Includes: OpenOffice.org Firefox Flash Xine (with *licensed* DVD support) Evolution Opera GNOME Google Earth for Linux Picassa for Linux Hello for Linux Google Desktop for Linux Google Talk for Linux
Free!
Optionally avaliable for $25, with a combination USB flash drive/802.11g wireless card. Free access to Google Wi-Fi.
Run the live CD, it tests all your hardware, if everything is determined to be compatible (wireless, etc. ..) it'll install directly to your drive.
That addresses 80% of users right there, while "saving" them from all the security hassles of Windows. Google can run an update service, and dump newer versions of these apps right on to people's systems.
Then Google can become one of the world's largest software stores, too; (like Linspire) think iTunes for Software, only have it all served by Google, and be designed to work on the Google Linux distribution.
Sure; it won't be slick as OS X. But it'll be way, way slicker than XP. And think about Google's expertise; Google is good at serving lots of customized data. No one will run a better network package management system that Google, especially if Google only has to contend with ONE "stable" version of OS. They could permit other users to access their software, but it would be unsupported; if you wanted it to guaranteed work, you'll be restricted to the Google distribution, which will be tamper resistant (think root account disabled by default, administrator only enabled for power users, requirining a specific interaction with Google (please submit a request to poweruser@gmail.com if you want your system to be unlocked).
AFAIK, Scholomance is not a destroyed city, its actually at the height of its power. Scholomance is a school of necromancy; it should be filled with undead. Once upon a time, Caer Darrow was a rich family's castle, but they made a deal with the evil undead (scourage), and were rewarded with their status as necromancers.
The answer in the short run is more levels. The answer in the long run is alternative advancement (hero classes).
Or you can grind for faction, which will yield you epic rewards (PvP faction, or PvE faction). Note: I don't mean honor; I mean faction. They are very difference; one decays over time, one doesn't.
The problem is Blizzard sees the short run as the expansion (May), and the long run as 1-2 years. This is too long for much of the current playerbase.
I'm not sure that's true. My cousin has been struggling to get an ATI TV tuner (USB 2.0) working on his XP desktop. He's been messing with it for two weeks. Whenever you start the app up, the desktop freezes (BSOD).
We've even tried a clean install. My next theory is some incompatibility with the built-in video card. I'm going to try with Knoppixmyth first, though.
I'm not sure I can figure out why some people have a great experience, and others have a terrible experience. But I do know I see both (good and bad) on both (linux and windows).
I installed my video capture card in OpenSuSE 10.0 in about 3 minutes. Most of that was time spent shutting down, opening case, and then booting. The actual software setup took ~15 seconds.
Click yes to "Do you want to setup your new (ATI) TV card". Click auto. Click yes. Click Finished.
The niggling detail is that the demands are coming from a Communist government, not a democratic one, where the people themselves did not vote for these restrictions. and The Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country, and the same right to make demands on businesses who want to deal with their peoples.
In a democracy, the government is supposedly of (and for) the people. Sovereignty ostensibly lies with the people. In a totalitarian government, or a dictatorship, the government is NOT aligned with the people. Sovereignty is NOT with the people, it lies with a select group of the elite.
Obviously, democracies can be subverted by the rich, and dictatorships can be surprising responsive to domestic demands (think populist, nationalist dictators). But that's the rub; I can understand why we respect the governments of democracies. These are governments that represent the people, and are ultimately selected by the people.
Communist China does not function like this. Censorship is not the will of the people. Why, then, should we respect it? Germany censors Nazi memorabilia because the majority of people want it censored. We respect that majority. China censors "subversive" information because the minority government is afraid of dissent and revolution. We empower the dictators over the will of the majority. I'm not sure why we treat all nation-states as the same; what possible rational could there be to respect the rule of a government other than it represents the will of the people?
Why should the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, or the Taliban of Afghanistan be placed on the same level as the democratically elected government of India, or Germany, or Japan?
Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country
Do you honestly believe that the dictates of Saddam should be respected by the world in the same way we respect the laws of democratic Italy?
Was Iraq Saddam's country? Does Saudi Arabia belong to the House of Saud? Is China merely a plaything of the Commies? What about North Korea; should we respect "The Rule of Law", and as such elevate Kim Jong-Il to his rightful place as a world leader?
Not all countries are created alike. This doesn't mean that we should immediately declare war on all non-democratic regimes. At the same time, when China makes a polite request for us to begin censoring material we import into China, we should have no qualms with saying, "Sorry, take it or leave it, as-is."
A better example: Look at the various Voices of America stations (or Radio Free Asia). We broadcast information about freedom and democracy (yes, it IS brainwashing). If North Korea asks us to stop, should we? Should we respect Kim Jong-Il's rules? What about China; do we stop broadcasting open air MTV and Radio Free Asia? It isn't open and shut. You can't just say, "Respect the wishes of the Chinese", because its not accurate to say that the government of China represents the wishes of the people.At the same time, its not necessarily accurate to say that the government of the U.S. accurately represents the wishes of Americans.
But treating all governments as the respresentatives of the various cultures they administrate isn't the right answer.
I suppose your probably right. In some ways, however, I think that compatibility helps people move off MS products gradually. Few business are willing to move wholesale, however, they are much more likely to consider it piece by piece.
I used this viral approach in my office. First OpenOffice.org. Then our servers. Then our web apps (that was interesting). Then peoples old machines got switched to Linux one by one, and all new purchases are OS X or Linux.
We've got one Windows box left; but he just let me put it on a KVM switch with his new Mac Mini.
At least in most risk adverse scenarios, you won't be able to convince people to drop MS; but you might be able to convince them to go with a 100% compatible alternative.
The second step, the one away from the 100% compatible alternative, isn't nearly as hard.
I think you might underestimate government's desire for change from Microsoft. The more I read about the first antitrust trial, where Judge Jackson ordered a breakup; the more I was impressed with both his (and the prosecutors) knowledge of the issues at hand. They often made various MS VPs look foolish, and I think they were honestly trying to change the world.
Look at the former IT director of the State of Massachusettes; a hard working individual who pushed really hard for a policy not because it was the easy thing to do, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When I read documents coming out of the EC these days regarding MS, I'm honestly quite impressed by the various commissioners attitude. They aren't anti-MS hacks; they just want to force MS into competing fairly, and they want to see a world where no company is permitted to rabidly tear apart other companies. They didn't take the easy way out, and just accept the first offer from MS (*ahem*, US DoJ). They really are trying, and I think its fair to hope for change.
Do you really think the computer world is fine as-is? Should the EU just give up? Is the MS-centric world the way things should be?
Or do you believe that the government isn't able to generate positive change? Perhaps you just believe that the government is incapable of changing Microsoft (that's potentially a very good argument, but then again, that just might be my MS hatred coming out.)
The only place where I doubt my position is on that question. Maybe I just see things colored through lenses of hatred, and I should just be happy with the MS-world. It's just that my experience with alternative products shows me that computing is really a lot better with limited MS involvement; but given that I'm hardly risk-adverse (probably more risk-seeking than anything), I'm not a good barometer for microeconomic examples.
What do I expect will happen? MS will get fined for a month, and it will submit a request for delay. This pattern will repeat, with MS releasing slightly more documentation each time until the EC's independant fact-finding CS people agree, "Yes, this is enough." It won't actually be enough, and there will be problems with it, but it will be a heck of a lot easier than reverse engineering from scratch. Perhaps we'll even see a WinForms implementation for Mono sooner rather than later.
The end "vision" of this, at least from the EC's perspective, is a world where you can pick from multiple suppliers, each of which supplies a product that is slightly different. These products will fit into the same roles, with minor caveats. They'll be mainly drop-in replacements; the work involved in switching from a Novell solution to an MS solution will be minor, compared to the current shock involved. In an attempt to push computing towards maturing, the EC seeks a standards based world, where consortiums of companies develop open standards with proprietary implementations that are mainly interoperable.
Look at, say, the automobile industry's ability to purchase engines for various lines of vehicles from competing manu
"Microsoft's proposal is to provide the server source code and 500 hours of "free" support under an NDA and at a cost of US$10,000."
You do realize that it boils down to Microsoft extending its "Shared Source" access to the corporate world at a cost of $10,000 per developer?
That's more than slightly audacious. The EU demanded a certain remedy, and Microsoft decided to bargain with them by selling secret shared-source access.
I'm sorry you took my comment so close to heart, but--- if your going to post something inflammatory, expect to be flamed.
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
What a victory for... capitalism? No, if they were letting capitalism work, they'd switch products. Open Source? The FSF must be thrilled that they can now license to peek at MS source... not so much. Ahh, Linux... no, the EU hates Linux so much, that they can't bear the thought of departing from Windows.
Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something.
Perhaps the EU would like to switch to Linux, but interoperability with Windows systems is a requirement. Perhaps the EU would like to switch portions of their infrastructure to alternative systems, but these alternative suppliers have not been able to develop comprehensive interoperable protocols, because extensive reverse engineering is expensive.
Both EU and U.S. courts have found Microsoft to be a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft represents a market failure. I'd argue that in many ways Microsoft got into its position via illegal acts. Microsoft has been known to play dirty for a long, long time. Look what they did to Stacker, OS/2, and a wide variety of companies that tried to work with them.
Look at the bullshit they pulled in their antitrust trial. Look at the video they doctored for the trial.
What about Microsoft's funding of the SCO madness, to the tune of nearly $65 million?
Pardon my french, pardon my bad attitude about the matter, but these fuckers play ugly. Really ugly. As someone who's business was once badly damaged in a Microsoft play, without the cash to pursue it legally (like Stacker, who was shut down by Microsoft, and eventually forced Microsoft to settle with them, once their business (stackers) was already beyond repair), I take the notion of "illegitimate barriers to market entry" more seriously than most.
Capitalism only works when people play by the rules. Once you switch to clearly illegal acts, once you start breaking agreements with your supposed allies, and start stabbing them in the back; once you start destroying competitors not throught competition, but through fraud--- you're a monopoly, and an evil one at that.
Capitalism doesn't work when someone doesn't play nice; that's why we have government, to make sure people play nice. I'm a libertarian, but even objectivists will recognize that the government has some role in protecting against fraud.
You come off as downright derogative towards the EU, yet have absolutely no grasp of the issues at hand. You're right; I overreacted in my response. However, lines like "Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something." come off very, very badly to me. I've personal experience the wrong end of the Microsoft stick (in a small way). People have been fighting the fradulent activities of this company for _decades_. This company has literally held the entire computing sector in an iron grip for over a decade.
The EU attempts to force MS to produce documentation, to facilitate interoperability, in an attempt to directly address the most obvious form of market barrier that Microsoft has established. This isn't a huge fine; this isn't breaking the company. I cannot, in fact, think of a better, more capitalist, more lenient solution.
Capitalism doesn't mean that the government never intervenes. Even Objectivists view Fraud as a violation of their Non-Aggression principle, permitting government intervention.
I shouldn't have been as hot headed as I was, but don't attempt to make a glibe insult in a discussion about which you are not fully aware of the major facts.
Government grants can solve this problem. What are alternative energy grants these days? Even though the oil industry dwarfs renewables, they still can a hefty 100 million or so in the U.S.
Imagine if the EU decided to throw 100 million euros at the Wine project, for the purpose of providing 100% binary compatibility with Windows.
With a 100 million euros, exactly how long do you think it would take? 6 months?
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
Are you a complete idiot, intentional obtuse, an MSFT employee, or all of the above?
The EU never, ever asked MS to publish sources. The EU asked MS to provide documentation for interfaces, protocols, and file formats.
MSFT responded by publishing source.
The EU replied that publishing source doesn't necessarily mean that they've complied with the documentation requirement. This is true. The EU may find that they have complied, but are currently trying to determine if the supplied source is enough for competing companies to use it to build interoperable inferfaces, protocols, and file formats.
At no point did the EU request the source, they actually requested something entirely different, and something much more limited. They are trying to give MS the benefit of the doubt, and say that publishing the source is equivalent to providing documentation. Frankly, in terms of interoperability, source is much less useful than proper documentation.
Jackson actually is a rock-ribbed conservative, but he doesn't have the pro-business blinders on that his opponents at the Appellate level have. Microsoft was an abusive monopoly that lied to his face and showed his court doctored evidence. The obvious solution under antitrust was to break them up so that the abuses would stop, given that their history in the field and in his court showed that they had no plans to knock it off.
I agree, however, Jackson should NOT have made the comments he did. He was justified in saying them, and given that they were flaunting his rules, I can understand his anger.
However, his mouth got him in trouble, even if the reason he got in trouble was opponents taking advantage of him. He should have kept quite, and gone ahead with the trial, and then have quietly thrown the book at MS.
I have to say that WoW is very noob friendly. WoW was the first MMORPG I was actually able to play.
I tried Everquest after hearing all the hype, and it just didn't make any sense to me. I didn't make it anywhere, and it basically just sucked. The game was incredibly confusing, I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to do, my character died a few times, and then I gave up.
WoW doesn't have any of that.
This book might help, but I honestly suggest just picking the game up and starting. There is a mild "hump" in the learning curve, for about 30 minutes right at the beginning. The starting area is easy enough to figure out; the "tip" system explains what you should do. The transition from initial starting area to first real adventure area is somewhat confusing; its easy to get lost (and dead), it can be difficult to figure out what you are supposed to do, and it takes a second for the road signs to make sense to you.
To be terribly honest, I'd say that gaming "guides", even one as generic and broad as this that just covers the principles, ruin the actual "gameplay".
Example of noob friendliness: I picked up WoW for my girl. This is her first real game ever, on her first real computer ever. Once I guided her past the first "hump" in game play, the difficulty in going from the pure "noob" area to the "beginners" area, she had no problems at all, and really started to enjoy herself.
Purchase the game. Play during primetime. Ignore the forums and any gaming guides. Login, and ask for help in general chat (that's chat channel 1, addresable by using/1)......
Follow the tip guide, and make sure you follow the quests at least until level 10. By level 10, you'll safely be in the beginners area, and you'll have a handle on what kinds of gameplay you should expect.
If you still have problems, go out and buy this book. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't have problems; WoW simply just doesn't have the learning curve other MMORPGs have. I'd liken the gameplay to Zelda on the Nintendo 64, or the german single player RPG game, Gothic (and Gothic 2).
Oh, and another tip: Don't read the book till you've played. Go into the game, make a random character, and follow the tips at the bottom of the screen. Once you've done that, go back, read the book some, and then start a new character.
Feel free to e-mail me at moornblade at gmail dot com . I'll happily give you a hand, and I think with this game, at least, you'll have few problems picking it up; it really is that simple for non-gamers. (My 7 year-old cousin had no problems starting a character out on my account, but I know she wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING in Everquest).
The damage done to the E.U. economy would convince the world (including the U.S. government) that reliance upon one single monopolist OS vendor is disasterous.
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
How about a better implementation?
Do you think Microsoft should go back to making proprietary MSHTML that only renders properly on IE? Do you think that Microsoft should make a big push for Exchange to be the primary mail system for the internet (as direct competition for SMTP)? Do you think Microsoft should produce an SMB v5 that is incompatible with everything else, and then push it as a replacement for FTP and HTTP file transfers?
Proprietary file formats and protocols are not the way of the future, my friend. Look to the state of Massachusetts. Proprietary file formats and protocols are a DISASTER for future generations, as well as unfairly hindering superior products in a competitive environment (monopolist barriers to market entry).
Just because a program can read and write an established format doesn't mean that it is equivalent to all programs that can do so. Take HTML editors; HTML is an established, published, public format.
Do you honestly claim that Front Page, GoLive!, Dreamweaver, and MS Word 97 all produce HTML of similar quality, or end user output of similar quality?
What the fuck happened to competing on features and design? Or even gasp security?
Microsoft products routinely beat out superior implementations because of competitive barriers to entry, primarily in the realm of interoperability. Your right; the MS empire is founded on keeping out competing products.
"Windows ain't done till Wordperfect won't run!" Remember that?
It's all well and good to compete like this; build proprietary sets of software all you like, until you have a monopoly. Monopolists have to play under different rules; both EU and US legal structure enshroud this principle. Once your a monopolist, you can't use the same dirty tricks you used to get there. We do this because monopolist profits are an example of a market that is working inefficently; that's basic economics.
Interoperable products do NOT mean that all products are exactly the same. Is Apache =IIS? Is Firefox=IE? Is MS Word 97=Dreamweaver? Is IBM's Workplaces product the same as OpenOffice.org Writer?
No. Not in the least bit. The fact that you think this is the only way in which Microsoft can differentiate itself suggests to me that the existing "ecology" of Windows software is so badly crippled that you can't even understand what a superior implementation might be.
Slashdot Mirror
Recent Fedora, SuSE and Ubuntu?
:)
Did you try turning ACPI off? (Non-standard implementations of ACPI on weird (esoteric) hardware is the primary cause of Linux not booting)
Google Linux Live CD/DVD.
.) it'll install directly to your drive.
Includes:
OpenOffice.org
Firefox
Flash
Xine (with *licensed* DVD support)
Evolution
Opera
GNOME
Google Earth for Linux
Picassa for Linux
Hello for Linux
Google Desktop for Linux
Google Talk for Linux
Free!
Optionally avaliable for $25, with a combination USB flash drive/802.11g wireless card. Free access to Google Wi-Fi.
Run the live CD, it tests all your hardware, if everything is determined to be compatible (wireless, etc. .
That addresses 80% of users right there, while "saving" them from all the security hassles of Windows. Google can run an update service, and dump newer versions of these apps right on to people's systems.
Then Google can become one of the world's largest software stores, too; (like Linspire) think iTunes for Software, only have it all served by Google, and be designed to work on the Google Linux distribution.
Sure; it won't be slick as OS X. But it'll be way, way slicker than XP. And think about Google's expertise; Google is good at serving lots of customized data. No one will run a better network package management system that Google, especially if Google only has to contend with ONE "stable" version of OS. They could permit other users to access their software, but it would be unsupported; if you wanted it to guaranteed work, you'll be restricted to the Google distribution, which will be tamper resistant (think root account disabled by default, administrator only enabled for power users, requirining a specific interaction with Google (please submit a request to poweruser@gmail.com if you want your system to be unlocked).
Kvisio.
.... World of Warcraft!
Does OpenBSD run FreeBSD apps? 'cause if so, you can run Cedega, and thereafter the OpenBSD equivalent of World of Warcraft is
I happily run WoW on SuSE linux.
Here's a guide for WoW on FreeBSD: http://cedega.firepipe.net/
Scholomance, a destroyed city full of undead
;-)
AFAIK, Scholomance is not a destroyed city, its actually at the height of its power. Scholomance is a school of necromancy; it should be filled with undead. Once upon a time, Caer Darrow was a rich family's castle, but they made a deal with the evil undead (scourage), and were rewarded with their status as necromancers.
When its empty of undead, something is wrong
The answer in the short run is more levels. The answer in the long run is alternative advancement (hero classes).
Or you can grind for faction, which will yield you epic rewards (PvP faction, or PvE faction). Note: I don't mean honor; I mean faction. They are very difference; one decays over time, one doesn't.
The problem is Blizzard sees the short run as the expansion (May), and the long run as 1-2 years. This is too long for much of the current playerbase.
I'm not sure that's true. My cousin has been struggling to get an ATI TV tuner (USB 2.0) working on his XP desktop. He's been messing with it for two weeks. Whenever you start the app up, the desktop freezes (BSOD).
We've even tried a clean install. My next theory is some incompatibility with the built-in video card. I'm going to try with Knoppixmyth first, though.
I'm not sure I can figure out why some people have a great experience, and others have a terrible experience. But I do know I see both (good and bad) on both (linux and windows).
*shrug*
Raising the level cap will help, but its so far away.
At level 70, the current raid dungeons will be doable via 5-10 man groups.
How many apps, and how much are you willing to spend?
Codeweavers will do custom wine builds for your specific enterprise apps at reasonable price ranges (think 4 figures).
Bizarre. I've never had a problem with either a Happenhauge (sp?) or ATI card on SuSE, on a wide variety of machines.
They just work out of box. You should log this as a bug with SuSE; they actually tend to fix stuff like this.
Are we talking Linux or OpenBSD?
I installed my video capture card in OpenSuSE 10.0 in about 3 minutes. Most of that was time spent shutting down, opening case, and then booting. The actual software setup took ~15 seconds.
Click yes to "Do you want to setup your new (ATI) TV card".
Click auto.
Click yes.
Click Finished.
Done.
I did the same thing with our secretaries, except with SuSE instead of OpenBSD. I'm sure the end result looked quite similar to CyricZ's solution.
They scratched their heads about a few minor things, and then were quite happy with the setup.
These two statements are incongruous:
The niggling detail is that the demands are coming from a Communist government, not a democratic one, where the people themselves did not vote for these restrictions.
and
The Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country, and the same right to make demands on businesses who want to deal with their peoples.
In a democracy, the government is supposedly of (and for) the people. Sovereignty ostensibly lies with the people. In a totalitarian government, or a dictatorship, the government is NOT aligned with the people. Sovereignty is NOT with the people, it lies with a select group of the elite.
Obviously, democracies can be subverted by the rich, and dictatorships can be surprising responsive to domestic demands (think populist, nationalist dictators). But that's the rub; I can understand why we respect the governments of democracies. These are governments that represent the people, and are ultimately selected by the people.
Communist China does not function like this. Censorship is not the will of the people. Why, then, should we respect it? Germany censors Nazi memorabilia because the majority of people want it censored. We respect that majority. China censors "subversive" information because the minority government is afraid of dissent and revolution. We empower the dictators over the will of the majority. I'm not sure why we treat all nation-states as the same; what possible rational could there be to respect the rule of a government other than it represents the will of the people?
Why should the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, or the Taliban of Afghanistan be placed on the same level as the democratically elected government of India, or Germany, or Japan?
Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country
Do you honestly believe that the dictates of Saddam should be respected by the world in the same way we respect the laws of democratic Italy?
Was Iraq Saddam's country? Does Saudi Arabia belong to the House of Saud? Is China merely a plaything of the Commies? What about North Korea; should we respect "The Rule of Law", and as such elevate Kim Jong-Il to his rightful place as a world leader?
Not all countries are created alike. This doesn't mean that we should immediately declare war on all non-democratic regimes. At the same time, when China makes a polite request for us to begin censoring material we import into China, we should have no qualms with saying, "Sorry, take it or leave it, as-is."
A better example: Look at the various Voices of America stations (or Radio Free Asia). We broadcast information about freedom and democracy (yes, it IS brainwashing). If North Korea asks us to stop, should we? Should we respect Kim Jong-Il's rules? What about China; do we stop broadcasting open air MTV and Radio Free Asia? It isn't open and shut. You can't just say, "Respect the wishes of the Chinese", because its not accurate to say that the government of China represents the wishes of the people.At the same time, its not necessarily accurate to say that the government of the U.S. accurately represents the wishes of Americans.
But treating all governments as the respresentatives of the various cultures they administrate isn't the right answer.
*shrug*
(offtopic)Yes, Vampire is loads of fun(/offtopic)
I suppose your probably right. In some ways, however, I think that compatibility helps people move off MS products gradually. Few business are willing to move wholesale, however, they are much more likely to consider it piece by piece.
I used this viral approach in my office. First OpenOffice.org. Then our servers. Then our web apps (that was interesting). Then peoples old machines got switched to Linux one by one, and all new purchases are OS X or Linux.
We've got one Windows box left; but he just let me put it on a KVM switch with his new Mac Mini.
At least in most risk adverse scenarios, you won't be able to convince people to drop MS; but you might be able to convince them to go with a 100% compatible alternative.
The second step, the one away from the 100% compatible alternative, isn't nearly as hard.
I think you might underestimate government's desire for change from Microsoft. The more I read about the first antitrust trial, where Judge Jackson ordered a breakup; the more I was impressed with both his (and the prosecutors) knowledge of the issues at hand. They often made various MS VPs look foolish, and I think they were honestly trying to change the world.
Look at the former IT director of the State of Massachusettes; a hard working individual who pushed really hard for a policy not because it was the easy thing to do, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When I read documents coming out of the EC these days regarding MS, I'm honestly quite impressed by the various commissioners attitude. They aren't anti-MS hacks; they just want to force MS into competing fairly, and they want to see a world where no company is permitted to rabidly tear apart other companies. They didn't take the easy way out, and just accept the first offer from MS (*ahem*, US DoJ). They really are trying, and I think its fair to hope for change.
Do you really think the computer world is fine as-is? Should the EU just give up? Is the MS-centric world the way things should be?
Or do you believe that the government isn't able to generate positive change? Perhaps you just believe that the government is incapable of changing Microsoft (that's potentially a very good argument, but then again, that just might be my MS hatred coming out.)
The only place where I doubt my position is on that question. Maybe I just see things colored through lenses of hatred, and I should just be happy with the MS-world. It's just that my experience with alternative products shows me that computing is really a lot better with limited MS involvement; but given that I'm hardly risk-adverse (probably more risk-seeking than anything), I'm not a good barometer for microeconomic examples.
What do I expect will happen? MS will get fined for a month, and it will submit a request for delay. This pattern will repeat, with MS releasing slightly more documentation each time until the EC's independant fact-finding CS people agree, "Yes, this is enough." It won't actually be enough, and there will be problems with it, but it will be a heck of a lot easier than reverse engineering from scratch. Perhaps we'll even see a WinForms implementation for Mono sooner rather than later.
The end "vision" of this, at least from the EC's perspective, is a world where you can pick from multiple suppliers, each of which supplies a product that is slightly different. These products will fit into the same roles, with minor caveats. They'll be mainly drop-in replacements; the work involved in switching from a Novell solution to an MS solution will be minor, compared to the current shock involved. In an attempt to push computing towards maturing, the EC seeks a standards based world, where consortiums of companies develop open standards with proprietary implementations that are mainly interoperable.
Look at, say, the automobile industry's ability to purchase engines for various lines of vehicles from competing manu
First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply.
Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement
Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken
I'd also like to say:
"Microsoft's proposal is to provide the server source code and 500 hours of "free" support under an NDA and at a cost of US$10,000."
You do realize that it boils down to Microsoft extending its "Shared Source" access to the corporate world at a cost of $10,000 per developer?
That's more than slightly audacious. The EU demanded a certain remedy, and Microsoft decided to bargain with them by selling secret shared-source access.
Same old MS BS.
Eek. My grammar and spelling are atrocious.
BTW. Mods, feel free to mark my original top-level response as "troll". It probably is a bit trollish.
I'm sorry you took my comment so close to heart, but--- if your going to post something inflammatory, expect to be flamed.
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
What a victory for... capitalism? No, if they were letting capitalism work, they'd switch products. Open Source? The FSF must be thrilled that they can now license to peek at MS source... not so much. Ahh, Linux... no, the EU hates Linux so much, that they can't bear the thought of departing from Windows.
Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something.
Perhaps the EU would like to switch to Linux, but interoperability with Windows systems is a requirement. Perhaps the EU would like to switch portions of their infrastructure to alternative systems, but these alternative suppliers have not been able to develop comprehensive interoperable protocols, because extensive reverse engineering is expensive.
Both EU and U.S. courts have found Microsoft to be a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft represents a market failure. I'd argue that in many ways Microsoft got into its position via illegal acts. Microsoft has been known to play dirty for a long, long time. Look what they did to Stacker, OS/2, and a wide variety of companies that tried to work with them.
Look at the bullshit they pulled in their antitrust trial. Look at the video they doctored for the trial.
What about Microsoft's funding of the SCO madness, to the tune of nearly $65 million?
Pardon my french, pardon my bad attitude about the matter, but these fuckers play ugly. Really ugly. As someone who's business was once badly damaged in a Microsoft play, without the cash to pursue it legally (like Stacker, who was shut down by Microsoft, and eventually forced Microsoft to settle with them, once their business (stackers) was already beyond repair), I take the notion of "illegitimate barriers to market entry" more seriously than most.
Capitalism only works when people play by the rules. Once you switch to clearly illegal acts, once you start breaking agreements with your supposed allies, and start stabbing them in the back; once you start destroying competitors not throught competition, but through fraud--- you're a monopoly, and an evil one at that.
Capitalism doesn't work when someone doesn't play nice; that's why we have government, to make sure people play nice. I'm a libertarian, but even objectivists will recognize that the government has some role in protecting against fraud.
You come off as downright derogative towards the EU, yet have absolutely no grasp of the issues at hand. You're right; I overreacted in my response. However, lines like "Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something." come off very, very badly to me. I've personal experience the wrong end of the Microsoft stick (in a small way). People have been fighting the fradulent activities of this company for _decades_. This company has literally held the entire computing sector in an iron grip for over a decade.
The EU attempts to force MS to produce documentation, to facilitate interoperability, in an attempt to directly address the most obvious form of market barrier that Microsoft has established. This isn't a huge fine; this isn't breaking the company. I cannot, in fact, think of a better, more capitalist, more lenient solution.
Capitalism doesn't mean that the government never intervenes. Even Objectivists view Fraud as a violation of their Non-Aggression principle, permitting government intervention.
I shouldn't have been as hot headed as I was, but don't attempt to make a glibe insult in a discussion about which you are not fully aware of the major facts.
MS has a longterm history of misleading "s
That's exactly why the Judge won't accept RIMs motions to delay.
He's an idiot, he's tired of the case, and he wants it to hurry up.
Nationalizing is not necessary.
Government grants can solve this problem. What are alternative energy grants these days? Even though the oil industry dwarfs renewables, they still can a hefty 100 million or so in the U.S.
Imagine if the EU decided to throw 100 million euros at the Wine project, for the purpose of providing 100% binary compatibility with Windows.
With a 100 million euros, exactly how long do you think it would take? 6 months?
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
Are you a complete idiot, intentional obtuse, an MSFT employee, or all of the above?
The EU never, ever asked MS to publish sources. The EU asked MS to provide documentation for interfaces, protocols, and file formats.
MSFT responded by publishing source.
The EU replied that publishing source doesn't necessarily mean that they've complied with the documentation requirement. This is true. The EU may find that they have complied, but are currently trying to determine if the supplied source is enough for competing companies to use it to build interoperable inferfaces, protocols, and file formats.
At no point did the EU request the source, they actually requested something entirely different, and something much more limited. They are trying to give MS the benefit of the doubt, and say that publishing the source is equivalent to providing documentation. Frankly, in terms of interoperability, source is much less useful than proper documentation.
Jackson actually is a rock-ribbed conservative, but he doesn't have the pro-business blinders on that his opponents at the Appellate level have. Microsoft was an abusive monopoly that lied to his face and showed his court doctored evidence. The obvious solution under antitrust was to break them up so that the abuses would stop, given that their history in the field and in his court showed that they had no plans to knock it off.
I agree, however, Jackson should NOT have made the comments he did. He was justified in saying them, and given that they were flaunting his rules, I can understand his anger.
However, his mouth got him in trouble, even if the reason he got in trouble was opponents taking advantage of him. He should have kept quite, and gone ahead with the trial, and then have quietly thrown the book at MS.
Hello Noob :)
/1)......
I have to say that WoW is very noob friendly. WoW was the first MMORPG I was actually able to play.
I tried Everquest after hearing all the hype, and it just didn't make any sense to me. I didn't make it anywhere, and it basically just sucked. The game was incredibly confusing, I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to do, my character died a few times, and then I gave up.
WoW doesn't have any of that.
This book might help, but I honestly suggest just picking the game up and starting. There is a mild "hump" in the learning curve, for about 30 minutes right at the beginning. The starting area is easy enough to figure out; the "tip" system explains what you should do. The transition from initial starting area to first real adventure area is somewhat confusing; its easy to get lost (and dead), it can be difficult to figure out what you are supposed to do, and it takes a second for the road signs to make sense to you.
To be terribly honest, I'd say that gaming "guides", even one as generic and broad as this that just covers the principles, ruin the actual "gameplay".
Example of noob friendliness: I picked up WoW for my girl. This is her first real game ever, on her first real computer ever. Once I guided her past the first "hump" in game play, the difficulty in going from the pure "noob" area to the "beginners" area, she had no problems at all, and really started to enjoy herself.
Purchase the game. Play during primetime. Ignore the forums and any gaming guides. Login, and ask for help in general chat (that's chat channel 1, addresable by using
Follow the tip guide, and make sure you follow the quests at least until level 10. By level 10, you'll safely be in the beginners area, and you'll have a handle on what kinds of gameplay you should expect.
If you still have problems, go out and buy this book. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't have problems; WoW simply just doesn't have the learning curve other MMORPGs have. I'd liken the gameplay to Zelda on the Nintendo 64, or the german single player RPG game, Gothic (and Gothic 2).
Oh, and another tip: Don't read the book till you've played. Go into the game, make a random character, and follow the tips at the bottom of the screen. Once you've done that, go back, read the book some, and then start a new character.
Feel free to e-mail me at moornblade at gmail dot com . I'll happily give you a hand, and I think with this game, at least, you'll have few problems picking it up; it really is that simple for non-gamers. (My 7 year-old cousin had no problems starting a character out on my account, but I know she wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING in Everquest).
The damage done to the E.U. economy would convince the world (including the U.S. government) that reliance upon one single monopolist OS vendor is disasterous.
God I hope this happens. I really really do.
Holy shit you're naive.
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
How about a better implementation?
Do you think Microsoft should go back to making proprietary MSHTML that only renders properly on IE?
Do you think that Microsoft should make a big push for Exchange to be the primary mail system for the internet (as direct competition for SMTP)?
Do you think Microsoft should produce an SMB v5 that is incompatible with everything else, and then push it as a replacement for FTP and HTTP file transfers?
Proprietary file formats and protocols are not the way of the future, my friend. Look to the state of Massachusetts. Proprietary file formats and protocols are a DISASTER for future generations, as well as unfairly hindering superior products in a competitive environment (monopolist barriers to market entry).
Just because a program can read and write an established format doesn't mean that it is equivalent to all programs that can do so. Take HTML editors; HTML is an established, published, public format.
Do you honestly claim that Front Page, GoLive!, Dreamweaver, and MS Word 97 all produce HTML of similar quality, or end user output of similar quality?
What the fuck happened to competing on features and design? Or even gasp security?
Microsoft products routinely beat out superior implementations because of competitive barriers to entry, primarily in the realm of interoperability. Your right; the MS empire is founded on keeping out competing products.
"Windows ain't done till Wordperfect won't run!" Remember that?
It's all well and good to compete like this; build proprietary sets of software all you like, until you have a monopoly. Monopolists have to play under different rules; both EU and US legal structure enshroud this principle. Once your a monopolist, you can't use the same dirty tricks you used to get there. We do this because monopolist profits are an example of a market that is working inefficently; that's basic economics.
Interoperable products do NOT mean that all products are exactly the same. Is Apache =IIS? Is Firefox=IE? Is MS Word 97=Dreamweaver? Is IBM's Workplaces product the same as OpenOffice.org Writer?
No. Not in the least bit. The fact that you think this is the only way in which Microsoft can differentiate itself suggests to me that the existing "ecology" of Windows software is so badly crippled that you can't even understand what a superior implementation might be.
I'm an American... but...
/WhiteWolf666 wakes up
God I hope Microsoft does that. Nothing would kickstart OS X and Linux adoption like a full-fledged Microsoft pull out of Europe.
Talk about a wet dream.....