Yeah, making racist comments about another culture's language ability is really fucking funny. I'm ashamed this got moderated up. I thought slashdot was more sensitive than this.
Demo anata ha watashi ga nihonjin ka amerikajin ka. Anata ha aho...
HowStuffWorks has your answer, and if properly done they can look exceptionally cool. Not that I'm endorsing building a device for it, nor doing it, for education purposes only. Do not try this at home, and I'm not going into design instructions no matter how hard you beg.
I've built so many PCs that I've lost count. Personally, I still prefer to do it that way. However, 20 a day is nothing compared to the volumes that the big players like Dell, Gateway, Micron, CompUSA and others sell.
Multiply that by about 20 to 25 shops that do the same thing everyday, within a 10 minute drive of each other. That does add up, and a lot of the companies in the bay area buy their boxes from these shops, it saves them a lot of money.
And again, the OEM agreements cover more than you seem to think. They cover such things as the rights to modify the boot sector; mandates uniform treatment of OEMs allowing for volume discounts but not much else; API and communications protocol documentation release; all the bundling and middleware details.
Are you talking about the OEM agreements that were included in proof of Microsoft's illegal practices, or those that are preventing them from maintaining a monopoly. They are different things. You linked to the final judgement, not the case against Microsoft.
Many people would beg to differ. The WindowManagerss in GNU/Linux are very good (my favorite is WindowMaker), are are the DesktopEnvironments (I prefer Xfce, but most ppl like GNOME or KDE), though they tend to be bloated.
X needs a lot of work, it is an archaic, monolithic display manager that is rapidly falling behind the times. It played catch up from an existing methodology and then is starting to slip. While the open source community has two desktop environments that could probably be equated to Windows, the application support still hasn't been achieved. This will happen, but you can't expect it to happen soon.
Regarding "innovation", there hasn't been much real "innovation" in the software field in terms of UI. Not since the very first GUI. Windows GUI hasn't evolved to any significant extend since '95. MacOS' UI hasn't evolved to any significant extent for a while either. OSX is just "different", not really a major evolutionary step (in fact, in many areas, it goes backwards...white is the best color for background, as it allows for good contrast, and prevents glare).
You are right, but the innovation that has taken place was outside of the GUI. If you are writing any application, you already have a template to go by and a design document in the form of a Windows or Mac application to use as a measure. This is what I mean by innovation, not GUI innovation.
10% compared to MS' 90% hardly constitutes "popular". Btw, not that I'm a fan of non-Free OS', but I haven't seen any closed OS' have a shot against MS. Last superior closed OS that failed was BeOS.
What does constitute popular? Define popular. In case you don't leave the house often, most people know the name Linux. They may not understand everything, but they know what it means.
Because MS is a monopoly, there is an inordinately high cost of entry to any newcomers.
Then explain the costs that Linux has spent. The reason why any new-comers need to invest a lot of development time is because MS has been at the game since 78, not because they're a monopoly. And you followed this by saying you don't believe in any stupid things.
Anyone who uses the "word" fucktard is certainly opening himself up to being labelled negatively. Being on slashdot does not mean you get to create new words.
Since you have heard the word, I obviously didn't create it, now did I? You are contradicting yourself, try not to do that.
MS had a monopoly before they did anything illegal? Yea, right. I'll assent that their rise to monopoly status was helped by the complete ineptitude of IBM and UNIX vendors, but the idea that they did nothing illegal is bullshit that only the most stupid optimist would believe.
Define when Microsoft had a monopoly. Microsoft had no serious competition until they sold DOS to IBM, and introduced Windows 3.x. At that time, they had no serious competition to worry about. None that would have lasted. They did nothing illegal between that time, and if you can find something, go on ahead. I'm not arguing on behalf of Microsoft being a good company, I'm arguing on behalf of reality.
Regarding the developments in GNU/Linux over an incredibly short time-frame, that's obviously proof of the superiority of the development models used.
What are you talking about short time-frame? 11 years, and the open source community is still no where near Windows or Macintosh on the desktop. In another decade, maybe we can catch up. The reason why? We don't need to innovate, only clone! The reason why it's possible to catch up is because we are duplicating the innovation of other people, not innovating and investing in research and development ourselves.
Finally, my premise can be extended to OEMs. In order for an OS to become popular, it needs to be supported by OEMs. The vast majority of people stick with whatever comes preinstalled. But for an OS to be supported by OEMs as a preinstallation option, it needs to be popular. Another catch-22. All of these lose-lose situations for competition create situations where there are inordinately high barriers to entry for any competitors to MS. No, it doesn't. Linux has captured nearly 10% with virtually non-existent OEM support to speak of. Lindows will take up more of an OEM market than Linux will, for a long time to come. The popularity of the Linux is coming from word of mouth, and will continue to do so until RedHat or Mandrake (not likely) can strike up real OEM deals. I'm not holding my breath for this.
You also completely ignored the latter half of my statement. Software support is also needed. Let's just look at games (probably the only thing keeping Win9x on anyone's computer who knows anything about computing).
Software support comes later, after operating system popularity. There is one or two applications that get an operating system popular, then it grows slowly. VisiCalc was the Apple II, and Windows didn't do much except Word processing which brought it to the desktop. Linux already has a killer app. GCC. It's market share was very limited at first, but if you were programming when Linux came around, it was a wonderful push to switch to Linux. This is what got me to switch to Linux, and why I continue to run it. Everything else I would be perfectly fine running Windows for.
Let's just look at the popular ones. Sure, the Quake and Descent series are supported.
You seem to be forgetting that the games that came much later to the home computer were all DOS based. It's slow evolution, and is happening with Linux, albeit slowly.
However, no Tomb Raider series, and no Baldur's Gate series. In order for an OS to become popular, it needs software support. In order for it to gain software support, it needs to become popular. Hence, the catch-22 (I believe I said catch-69 before...perhaps my mind was elsewhere).
There is games coming out for the Linux platform, but it's not the motivation of anybody to play games. Just like when Macs and Windows boxes first started proliferating the market, games weren't a priority and were relatively scarce. Linux is following the same trend as playing catch-up as everybody else would. There is no catch-22, people are just in too big of a hurry.
More irrelevant personal insults. So you insult me, and I can't say that you believe stupid things? Hell, you are rabidly arguing
Um, tech support guys are not equivalent to computer "geeks". They may be above-average users, but they are hardly geeks. They are reading from a cookbook, and usually know NOTHING. Every time I've called tech-support, I've found that the person was a complete and total moron and knew less than I did. Their solution to all problems is "uninstall, reinstall, if that didn't work, reinstall OS". This is what mystifies computing. Geeks, on the other hand, tend to explain things, at least if asked to do so. You obviously haven't used Google's newsgroup feature.
You know, half my family does tech support for a living and everybody they work with is much more intelligent than that. I've also worked tech support while I was in college, and met some of the biggest geeks I've met to date, who did the job because they were in college. That's like labeling all Flight Attendants as big breasted blondes looking for a deep hard dick.
Bullshit. If you weren't trying to be snide, you wouldn't have said that. This is your way of saying, "I disagree with what you're saying, but can't find any valid way to criticize it, other than trying to label you as naive in a round-about-way".
Actually, the reason why I was asking is because your apparent lack of timespan knowledge. I was going to relate a few things depending upon you being older or younger, to help understand the growth of the computer world. You really should mellow out with the knee-jerk reactions, there. You'll give yourself a heart attack.
I won't contribute to your fuzzy logic (that somehow the age of a person changes the validity of his or her arguments), so I'm not going to assert that I am or am not some unverifiable age.
Do you always assume you know what the other person thinks, or does? You seem to be very pretentious and arrogant (especially in your definite analysis of what tech support actually is) which speaks a few things. The most important is that you propogate the myth of computers being more difficult than they actually are, because you have a strong desire to be right. You almost come straight out and say it when you claim that every technical support person was a complete and total moron who knew less than you did.
So, I want you to back up this claim. Give me the last 5 companies you have called tech support on, and the issue. I will call up each technical support place that you list, and address the same issue, and validate your claim.
Because, quite frankly, I believe you are lying about this in order to try to make your point. It's a very lacking point, and has no real bearing into the reality that geeks and anybody with further knowledge of computers than the average person tries to keep that knowledge to themselves and explain things in overly cryptic manner to prevent additional knowledge being gained. I learned what I know of computers from reading manuals, and books. I didn't have any mentor or tutor, but many people need this. The problem is, most people who do have any clue as to what is going on, tries to make themselves feel useful so they make sure they never reveal all the information they know.
Not quite correct. The MS Windows requirements were for *all* users, business or personal.
Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about here.
MS Works was pre-loaded for personal while MS Office was pre-loaded for business. The only place you would have been able to get a PC without Windows, short of building one yourself, would be an Mac reseller and a very few whitebox dealers. No retail store -- CompUSA, Circuit City, Frys, etc. -- would sell a PC without Windows.
While in college I worked at a computer shop. We built about 20 computers a day and shipped them out. We were a small shop in the bay area. At the time, the major push for these were people who either had bulk licenses with Microsoft or those who wanted alternate operating systems they would install themselves. We were one of many stores that did this. It is incredibly easy. Also, you are wrong about CompUSA and Fry's. They will build computers for you, to your specification.
As far as airline revenue... what you quoted was gross income.
No, it was gross revenue. Go check financial boards, and look at their profile.
MS probably *could* buy them out -- but would then lose money just as fast and go broke just as fast.
Uhm, they probably couldn't buy them. You don't just say "You make this much revenue in a year so we'll buy it" I would say that each major airline is probably valued around $40B. Terminals, planes, equipment, personnel. Yes, they have debts, but their net value is still very high. Airlines are a funny thing, as they are usually in debt but have a huge amount of assets.
And the court findings were more than just bundling. The also covered using one monopoly (Operating Systems) to leverage a product into another monopoly (Browser, Office Suite). OEM agreements were a big part of the settlement.
The OEM agreements in question were the prohibition of certain applications being bundled with Microsoft. Not so much Microsoft forcing them to use Windows on all systems.
And, now that MS has used illegal strategies to get their monopoly, it's pretty much self-perpetual. Let's just assume that these slap-on-the-wrist restrictions will actually stop MS' illegal and anti-competitive behavior (ha).
Microsoft had a monopoly long before they did anything illegal. They had a monopoly since Windows 3.x, and just ran with it. The only thing they did that was illegal was trying to prevent competition from taking them out. Their "strategy" with PC-DOS was unnecessary, and doesn't matter one bit to how things turned out.
In order for an OS to become popular, it needs to have lots of software and hardware support. In order for and OS to have lots of software and hardware support, it needs to be popular.
Linux currently supports almost all major hardware, and it did in 1995 when it wasn't a popular operating system. People ran it because it was fun, efficient for their uses, or because they just wanted to. Microsoft grew from 1978 to what it is today, and you expect Linux to take off in the short period of 11 years? While most of those years just getting to a point of stability.
If you look at the movement in KDE and Gnome, you will see tremendous amounts of work have been done in a very short time period. Apparently you think a competitor only needs a few months to actually compete on the desktop market.
The only people who I've seen use that particular term are idiots.
Considering the other things you believe, that doesn't surprise me one bit. It wouldn't surprise me if you still believe in Santa Claus.
The average user is not afraid to install alternate OS' because geeks have created some kind of techno-mythology around computers. Quite the opposite, geeks explain what's going on in computers, de-mytsticizing them.
No they don't. Geeks try to maintain that they have some salacious knowledge that they alone should possess. Take a typical call to technical support, they may know the problem and they still don't help the user because they need it for a job. Little Jimmy needs to help his Grandma to maintain good graces, and get those extra presents at Christmas, and so Grandma tells all her friends how good little Jimmy is.
It's those at MS and Apple who detach users from knowledge of what's really going on in their computers that cause this.
MS and Apple cater to the masses, those who have their own closed minds about what a computer should and shouldn't do. Who it should and shouldn't like. If people didn't feel the way they do about computers, then operating systems would have evolved differently. Remember, early versions of Apple's and PC's were definitely not a brain-dead thing to use. It required reading a manual. Those who did it pretended they had some gift, and those who didn't believed them.
Most users, in fact, think that programs are "in the start menu".
And nothing Microsoft does propogates this type of belief. It's the other tech-savvy users feeling that they have something to prove that say shit along these lines.
This is not to say that short-cuts are bad, but simply that not clarifying that they're shortcuts is bad.
The only thing I do with Windows is install games, and I know damn well that every one that installed asks, "Do you want to play a shortcut on the desktop?" The Start Menu is also told to contain short cuts. You are trying to blame Microsoft because the average users are too close-minded to read a manual.
Funny, how you say it's all bullshit. Just showing how clueless you really are. Just out of curiosity, are you over 18? I don't mean this snidely, or with ill-intent, I'm honestly just curious.
Gee, the zillion security holes we hear about don't prove that MS is insecure? Them producing a broken version of Java that (aside from being non-portable) is also extremely insecure proves nothing, right? Oh yea, running as root by default -- real secure, as well.
That is because of the Slashdot propaganda. Unix software has just as many holes. Sendmail, anyone? Samba? It's nice to forget that the camp your in sucks, too. They may just suck less. Saying that it's proven insecure implies there is some benchmark for security. That benchmark has yet to be seen.
Sure, it's possible that OEMs could have done such. It's also possible that all of the citizens of N. Korea could band together and overthrow their ruthless dictator.
Because you are now claiming to know so much about N. Korea politics, I'll take this paragraph to mean you don't know shit about anything. Thanks for making that easy for me.
The simple fact is, monopolies are always bad for consumers in the long run. Sometimes it may be harder to imagine how you can have a useful competitive market in some areas, but market evolution should work things out. A good example is electric companies, which are monopolies. Where I live (Rochester, NY) there was recently an ice storm which knocked out power, because iced trees fell over and knocked down power-lines. Had the power-lines been under ground, that wouldn't have been a problem. Yea, monopolies really benefit the consumer, right?
Monopolies are bad, and everybody knows it. Microsoft had a hold on the market because there were no viable competitors. Now, there are a few. Now, Microsoft doesn't have such a strong grip on everybody. This is natural for businesses. How long did Ford have the car market before serious competition came in?
Microsoft should not purposefully attempt to break other peoples work, like Netscape and PC-DOS, but they can throw their weight around because they earned it. When a truly better solution comes out, Microsoft will either innovate, or shrink. Consumers do have a choice, you are just being dramatic.
Um, well, yes, the average user is forced to use Win9x/2k/XP. The average user can't install any OS from scratch and is too afraid to try, even with fail-safe instructions.
This is because the reputation that geeks like to manifest upon themselves that computers are an elusive, magical device. If you are saying these users are forced to use Microsoft, than you are implying that they are, metaphorically speaking, volunteering to be slaves.
As you see the younger generation grow, and develop with computers as a part of their standard life, you will see the reputation for those "gifted" with computer knowledge slowly diminish. Being a power user means that you are simply not an idiot. I know plenty of intelligent people, that form their own mental blocks when it comes to computers, and say, "Computers don't like me."
When people purchase cars, they want to know things about the car. Gas mileage, tire rotation schedules, maintenance, and other general information. When people purchase computers, they hope they're related to someone who has half a clue about it, and think it's some mysterious device that only a select few can understand. This is a myth that is propogated by geeks to, in my opinion, attempt to raise their own self worth.
If geeks got over their ego, and helped remove the myths surrounding computer usage, the average user wouldn't be the useless lump of carbon that they seem to be today. Granted, there are people who still fail to successfully set their clock on their VCR, but those can be the 10% because computers are not difficult.
Installing Linux is not difficult. Buying a Mac is not difficult. Learning is not difficult, with an open mind.
Isn't it? That's the only thing I can immagine being more annoying than a cell phone ringing in a movie theatre... "Hi, you have a phone call!"
Oh, it could get much worse. "Hi, you have a phone call! I notice your phone is on silent, would you like me to tell them you are occupied and shouldn't be bothered?"
Or perhaps, "Hey there, tiger, you got yourself a hot momma calling you, you studly man beast." Then promptly having your date realize what a pathetic loser you actually are and kill herself laughing. Of course, that would be fun to witness, and require guys who did such things to get dates in the first place.
WATCH OUT! Say anything bad like that about Billy Garcia and you're instantly a stalker!
I've been called worse, and could care less. This guy has the IQ of a monkey. If you put him in front of a computer long enough, he will probably make a valid argument, but usually just ends up flinging shit.
Sorry, I'll stand by the "forced" bit. NOW, there are multiple points of supply but a few years back, there were NOT. They FORCED by means of financial threats, OEMs and vendors to sell MS Windows, MS Works and MS Office. Did you have to USE it? No. Did you have to PAY FOR IT? Yes.
Those are companies, not users. Not people. Does your illicit use of capital letters make you think your point is more valid? Microsoft did what it did to saturate the market, and they did it well. The Anti-trust cases are not for the vendors that they bullied, but for the inclusion of other software into their operating system, if you recall.
If you are honestly asking a question, as you did "Did you have to PAY FOR IT?" The answer is a simple, no. I did not have to pay, nor did pay, for a Microsoft operating system or application from the time period of 1994 to 1998?
As for the $100 Billion -- my mistake. It was reported as $40+ Billion at one time. Still enough to purchase all the airline industry, or EVERY major North American sports team, or enough to outlast any boycott.
Lets go ahead and get a grip on reality. Follow along with me, United Airlines has an annual revenue of over $11B after the 9/11 attacks which prompted a 11% decrease in revenue.
American Air (AMR Corp) has an annual revenue of over $13B after the 9/11 attacks which prompted a 14% decrease in revenues.
To put this into comparison, Microsofts annual revenue is currently $16B, after a 17% rise.
Hopefully that puts some things into perspective for you, and please, look up some facts before you start blathering on about things you have no clue about. Like what things Microsoft can purchase. It's really easy to look up to see if something is grade A bullshit or actually real. I would recommend you try it. Also, learn that capital letters make you look like an idiot, instead of reinforcing your very incorrect ideas.
Bankrupted Microsoft? The same company with somewhere around $100 BILLION in reserves? The same company that had enough cash to by EVERY AIRLINE, twice over? With change to spare? Wrong answer. Sorry.
Uhm, $100 Billion in reserves? You sir, are an idiot. They don't have anything near $100B in cash reserves, why don't you go pick up a few magazines and get your news from sources outside of Slashdot.
The law of supply and demand is absolute.
Exactly, and those that control the supply win. Microsoft controlled the supply, so they won. Now, there are multiple points of supply, so it doesn't matter. Microsoft did what any business would have done in that same circumstance, including any Linux company.
So, what's your point with this anyway?
Everybody knows that Microsoft tries to saturate the market, this is the point of business. You are trying to defend someone that said that Microsoft was proven to be insecure. He also said they "FORCED" people to run Windows, which isn't true. They made it easier for people to run windows. Nobody killed any puppies.
Turing estimated that in 50 years (year 2000), 70% of people shouldn't have been able to tell they're talking to a computer (which of course didn't happen).
I dunno, I think most of the comments on Slashdot could easily be generated by a bot. Simple fuzzy logic algorithms to determine if they should post pro or agains the company in question and collect a series of high-moderated comments to harvest information relational to the company so the next time the article gets posted they have plenty of content to pull from.
"Proven" by the Federal Court that determined Microsoft was indeed a monopoly and abused that position by threatening OEMs and vendors.
Uhm, he said it was proven insecure. Try again, sparky. Microsoft had contracts, if the manufacturers banded together and said they weren't going to sell any Microsoft products, than what would have happened?
"Forced" by threatening to take their OS and go home -- which would basically bankrupt any of those vendors if they tried that.
Yes, and it also would have bankrupted Microsoft.
As for your childish analogy of installing OS/2 Warp... that machine CAME WITH Windows before you tried to install OS/2, so MS got their money anyway.
That wasn't an analogy, go find a dictionary and use it. It was a fictional exaggeration with comedic intent. Are you really this illiterate, or do you just put on a show for your buddies?
2. Windows is FORCED upon users due to monopoly status by MS.
Yeah, because this one time, at band camp, I tried to install OS/2 Warp on my laptop, and this guy, he like came out of the bushes, and he said, you know, you better not do that, because if you do, I'll kill this puppy. Then he handed me a copy of Windows 98 and made me install it while he held a gun to a cute little puppies head. After he left I tried to install OS/2 again, and the next day I found a puppies head in my mailbox.
Mr. Garcia, you are a fucktard. Also, please go look up the definition to the worsd, "Proven" and "Forced" as I do not think they mean what you think they mean. You may also go to a community college and get a decent grasp on the English language, and do us all a favor.
If I was an Iraqi, I might be kind of pissed a few years down the road, when my country was gaining some stability again, to hear that a foreign company sold off all the lucrative names in my country's domain in order to fund its own contract, during the time in which its country's military was running my government.
Go read the Citri release, they explicitely address this point.
Whether or not it's a priority certainly comes into play when you're talking about a foreign occupying force deciding to dole out a country's assets and resources to fund business ventures in which the profit is reaped by companies in the occupying countries.
Well, they could go ahead and try to do it themselves. You know.. with all their infastructure in place. They have to build it with something. Wouldn't you rather have decent internet access in 2 years, instead of still building the resources to build it?
Citri is a non-profit organization, backed by the ISPs that are going to actually provide the net access to start with. After Iraq gets self-sufficient, they are going to hand the reigns over to Iraq. If Iraq wants the.iq domain for only Iraqi citizens, they just wait for the expiration time on the domains and refuse to renew unless your Iraqi.
Easy enough solution, and by the time Iraq becomes self-sufficient, most of the domains will be up for expiration.
Boo freakady who. Iraq has so many other problems right now. Why dont geeks send MONEY, FOOD to local companies like CARE that help the people of Iraq. By providing food, 100% of the people can use it. how many iraq's have a computer much less have ever been online? Yeah, in a year or two from now, when people are feed and they are dying for disesases, then worry abou rebuilding the internet systems...
I'm sorry, but an ISP is not geared towards providing humanitarian aid. They are geared towards providing internet access. Is it a priority? Not really. Is it something for them to expand their market capital? Yup. Is it still a good thing? Yup.
They are a business, that is doing business things, in a business world, to enhance their business. This is like getting upset that Microsoft is not going to send all of their resources and money for food and aid.
Businesses make money. That's what they do. In fact, it's almost the very definition of "business." All the threads saying that it's not a priority, you are right. This isn't about a priority. This is about a business venture.
A consultant takes a problem, develops a plan of action, and is entrusted with providing an opinion on anything that is detrimental. As a consultant, it's your JOB to bring it up-- But if they say "We know, but we just want it done this way", well that's then your job.
Amen! So many people fail to understand the difference between a consultant and a contractor. Consultants create, design, plan, and can have teams under them. Contractors have specs, and build according to the specifications, and if they manage people, it tends to be people from the same firm.
Consultants should query poor decisions, but in the end, the person who pays is always right. I was faced with that same scenario at my current client (I'm a consultant) where they wanted something and I strongly advised against it. They put their foot down, and I did it, then they bitched because the end result was shit.
What do I get out of it? 6 more months doing it right:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd definately send an email to the administration to complain about the use of such an insecure system.
I would say sign up for a few english classes while you are at Brown. What gets me is how many programmers can't spell definitely correctly.
de-finite-ly.
Yeah, making racist comments about another culture's language ability is really fucking funny. I'm ashamed this got moderated up. I thought slashdot was more sensitive than this.
Demo anata ha watashi ga nihonjin ka amerikajin ka. Anata ha aho...
HowStuffWorks has your answer, and if properly done they can look exceptionally cool. Not that I'm endorsing building a device for it, nor doing it, for education purposes only. Do not try this at home, and I'm not going into design instructions no matter how hard you beg.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question150.htm
"Please enjoy yourself using this manual. And please utilize."
God Bless Engrish!
I've built so many PCs that I've lost count. Personally, I still prefer to do it that way. However, 20 a day is nothing compared to the volumes that the big players like Dell, Gateway, Micron, CompUSA and others sell.
Multiply that by about 20 to 25 shops that do the same thing everyday, within a 10 minute drive of each other. That does add up, and a lot of the companies in the bay area buy their boxes from these shops, it saves them a lot of money.
And again, the OEM agreements cover more than you seem to think. They cover such things as the rights to modify the boot sector; mandates uniform treatment of OEMs allowing for volume discounts but not much else; API and communications protocol documentation release; all the bundling and middleware details.
Are you talking about the OEM agreements that were included in proof of Microsoft's illegal practices, or those that are preventing them from maintaining a monopoly. They are different things. You linked to the final judgement, not the case against Microsoft.
Many people would beg to differ. The WindowManagerss in GNU/Linux are very good (my favorite is WindowMaker), are are the DesktopEnvironments (I prefer Xfce, but most ppl like GNOME or KDE), though they tend to be bloated.
X needs a lot of work, it is an archaic, monolithic display manager that is rapidly falling behind the times. It played catch up from an existing methodology and then is starting to slip. While the open source community has two desktop environments that could probably be equated to Windows, the application support still hasn't been achieved. This will happen, but you can't expect it to happen soon.
Regarding "innovation", there hasn't been much real "innovation" in the software field in terms of UI. Not since the very first GUI. Windows GUI hasn't evolved to any significant extend since '95. MacOS' UI hasn't evolved to any significant extent for a while either. OSX is just "different", not really a major evolutionary step (in fact, in many areas, it goes backwards...white is the best color for background, as it allows for good contrast, and prevents glare).
You are right, but the innovation that has taken place was outside of the GUI. If you are writing any application, you already have a template to go by and a design document in the form of a Windows or Mac application to use as a measure. This is what I mean by innovation, not GUI innovation.
10% compared to MS' 90% hardly constitutes "popular". Btw, not that I'm a fan of non-Free OS', but I haven't seen any closed OS' have a shot against MS. Last superior closed OS that failed was BeOS.
What does constitute popular? Define popular. In case you don't leave the house often, most people know the name Linux. They may not understand everything, but they know what it means.
Because MS is a monopoly, there is an inordinately high cost of entry to any newcomers.
Then explain the costs that Linux has spent. The reason why any new-comers need to invest a lot of development time is because MS has been at the game since 78, not because they're a monopoly. And you followed this by saying you don't believe in any stupid things.
Anyone who uses the "word" fucktard is certainly opening himself up to being labelled negatively. Being on slashdot does not mean you get to create new words.
Since you have heard the word, I obviously didn't create it, now did I? You are contradicting yourself, try not to do that.
MS had a monopoly before they did anything illegal? Yea, right. I'll assent that their rise to monopoly status was helped by the complete ineptitude of IBM and UNIX vendors, but the idea that they did nothing illegal is bullshit that only the most stupid optimist would believe.
Define when Microsoft had a monopoly. Microsoft had no serious competition until they sold DOS to IBM, and introduced Windows 3.x. At that time, they had no serious competition to worry about. None that would have lasted. They did nothing illegal between that time, and if you can find something, go on ahead. I'm not arguing on behalf of Microsoft being a good company, I'm arguing on behalf of reality.
Regarding the developments in GNU/Linux over an incredibly short time-frame, that's obviously proof of the superiority of the development models used.
What are you talking about short time-frame? 11 years, and the open source community is still no where near Windows or Macintosh on the desktop. In another decade, maybe we can catch up. The reason why? We don't need to innovate, only clone! The reason why it's possible to catch up is because we are duplicating the innovation of other people, not innovating and investing in research and development ourselves.
Finally, my premise can be extended to OEMs. In order for an OS to become popular, it needs to be supported by OEMs. The vast majority of people stick with whatever comes preinstalled. But for an OS to be supported by OEMs as a preinstallation option, it needs to be popular. Another catch-22. All of these lose-lose situations for competition create situations where there are inordinately high barriers to entry for any competitors to MS.
No, it doesn't. Linux has captured nearly 10% with virtually non-existent OEM support to speak of. Lindows will take up more of an OEM market than Linux will, for a long time to come. The popularity of the Linux is coming from word of mouth, and will continue to do so until RedHat or Mandrake (not likely) can strike up real OEM deals. I'm not holding my breath for this.
You also completely ignored the latter half of my statement. Software support is also needed. Let's just look at games (probably the only thing keeping Win9x on anyone's computer who knows anything about computing).
Software support comes later, after operating system popularity. There is one or two applications that get an operating system popular, then it grows slowly. VisiCalc was the Apple II, and Windows didn't do much except Word processing which brought it to the desktop. Linux already has a killer app. GCC. It's market share was very limited at first, but if you were programming when Linux came around, it was a wonderful push to switch to Linux. This is what got me to switch to Linux, and why I continue to run it. Everything else I would be perfectly fine running Windows for.
Let's just look at the popular ones. Sure, the Quake and Descent series are supported.
You seem to be forgetting that the games that came much later to the home computer were all DOS based. It's slow evolution, and is happening with Linux, albeit slowly.
However, no Tomb Raider series, and no Baldur's Gate series. In order for an OS to become popular, it needs software support. In order for it to gain software support, it needs to become popular. Hence, the catch-22 (I believe I said catch-69 before...perhaps my mind was elsewhere).
There is games coming out for the Linux platform, but it's not the motivation of anybody to play games. Just like when Macs and Windows boxes first started proliferating the market, games weren't a priority and were relatively scarce. Linux is following the same trend as playing catch-up as everybody else would. There is no catch-22, people are just in too big of a hurry.
More irrelevant personal insults.
So you insult me, and I can't say that you believe stupid things? Hell, you are rabidly arguing
Um, tech support guys are not equivalent to computer "geeks". They may be above-average users, but they are hardly geeks. They are reading from a cookbook, and usually know NOTHING. Every time I've called tech-support, I've found that the person was a complete and total moron and knew less than I did. Their solution to all problems is "uninstall, reinstall, if that didn't work, reinstall OS". This is what mystifies computing. Geeks, on the other hand, tend to explain things, at least if asked to do so. You obviously haven't used Google's newsgroup feature.
You know, half my family does tech support for a living and everybody they work with is much more intelligent than that. I've also worked tech support while I was in college, and met some of the biggest geeks I've met to date, who did the job because they were in college. That's like labeling all Flight Attendants as big breasted blondes looking for a deep hard dick.
Bullshit. If you weren't trying to be snide, you wouldn't have said that. This is your way of saying, "I disagree with what you're saying, but can't find any valid way to criticize it, other than trying to label you as naive in a round-about-way".
Actually, the reason why I was asking is because your apparent lack of timespan knowledge. I was going to relate a few things depending upon you being older or younger, to help understand the growth of the computer world. You really should mellow out with the knee-jerk reactions, there. You'll give yourself a heart attack.
I won't contribute to your fuzzy logic (that somehow the age of a person changes the validity of his or her arguments), so I'm not going to assert that I am or am not some unverifiable age.
Do you always assume you know what the other person thinks, or does? You seem to be very pretentious and arrogant (especially in your definite analysis of what tech support actually is) which speaks a few things. The most important is that you propogate the myth of computers being more difficult than they actually are, because you have a strong desire to be right. You almost come straight out and say it when you claim that every technical support person was a complete and total moron who knew less than you did.
So, I want you to back up this claim. Give me the last 5 companies you have called tech support on, and the issue. I will call up each technical support place that you list, and address the same issue, and validate your claim.
Because, quite frankly, I believe you are lying about this in order to try to make your point. It's a very lacking point, and has no real bearing into the reality that geeks and anybody with further knowledge of computers than the average person tries to keep that knowledge to themselves and explain things in overly cryptic manner to prevent additional knowledge being gained. I learned what I know of computers from reading manuals, and books. I didn't have any mentor or tutor, but many people need this. The problem is, most people who do have any clue as to what is going on, tries to make themselves feel useful so they make sure they never reveal all the information they know.
Be honest, you probably do it, too.
Not quite correct. The MS Windows requirements were for *all* users, business or personal.
Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about here.
MS Works was pre-loaded for personal while MS Office was pre-loaded for business. The only place you would have been able to get a PC without Windows, short of building one yourself, would be an Mac reseller and a very few whitebox dealers. No retail store -- CompUSA, Circuit City, Frys, etc. -- would sell a PC without Windows.
While in college I worked at a computer shop. We built about 20 computers a day and shipped them out. We were a small shop in the bay area. At the time, the major push for these were people who either had bulk licenses with Microsoft or those who wanted alternate operating systems they would install themselves. We were one of many stores that did this. It is incredibly easy. Also, you are wrong about CompUSA and Fry's. They will build computers for you, to your specification.
As far as airline revenue... what you quoted was gross income.
No, it was gross revenue. Go check financial boards, and look at their profile.
MS probably *could* buy them out -- but would then lose money just as fast and go broke just as fast.
Uhm, they probably couldn't buy them. You don't just say "You make this much revenue in a year so we'll buy it" I would say that each major airline is probably valued around $40B. Terminals, planes, equipment, personnel. Yes, they have debts, but their net value is still very high. Airlines are a funny thing, as they are usually in debt but have a huge amount of assets.
And the court findings were more than just bundling. The also covered using one monopoly (Operating Systems) to leverage a product into another monopoly (Browser, Office Suite). OEM agreements were a big part of the settlement.
The OEM agreements in question were the prohibition of certain applications being bundled with Microsoft. Not so much Microsoft forcing them to use Windows on all systems.
Oh, I dunno. My current ringtone for the girlfriend is a sample of Mr Burns saying "Excellleeent!"
:(
My GF is Japanese, and I got a custom ringtone made of this rather amusing J-Pop song. Unfortunately, in the US, nobody gets the joke
And, now that MS has used illegal strategies to get their monopoly, it's pretty much self-perpetual. Let's just assume that these slap-on-the-wrist restrictions will actually stop MS' illegal and anti-competitive behavior (ha).
Microsoft had a monopoly long before they did anything illegal. They had a monopoly since Windows 3.x, and just ran with it. The only thing they did that was illegal was trying to prevent competition from taking them out. Their "strategy" with PC-DOS was unnecessary, and doesn't matter one bit to how things turned out.
In order for an OS to become popular, it needs to have lots of software and hardware support. In order for and OS to have lots of software and hardware support, it needs to be popular.
Linux currently supports almost all major hardware, and it did in 1995 when it wasn't a popular operating system. People ran it because it was fun, efficient for their uses, or because they just wanted to. Microsoft grew from 1978 to what it is today, and you expect Linux to take off in the short period of 11 years? While most of those years just getting to a point of stability.
If you look at the movement in KDE and Gnome, you will see tremendous amounts of work have been done in a very short time period. Apparently you think a competitor only needs a few months to actually compete on the desktop market.
The only people who I've seen use that particular term are idiots.
Considering the other things you believe, that doesn't surprise me one bit. It wouldn't surprise me if you still believe in Santa Claus.
The average user is not afraid to install alternate OS' because geeks have created some kind of techno-mythology around computers. Quite the opposite, geeks explain what's going on in computers, de-mytsticizing them.
No they don't. Geeks try to maintain that they have some salacious knowledge that they alone should possess. Take a typical call to technical support, they may know the problem and they still don't help the user because they need it for a job. Little Jimmy needs to help his Grandma to maintain good graces, and get those extra presents at Christmas, and so Grandma tells all her friends how good little Jimmy is.
It's those at MS and Apple who detach users from knowledge of what's really going on in their computers that cause this.
MS and Apple cater to the masses, those who have their own closed minds about what a computer should and shouldn't do. Who it should and shouldn't like. If people didn't feel the way they do about computers, then operating systems would have evolved differently. Remember, early versions of Apple's and PC's were definitely not a brain-dead thing to use. It required reading a manual. Those who did it pretended they had some gift, and those who didn't believed them.
Most users, in fact, think that programs are "in the start menu".
And nothing Microsoft does propogates this type of belief. It's the other tech-savvy users feeling that they have something to prove that say shit along these lines.
This is not to say that short-cuts are bad, but simply that not clarifying that they're shortcuts is bad.
The only thing I do with Windows is install games, and I know damn well that every one that installed asks, "Do you want to play a shortcut on the desktop?" The Start Menu is also told to contain short cuts. You are trying to blame Microsoft because the average users are too close-minded to read a manual.
Funny, how you say it's all bullshit. Just showing how clueless you really are. Just out of curiosity, are you over 18? I don't mean this snidely, or with ill-intent, I'm honestly just curious.
Gee, the zillion security holes we hear about don't prove that MS is insecure? Them producing a broken version of Java that (aside from being non-portable) is also extremely insecure proves nothing, right? Oh yea, running as root by default -- real secure, as well.
That is because of the Slashdot propaganda. Unix software has just as many holes. Sendmail, anyone? Samba? It's nice to forget that the camp your in sucks, too. They may just suck less. Saying that it's proven insecure implies there is some benchmark for security. That benchmark has yet to be seen.
Sure, it's possible that OEMs could have done such. It's also possible that all of the citizens of N. Korea could band together and overthrow their ruthless dictator.
Because you are now claiming to know so much about N. Korea politics, I'll take this paragraph to mean you don't know shit about anything. Thanks for making that easy for me.
The simple fact is, monopolies are always bad for consumers in the long run. Sometimes it may be harder to imagine how you can have a useful competitive market in some areas, but market evolution should work things out. A good example is electric companies, which are monopolies. Where I live (Rochester, NY) there was recently an ice storm which knocked out power, because iced trees fell over and knocked down power-lines. Had the power-lines been under ground, that wouldn't have been a problem. Yea, monopolies really benefit the consumer, right?
Monopolies are bad, and everybody knows it. Microsoft had a hold on the market because there were no viable competitors. Now, there are a few. Now, Microsoft doesn't have such a strong grip on everybody. This is natural for businesses. How long did Ford have the car market before serious competition came in?
Microsoft should not purposefully attempt to break other peoples work, like Netscape and PC-DOS, but they can throw their weight around because they earned it. When a truly better solution comes out, Microsoft will either innovate, or shrink. Consumers do have a choice, you are just being dramatic.
Um, well, yes, the average user is forced to use Win9x/2k/XP. The average user can't install any OS from scratch and is too afraid to try, even with fail-safe instructions.
This is because the reputation that geeks like to manifest upon themselves that computers are an elusive, magical device. If you are saying these users are forced to use Microsoft, than you are implying that they are, metaphorically speaking, volunteering to be slaves.
As you see the younger generation grow, and develop with computers as a part of their standard life, you will see the reputation for those "gifted" with computer knowledge slowly diminish. Being a power user means that you are simply not an idiot. I know plenty of intelligent people, that form their own mental blocks when it comes to computers, and say, "Computers don't like me."
When people purchase cars, they want to know things about the car. Gas mileage, tire rotation schedules, maintenance, and other general information. When people purchase computers, they hope they're related to someone who has half a clue about it, and think it's some mysterious device that only a select few can understand. This is a myth that is propogated by geeks to, in my opinion, attempt to raise their own self worth.
If geeks got over their ego, and helped remove the myths surrounding computer usage, the average user wouldn't be the useless lump of carbon that they seem to be today. Granted, there are people who still fail to successfully set their clock on their VCR, but those can be the 10% because computers are not difficult.
Installing Linux is not difficult. Buying a Mac is not difficult. Learning is not difficult, with an open mind.
Isn't it? That's the only thing I can immagine being more annoying than a cell phone ringing in a movie theatre... "Hi, you have a phone call!"
Oh, it could get much worse. "Hi, you have a phone call! I notice your phone is on silent, would you like me to tell them you are occupied and shouldn't be bothered?"
Or perhaps, "Hey there, tiger, you got yourself a hot momma calling you, you studly man beast." Then promptly having your date realize what a pathetic loser you actually are and kill herself laughing. Of course, that would be fun to witness, and require guys who did such things to get dates in the first place.
WATCH OUT! Say anything bad like that about Billy Garcia and you're instantly a stalker!
I've been called worse, and could care less. This guy has the IQ of a monkey. If you put him in front of a computer long enough, he will probably make a valid argument, but usually just ends up flinging shit.
Sorry, I'll stand by the "forced" bit. NOW, there are multiple points of supply but a few years back, there were NOT. They FORCED by means of financial threats, OEMs and vendors to sell MS Windows, MS Works and MS Office. Did you have to USE it? No. Did you have to PAY FOR IT? Yes.
Those are companies, not users. Not people. Does your illicit use of capital letters make you think your point is more valid? Microsoft did what it did to saturate the market, and they did it well. The Anti-trust cases are not for the vendors that they bullied, but for the inclusion of other software into their operating system, if you recall.
If you are honestly asking a question, as you did "Did you have to PAY FOR IT?" The answer is a simple, no. I did not have to pay, nor did pay, for a Microsoft operating system or application from the time period of 1994 to 1998?
As for the $100 Billion -- my mistake. It was reported as $40+ Billion at one time. Still enough to purchase all the airline industry, or EVERY major North American sports team, or enough to outlast any boycott.
Lets go ahead and get a grip on reality. Follow along with me, United Airlines has an annual revenue of over $11B after the 9/11 attacks which prompted a 11% decrease in revenue.
American Air (AMR Corp) has an annual revenue of over $13B after the 9/11 attacks which prompted a 14% decrease in revenues.
To put this into comparison, Microsofts annual revenue is currently $16B, after a 17% rise.
Hopefully that puts some things into perspective for you, and please, look up some facts before you start blathering on about things you have no clue about. Like what things Microsoft can purchase. It's really easy to look up to see if something is grade A bullshit or actually real. I would recommend you try it. Also, learn that capital letters make you look like an idiot, instead of reinforcing your very incorrect ideas.
Bankrupted Microsoft? The same company with somewhere around $100 BILLION in reserves? The same company that had enough cash to by EVERY AIRLINE, twice over? With change to spare? Wrong answer. Sorry.
Uhm, $100 Billion in reserves? You sir, are an idiot. They don't have anything near $100B in cash reserves, why don't you go pick up a few magazines and get your news from sources outside of Slashdot.
The law of supply and demand is absolute.
Exactly, and those that control the supply win. Microsoft controlled the supply, so they won. Now, there are multiple points of supply, so it doesn't matter. Microsoft did what any business would have done in that same circumstance, including any Linux company.
So, what's your point with this anyway?
Everybody knows that Microsoft tries to saturate the market, this is the point of business. You are trying to defend someone that said that Microsoft was proven to be insecure. He also said they "FORCED" people to run Windows, which isn't true. They made it easier for people to run windows. Nobody killed any puppies.
Turing estimated that in 50 years (year 2000), 70% of people shouldn't have been able to tell they're talking to a computer (which of course didn't happen).
I dunno, I think most of the comments on Slashdot could easily be generated by a bot. Simple fuzzy logic algorithms to determine if they should post pro or agains the company in question and collect a series of high-moderated comments to harvest information relational to the company so the next time the article gets posted they have plenty of content to pull from.
"Proven" by the Federal Court that determined Microsoft was indeed a monopoly and abused that position by threatening OEMs and vendors.
Uhm, he said it was proven insecure. Try again, sparky. Microsoft had contracts, if the manufacturers banded together and said they weren't going to sell any Microsoft products, than what would have happened?
"Forced" by threatening to take their OS and go home -- which would basically bankrupt any of those vendors if they tried that.
Yes, and it also would have bankrupted Microsoft.
As for your childish analogy of installing OS/2 Warp... that machine CAME WITH Windows before you tried to install OS/2, so MS got their money anyway.
That wasn't an analogy, go find a dictionary and use it. It was a fictional exaggeration with comedic intent. Are you really this illiterate, or do you just put on a show for your buddies?
2. Windows is FORCED upon users due to monopoly status by MS.
Yeah, because this one time, at band camp, I tried to install OS/2 Warp on my laptop, and this guy, he like came out of the bushes, and he said, you know, you better not do that, because if you do, I'll kill this puppy. Then he handed me a copy of Windows 98 and made me install it while he held a gun to a cute little puppies head. After he left I tried to install OS/2 again, and the next day I found a puppies head in my mailbox.
Mr. Garcia, you are a fucktard. Also, please go look up the definition to the worsd, "Proven" and "Forced" as I do not think they mean what you think they mean. You may also go to a community college and get a decent grasp on the English language, and do us all a favor.
If I was an Iraqi, I might be kind of pissed a few years down the road, when my country was gaining some stability again, to hear that a foreign company sold off all the lucrative names in my country's domain in order to fund its own contract, during the time in which its country's military was running my government.
.iq domain for only Iraqi citizens, they just wait for the expiration time on the domains and refuse to renew unless your Iraqi.
Go read the Citri release, they explicitely address this point.
Whether or not it's a priority certainly comes into play when you're talking about a foreign occupying force deciding to dole out a country's assets and resources to fund business ventures in which the profit is reaped by companies in the occupying countries.
Well, they could go ahead and try to do it themselves. You know.. with all their infastructure in place. They have to build it with something. Wouldn't you rather have decent internet access in 2 years, instead of still building the resources to build it?
Citri is a non-profit organization, backed by the ISPs that are going to actually provide the net access to start with. After Iraq gets self-sufficient, they are going to hand the reigns over to Iraq. If Iraq wants the
Easy enough solution, and by the time Iraq becomes self-sufficient, most of the domains will be up for expiration.
Boo freakady who. Iraq has so many other problems right now. Why dont geeks send MONEY, FOOD to local companies like CARE that help the people of Iraq. By providing food, 100% of the people can use it. how many iraq's have a computer much less have ever been online? Yeah, in a year or two from now, when people are feed and they are dying for disesases, then worry abou rebuilding the internet systems...
I'm sorry, but an ISP is not geared towards providing humanitarian aid. They are geared towards providing internet access. Is it a priority? Not really. Is it something for them to expand their market capital? Yup. Is it still a good thing? Yup.
They are a business, that is doing business things, in a business world, to enhance their business. This is like getting upset that Microsoft is not going to send all of their resources and money for food and aid.
Businesses make money. That's what they do. In fact, it's almost the very definition of "business." All the threads saying that it's not a priority, you are right. This isn't about a priority. This is about a business venture.
A consultant takes a problem, develops a plan of action, and is entrusted with providing an opinion on anything that is detrimental. As a consultant, it's your JOB to bring it up-- But if they say "We know, but we just want it done this way", well that's then your job.
:)
Amen! So many people fail to understand the difference between a consultant and a contractor. Consultants create, design, plan, and can have teams under them. Contractors have specs, and build according to the specifications, and if they manage people, it tends to be people from the same firm.
Consultants should query poor decisions, but in the end, the person who pays is always right. I was faced with that same scenario at my current client (I'm a consultant) where they wanted something and I strongly advised against it. They put their foot down, and I did it, then they bitched because the end result was shit.
What do I get out of it? 6 more months doing it right
But a few proffessional ones will find that the extra lanes mean they can utilize the extra space better and drive faster.
Wow, I didn't realize you got that added bonus. Goodbye Speed Limit!