Yea, it has a long history. IBM instituted it's OCO policy in 1983 the same year RMS started the free software movement. Before then, many IBM software came with source code.
BTW, remember the standardization war between Netscape's JSSS vs Microsoft's CSS? Ultimately MS's CSS won the war, and Netscape had to write a buggy translator from CSS to JSSS for Netscape 4 which made MS look like it was more standard compliant.
The ugly fact is that no American corp in a monopoly position can do anything other than cheat and lie and steal in the end. It is ingrained in the business culture and all that is required for any traded corp to be made to work this way is a bit of investor and executive turnover with a sprinkling of lawsuits. Even Google will succumb to this as their regular M.O. eventually.
Agreed, but I think he does have one good point. I was thinking that MS would probably eventually reform some time ago, in fact. I think when Steve Ballmer will be out as CEO of Microsoft, there could be an opportunity for change. IBM indeed showed it was possible, I think.
On this topic, anyone remember the 16-bit version of this bus? Anyone remember the S-100 8086 processor cards from SCP and CompuPro (and I am sure other vendors too)? Anyone remember playing with SCP 86-DOS before it got bought by MS for the IBM PC? What about CompuPro's S-100 286 processor card? They even made a 386 card using a connector at the top to expose the extra lines to other card. What about CP/M-86? Anyone want to predict what would have happened if IBM were able to license CP/M-86 from DR and put MS's BASIC on top of it like MS was willing to do initially?
Plus, most of that 90% of users are not likely to care that much about their privacy. Those advanced users who do will easily be able to find the option.
If the company doesn't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites, and doing so using company resources, then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network. With the previously mentioned "authorized" access by the PR department maintaining the "official" site for the company on these networks.
Maybe include it as part of the employment contract. In fact I'd want to go as far as to require this freedom of speech when discussing the employer too, for both positive and negative posts, for both anonymous and non-anonymous posts, and I would not limit it to social media. Basically the freedom to disclose anything that isn't marked confidential or secret. I wonder how many employers will go for it.
Of course, the regular users were people who didn't thOf course, the regular users were people who didn't think what would happen once the bottom-feeding lawyers got ahold of it (as they did when Microsoft subpoena'ed Netscape's offshoot of BA) and then the predictable reactions of the HR drones (HR people being, by definition, the bottom 1% of humanity -- right below baby rapists). Management invented all sorts of reasons to go ahead and fire the more active participants despite the fact that the forum had been more or less sanctioned by the company in the first place.ink what would happen once the bottom-feeding lawyers got ahold of it (as they did when Microsoft subpoena'ed Netscape's offshoot of BA) and then the predictable reactions of the HR drones (HR people being, by definition, the bottom 1% of humanity -- right below baby rapists). Management invented all sorts of reasons to go ahead and fire the more active participants despite the fact that the forum had been more or less sanctioned by the company in the first place.
Why didn't they post a direct response instead? No matter how BS it is, it is still better than firing people. In fact, I was thinking of this for a while now.
Not to mention OpenSolaris, which because of the SVR4 code, Sun had to ask permission from SCO in 2003 before they could open source. After the ruling that Novell really owned the SVR4 code, Judge Dale Kimball wrote that:
"In this case, Sun obtained the rights to opensource Solaris, and SCO received the revenue for granting such rights even though such rights remained with Novell. If the court were to declare that the contract was void and should be set aside, the court could not return the parties to the same position they were in prior to the 2003 Agreement. Sun has already received the benefits of the agreement and developed and marketed a product based on those benefits. There was also evidence at trial that OpenSolaris directly competed with Novell’s interest. The court, therefore, cannot merely void the contract."
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, it has a long history. IBM instituted it's OCO policy in 1983 the same year RMS started the free software movement. Before then, many IBM software came with source code.
Yep, that was announced back around 2006: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/bulletins/longhorn/itanium_faq.mspx
Actually, thinking about it a little more, yea I have been reading about the move away from shareholder value for a while now.
BTW, remember the standardization war between Netscape's JSSS vs Microsoft's CSS? Ultimately MS's CSS won the war, and Netscape had to write a buggy translator from CSS to JSSS for Netscape 4 which made MS look like it was more standard compliant.
In particular, it sounds like Alex Brown's response to Jeremy Allison's comments, and that issue was I think already discussed many times.
The ugly fact is that no American corp in a monopoly position can do anything other than cheat and lie and steal in the end. It is ingrained in the business culture and all that is required for any traded corp to be made to work this way is a bit of investor and executive turnover with a sprinkling of lawsuits. Even Google will succumb to this as their regular M.O. eventually.
I would not go that far.
Except that the two things you are comparing are much different and have much different effects.
I would not go that far, and don't think it is a good idea for several reasons.
Agreed, but I think he does have one good point. I was thinking that MS would probably eventually reform some time ago, in fact. I think when Steve Ballmer will be out as CEO of Microsoft, there could be an opportunity for change. IBM indeed showed it was possible, I think.
On this topic, anyone remember the 16-bit version of this bus? Anyone remember the S-100 8086 processor cards from SCP and CompuPro (and I am sure other vendors too)? Anyone remember playing with SCP 86-DOS before it got bought by MS for the IBM PC? What about CompuPro's S-100 286 processor card? They even made a 386 card using a connector at the top to expose the extra lines to other card. What about CP/M-86? Anyone want to predict what would have happened if IBM were able to license CP/M-86 from DR and put MS's BASIC on top of it like MS was willing to do initially?
Here is another similar story from the Old New Thing blog later: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2009/11/23/9927055.aspx
This was discussed before:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads
And it reminds me of one of my AskReddit submissions where I mentioned a Slashdot comment about ad-blocking that mentioned that "(I work at Google, hence posting as AC.)":
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bk093/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_really/
Plus, most of that 90% of users are not likely to care that much about their privacy. Those advanced users who do will easily be able to find the option.
Yea, there is a fundamental flaw here that I was thinking of for a while now. Anyone can guess what it is?
If the company doesn't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites, and doing so using company resources, then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network. With the previously mentioned "authorized" access by the PR department maintaining the "official" site for the company on these networks.
Not that I recommend it in the day and age of PR 2.0. I once wrote this comment about it: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/12/myspaces-mid-level-management-structure-is-crumbling/#comment-967971
Surely they would have the time to directly respond instead, they just need to get into that habit. It would be cool too.
Yea, the old mindset of top-down command and control, which is increasingly getting obsolete these days.
Which is funny, because I have questioned whether it was actually necessary in a specific case: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bk093/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_really/ (I realize that it may be in some cases, but...)
Maybe include it as part of the employment contract. In fact I'd want to go as far as to require this freedom of speech when discussing the employer too, for both positive and negative posts, for both anonymous and non-anonymous posts, and I would not limit it to social media. Basically the freedom to disclose anything that isn't marked confidential or secret. I wonder how many employers will go for it.
Besides, it would be cool to see the manager/HR respond directly to a complaint by an employee publicly on say Twitter.
Of course, the regular users were people who didn't thOf course, the regular users were people who didn't think what would happen once the bottom-feeding lawyers got ahold of it (as they did when Microsoft subpoena'ed Netscape's offshoot of BA) and then the predictable reactions of the HR drones (HR people being, by definition, the bottom 1% of humanity -- right below baby rapists). Management invented all sorts of reasons to go ahead and fire the more active participants despite the fact that the forum had been more or less sanctioned by the company in the first place.ink what would happen once the bottom-feeding lawyers got ahold of it (as they did when Microsoft subpoena'ed Netscape's offshoot of BA) and then the predictable reactions of the HR drones (HR people being, by definition, the bottom 1% of humanity -- right below baby rapists). Management invented all sorts of reasons to go ahead and fire the more active participants despite the fact that the forum had been more or less sanctioned by the company in the first place.
Why didn't they post a direct response instead? No matter how BS it is, it is still better than firing people. In fact, I was thinking of this for a while now.
It would have been interesting if MS Bob was implemented on Windows NT, particularly because of the multi-user and security features.
Not to mention OpenSolaris, which because of the SVR4 code, Sun had to ask permission from SCO in 2003 before they could open source. After the ruling that Novell really owned the SVR4 code, Judge Dale Kimball wrote that: "In this case, Sun obtained the rights to opensource Solaris, and SCO received the revenue for granting such rights even though such rights remained with Novell. If the court were to declare that the contract was void and should be set aside, the court could not return the parties to the same position they were in prior to the 2003 Agreement. Sun has already received the benefits of the agreement and developed and marketed a product based on those benefits. There was also evidence at trial that OpenSolaris directly competed with Novell’s interest. The court, therefore, cannot merely void the contract."
I should probably go hunting for a bug report form...
Or how about trying to find one of the guys on the Twitter team on Twitter and ask them about it.
But did that use the census at all?