Take a look at slide 19 - 1400 devs, but 1700 testers. Do you suppose that means that Win2k had 3100 people working full-time on it? Lowballing the numbers (55k per dev, 45k per tester):
1,400 * 55,000 = 77,000,000 1,700 * 45,000 = 76,500,000 153,500,000 a year * 3 years (from slide 3) = 460,000,000
Include an overhead multiplier 460,000,000 * 2.4 = 1,105,200,000
And we wind up with a rough US$1.1BB.
This suggests that win2k represents 20 million SLOC, Just slightly higher than RH 6.2, at 17 and change.
His cost estimates place RH 6.2 at US$614,421,924.71
I suspect MS probably pays more per dev, but I have no proof, so I'll stick with the industry averages. Also, testers may have been shared across projects, MS can pool resources and bring overhead lower, etc...
I'm not drawing any conclusions, just compiling data...
Errors in the digitization because modern technology doesn't have high enough resolution? Have you been to the site? These are clay tablets written with fingers and sticks - you could take the photos with a playskool digital camera through a steel grate in low light conditions and still be able to read them fine - I don't think resolution and quality will cause any problems...
I definitely agree that reference copies need to be kept.
Not according to the marketing literature and the dev specs - they say its "developed using the code base of Windows XP Professional" If gates had this as an out, why wouldn't he use it?
PS. EMI report today that due to falling profits, they're laying off 1800 people. That's eighteen hundred people who have lost their jobs, because of shit like Morpheus allowing easy piracy..
Right. Either that, or the fact that the economy is in the toilet and people aren't buying CDs. We're not really sure which. Let's allow the media empires to make some broad-reaching laws that limit consumer control just in case that's what the cause is.
First, using anyone's work without compensating them in the manner they dictate is immoral and illegal. Software, music, art, etc. PAY FOR THE MUSIC YOU LISTEN TO. Hopefully, pay the artist directly. If necessary, pay thier broker or distributor. But pay, or don't use the work.
Second, listening to music doesn't cost anyone anything. It just doesn't provide the revenue expected. If I just didn't listen to music, would that be costing those people jobs? I can't be held accountable for the effects of NOT buying something, can I?
If EMI cared about those 1800 people, they would take a 10% salary reduction across the executive level. I doubt they did. In reality, I assume the market is slower, technology is better and LESS PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED to do the same job than last year. If you don't need personnel, you let them go.
How could the same marketing team have figured out that Luke or Jar-Jar on a guitar would brand them as weiners, but still think that putting Darth Vader on one would make it a cool product?
I don't think that's the whole point, but for a company, it's one of the important points. All in all, I don't see any problem with placing larger ads, and offering to remove them for a fee. I do think the subscription plan based on page hits is cumbersome, tho.
My hand's still raised. I don't charge my clients for the right to use what I build. I charge them for my time spent building it, and for support and integration costs.
Selling software is a loser's game, as far as I'm concerned.
I do pretty well (especially in this climate) and every time I start a new project, I can bring that much more ROI to my customer, and save myself that much more hassle. If you want to create or support a monolithic software company, then yes - you do need commercial software, with all of it's dirty secrets.
If, on the other hand, you want to create software that solves the client's problems and charge them a reasonable price, the Free Software model is hard to beat.
Billion-dollar software houses are going to get a rude awakening when this model really catches on. Who's going to thrive? Independant consultants. About the only problems I have now are a) the cost of educating a new client about FS, and b) getting them over the "but I need to own it, so my investors see value in my Intellectual Property" philosophy. Both which can be overcome by a reasonably intelligent client. And the dumb ones? Who wants them anyway? There's another client around the corner.
Depending on how blizzard and the bnetd group got to this point would change how I look at this situation. Did the folks at blizzard talk about thier concerns and issues in a constructive dialog with the bnetd folks, or did they just drop a hammer out of the blue? This was a letter to thier isp, and not to the bnetd folks... Was there any blizzard/bnetd communication at all?
I'm not necessarily convinced that a solution that satisfied blizzard could have been worked out (it would be tough to enforce keychecking in bnetd), but did they even try?
I'll also add that they could have taken this action *without* invoking the unconstitutional monstrosity called DMCA. I'd have a lot more respect left for Blizzard if they did. My coworkers and I all went out and bought (additional) copies of StarCraft recently to show our support and help fund WCIII. Now, I'm not sure if I'll be playing Blizzard games anymore.
The C# Compiler is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL. And the class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.
I don't know how much better that is, but at least it's better then changing the license to all of Mono.
I just sent this out to friends and business associates. It might be a little late, but I was hoping to raise awareness - maybe you might want to do the same, if you haven't already.
-------------- cut here --------------
The Tunney act (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2. htm) allows the public to enter statements of record before a Judge renders a final decision in regards to an antitrust case, to ensure that that decision serves the public interest, and to minimize political lobbying and other forms of corruption in the process.
The MS Antitrust settlement is currently in this "public opinion" phase, and it will expire on Monday, the 26th of January, 2002. This is your last chance to state an opinion, in favor or against the settlement.
We're all very busy people - but, please consider the importance of this case, as the ruling will control how most of us do business for the foreseeable future. I implore you to take a little time from your hectic schedules, read the facts of the case, and the analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed settlement, and prepare a letter, fax or email to your government, stating your opinion for the public record.
Some contact information:
Send email to: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov, with a subject of "Microsoft Settlement"
Send Faxes to: 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
Send Physical mail to:
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Here are some resources and articles about the antitrust case, and the remedy phase. I've tried to find articles and sites supporting both sides of the argument, but it's proven difficult to find pro-MS opinions on this matter. The good folks at MSNBC were nice enough to provide one, though.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-275317.html?legacy =c net
http://www.msnbc.com/news/650754.asp?cp1=1
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276837.html?legacy =c net&tag=rltdnws
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comme nt -levy120301.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagenam e= article&node=&contentId=A44814-2001Nov5
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-802195.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrus t. html
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-275324.html?legacy =c net
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,, 3_ 916741,00.html
Please, take a little time to do this today - when you get back to it, it may be too late! Also forward this or send a similar mail to anyone you can think of that might have an interest in the outcome of this case.
-------------- cut here --------------
Hope this helps!
CA's attourney statement that "It's a little like Big Tobacco being found guilty of selling cigarettes to minors, and the remedy is for them to agree to give them free cigarettes."
People should not try to stifle major bugs in their OS. Enter Alan Cox. He recently refused to divulge the details of an important security hole in the linux kernel.
No he didn't. He made a (possibly misguided) attempt to hilight the dangers of the DMCA by not showing certain kernel changelog information *within* the United States. The information is available outside of the U.S.
I don't know - the cow from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe always seemed like a good idea to me. This seems like the same concept - the wording is especially appropriate - a friend who doesn't really suffer." Not an automaton who will put up with the suffering.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're just after the eye candy, you can download a srpm of the keramik theme here:
9 3
9 4
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=21
or a tarball here:
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=21
Take a look at slide 19 - 1400 devs, but 1700 testers. Do you suppose that means that Win2k had 3100 people working full-time on it? Lowballing the numbers (55k per dev, 45k per tester):
1,400 * 55,000 = 77,000,000
1,700 * 45,000 = 76,500,000
153,500,000 a year * 3 years (from slide 3) = 460,000,000
Include an overhead multiplier
460,000,000 * 2.4 = 1,105,200,000
And we wind up with a rough US$1.1BB.
This suggests that win2k represents 20 million SLOC, Just slightly higher than RH 6.2, at 17 and change.
His cost estimates place RH 6.2 at US$614,421,924.71
I suspect MS probably pays more per dev, but I have no proof, so I'll stick with the industry averages. Also, testers may have been shared across projects, MS can pool resources and bring overhead lower, etc...
I'm not drawing any conclusions, just compiling data...
Seats are users (usually on clients). IOW, no per-user or per-client charges.
Errors in the digitization because modern technology doesn't have high enough resolution? Have you been to the site? These are clay tablets written with fingers and sticks - you could take the photos with a playskool digital camera through a steel grate in low light conditions and still be able to read them fine - I don't think resolution and quality will cause any problems...
I definitely agree that reference copies need to be kept.
Like most days with a major RedHat announcement, Bero is here in force, defudding like a peruvian congressman. Good to see it!
/. ambassador an official role for you at RedHat, or do you just do it because it needs to be done?
Bero, is
Not according to the marketing literature and the dev specs - they say its "developed using the code base of Windows XP Professional" If gates had this as an out, why wouldn't he use it?
> Honestly, how many /bin directories do you REALLY need?
As many as it takes. Plus one, just to be sure.
PS. EMI report today that due to falling profits, they're laying off 1800 people. That's eighteen hundred people who have lost their jobs, because of shit like Morpheus allowing easy piracy..
Right. Either that, or the fact that the economy is in the toilet and people aren't buying CDs. We're not really sure which. Let's allow the media empires to make some broad-reaching laws that limit consumer control just in case that's what the cause is.
First, using anyone's work without compensating them in the manner they dictate is immoral and illegal. Software, music, art, etc. PAY FOR THE MUSIC YOU LISTEN TO. Hopefully, pay the artist directly. If necessary, pay thier broker or distributor. But pay, or don't use the work.
Second, listening to music doesn't cost anyone anything. It just doesn't provide the revenue expected. If I just didn't listen to music, would that be costing those people jobs? I can't be held accountable for the effects of NOT buying something, can I?
If EMI cared about those 1800 people, they would take a 10% salary reduction across the executive level. I doubt they did. In reality, I assume the market is slower, technology is better and LESS PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED to do the same job than last year. If you don't need personnel, you let them go.
Mozilla ate those pop ads for me - I didn't see any of them.
Stormtroopers, Boba Fett, Darth Vader...
How could the same marketing team have figured out that Luke or Jar-Jar on a guitar would brand them as weiners, but still think that putting Darth Vader on one would make it a cool product?
I don't think that's the whole point, but for a company, it's one of the important points. All in all, I don't see any problem with placing larger ads, and offering to remove them for a fee. I do think the subscription plan based on page hits is cumbersome, tho.
My hand's still raised. I don't charge my clients for the right to use what I build. I charge them for my time spent building it, and for support and integration costs.
Selling software is a loser's game, as far as I'm concerned.
I do pretty well (especially in this climate) and every time I start a new project, I can bring that much more ROI to my customer, and save myself that much more hassle. If you want to create or support a monolithic software company, then yes - you do need commercial software, with all of it's dirty secrets.
If, on the other hand, you want to create software that solves the client's problems and charge them a reasonable price, the Free Software model is hard to beat.
Billion-dollar software houses are going to get a rude awakening when this model really catches on. Who's going to thrive? Independant consultants. About the only problems I have now are a) the cost of educating a new client about FS, and b) getting them over the "but I need to own it, so my investors see value in my Intellectual Property" philosophy. Both which can be overcome by a reasonably intelligent client. And the dumb ones? Who wants them anyway? There's another client around the corner.
Depending on how blizzard and the bnetd group got to this point would change how I look at this situation. Did the folks at blizzard talk about thier concerns and issues in a constructive dialog with the bnetd folks, or did they just drop a hammer out of the blue? This was a letter to thier isp, and not to the bnetd folks... Was there any blizzard/bnetd communication at all?
I'm not necessarily convinced that a solution that satisfied blizzard could have been worked out (it would be tough to enforce keychecking in bnetd), but did they even try?
I'll also add that they could have taken this action *without* invoking the unconstitutional monstrosity called DMCA. I'd have a lot more respect left for Blizzard if they did. My coworkers and I all went out and bought (additional) copies of StarCraft recently to show our support and help fund WCIII. Now, I'm not sure if I'll be playing Blizzard games anymore.
But congratulations, Taco. I wish you many happy years together.
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#licensing
The C# Compiler is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL. And the class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.
I don't know how much better that is, but at least it's better then changing the license to all of Mono.
Sam's been working for blizzard since at least August, AFAIK. At least that's what his .sig says.
Read your own source - this is ESR supporting the Findings of Fact, not the settlement offer.
I just sent this out to friends and business associates. It might be a little late, but I was hoping to raise awareness - maybe you might want to do the same, if you haven't already.
. htm) allows the public to enter statements of record before a Judge renders a final decision in regards to an antitrust case, to ensure that that decision serves the public interest, and to minimize political lobbying and other forms of corruption in the process.
y =c net
y =c net&tag=rltdnws
e nt -levy120301.shtml
m e= article&node=&contentId=A44814-2001Nov5
s t. html
y =c net
, 3_ 916741,00.html
-------------- cut here --------------
The Tunney act (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2
The MS Antitrust settlement is currently in this "public opinion" phase, and it will expire on Monday, the 26th of January, 2002. This is your last chance to state an opinion, in favor or against the settlement.
We're all very busy people - but, please consider the importance of this case, as the ruling will control how most of us do business for the foreseeable future. I implore you to take a little time from your hectic schedules, read the facts of the case, and the analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed settlement, and prepare a letter, fax or email to your government, stating your opinion for the public record.
Some contact information:
Send email to: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov, with a subject of "Microsoft Settlement"
Send Faxes to: 202-616-9937 or 202-307-1545
Send Physical mail to:
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Here are some resources and articles about the antitrust case, and the remedy phase. I've tried to find articles and sites supporting both sides of the argument, but it's proven difficult to find pro-MS opinions on this matter. The good folks at MSNBC were nice enough to provide one, though.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-275317.html?legac
http://www.msnbc.com/news/650754.asp?cp1=1
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276837.html?legac
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagena
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-802195.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitru
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-275324.html?legac
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,
Please, take a little time to do this today - when you get back to it, it may be too late! Also forward this or send a similar mail to anyone you can think of that might have an interest in the outcome of this case.
-------------- cut here --------------
Hope this helps!
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to maintain one.
CA's attourney statement that "It's a little like Big Tobacco being found guilty of selling cigarettes to minors, and the remedy is for them to agree to give them free cigarettes."
I believe that's trademarks - not patents.
People should not try to stifle major bugs in their OS. Enter Alan Cox. He recently refused to divulge the details of an important security hole in the linux kernel.
No he didn't. He made a (possibly misguided) attempt to hilight the dangers of the DMCA by not showing certain kernel changelog information *within* the United States. The information is available outside of the U.S.
Probably none, since I could just ssh in and write a script to make it easy for them - like I do now.
I don't know - the cow from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe always seemed like a good idea to me. This seems like the same concept - the wording is especially appropriate - a friend who doesn't really suffer." Not an automaton who will put up with the suffering.
I heard it was saboteurs from Redmond.