prove that they've abused their monopoly, simply establishing Microsoft as being an official/legal monopoly would be considered a win by the DOJ.
Microsoft does have some valid arguments in terms of not actually "harming" consumers, per se. They have succeeded in lowering the cost of browsers to zero, which is a plus for consumers.
What remains unproven and unprovale is what the net effect would have been if Microsoft had not thrown it's collective weight towards the goal of squashing Netscape. It won't ever been known what could have developed and therefore aided consumers.
Forgive me by saying this, but if anyone thinks that Microsoft faces serious competition in the OS market right now, you're sadly mistaken. MacOS, Linux, Be, Solaris, etc... have not even scratched the surface. MSFT's licensing practices (model licensing now, vs. per processor licenses before) severley limits the ability of a company to sell systems without a MSFT operating system. Even if Redhat achieves a 20% market share, if 75% percent of that 20% of PC's initially shipped with Win XX preinsalled, that that demonstrates that Microsoft is indeed harming customers by making htem purchase software they don't use because of strict license agreements.
So, even if it can not be shown that MSFT has abused it's monopoly, if the DOJ can demonstrate that MSFT HAS a monopoly, that's good enough. By doing that, just about every action they take (release of software, investing in companies, etc) would be strictly scrutinized by the governmnet to make sure that each act would not have the potential to harm the consumer.
Remember the anti-trust case that never was against Intel? Intel wisely backed down and agreed to all sorts of concessions in order not to be labeled an official monopoly. If Intel was afraid of that, and given that they do actually face more direct competition at this time than Microsoft does now or has in several years, Microsoft will end up being nailed as such. And if that's the case, other companies can unleash private suits against MSFT and submit the fact that they're a monopoly as evidence.
They're already having a hard enough time digesting digital. Right now, and for the forseable future, windows is the premiere for them platform to support.
.com company... But even those will be fewer and more far between.
There is no concrete proof that Linux is more than a passing craze by the ABM crowd (Anyone But Micrsoft)... Windows 2000 isn't out the door yet, so, according to the many reports I've read, it's opened a window of opportunity for Linux. What if Win2000 ships with all the features Microsoft has promised, at the top of which it being their most stable OS ever? There'll be a lot of companies who've embraced Linux backing up (even just a little bit) in order t say that Win2000 is their favored platform. I don't mean to be a downer or anything...
With all that said... I hope Linux thrives. I just don't think that a company with years of foundations laid developing and supporting other platforms, should jump head over heels for Linux. Wait it out and see what happens in the next few years.
Lastly, I can't see how supporting Linux/etc... will actually increase long-term profits. Buyers are wise... They see a WinNT server selling for $3500... Even if $100 of that is the profit margin from them preinstalling NT and $500 is the actual NT cost, they're going to ask why they should spend any extra money above the bare-bones cost of the hardware. After all, most likely they'll just recieve the computer and then re-FDisk it in order to set the partitions the way that they see fit... A few years from now I may realize I just put my foot in my mouth, but today I feel comfortable with that statement.
Shareholder value goes up in accordance with a companeis ability to make money, unless you're a
Am I off topic here? Hope not!
Have a good night, everybody...
It's plain that they (like many others) are looking at Linux as a fad they can make money from rather than a better way of doing things.
They're a business. Their job is to make money. If they make money by doing things better, that's great. Right now, they like everyone else that's hopping on to the Linux bandwagon (Oracle, Lotus, IBM, etc...) the interest is twofold.
1 - it lessens their dependence on MSFT
2 - it's because customers are asking/demanding it
That's good enough for me. A company that decides that it's going to screw the notion of profitablility in order to only do things in a "better" manner is the one that won't be around next year.
I'll again reiterate my argument that while Windows NT is extremely vulnerable to the threat of Linux, Windows 9x is less so, and the MacOS is even less threatened... Comparing NT Server to Linux showcases NT's bloat. Comparing Linux to Win9x shows how much further Linux must go. I really don't think that Linux/KDE/GNOME/etc will ever approach the current MacOS in terms of ease of use. We're not talking stability or anything else. That's not a fault of Linux, per se. Just it's heritage from Unix, plus its' development by programmers for programmers aren't exactly "user-friendly" in the way the Mac is for the computing neophyte.
No... they're like the people who cling desperatly to NT to solve their problems! :)
Mac's may not be the most stable platform, but in terms of security, they have a point. No remote logins (can't upload malicious CGI's, etc...), no command shell, plus there's a much smaller crowd that knows the workings of IIS or Apache. It's not like they're running a high volume e-commerce site. It's probably just a bunch of static pages, with maybe a search engine attatched.
The price they pay for the security is that they may need to reboot the Macs a few times a week or month
The way their OS handles the keys makes it pointless to have the secondary key. In order for a module to run, it needs to have a valid signature for either key. You can't replace MSFT's root key and still have Windows function, but you can replace the 2nd key (NSAKEY) and have it function fine.
Yes, customers can replace the key aboad in order to implement whatever crypto they want. But a virus could subistitute the second key with one of it's own and then change the default crypto from _____ bit (128 bit?) to 1 bit if it felt like it. Your data would still appear to you as being scrambled, windows would accept this new encryption scheme and everyone involved would think it's all hunky dorey.
Yes bruce is an expert on the topic... We're no longer talking about NSA conspiracies here, and just thinking of Windows security issues. That key will not permit them to run word processing programs without your knowledge. It just is a public key for windows to check the validity of crypto modules. He himself said that in all likelyhood the NSAKEY isn't there for the NSA. So then, why do you want to remove that key, anyways?
This just shows again how Microsoft is content to dick around with the government and consumer alike.
Screwing the customer, by creating a secuirty mechanism that can be easily bypassed (if a replaces NSAKEY with a new one, then all your crypto modules can be replaced with insecure versions)...
On the flip side, they're blatantly disregarding the gov't's export requirements by allowing this key to be replaced abroad. So much for disallowing the export of strong crypto... They can just ship a weakened product and let people oversea's implement the changes.
No matter how you feel about encryption, privacy, etc... THIS IS A BAD THING. Bad for the consumer, bad for the government, and just bad policy. As we touched on in one of the previous discussions, why in the world did they need to create this "backup" key in the digital age?
I'd hope to expect that Win2000 ships with just a single key to compare signed code with, or at least bothers to check the signature of the back up key as well... Though I like the idea of myself being able to implement whatever cryptography I'd like, I don't trust anyone enough to go and implement new & imporved modules without my explicit approval
I could have sworn it says if you don't supply source with your product, you need to make it freely available to those who want it? You can't restrict access to it, and you can't charge extra (beyond maybe the cost of pressing a CD and shipping it)
Someone should turn the screws on those companies, if that's the case
I remember reading in one of the Linux mags (Linux Journal, I think) in an interview with RMS, where he said he didn't really feel compelled fight for opening up the software in set-top boxes, because there was no way that you could change it (due to lack of I/O)... That's my food for thought.
But back to the subject... Sony and presumably the rest of the gaming industry are making plenty of $$$ currently. Their main objective is to combat game piracy, to the point where their consoles are deliberately crippled to not play CD-R's... With that in mind, you'd need to actually have your CD's pressed. Design a cover and manual. At that point, the $25,000 is still a lump, but if you're actually expecting to make money from your project, it shouldn't be insurmountable.
If you're just doing it as a hobby, why not write games for PC's? It's cheaper, they're more abundant, etc...
But now that i just went through that, I wonder, is it $25,000 per company? $25,000 per developer? $25,000 per title? If it were just a company thing, you could form a loosely knit corporation that hired it's (non-paid) employees over the internet.. Upon hiring, they'ed each be issued a SDK. Basically get a bunch of people together to pitch in for it.
If you're really discerning, you won't be happy with MP3... It's whole kick is that it throws away data that falls into the area's where we (humans) shouldn't notice - Kind of like JPEG, MPEG, etc...
:)
You sacrafice a little sound quality for a much smaller file. If your priorities are for the best listening experience rather than the most available music, you'd be best to avoid MP3...
But then if you care that much, you should probably shun CD's and go back to Vinyl...
1 - Wouldn't it be a blatant violation of the GPL if Cobalt had ported linux to MIPS and not returned the changes it made to the community? Perhaps they were returned to Linus, who chose not to include their tweaks?
:)
2 - Well, I'm not a Linux developer, so I can't say first hand, but I think the idea of insisting on a gift for contributions to opensource software or products is a BAD THING. Where do you draw the line? Only people who have contributed to the kernel? Apache developers? Documenters? Testers? Those people that download and use every developmental release are just as important as the ones that create it, so long as they contribute by reporting bugs at the very least, and fixing them if they have the time and knowledge.
I've been using Redhat since 4.2... On occassion, I report issues I bump into. Though I don't know how much bearing they have, I don't expect anything in return. That's what the whole free software philosophy is supposed to be. Not doing stuff for free in exchange for shares of companies that use your stuff.
3 - Sorry for going so off-topic there!
TV's are cheap. Computers & monitors are not. No one wants to spend the $$$ required for a computer just to watch TV.
Past that, I think the two are separate activities, that require different environments - nice couch and maybe a coffee table to watch TV, vs. Desk and chair to use the computer.
Plus, I personally like to watch TV while computing, when given the chance, and going back to the money issue, it's much cheaper to buy a 29" TV than a 21" monitor.
Once HDTV (or whatever it's called these days) appears, and requires television sets to support higher resolutions, which I'm thinking will make the prices between TV's & monitors closer, I'd consider it, but until then TV's are cheap enough that I don't want to have this multifunction device that really doesn't serve a purpose I can see.
They both have screens. The similarity ends there.
Well, in the short term, it'd certainly be advantagous to have 100% of the 10% slice and then take on the other 90%. If they can generate compelling reasons, it'll be much easier to convert existing OpenLinux, SuSE, etc... users to Redhat than the "average" Windows user.
The Linux market is fragmenting... Though mostly compatible, the more companies that spring up, the more MSFT can point to Linux becoming as fragmented as Unix (Which isn't really all that bad)... So it really helps alleviate the FUD factor that Microsoft can pile on if there are fewer rather than more distributions to choose from.
Right now, Redhat's feeling like they can take on the world with due to their market cap (what's been going on with it these past few days? The burling coat factory is OLD NEWS, yet that seems to be the only compelling reason it's stock could make that leap). In a few quarters, if they're not generating decent revenues, their stock will probably get pummelled as investors realize it's not growing to their expectations. At that point, I'd wonder if RHAT will turn on the other Linux distro's. And no one can stop them. The GPL doesn't allow "anyone may use this source for anything, except if you're so-and-so"
My 2 cents...
Problem is that we elect officials that look the other way or outright allow the intellegence community to abuse our percieved rights. Though I'm not actually convinced that a national photo database in and of itself is a bad thing, if it were, I'd rather holler at my congressional reps rather than CIA, SS, NSA, FBI, etc...
It's their jobs to collect information. If congress/senate/president insist on bending over backwards to accomodate their requests, we should oust them from office. I'm actually quite comfortable with all those 3 letter agencies existances... I just wish that our elected officials would say no to them (at least once in a while
Not knowing otherwise, I'm wondering if one has to pay $$$ to license OpenGL from SGI to implement on Linux? Or are they releasing it as free/open source software?
Without knowing that status, while it seems cool that the "Official" OpenGL is making it's way to Linux, it'd be a shame that it couldn't be included in all the distros.