This guy should obviously keep to using PageMaker, and fixing fonts. He obviously doesn't know much about computers, and even less about OS security.
Microsoft's less-than-stellar OS security took a while to become apparent. In fact, the problem wasn't epidemic until a few years after the Internet took off. Windows' market domination makes it a target for the virus authoring community.
Um maybe that's because Microsoft built the OS around the paradigm of security by obscurity, where there was any security at all. The Internet was added as an afterthought to the OS. It wasn't built for a hostile environment. It was built around the idea of some knuckle-head sitting in front of it, playing games, writing Office Documents, printing office documents. It wasn't built (as UNIX and Linux systems were) to live in a hostile environment.
If the Macintosh OS ever became dominant, the tables would turn, and there would be just as many reports of viruses, security holes, and attacks on it as we currently have with Windows.
This argument is ridiculous. Apache hosts over 60% of the websites out there, and it's certainly not getting hit like IIS has. People who associate things like security problems with market share prove just how little they know about what OS security means.
In fact, Jon Lech Johansen, the same Norwegian who cracked the DVD security code, recently circumvented the iTunes music protection scheme.
Sorry, Jon neither cracked CSS nor the iTunes music protection. Both these items were posted to a bulletin board hosted by Jon. Being that this has not thing one to do with security, I'm baffled by this. It's truly an idiotic stretch to associate the popularity of iPod with iTunes DRM being cracked (which, by the way, it wasn't).
Ah isn't it great ushering in the next generation? Doesn't it just make you feel old as dirt to hear someone who is not only ignorant of Jennicam, but also indignant of the idea that he should know about it.
I begin to understand the sad forlorn look in their eyes when my parents would wax poetic about something so banal as the A&P grocery stores and I'd indignantly grumble, "who cares?"
I expect now we'll be saying names like Robert Smith or Steven Morrissey and get quizzical looks, "um.. yeah... huh huh... aren't they like, the ice-cream guys or something... huh huh... huh"
Jeez
You whippersnappers, listen up:
Back when I was your age, we didn't have color screens. Back then, a gui was something you pulled out of your nose.
When I was your age, we loaded programs onto our computers using cassette tapes. We waited 20 minutes for the program to load up, and if we were lucky, it ran.
When I was your age, we didn't have C compilers that were free. We had BASIC, and if you were lucky, you had Pascal.
Back when I was your age, a 9800 baud was one thrilling piece of hardware.
But I think the way that IP is protected makes all the difference.
I'm definitely not for scuttling IP, but rather, the way that it is protected.
When I think about this, I ask, "If you, as the head of a small company with big ideas can find a) the talent you need to build the product, and b) a less litigious, and volatile environment in which to do it, would it be worth the time and money to go elsewhere to do it?"
It seems more and more the answer is becoming yes. It's not just about big corporations moving jobs overseas, its about a government that makes it more lucrative to grow a business elsewhere. I don't think IP laws are necessarily the problem, but rather, the way that they are enforced.
then make your own file system (which is what many companies will do, and Microsoft will be forced to support it).
You know what? Microsoft isn't about to be forced to do anything by anyone else who still has to play by the rules of competition. Microsoft has shown time and again they will do anything to retain complete control over their development, licensing and every other aspect of their business.
The last thing Microsoft would do is integrate reading for file systems that they don't have control over. Yes, it may be hard to believe--I mean I couldn't believe it when I first heard--there are actually other filesystems than FAT and NTFS that have already been created. Weird huh? Gee, I wonder how many of those Microsoft has been forced to support?
I know it's hard to believe, but there are actually many, many more.
Sorry, "the market" isn't some omnipotent overpowering force that can't be controlled. The reified "market" won't force Microsoft to do anything, because Microsoft controls that market.
With each Stupid Patent, the US is painting itself further and further into the corner. By stifling every other player in the land, in order to preserve the Sacred Cow Microsof has become, they are driving true innovation to other places like Inda and China, where a company can exist without the threat of being litigated into the ground for something absolutely outrageous as patenting a 20+ year old filesystem.
No, Microsoft won't be forced to do anything as long as it is seen as the only viable option available.
I don't know which is more idiotic, what you wrote, or the half-wit who decided it was insightful.
The only person around here that's all about hate is you. Sounds like you never made it past high-school, so I'll let you in on this little thing called "projection," look it up sometime. No one is espousing or defending hatred, except you, mr. KKK.
Until now.
Congratulations, you are the one and only retard to make my foes list. You are worse than the trolls, the flamers, the retards and the general assholes that crawl around the fray of Slashdot with nothing better to do with their time than to post idiotic, meaningless, offensive posts. But at least they know what they are doing, at least they have the decency and intelligence to know what they are writing is offensive and meaningless; it's their purpose. You, on the other hand, you are stupid enough to write something essentially as trite and meaningless as, "everyone don't like prezitend bush just 'cuz he's cooler than they are" and then to go on to defend the KKK.
You are the posterboy for everything that makes the USA such a f***ed up place to live in. Only in the USA could someone with feces for brains, like yourself, say something and not only get away with it, but find some other crack baby that will moderate you up.
I served four years in the Army defending the freedoms retards like you. So you can take your hate and your "fellow citizen" bullshit and stuff it right back up your ass. What's the last thing you did, "for your country?"
Well, I'd say you're right then; I'm missing the point.
But then again, it seems as if Microsoft in recent history utilized the developer conferences as a marketing springboard. The buzz is first laid on the developers, hyping the 'technology,' or 'innovation' is easy when you have an audience full of people who want to get rich off your ideas. It's like one of those get rich quick seminars that people pay thousands to go to.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've heard, these development conferences (as of late, anyway) have been long on hype and demos and short on actual information and implementation.
Either way, even though I think your original comment in this thread is insightful, I think it would be foolish--given Microsoft's history of 'embrace and extend' to let down our guard and see new standards coming out of Microsoft as anything but a) an attempt to retain control of their current market by utilizing underhanded tactics to squash competition, or b) an attempt to gain control of new markets.
Of course it may verge on paranoia, but without that vigilance, the threat of an unchecked monopoly always remains ready to squash its competition.
The only reason the 'Sparkle' vector engine of Longhorn is getting buzz in this area is that unlike Quartz, it supports a wide array of animation standards within the vector drawing engine.
I'd say the only reason the speckle engine is getting any buzz is because Microsoft is using the same marketing machine to create buzz for an idea they stole from someone else.
Speckle isn't anything new, and surely isn't anything worth writing about--except for those who don't understand that it's JASI (just another stolen idea).
No matter how inconvenient it may be, many have fought long and hard over the last few years to make Linux a movement.
So larry, although you may technically be correct, that's not what mom needs to hear. Userland might as well be Disneyland; Linux is the flagship of the movement. Bean counting doesn't help Linux.
You're writing as if the OSS community is a bunch of camo-clad, black-flag waving, anarcho-kids itching for a fight against the "establishment." Sure, it's just an operating system, it's just a computer, but don't forget, it's not just how easy it is to install, it's not just how easy it is to use for thousands of people whose livelihoods depend upon the future of OSS.
Although the metaphor of battle may verge on hyperbole, I see it as an apt description of the exact nature of what must happen in order for Free Software to coexist with Microsoft. Until Free Software is not viewed as antithetical to their business model, Microsoft will be intrinsically threatened by it. Until Free Software establishes its niche, coexisting with MS products, Microsoft will do what it can to protect what they view as their revenue stream, even if that means putting many thousands of people who have invested a lot of time and money into Free Software out of business.
I'm glad that you have been able to make your choice based upon your needs, but the fact is, you are a (albeit growing) minority of the users out there. Although the landscape is quickly changing, most small business still don't see the benefits of OSS because the megaphone Microsoft commands is much louder than the OSS movement's.
So, until that day, when people truly are allowed to make the choice simply based upon the merits of the software, and how well it suits their needs, it is a battle. Until the day when Microsoft stops spreading fear and doubt about the performance and viability of OSS solutions, it will be a battle.
Yeah, I guess it doesn't really matter whether they broke the law or not. It just matters that the victims weren't really all that innocent.
And I guess it doesn't matter how many people you murder, so long as they were prostitutes.
This is long sought after justice for an industry plagued by a behemoth which uses underhanded means to drive competitors out of business.
This is long sought after justice for every single one of the investors, developers and users of products which Microsoft destroyed because they were a threat to Microsoft. Instead of competing, they broke the law.
Tell me if you need me to explain again for whom justice is hopefully to be served?
Or Occam's Razor might say that people dislike Microsoft because Microsoft has been responsible for countless hours of frustration and time wasted due to bad products and no readily available alternative.
It's like buying a lemon from the only car dealer in town that you can afford to buy from. You despise the dealership and the salesman who sold you the car. You despise the owner of the dealership for tricking you.
It's not about how much money the owner has, but how he got the money. People associate Bill Gates with the crap that Microsoft has made billions selling. He's painted his own portrait in their minds--not the media.
Part of the problem, I believe, is the hype that Microsoft raises with new product releases. They generate artificial demand by hyping products that are supposed to solve your problems. Most of the time, the problems aren't solved, and even in the cases where they are, the problems are generally shifted to something else.
Yes, and just the other day, a quick SSH from my Powerbook to one of my remote desktop clients running Linux revealed that it was only the GUI that had frozen.
1. Provide a highly demanded service at a low price. Make money from every download.
2. Sell hardware that utilizes the music sold. Integrate software solutions that advertise that hardware. Make money from the hardware sold.
3. uh oh yeah, I guess this is where we're supposed to say: ??????
4. Profit
Yeah, sounds just like the dot com bust. There's no real money making happening here. All the content is being given away without any plan for making back the initial investment. Apple's really looking hard for a business model, aren't they...
Gimme a frickin' break, boy-wonder. Next time use a "Soviet Russia" troll instead.
Gross debt, on the other hand, whether measured in absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP, will be increasing this year and beyond.
Maybe you don't get how this thing called "debt" works.
There's this thing called "interest" that's charged to you when you borrow money. Even if you have a surplus of money, and are paying down your debts, if your debts are large enough, the interest can still be more than the payments made against them.
It's a scary thing to think that even before the Bush disaster, positive cash flow still wasn't enough to pay faster than accumulating interest.
But maybe you don't care about things like that. After all, it's all Clinton's fault anyway--right?
And all the while, Microsoft pushes out their "next generation" server OS. Without this speed bump to slow down adoption, Microsoft wouldn't have a chance of transition old fed-up customers to newfangled crap.
But now, with this, they at least have a chance of scaring the same old sheep back into the fetid Microsoft pasture.
Putting my powerbook to sleep and changing networks used to cause problems for me, but that was a long time ago, and even when I'm forgetful and still have a remote mount that no longer exists, I can still get out of it with a combination of "sudo umount," and by relaunching the Finder.
I don't know if you're working with Kerberos tickets or something, but I've never had problems with mounts when on the same network, whether they were AFS, DAV, SMB or NFS mounts. Put the machine to sleep for hours or days, the mount comes right back up when the lid is opened. Even when switching networks, my DAV mounts work just fine.
Believe me, I've uttered my fair share of curses because of this, and I've always thought the automounter could use some improvements, but I haven't had a real problem with this for nearly a year now.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "the method of taking money is a process..."
Maybe you're thinking of Social Security as a tax. Social Security is not a tax; it is a program. You get yearly statements of how much you've put into the program. You sign up for Social Security.
Social Security is not 'doomed to collapse.' Reformation of the program to handle the changing population better would have easily put Social Security back on track. Now that money is gone to Iraq, along with the coffers that meant Social Security would be solvent for another 30 years.
Although you may not need it, although you sound as if you don't care whether it's around or not, plenty of people do. Its nice that you think of your Social Security as a gift to someone else, but in essence, that's not going to do a thing to save the system. Forfeiting your Social Security isn't going to make the system work; protecting the system and making changes to ensure the system will continue to work (rather than just sitting around saying, 'yep, it sure is broke') will ensure that we don't have a national catastrophe waiting for us.
I'm glad that you can believe that karma will catch up with people. But I believe, at heart, every nihilist is an optimist who has resigned himself to 'realism.' If you're not willing to fight for what's right, then you've simply resigned your self, picked up the yoke, and live looking forward to the big sleep at the end of your short life.
Anyway, thanks for responding to the sig. It's nice to hear other people's point of view; it makes me question and reexamine mine. Maybe I should just resolve myself to letting things happen, to think about things in terms of where we are, and what needs to be done and just concentrate what I can do personally. Still, every time I think of what is being done to our future, I am furious.
What I can't understand is when people write off Social Security without even thinking what that means. 'Who cares where my Social Security goes?' Do you understand we're talking about life and death for millions of people who won't be able to take care of themselves otherwise? This isn't Amtrak, or some national monument--this is what we are owed after spending a lifetime putting into the system. Maybe you're just using hyperbole, but I don't see how you can't be mad about it.
If you look at where much of the latest $20 billion for 'Iraq' is going, it's more pork barrel money for Bush's campaign contributors. Instead of allowing Iraqis to choose the best deal for the money, instead of providing a loan through which the Iraqis can rebuild their own nation, the Bush administration has already spent the money, giving it to US corporations for overpriced, or unneeded goods.
I agree with you; we've got to clean up the mess that this unelected administration has created. We'll be carrying it on our backs for years to come. But I see things a little differently. Who actually gets helped at the end of it all? Does the father thank George Bush for killing his daughter? Does the widow thank George Bush for killing her husband? For what--the 'Freedom' to buy Chevrolet and denim?
I agree, NetBT is an awful kludge of a protocol. But the real problem is the implementation of the protocol, not the protocol itself. The real problem goes back to Microsoft's desire to keep control the market, and instead of using standards, instead of using a separate protocol and process for printing, for messaging, for file sharing... etc. Instead of using something sensible, they've decided to huddle everything under their ports 135 137 138 139 445 and make everyone have to figure out how to make their junk secure.
I mean, I used the AOL example quite purposely; your average user who uses AOL doesn't know a thing about turning off services, and they shouldn't have to. They were sold a product that they were told they could use, instead, they turn into some kind of home-sysadmin. They don't have to be technicians to use their microwave, refrigerator, or their car, why do they need to learn how to fix the problems that Microsoft created? If engines start messing up on Ford explorers at a rate of 100%, does Ford expect you to fix the engine? No. They recall it.
Microsoft needs to recall its software. They need to provide updated, working versions of the software to ALL users via mail. If that means shipping a fixed version of Windows XP and eventually shipping Longhorn to everyone that bought Windows 98 Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows XP, then that's what they should do (really, that's the only way they're going to hold on to their market share anyway). They need to provide it without the services turned on, or with the ability for the user to choose what they want installed (something that every modern Linux distro does by default).
Even at 5.x with an "install everything" installation of Red Hat, it was the user making the decisions. But I'll not disagree with you; Red Hat has made some pretty idiotic decisions in their base install in the past. Thankfully, most distributions don't have this "we know what's best" attitude. (Now, including Red Hat.) I'm sorry to say, Microsoft, after eight years of building systems "for the Internet" still has all this crap installed and turned on by default.
I'm not saying that the Linux world doesn't have it's fair share of badly designed complex monolithic programs (Sendmail). But the rate of bad decisions coming out of Microsoft far exceeds what you see in the Linux world.
aw shucks, sorrrie we Linux folk ain't been around 'em Winderz fer a good five yers or more.
Yeah, right.
The generalization and characterization are simply not true. Albeit Windows 2000 is the best OS that Microsoft put out, and it still sucks.
Microsoft, by making stupid engineering decisions has built complex monolithic product after product. These bad engineering decisions were based upon marketing decisions rather than building the best product that could be made. Now we see week after week what market driven engineering gets you--an unusable pile of junk.
Riddle me this:
You decide to upgrade your old Windows 98 to Windows 2000 because it's so much better than Windows 98 was. If you are on a telephone line, dialing up to your AOL account, how are you supposed to get your system patched (in the THREE HOURS it takes to download and install ONLY THE CRITICAL UPDATES) before some cheeze-head hits your system with one of the umpteen remote exploits that you are vulnerable to?
You can just consider BSOD a metaphor for all the stupid market-driven engineering Microsoft has put into their products. From Windows to Exchange to Internet Exploder, etc. etc. etc.
And 'member, when we Linux yokels talk about BSOD's it ain't 'cuz we ain't had the opportunity to use Winderz 2000.
I'm sick of simple, bullheaded idiots telling me that it's my fault that the tech industry has turned into a gobbling bunch of MBA cannibals more worried about preserving their own 6 figure salary than jobs.
You keep on the platitudes, speaking about "deserving" and "earning," but the fact of the matter is, there is no hard and fast way of defining what exactly affords one the deservedness, or defines them as "good at IT jobs;" it's all arbitrary, and getting a job is based upon many other things than deserving or aptitude.
I don't know where you are, but out here in the real world, rarely is it what you know, but rather WHO you know that gets you in the door. So you can be a kickass coder or a great sysadmin, but it still won't get you a thing if you don't have an edge over the 500 other guys who are kickass coders or great sysadmins and also have their resume in the same pile.
You tell me; is David Dvorkin one of the retards who should be getting out?
I tell you what, there's two types of people that I hate: idiots who know better and greedy self-serving retards who can't see the world except through the shaft of their own ego.
You sir, sound exactly like the latter, and I hope you are not.
"Lock" is the key word here. If you look at the way that OS X is built, you see that Apple isn't trying to lock anything. They're pushing a hardware platform that can interoperate with your pre-existing legacy systems. They're doing it by using open standards and open source.
Really, I think you're mixing Apples and oranges. When you talk about a vendor lock in, it's where systems aren't interoperable with software or equipment from other vendors. If you want to use a BSD or Linux server on your network, OS X will work quite well with it. If you want to put a Windows server on your network, OS X will work quite well with that. It goes the same for our UNIX cousins. By utilizing open standards, Apple has made a system that doesn't lock you in to any vendor.
This is where Apple "gets it," and Microsoft never will. Using open source and open standards gives the users the choice, not the vendor. When the entire commodity of your company is based on "intellectual property," when there are no tangible items being traded for money, of course you're locked into protecting that property by locking other people out of it.
When you are providing a real good, i.e. computer hardware, you don't have all the restrictions that tie up a company like Microsoft, that tries to sell intangibles as if they were goods. As a hardware vendor, you want to provide people with the ability to integrate your systems into different environments. Making your system more extensible means that you will sell more.
I think this was a hard lesson for Apple to learn, it almost drove them out of business in the '90s, but it seems evident that Apple doesn't intend to lock anyone in or out.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah isn't it great ushering in the next generation? Doesn't it just make you feel old as dirt to hear someone who is not only ignorant of Jennicam, but also indignant of the idea that he should know about it.
I begin to understand the sad forlorn look in their eyes when my parents would wax poetic about something so banal as the A&P grocery stores and I'd indignantly grumble, "who cares?"
I expect now we'll be saying names like Robert Smith or Steven Morrissey and get quizzical looks, "um.. yeah... huh huh... aren't they like, the ice-cream guys or something... huh huh... huh"
Jeez
You whippersnappers, listen up:
Back when I was your age, we didn't have color screens. Back then, a gui was something you pulled out of your nose.
When I was your age, we loaded programs onto our computers using cassette tapes. We waited 20 minutes for the program to load up, and if we were lucky, it ran.
When I was your age, we didn't have C compilers that were free. We had BASIC, and if you were lucky, you had Pascal.
Back when I was your age, a 9800 baud was one thrilling piece of hardware.
We had computers that weighed over 100 pounds.
AND WE WERE GLAD.
But I think the way that IP is protected makes all the difference.
I'm definitely not for scuttling IP, but rather, the way that it is protected.
When I think about this, I ask, "If you, as the head of a small company with big ideas can find a) the talent you need to build the product, and b) a less litigious, and volatile environment in which to do it, would it be worth the time and money to go elsewhere to do it?"
It seems more and more the answer is becoming yes. It's not just about big corporations moving jobs overseas, its about a government that makes it more lucrative to grow a business elsewhere. I don't think IP laws are necessarily the problem, but rather, the way that they are enforced.
You know what? Microsoft isn't about to be forced to do anything by anyone else who still has to play by the rules of competition. Microsoft has shown time and again they will do anything to retain complete control over their development, licensing and every other aspect of their business.
The last thing Microsoft would do is integrate reading for file systems that they don't have control over. Yes, it may be hard to believe--I mean I couldn't believe it when I first heard--there are actually other filesystems than FAT and NTFS that have already been created. Weird huh? Gee, I wonder how many of those Microsoft has been forced to support?
Hmm... Lets try native support for:
- UFS
- nope
I know it's hard to believe, but there are actually many, many more.BFFS nope
EXT2FS nope
EXT3FS nope
HFS nope
HFS+ nope
XFS nope
HPFS nope
Sorry, "the market" isn't some omnipotent overpowering force that can't be controlled. The reified "market" won't force Microsoft to do anything, because Microsoft controls that market.
With each Stupid Patent, the US is painting itself further and further into the corner. By stifling every other player in the land, in order to preserve the Sacred Cow Microsof has become, they are driving true innovation to other places like Inda and China, where a company can exist without the threat of being litigated into the ground for something absolutely outrageous as patenting a 20+ year old filesystem.
No, Microsoft won't be forced to do anything as long as it is seen as the only viable option available.
I don't know which is more idiotic, what you wrote, or the half-wit who decided it was insightful.
The only person around here that's all about hate is you. Sounds like you never made it past high-school, so I'll let you in on this little thing called "projection," look it up sometime. No one is espousing or defending hatred, except you, mr. KKK.
Until now.
Congratulations, you are the one and only retard to make my foes list. You are worse than the trolls, the flamers, the retards and the general assholes that crawl around the fray of Slashdot with nothing better to do with their time than to post idiotic, meaningless, offensive posts. But at least they know what they are doing, at least they have the decency and intelligence to know what they are writing is offensive and meaningless; it's their purpose. You, on the other hand, you are stupid enough to write something essentially as trite and meaningless as, "everyone don't like prezitend bush just 'cuz he's cooler than they are" and then to go on to defend the KKK.
You are the posterboy for everything that makes the USA such a f***ed up place to live in. Only in the USA could someone with feces for brains, like yourself, say something and not only get away with it, but find some other crack baby that will moderate you up.
I served four years in the Army defending the freedoms retards like you. So you can take your hate and your "fellow citizen" bullshit and stuff it right back up your ass. What's the last thing you did, "for your country?"
Collect tax breaks? I thought so
hmm.
Well, I'd say you're right then; I'm missing the point.
But then again, it seems as if Microsoft in recent history utilized the developer conferences as a marketing springboard. The buzz is first laid on the developers, hyping the 'technology,' or 'innovation' is easy when you have an audience full of people who want to get rich off your ideas. It's like one of those get rich quick seminars that people pay thousands to go to.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've heard, these development conferences (as of late, anyway) have been long on hype and demos and short on actual information and implementation.
Either way, even though I think your original comment in this thread is insightful, I think it would be foolish--given Microsoft's history of 'embrace and extend' to let down our guard and see new standards coming out of Microsoft as anything but a) an attempt to retain control of their current market by utilizing underhanded tactics to squash competition, or b) an attempt to gain control of new markets.
Of course it may verge on paranoia, but without that vigilance, the threat of an unchecked monopoly always remains ready to squash its competition.
I'd say the only reason the speckle engine is getting any buzz is because Microsoft is using the same marketing machine to create buzz for an idea they stole from someone else.
Speckle isn't anything new, and surely isn't anything worth writing about--except for those who don't understand that it's JASI (just another stolen idea).
Linux is no longer just a kernel.
Linux is a movement.
No matter how inconvenient it may be, many have fought long and hard over the last few years to make Linux a movement.
So larry, although you may technically be correct, that's not what mom needs to hear. Userland might as well be Disneyland; Linux is the flagship of the movement. Bean counting doesn't help Linux.
You're writing as if the OSS community is a bunch of camo-clad, black-flag waving, anarcho-kids itching for a fight against the "establishment." Sure, it's just an operating system, it's just a computer, but don't forget, it's not just how easy it is to install, it's not just how easy it is to use for thousands of people whose livelihoods depend upon the future of OSS.
Although the metaphor of battle may verge on hyperbole, I see it as an apt description of the exact nature of what must happen in order for Free Software to coexist with Microsoft. Until Free Software is not viewed as antithetical to their business model, Microsoft will be intrinsically threatened by it. Until Free Software establishes its niche, coexisting with MS products, Microsoft will do what it can to protect what they view as their revenue stream, even if that means putting many thousands of people who have invested a lot of time and money into Free Software out of business.
I'm glad that you have been able to make your choice based upon your needs, but the fact is, you are a (albeit growing) minority of the users out there. Although the landscape is quickly changing, most small business still don't see the benefits of OSS because the megaphone Microsoft commands is much louder than the OSS movement's.
So, until that day, when people truly are allowed to make the choice simply based upon the merits of the software, and how well it suits their needs, it is a battle. Until the day when Microsoft stops spreading fear and doubt about the performance and viability of OSS solutions, it will be a battle.
Yeah, I guess it doesn't really matter whether they broke the law or not. It just matters that the victims weren't really all that innocent.
And I guess it doesn't matter how many people you murder, so long as they were prostitutes.
This is long sought after justice for an industry plagued by a behemoth which uses underhanded means to drive competitors out of business.
This is long sought after justice for every single one of the investors, developers and users of products which Microsoft destroyed because they were a threat to Microsoft. Instead of competing, they broke the law.
Tell me if you need me to explain again for whom justice is hopefully to be served?
Or Occam's Razor might say that people dislike Microsoft because Microsoft has been responsible for countless hours of frustration and time wasted due to bad products and no readily available alternative.
It's like buying a lemon from the only car dealer in town that you can afford to buy from. You despise the dealership and the salesman who sold you the car. You despise the owner of the dealership for tricking you.
It's not about how much money the owner has, but how he got the money. People associate Bill Gates with the crap that Microsoft has made billions selling. He's painted his own portrait in their minds--not the media.
Part of the problem, I believe, is the hype that Microsoft raises with new product releases. They generate artificial demand by hyping products that are supposed to solve your problems. Most of the time, the problems aren't solved, and even in the cases where they are, the problems are generally shifted to something else.
Yes, and just the other day, a quick SSH from my Powerbook to one of my remote desktop clients running Linux revealed that it was only the GUI that had frozen.
Yep.
1. Provide a highly demanded service at a low price. Make money from every download.
2. Sell hardware that utilizes the music sold. Integrate software solutions that advertise that hardware. Make money from the hardware sold.
3. uh oh yeah, I guess this is where we're supposed to say: ??????
4. Profit
Yeah, sounds just like the dot com bust. There's no real money making happening here. All the content is being given away without any plan for making back the initial investment. Apple's really looking hard for a business model, aren't they...
Gimme a frickin' break, boy-wonder. Next time use a "Soviet Russia" troll instead.
Maybe you don't get how this thing called "debt" works.
There's this thing called "interest" that's charged to you when you borrow money. Even if you have a surplus of money, and are paying down your debts, if your debts are large enough, the interest can still be more than the payments made against them.
It's a scary thing to think that even before the Bush disaster, positive cash flow still wasn't enough to pay faster than accumulating interest.
But maybe you don't care about things like that. After all, it's all Clinton's fault anyway--right?
maybe not Yes, it's even from this thread.
Amen.
And all the while, Microsoft pushes out their "next generation" server OS. Without this speed bump to slow down adoption, Microsoft wouldn't have a chance of transition old fed-up customers to newfangled crap.
But now, with this, they at least have a chance of scaring the same old sheep back into the fetid Microsoft pasture.
Putting my powerbook to sleep and changing networks used to cause problems for me, but that was a long time ago, and even when I'm forgetful and still have a remote mount that no longer exists, I can still get out of it with a combination of "sudo umount," and by relaunching the Finder.
I don't know if you're working with Kerberos tickets or something, but I've never had problems with mounts when on the same network, whether they were AFS, DAV, SMB or NFS mounts. Put the machine to sleep for hours or days, the mount comes right back up when the lid is opened. Even when switching networks, my DAV mounts work just fine.
Believe me, I've uttered my fair share of curses because of this, and I've always thought the automounter could use some improvements, but I haven't had a real problem with this for nearly a year now.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that, "the method of taking money is a process..."
Maybe you're thinking of Social Security as a tax. Social Security is not a tax; it is a program. You get yearly statements of how much you've put into the program. You sign up for Social Security.
Social Security is not 'doomed to collapse.' Reformation of the program to handle the changing population better would have easily put Social Security back on track. Now that money is gone to Iraq, along with the coffers that meant Social Security would be solvent for another 30 years.
Although you may not need it, although you sound as if you don't care whether it's around or not, plenty of people do. Its nice that you think of your Social Security as a gift to someone else, but in essence, that's not going to do a thing to save the system. Forfeiting your Social Security isn't going to make the system work; protecting the system and making changes to ensure the system will continue to work (rather than just sitting around saying, 'yep, it sure is broke') will ensure that we don't have a national catastrophe waiting for us.
I'm glad that you can believe that karma will catch up with people. But I believe, at heart, every nihilist is an optimist who has resigned himself to 'realism.' If you're not willing to fight for what's right, then you've simply resigned your self, picked up the yoke, and live looking forward to the big sleep at the end of your short life.
Anyway, thanks for responding to the sig. It's nice to hear other people's point of view; it makes me question and reexamine mine. Maybe I should just resolve myself to letting things happen, to think about things in terms of where we are, and what needs to be done and just concentrate what I can do personally. Still, every time I think of what is being done to our future, I am furious.
Wow. You must be a nihilist.
What I can't understand is when people write off Social Security without even thinking what that means. 'Who cares where my Social Security goes?' Do you understand we're talking about life and death for millions of people who won't be able to take care of themselves otherwise? This isn't Amtrak, or some national monument--this is what we are owed after spending a lifetime putting into the system. Maybe you're just using hyperbole, but I don't see how you can't be mad about it.
If you look at where much of the latest $20 billion for 'Iraq' is going, it's more pork barrel money for Bush's campaign contributors. Instead of allowing Iraqis to choose the best deal for the money, instead of providing a loan through which the Iraqis can rebuild their own nation, the Bush administration has already spent the money, giving it to US corporations for overpriced, or unneeded goods.
I agree with you; we've got to clean up the mess that this unelected administration has created. We'll be carrying it on our backs for years to come. But I see things a little differently. Who actually gets helped at the end of it all? Does the father thank George Bush for killing his daughter? Does the widow thank George Bush for killing her husband? For what--the 'Freedom' to buy Chevrolet and denim?
That's $1 billion every week.
That's my Social Security and yours--gone.
I take that more than just a little seriously.
I agree with you 100%.
And I am glad that Eolas is doing this to Microsoft and the most widely used browser, Internet Exploder.
The more people know how screwed up software patents are, the better chance there will be that something will actually be done to stop the stupidity.
Honestly, I don't think I'm being unfair.
I agree, NetBT is an awful kludge of a protocol. But the real problem is the implementation of the protocol, not the protocol itself. The real problem goes back to Microsoft's desire to keep control the market, and instead of using standards, instead of using a separate protocol and process for printing, for messaging, for file sharing... etc. Instead of using something sensible, they've decided to huddle everything under their ports 135 137 138 139 445 and make everyone have to figure out how to make their junk secure.
I mean, I used the AOL example quite purposely; your average user who uses AOL doesn't know a thing about turning off services, and they shouldn't have to. They were sold a product that they were told they could use, instead, they turn into some kind of home-sysadmin. They don't have to be technicians to use their microwave, refrigerator, or their car, why do they need to learn how to fix the problems that Microsoft created? If engines start messing up on Ford explorers at a rate of 100%, does Ford expect you to fix the engine? No. They recall it.
Microsoft needs to recall its software. They need to provide updated, working versions of the software to ALL users via mail. If that means shipping a fixed version of Windows XP and eventually shipping Longhorn to everyone that bought Windows 98 Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows XP, then that's what they should do (really, that's the only way they're going to hold on to their market share anyway). They need to provide it without the services turned on, or with the ability for the user to choose what they want installed (something that every modern Linux distro does by default).
Even at 5.x with an "install everything" installation of Red Hat, it was the user making the decisions. But I'll not disagree with you; Red Hat has made some pretty idiotic decisions in their base install in the past. Thankfully, most distributions don't have this "we know what's best" attitude. (Now, including Red Hat.) I'm sorry to say, Microsoft, after eight years of building systems "for the Internet" still has all this crap installed and turned on by default.
I'm not saying that the Linux world doesn't have it's fair share of badly designed complex monolithic programs (Sendmail). But the rate of bad decisions coming out of Microsoft far exceeds what you see in the Linux world.
aw shucks, sorrrie we Linux folk ain't been around 'em Winderz fer a good five yers or more.
Yeah, right.
The generalization and characterization are simply not true. Albeit Windows 2000 is the best OS that Microsoft put out, and it still sucks.
Microsoft, by making stupid engineering decisions has built complex monolithic product after product. These bad engineering decisions were based upon marketing decisions rather than building the best product that could be made. Now we see week after week what market driven engineering gets you--an unusable pile of junk.
Riddle me this:
You decide to upgrade your old Windows 98 to Windows 2000 because it's so much better than Windows 98 was. If you are on a telephone line, dialing up to your AOL account, how are you supposed to get your system patched (in the THREE HOURS it takes to download and install ONLY THE CRITICAL UPDATES) before some cheeze-head hits your system with one of the umpteen remote exploits that you are vulnerable to?
You can just consider BSOD a metaphor for all the stupid market-driven engineering Microsoft has put into their products. From Windows to Exchange to Internet Exploder, etc. etc. etc.
And 'member, when we Linux yokels talk about BSOD's it ain't 'cuz we ain't had the opportunity to use Winderz 2000.
Bullshit.
I'm sick of simple, bullheaded idiots telling me that it's my fault that the tech industry has turned into a gobbling bunch of MBA cannibals more worried about preserving their own 6 figure salary than jobs.
You keep on the platitudes, speaking about "deserving" and "earning," but the fact of the matter is, there is no hard and fast way of defining what exactly affords one the deservedness, or defines them as "good at IT jobs;" it's all arbitrary, and getting a job is based upon many other things than deserving or aptitude.
I don't know where you are, but out here in the real world, rarely is it what you know, but rather WHO you know that gets you in the door. So you can be a kickass coder or a great sysadmin, but it still won't get you a thing if you don't have an edge over the 500 other guys who are kickass coders or great sysadmins and also have their resume in the same pile.
You tell me; is David Dvorkin one of the retards who should be getting out?
I tell you what, there's two types of people that I hate: idiots who know better and greedy self-serving retards who can't see the world except through the shaft of their own ego.
You sir, sound exactly like the latter, and I hope you are not.
"Lock" is the key word here. If you look at the way that OS X is built, you see that Apple isn't trying to lock anything. They're pushing a hardware platform that can interoperate with your pre-existing legacy systems. They're doing it by using open standards and open source.
Really, I think you're mixing Apples and oranges. When you talk about a vendor lock in, it's where systems aren't interoperable with software or equipment from other vendors. If you want to use a BSD or Linux server on your network, OS X will work quite well with it. If you want to put a Windows server on your network, OS X will work quite well with that. It goes the same for our UNIX cousins. By utilizing open standards, Apple has made a system that doesn't lock you in to any vendor.
This is where Apple "gets it," and Microsoft never will. Using open source and open standards gives the users the choice, not the vendor. When the entire commodity of your company is based on "intellectual property," when there are no tangible items being traded for money, of course you're locked into protecting that property by locking other people out of it.
When you are providing a real good, i.e. computer hardware, you don't have all the restrictions that tie up a company like Microsoft, that tries to sell intangibles as if they were goods. As a hardware vendor, you want to provide people with the ability to integrate your systems into different environments. Making your system more extensible means that you will sell more.
I think this was a hard lesson for Apple to learn, it almost drove them out of business in the '90s, but it seems evident that Apple doesn't intend to lock anyone in or out.