- The metacomment: concise, and somewhat critical of pretty much the entire thread, without actually stating that "this does not belong on slashdot" because it arguably has to do with a topic some nerds may be interested in.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
You scoffed when I said Apple needed to slap that ATI bitch around some.
But now an "industry authority figure" like Carmack comes up and says it: ATI's drivers on Mac OS suck suck suck (sic). Mac is a huge market for ATI, and they still get no respect. They act as if Mac users should be happy to get a driver period.
Well, until Jobs can go up and slap that ATI bitch ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H negotiate briskly with them, Macintosh will continue to be a second-rate gaming platform. And to all the Mac lovers out there; I am not trying to dis Macintosh by saying this; I'm trying to state that there is something that needs to be done, and one of Apple's "partners" is letting them down, and preventing them from executing a MAJOR task in their grand business plan.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
It's getting so that Microsoft is screwing up so bad and so often, that it really does look like a vast Slashdot-wing conspiracy to discredit them. Needless to say that you can still discredit something that has none to begine with. (credibility).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Yeah, we've discussed this before on slashdot. There IS some company out there doing this, but basically, they hijacked the "location" bar (where you'd put in the DNS otherwise).
The problems with this is that it's private, and if two companies decided to do this, there would be a conflict - also companies would have to pay BOTH players to insure their trademark is protected, then you're back to the.com.org thing.
This is why it needs to be government mandated, so that the legal protections of keywords become simply an extension of existing trademarks. So Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing, in business since 1965, - say they registered IBM.COM domain name before International Business Machines did. International Business Machines would still own the trademark "IBM" through sheer standing legal momentum, in that they've owned that trademark for what, like over a century. The thing is, Irving could still keep the domain name IBM.COM. Because it wouldn't matter to International Business Machines, because people looking for International Business Machines would ALWAYS be able to easily find them on the web, simply type in the keyword and bang, you're there dude. For the power user who types in IBM.COM in the location bar they've enabled, well, they're suprised to find Irving's Bobsled Manufacturer - but then again, they shouldn't be suprised, because Irving got their first, and server names shouldn't have to be subject to all this goofy legal bullcrap - that's already established as trademark law. Trying to fold in DNS names complicates the hell out of that, so I'm saying, just leave DNS names out of it.
Now say Joe Buttmunch registered IBM.COM before Irving got there. Well, with the present system, Irving would be compelled to pay off Joe Buttmunch, and later, as soon as International Business Machines figured out that the internet exists, they's have to then send an army of lawyers to lean on Irving, who already got extorted by Joe. But with a keyword system, Joe could never have rights to the valueable IBM keyword, neither could Irving, and IBM.COM is valueless to IBM, and Irving, so Joe wouldn't have registered it for extortion purposes in the first place. For Irving, it's a simple matter of convenience for him. Mental neatness. For people who are looking for Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing on the web, well, they probably know better than to try the IBM keyword, and would probably use "Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing" It's a mouthful, yes, but International Business Machines got to the IBM keyword first, when they paid to have their trademark registered.
Only an internet power-user who used DNS names to find web sites would find IBM.COM a convenient way to get to Irving's site - though probably not intuitive.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Doesn't bullshit like this go against the one of the most-celebrated "features" of the Internet (i.e., a vehicle for empowerment)?
"Yes, there is a thing called DNS that lets you go from www.yahoo.com to the Yahoo! website, but you are not allowed to use it! NO DNS FOR YOU!"
I didn't say that. You can use DNS if you want, it's just not something that "mother in-law" needs to use. Why should "mother in-law" have to know the difference between georgebush.com and (fictional parody site) georgebush.org? She knows she either wants to go to the "official" George Bush site, or not. DNS is for computer geeks. If it's more convenient for them to use DNS, then great, use the checkbox. I'm not saying take those empowering tools away from the user, I'm just saying, give the user a chisel so they can use that where a chisel is indicated instead of the screwdriver they've been using.
There isn't only one big point of failure.
Just because I said "central repository" doesn't mean I meant "one server in a government closet somewhere in the pentagon. Of course this thing would be served up in a decentralized manner. Duh. The AUTHORITY for registering and enforcing keywords would be centralized, but the resolution wouldn't have to be. True, there is a hole in this "Central Authority", and that's the fact that the global internet couldn't have keyword assignment policy dictated by an American government. Well. . . shouldn't.
It's totally unnecessary and has no technical merit.
OK, I'll give you no technical merit, but I'm not talking technical, I'm talking useability, and legal, and compatability with real-life problems like corporate trademarks and stuff like that. DNS was meant to be a name of a box. It serves that purpose well. Sure the keyword scheme is unnecessary, just like a GUI is unnecessary. But in terms of addressing these issues which are slowing wider adoption (through the abuses of cybersquatters ruining it for perhaps Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing sitting on IBM.COM - extreme example used to illustrate a point). I'm not even talking about messing with DNS for any regular TCP/IP application, I'm talking about the web only, and possibly only corporate/commercial web sites.
And your comment about the porSche? I'm not saying "you're not good enough at driving cars to drive it", I'm saying, if you get in the car for the first time, it's going to run as an automatic. If you're a hot-shit driver, and want the stick shift, press the button over there on the console, and the clutch and gearshift will pop up, and you can grind to your heart's content. And your attempt to map this over to slashdot posting is, well, silly.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
First of all, "the spec" would have to change, and all browsers would have to be modified. The browser automatically sends your request to the search site (default one built in, user configurable - but this really ought to be a central, legally answerable entitiy, like a trademark registry).
Second of all, DNS doesn't necessarily have to go away. The browser can be modified to let power users configure it so they can look up any site by DNS, if that's what they want, instead of keyword.
Sites like TeleBung.com don't need to exist at all. TeleBung Corporation can register their trademark, which automatically gives them rights to the "TeleBung" keyword, which is a lot easier to legally defend than Telebung.com, telebung.net, telebung.org, or telebungsux.com etc. ad infinutum ad nauseum. Telebung Corp. may opt to not even HAVE a DNS name, and map the TeleBung keyword straight to an IP address instead. Either way it solves all the problems of the current round-peg/square-hole situation.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I maintain my view that DNS names should have nothing to do with this - anybody should be able to register whatever name they can get to first, and DNS names should be taken out of the process for how endusers find sites on the internet. It's the name of a host, a server, it has certain restrictions which make it difficult to map over trademarked names (limited length, limited character-set, case insensitivity), not to mention the duplicity involved with the TLD names (.com,.gov,.mil,.org,.us,.etc).
Again: the endusers (99% of people surfing the net with your standard trusty web-browser), should NOT have access to the "location" field (for netscape, called "address" on IE), and instead should have a site-name field to enter stuff into. Then this data can go to a central trademark repository which acts as sort of a "yellow pages", maps to either their site's DNS or IP address, and zips the user to that site. Another layer of name-resolution, if you will. The actual http:// address should only be accesible to power users (who can configure that field to appear by going into the preferences dialog and checking a box).
This would eliminate the issues of squatting, TLD duplicity, and censoring (doodie.com). Such a repository could then be protected in the same way trade names have been for centuries without all these sticky issues.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
If only a select elite few people have "broadband" (I hate that term) connections, and "the rest of us" don't, then nobody's going to offer "broadband" services (like video on demand, teleconferencing, etc.). At least at reasonable mass-market prices. So then, DSL becomes pretty much exclusively for downloading pr0n and mp3's.
So yes, right now, there's not a whole heck of a lot of value at the end of the pipe. Build a bigger pipe (that reaches more people), and there's instantly enormous incentive for people to PUT value on the other end of the pipe.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I have to say that my cable company fucking sucks donkey balls (Charter Communications). Their signal sucks, their service sucks, their packages suck.
I moved here (CA) two years ago from Glen Ellyn IL, where they were doing this test thing, Jones Cable was previously the only cable company, then they allowed AT&T to come in and provide competing service. We switched, and it got WAY better, especially the service, and the quality of the signal. Then, checking with friends who didn't switch, Jones had seriously upgraded their service too, and also had some non-retarded channel packages.
Then I moved to a place where it was back to a Cable monopoly, and it's crap again, only crappier than Jones was when they had the monopoly. Competition is a good thing. People here are switching over to DirectTV in droves, and apparently, Charter doesn't give a rat's ass.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Well, what good is your DSL when the other end of the pipe (me) is stuck at 56k?
A simple and silly example, yes, but the true benefits of these technologies, aside from downloading massive amounts of pr0n and mp3's, will not be realized until everybody (>85%) has it.
It's like the argument; why buy John Carmack's Ferrari for $100k, when you're stuck in traffic behind a $10,000 Ford Festiva doing 5 mph below the speed limit IN THE LEFT LANE - hey move over buddy and let the rest of us who want to actually GO somewhere USE the road! The passing lane is for PASSING you idiot!!! (sorry).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Why don't the moderators slap down these "I submitted this story 10 years ago - go figure" whiners?
They're getting as bad as First Post-ers.
Damn, don't you ever get that page after you submit your article that says there are so many hundred other submissions waiting for review? You are not the only homey submitting articles. Get over yourself!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
This isn't for THIS round with the DOJ, it's for the NEXT round. When DOJ makes them sign another consent decree, and MS ignores it (just like they did with the last one, and got away with it), and DOJ hauls them back to court (we're talking like 2010 here folks), the DOJ won't be as big and bad.
Also for when MS appeals the current thing.
In my mind, this is a dead issue. No matter what Judge Jackson rules, it won't make one bit of difference to MS, they'll just keep on doing what they're doing. The DOJ just has no teeth.
The only way I'll think any different on this issue is when Bill is behind bars.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
"You're nuts. Jobs absolutely loves the position he's in now."
I said it's one of the rumors that's circulating. It would make sense. Obviously, there are some loose cannons at Apple. It really looks like Steve Jobs had nothing to do with the order cancellations (though he may have been the reason the orders were taken in the first place - supposedly he announced the G4 earlier than Motorola had recommended - he had been warned).
- - As for your other points about Carmack, you're probably right - but he did make some really good valid points, and that kind of thinking is what Apple needs right now, not this "Delay OS X so we can shoehorn Java in because Java's hip" garbage. yeah, I know, there are a LOT of other factors keeping OS X in the oven right now, but Java just should NOT be one of them.
Maybe I just want Carmack to "slap that Apple bitch around":)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool game, you actually get something out of it, great new graphics effects, speed, fun.
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool OS upgrade, you get the same lackluster crap performance you had before you shelled out $99 for the OS upgrade, and $200-$2000 for the hardware.
One thing I can say in Apple's favor - OS 8.1 was a great speed improvement over 8.0, 8.5 over 8.1, and 8.6 over 8.5. Though I think that was the result mainly of incrementally more native code, and some fixing of bugs in VM. I understand that they recently fixed some bug in AppleScript that resulted in like a 20x performance improvement over previous PPC versions. (8.5 time-frame?). At least for your $99, you get something from Apple.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool game, you actually get something out of it, great new graphics effects, speed, fun.
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool OS upgrade, you get the same lackluster crap performance you had before you shelled out $99 for the OS upgrade, and $200-$2000 for the hardware.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I may drop the $500 for Apple Developer Connection just to get a shot at beta testing this thing. (I wouldn't have said that 6 months ago, but I didn't have vested stock options then. . .:)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Speaking as a Tech Support professional, having started out in the Novell area - dealing with the patch dujour for SPX, CLIB, LOADER, etc. It was basically a full time job just keeping track of all the latest Netware patches for 3.11/3.12. And with 4.0, you then had to worry about DS patches, and patches to TSA and SMDR. Then 4.11 came out, and there were service packs. While, in some cases, bad fixes were bundled in with good fixes, it was a huge help in keeping systems up to date. However, Novell at least did it better than MICROS~1, because if Novell later found out that one patch was bad, you could easily disable it by editing the loading script (NCF), but in the case of NT service packs, you're stuck with the whole lump of sh1t if something isn't right, and there are HUGE numbers of patches in these NT service packs, even thousands, which makes the probability that you've hit some "fix a bug, make two more" code increase.
I don't think it's a marketing decision as much as a "simplify support" decision. Microsoft's whole gimmick is lower cost of ownership through cheap support (MCSEs). IMO, not a bad thing to aspire to, but at the expense of allowing a more experienced admin tweak a service pack to eliminate a bad fix, is not a good idea. Oh, there's a reason for that too though. Overly paranoid admins might only enable certain of the fixes they know they need, and leave the others out. When this admin has a problem and calls support, there is an extraordinary burden on the support person, because that's that many more variables to track when troubleshooting.
The only way to resolve that issue is thorough, thorough testing, and thorough thorough documentation, and, of course, open source code so people can tell what the hell your fixing, and how, and whether the fix was a polished and painted weld, or a crusty pussy used-bandaid.
Cold day in hell when any of that happens.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Slashdot Mirror
Why color?
Maps.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Summary of the first metacomment of this thread:
- The metacomment: concise, and somewhat critical of pretty much the entire thread, without actually stating that "this does not belong on slashdot" because it arguably has to do with a topic some nerds may be interested in.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
PBS? NPR? Too left wing. They were taken over by the communist conspiracy with transferrable power from the network ten turns ago. . .
.
And Slashdot? Run and censored by a secret cabal of "Meta Moderators". .
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
You scoffed when I said Apple needed to slap that ATI bitch around some.
But now an "industry authority figure" like Carmack comes up and says it: ATI's drivers on Mac OS suck suck suck (sic). Mac is a huge market for ATI, and they still get no respect. They act as if Mac users should be happy to get a driver period.
Well, until Jobs can go up and slap that ATI bitch ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H negotiate briskly with them, Macintosh will continue to be a second-rate gaming platform. And to all the Mac lovers out there; I am not trying to dis Macintosh by saying this; I'm trying to state that there is something that needs to be done, and one of Apple's "partners" is letting them down, and preventing them from executing a MAJOR task in their grand business plan.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
There IS a shortage as well. Low production yeilds. The 500MHz problem is a separate issue.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
It's getting so that Microsoft is screwing up so bad and so often, that it really does look like a vast Slashdot-wing conspiracy to discredit them. Needless to say that you can still discredit something that has none to begine with. (credibility).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
. . . and I'll say it again. What the hell were you expecting from MTV?
If you want good, thorough, intelligent, unbiased journalism, you don't go to MTV, you go to. . . um. . . any ideas?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
If one thing Apple has been consistent at lately, it's been miscommunication. If I didn't know better, I'd say there was a problem there somewhere.
.
'cmon Apple, the first step to a cure is admitting there's a problem. .
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Yeah, we've discussed this before on slashdot. There IS some company out there doing this, but basically, they hijacked the "location" bar (where you'd put in the DNS otherwise).
.com .org thing.
The problems with this is that it's private, and if two companies decided to do this, there would be a conflict - also companies would have to pay BOTH players to insure their trademark is protected, then you're back to the
This is why it needs to be government mandated, so that the legal protections of keywords become simply an extension of existing trademarks. So Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing, in business since 1965, - say they registered IBM.COM domain name before International Business Machines did. International Business Machines would still own the trademark "IBM" through sheer standing legal momentum, in that they've owned that trademark for what, like over a century. The thing is, Irving could still keep the domain name IBM.COM. Because it wouldn't matter to International Business Machines, because people looking for International Business Machines would ALWAYS be able to easily find them on the web, simply type in the keyword and bang, you're there dude. For the power user who types in IBM.COM in the location bar they've enabled, well, they're suprised to find Irving's Bobsled Manufacturer - but then again, they shouldn't be suprised, because Irving got their first, and server names shouldn't have to be subject to all this goofy legal bullcrap - that's already established as trademark law. Trying to fold in DNS names complicates the hell out of that, so I'm saying, just leave DNS names out of it.
Now say Joe Buttmunch registered IBM.COM before Irving got there. Well, with the present system, Irving would be compelled to pay off Joe Buttmunch, and later, as soon as International Business Machines figured out that the internet exists, they's have to then send an army of lawyers to lean on Irving, who already got extorted by Joe. But with a keyword system, Joe could never have rights to the valueable IBM keyword, neither could Irving, and IBM.COM is valueless to IBM, and Irving, so Joe wouldn't have registered it for extortion purposes in the first place. For Irving, it's a simple matter of convenience for him. Mental neatness. For people who are looking for Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing on the web, well, they probably know better than to try the IBM keyword, and would probably use "Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing" It's a mouthful, yes, but International Business Machines got to the IBM keyword first, when they paid to have their trademark registered.
Only an internet power-user who used DNS names to find web sites would find IBM.COM a convenient way to get to Irving's site - though probably not intuitive.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Doesn't bullshit like this go against the one of the most-celebrated "features" of the Internet (i.e., a
vehicle for empowerment)?
"Yes, there is a thing called DNS that lets you go from www.yahoo.com to the Yahoo! website, but
you are not allowed to use it! NO DNS FOR YOU!"
I didn't say that. You can use DNS if you want, it's just not something that "mother in-law" needs to use. Why should "mother in-law" have to know the difference between georgebush.com and (fictional parody site) georgebush.org? She knows she either wants to go to the "official" George Bush site, or not. DNS is for computer geeks. If it's more convenient for them to use DNS, then great, use the checkbox.
I'm not saying take those empowering tools away from the user, I'm just saying, give the user a chisel so they can use that where a chisel is indicated instead of the screwdriver they've been using.
There isn't
only one big point of failure.
Just because I said "central repository" doesn't mean I meant "one server in a government closet somewhere in the pentagon. Of course this thing would be served up in a decentralized manner. Duh. The AUTHORITY for registering and enforcing keywords would be centralized, but the resolution wouldn't have to be. True, there is a hole in this "Central Authority", and that's the fact that the global internet couldn't have keyword assignment policy dictated by an American government. Well. . . shouldn't.
It's totally unnecessary and has no technical merit.
OK, I'll give you no technical merit, but I'm not talking technical, I'm talking useability, and legal, and compatability with real-life problems like corporate trademarks and stuff like that. DNS was meant to be a name of a box. It serves that purpose well. Sure the keyword scheme is unnecessary, just like a GUI is unnecessary. But in terms of addressing these issues which are slowing wider adoption (through the abuses of cybersquatters ruining it for perhaps Irving's Bobsled Manufacturing sitting on IBM.COM - extreme example used to illustrate a point). I'm not even talking about messing with DNS for any regular TCP/IP application, I'm talking about the web only, and possibly only corporate/commercial web sites.
And your comment about the porSche? I'm not saying "you're not good enough at driving cars to drive it", I'm saying, if you get in the car for the first time, it's going to run as an automatic. If you're a hot-shit driver, and want the stick shift, press the button over there on the console, and the clutch and gearshift will pop up, and you can grind to your heart's content. And your attempt to map this over to slashdot posting is, well, silly.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Macintosh users, start your Velocity Engines. (assuming this client will be accelerated for AltiVec)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Not at all!
First of all, "the spec" would have to change, and all browsers would have to be modified. The browser automatically sends your request to the search site (default one built in, user configurable - but this really ought to be a central, legally answerable entitiy, like a trademark registry).
Second of all, DNS doesn't necessarily have to go away. The browser can be modified to let power users configure it so they can look up any site by DNS, if that's what they want, instead of keyword.
Sites like TeleBung.com don't need to exist at all. TeleBung Corporation can register their trademark, which automatically gives them rights to the "TeleBung" keyword, which is a lot easier to legally defend than Telebung.com, telebung.net, telebung.org, or telebungsux.com etc. ad infinutum ad nauseum. Telebung Corp. may opt to not even HAVE a DNS name, and map the TeleBung keyword straight to an IP address instead. Either way it solves all the problems of the current round-peg/square-hole situation.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I maintain my view that DNS names should have nothing to do with this - anybody should be able to register whatever name they can get to first, and DNS names should be taken out of the process for how endusers find sites on the internet. It's the name of a host, a server, it has certain restrictions which make it difficult to map over trademarked names (limited length, limited character-set, case insensitivity), not to mention the duplicity involved with the TLD names (.com, .gov, .mil, .org, .us, .etc).
Again: the endusers (99% of people surfing the net with your standard trusty web-browser), should NOT have access to the "location" field (for netscape, called "address" on IE), and instead should have a site-name field to enter stuff into. Then this data can go to a central trademark repository which acts as sort of a "yellow pages", maps to either their site's DNS or IP address, and zips the user to that site. Another layer of name-resolution, if you will. The actual http:// address should only be accesible to power users (who can configure that field to appear by going into the preferences dialog and checking a box).
This would eliminate the issues of squatting, TLD duplicity, and censoring (doodie.com). Such a repository could then be protected in the same way trade names have been for centuries without all these sticky issues.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Okay, I guess I was being too subtle again;
If only a select elite few people have "broadband" (I hate that term) connections, and "the rest of us" don't, then nobody's going to offer "broadband" services (like video on demand, teleconferencing, etc.). At least at reasonable mass-market prices. So then, DSL becomes pretty much exclusively for downloading pr0n and mp3's.
So yes, right now, there's not a whole heck of a lot of value at the end of the pipe. Build a bigger pipe (that reaches more people), and there's instantly enormous incentive for people to PUT value on the other end of the pipe.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
"There is
no incentive for cable companies to improve their networks if others are just going to leech off
them"
There's no incentive for cable companies to improve their networks if they have no competition either.
I'm for the guy who said that bandwidth providers should not be content providers.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I have to say that my cable company fucking sucks donkey balls (Charter Communications). Their signal sucks, their service sucks, their packages suck.
I moved here (CA) two years ago from Glen Ellyn IL, where they were doing this test thing, Jones Cable was previously the only cable company, then they allowed AT&T to come in and provide competing service. We switched, and it got WAY better, especially the service, and the quality of the signal. Then, checking with friends who didn't switch, Jones had seriously upgraded their service too, and also had some non-retarded channel packages.
Then I moved to a place where it was back to a Cable monopoly, and it's crap again, only crappier than Jones was when they had the monopoly. Competition is a good thing. People here are switching over to DirectTV in droves, and apparently, Charter doesn't give a rat's ass.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Well, what good is your DSL when the other end of the pipe (me) is stuck at 56k?
A simple and silly example, yes, but the true benefits of these technologies, aside from downloading massive amounts of pr0n and mp3's, will not be realized until everybody (>85%) has it.
It's like the argument; why buy John Carmack's Ferrari for $100k, when you're stuck in traffic behind a $10,000 Ford Festiva doing 5 mph below the speed limit IN THE LEFT LANE - hey move over buddy and let the rest of us who want to actually GO somewhere USE the road! The passing lane is for PASSING you idiot!!! (sorry).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Why don't the moderators slap down these "I submitted this story 10 years ago - go figure" whiners?
They're getting as bad as First Post-ers.
Damn, don't you ever get that page after you submit your article that says there are so many hundred other submissions waiting for review? You are not the only homey submitting articles. Get over yourself!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
This isn't for THIS round with the DOJ, it's for the NEXT round. When DOJ makes them sign another consent decree, and MS ignores it (just like they did with the last one, and got away with it), and DOJ hauls them back to court (we're talking like 2010 here folks), the DOJ won't be as big and bad.
Also for when MS appeals the current thing.
In my mind, this is a dead issue. No matter what Judge Jackson rules, it won't make one bit of difference to MS, they'll just keep on doing what they're doing. The DOJ just has no teeth.
The only way I'll think any different on this issue is when Bill is behind bars.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
It's not so much a "market failure" as it is an "invisible hand-job".
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
"You're nuts. Jobs absolutely loves the position he's in now."
:)
I said it's one of the rumors that's circulating. It would make sense. Obviously, there are some loose cannons at Apple. It really looks like Steve Jobs had nothing to do with the order cancellations (though he may have been the reason the orders were taken in the first place - supposedly he announced the G4 earlier than Motorola had recommended - he had been warned).
- -
As for your other points about Carmack, you're probably right - but he did make some really good valid points, and that kind of thinking is what Apple needs right now, not this "Delay OS X so we can shoehorn Java in because Java's hip" garbage. yeah, I know, there are a LOT of other factors keeping OS X in the oven right now, but Java just should NOT be one of them.
Maybe I just want Carmack to "slap that Apple bitch around"
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool game, you actually get something out of it, great new graphics effects, speed, fun.
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool OS upgrade, you get the same lackluster crap performance you had before you shelled out $99 for the OS upgrade, and $200-$2000 for the hardware.
One thing I can say in Apple's favor - OS 8.1 was a great speed improvement over 8.0, 8.5 over 8.1, and 8.6 over 8.5. Though I think that was the result mainly of incrementally more native code, and some fixing of bugs in VM. I understand that they recently fixed some bug in AppleScript that resulted in like a 20x performance improvement over previous PPC versions. (8.5 time-frame?). At least for your $99, you get something from Apple.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool game, you actually get something out of it, great new graphics effects, speed, fun.
When you upgrade your machine for the next cool OS upgrade, you get the same lackluster crap performance you had before you shelled out $99 for the OS upgrade, and $200-$2000 for the hardware.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
I may drop the $500 for Apple Developer Connection just to get a shot at beta testing this thing. (I wouldn't have said that 6 months ago, but I didn't have vested stock options then. . . :)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Speaking as a Tech Support professional, having started out in the Novell area - dealing with the patch dujour for SPX, CLIB, LOADER, etc. It was basically a full time job just keeping track of all the latest Netware patches for 3.11/3.12. And with 4.0, you then had to worry about DS patches, and patches to TSA and SMDR. Then 4.11 came out, and there were service packs.
While, in some cases, bad fixes were bundled in with good fixes, it was a huge help in keeping systems up to date. However, Novell at least did it better than MICROS~1, because if Novell later found out that one patch was bad, you could easily disable it by editing the loading script (NCF), but in the case of NT service packs, you're stuck with the whole lump of sh1t if something isn't right, and there are HUGE numbers of patches in these NT service packs, even thousands, which makes the probability that you've hit some "fix a bug, make two more" code increase.
I don't think it's a marketing decision as much as a "simplify support" decision. Microsoft's whole gimmick is lower cost of ownership through cheap support (MCSEs). IMO, not a bad thing to aspire to, but at the expense of allowing a more experienced admin tweak a service pack to eliminate a bad fix, is not a good idea. Oh, there's a reason for that too though. Overly paranoid admins might only enable certain of the fixes they know they need, and leave the others out. When this admin has a problem and calls support, there is an extraordinary burden on the support person, because that's that many more variables to track when troubleshooting.
The only way to resolve that issue is thorough, thorough testing, and thorough thorough documentation, and, of course, open source code so people can tell what the hell your fixing, and how, and whether the fix was a polished and painted weld, or a crusty pussy used-bandaid.
Cold day in hell when any of that happens.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."