> You're blaming Windows because it didn't > handle your misconfigured HD gracefully
Yeah.
The disk wasn't changed from factory default, nor was the factory default a misconfiguration. SuSE's installer worked with this configuration, but the Microsoft installer failed to handle a condition of a master storage device without an attached slave.
> or because you tried to access an update > site through a header-mangling proxy server
Again, yes.
SuSE handled this without so much as a hiccup, but Microsoft's update mechanism failed to handle a reasonable scenerio.The proxy server wasn't even a problem, once the user agent header mangling was changed.
In both cases, Windows failed with a situation where Linux worked. Being that the difference really comes down to code, this is very clear a situation where it was "the developers who dropped the ball."
But the point wasn't about Windows failing to handle these situations. I was simply trying to point out that such user stories are less than insightful when trying to diagram an OS'es inherit difficulty (or ease) because there will inevitably be another user with a contrasting example.
Although I understand what you're saying, these kinds of user experiences are worthless. For every "Linux is too complex for simple tasks" story, there's the reverse user experience.
Here's mine (and while I may not be more techically able than you, I'm reasonable sophisticated):
I built a new PC for my sister. I initially set this up as a Linux system because I wanted to play with it for a couple weeks. After that it was to run Windows 2000 Home.
Relevant hardware:
Gigabyte 7DX+ main board, TNT2 M64 Video adapter, Western Digital 40G Hard disk, Liteon CDRW, Generic PCI NIC (Realtek chipset).
First try(Linux): An install of Suse 8.0.
The installer detected all my hardware correctly, setup Xfree86 4. correctly.
Updated the distro using SuSE's Yast2 automagic update. After one restart, the system was completely up to date (with new video drivers too).
First try (Windows): First, I booted from a floppy to MSDOS and used FDISK to wipe out the partition and MBR.
Next I W2K booted from CD. The installer got to the end of formatting the partition and the install failed complaining about an unrecoverable error during the format.
Second try (Windows): Searched on Microsofts web site, found nothing. Google found a thread on a user forum where a a similiar mainboard and the same error had a work-around of updating the bios.
Flashed the bios to the most recent version, attempted a re-install, same damn problem at the end of formating the partition.
Third try (Windows): On a lark, I moved the jumper on the hard disk from Master to Cable Select, attempted a reinstall. Everything proceeded normily, all my hardware was detected correctly except my NIC, which I had manually install (Add/Remove Hardware) and provide the manufacturer diskette for.
After installation I went to the windows update, and got an message to the effect "you're not using internet explorer so we won't let you use this URL."
Disabled the fake user agent string in my squid proxy server. Re-attempted the windows update with sucess.
After serveral reboots (3 or 4?), W2K had all recommended and critical updates from the windowsupdate web site.
Decided to allow windows to update the sound drivers from the web site. After "sucessfully" completing the install, Windows rebooted but the sound didn't work.
Removed the updated driver, re-booted, used the default driver from the CD when the new hardware was detected, re-attempted the update from the web site. Again, the sound system failed on reboot.
Removed the updated driver [again], reinstalled the default driver [again], and left it there.
I wasted hours getting Win2K to work and updated, and spent less than 45 minutes on Linux.
Like you, I hate baby sitting my OS. Linux might not always be pretty, but I rarely waste alot of cycles getting things to work with Linux, and when something fails, I found there's little guess work into correcting the situation. Windows NT and 2000 have never provided me that luxury.
Build your own computer. It's a worthwhile endevor, and you'll probably end up liking your product better than anyone elses.
There are a few things you should pay attention to when building your own computer.
1) Expect to pay more.
You can save money over a name-brand or white box, but if you do it right (by buying the highest quality components you can) you'll pay more.
This doesn't mean getting only 2.53Ghz P4's and nVidia Geforce4's. This means researching each component and selecting the best. If you've only got $50 for a CPU, do you get a 1.2Ghz Duron, or a 900Mhz Athlon?
2) If you buy online, don't use more than two merchants.
More than two merchants to get all your components, and any money that might've been considered a savings can be kissed goodbye in shipping charges.
Likewise, shipping monitors is expensive, and I find the price difference from local vs online to be negligable (YMMV).
3) Pay attention to what resllerratings.com has to say about a merchant.
These guys will save you a ton of headache.
Give preference to shops that have had plenty of reviews thrown at them and still maintain a decent rating (6.5+), and lower preference shops that only have a one or two reviews.
If you buy from an online shop, supply a honest review to resellerratings.com about your experience with a merchant.
4) Buy components that are known to work well with your favorite flavor of *BSD.
Why? Because if you do, you'll know your box will probably work nicely with pretty much any OS you throw on it, and will steer you away from things like Winmodems.
5) Overclock everything.
This is the sweet creamy center that is the oreo cookie of building your own computer.
Eek out the extra performance as you can only do with a computer that you built. Mild to wild, it's up to you, but definately squeeze out some extra power.
Yes, but which drivers that get certified are limited, File filter drivers, I think, require no certification, but if badly implemented can cause serious havoc.
Additionally, as you mentioned, Windows will alert the user to a uncertified driver, but will happily install anything if the correct button is clicked.
> "Microsoft can't control that process. If the > printer driver tanks the system, who do you > hold liable?"
On drivers specifically, this is a valid complaint . While I don't suggest that Windows is a highly stable OS, the image of Windows instability is partially undeserved.
There are many badly written (non-microsoft) printer/file filter/device drivers that make things go horribly wrong on Windows, and near as the end user can figure, it's just Windows crapping out.
Such a liability law would likely require Microsoft to increase it's legal department just to keep up with the number of cliams wrongly filed against it --- if Microsoft's business practices remained unchanged.
This problem is relatively straight forward for Microsoft to get around. Come up with an exhaustive certification program for all Windows drivers, offer no MSI support for uncertified drivers, and change their increasingly restrictive EULA to state that the use of uncertified drivers is a violation of the "agreement."
As a side effect, such a program might make Windows too expensive of an OS for companies to develop for, and then we'd get flood of devices and low quality drivers showing up on Linux.
( I can't believe I just came out in defense of Microsoft... I've got to go take a shower now )
> Specifically building sites for IE is > a shortcoming on the developer side.
I'm glad to see this. I've often thought browser specific pages are a reflection of the developers inability to create a robust web interface.
It seems to me that if a tester encountered a page that was built exclusively for the wrong product, you'd remove that page from the test.
This testing methodology might prove interesting in the future, however. We may very well see a complaint from C-Net after they attempt to install Microsoft Office from the command line on FreeBSD:
"Attempting to execute the SETUP.EXE on FreeBSD completely fails, making the install far too difficult for the average user. Why is this important? Lots of user have starting using UNIX on their desktop..."
Given the infamous nature of this company, I wonder if we'll see a statement from Microsoft that tries to distance themselves from this press statement?
I mean, about the only thing worse would be to have Dr. Kevorkian come out touting the medical uses for Windows XP.
>...so, in a nutshell, Nader is saying that > the government should make an effort to > influence the marketplace in a certain > direction
The goverment is part of the marketplace, and because they're so big, they influence it no matter what they do. Nader is asking the government to spend U.S. tax money in a responsible way.
Microsoft is making some very loud and scary noises at the government, trying to convince the people that spend U.S. tax dollars, that if they use OSS the U.S. will come crashing down around them (and by the way, stick Redmondware and you'll be safe). They are, in fact, attempting to get the government to influence the marketplace in their favor.
I look at Naders letter, and see that he's trying to get our government to act responsibly by making an organization that purchases lots of "stuff": (1) ignore the hype, and (2) ask the question "is the smartest way to spend our money?" Basically Nader wants our government to act like an educated consumer (Microsoft's biggest nightmare).
Now... If it the goverment does ask the tough questions that Nader is requesting it to, AND it happens to help get OSS adopted [at the expense of Microsoft]... then that's just icing on the cake.
I'm feeling grim, but I just don't think this will suceed in any way.
Benyola from Raymond James Financial said:
"I think you'll be able to count the number of sales on one hand... As soon as one person gets it, it's all over the networks for free."
If this track shows up on a single peer to peer network, the recording industry will parade this in front congress as the prime example of why legistlation is required: "See, even if we give them [internet users] a product as a very low price, they continue to steal it!"
Even if a large number of internet users reward the recording industry for good behavior by making the purchase (symbolic or not), I'm sure the recording industry will find some way to spin any sucess as a failure. We might see something like:
"This wasn't a real show of acceptance because there was a grass roots movement to buy this MP3 track. The results were inflated, and as such indicate that this isn't a viable market."
This would seem to be a dangerous game for Microsoft to play. They could easily motivate someone at the Pentagon to look closely at the bulk of it's software solutions and come to the realization that they've been paying a too much to commercial software houses.
"Sir, we can afford more HumVees if we dump Windows 2000 and use OpenBSD and Samba."
This, of course, could be dangerous for the military too. If the Pentagon doesn't issue a general order for the use of free software to be banned, I'm sure the next thing we'll read about is the BSA telling all branches of the military to complete a software audit in a very short amount of time.
...the socialist nature of this idea is a bit appealing. It is kind of nice to see big industry players thinking outside of the box.
This idea, at first glance, seems less evil than the legistlation and copy distruption that the RIAA and MPAA have been going after.
Given the choice of the MPAA/RIAA regulating my PC into something only slightly more useful than a VCR and including DRM in every IP packet, or paying my ISP an extra dollar so someone else can download music --- I choose to pay $1.
Of course, this is Verizon --- your standard telco. This $1 per month charge will be turned into a healthy profit margin. They'll be happy to add the $1/mo. charge that goes to the artists. They'll even be happier because they get to charge you another $14 per month ($1 to cover the costs of adding another line item to your bill, $4 to cover the extra cost of charging you the original $1, $4 to cover the accounting costs, and another $5 for sending the check to the artists.) [ And don't forget any local taxes for the service of charging you that extra $15/mo. ]
By shifting schools to linux you deprive students of a chance to learn the most common os in business which may give them a competitive disadvantage after they graduate when looking for a job.
I agree with Rocketboy's sentiment.
In fact, being the father of a teenage daughter who graduated high school last year, I feel pretty confident in saying that statement is BS.
Most of the Microsoft Office skills that kids need are probably picked up at home, when the kid figures out how to navigate Word in order to type a report, or the parents help their child with a chart for their science project.
Having watched my daughter (and her friends) look for a job (between high school and college), one thing became pretty clear: There aren't a lot of employers that care if a high school student (or recent graduate) has any skills with Microsoft software. Those skills just aren't required for sorting mail, changing automobile fluids, busing tables, and preparing foods. These kinds of jobs require slightly more generic skills, like reading, math, English, and [occasionally] the ability to type. Fortunately, none of these skills require Microsoft software to learn.
I'll even go completely the other direction. Linux in schools may give kids an advantage in the workplace. If school districts can save money by NOT buying Microsoft software, then perhaps they can hire more teachers. More teachers can reduce class size. Smaller classes tend to be better learning environments. Better learning environments help kids develop the skills that are really important in the workplace.
> An excellent presentation of an > excellent film; a must-have for > any science fiction fan.
As big of a science fiction fan as I am, and as much as this film appeals to my inner-geek-child, I consider this movie a must-pass.
Disney is pushing hard for the SSSCA, because (near as I can tell) they consider you, me, world+dog a criminal.
Jon Johansen was indicted for the henious crime of distributing a tool that allowed people to watch the DVD's that they own in a manner that the wish to.
I dislike being treated as a criminal, and I prefer to not do business with organizations that do. I refuse to give any of my money to an organization that might use it to lobby congress for the SSSCA. I prefer to not help any member of the movie industry that would support such draconian acts as Mr. Johansen has endured.
Maybe I'll used the money I might've spent on the DVD and buy one of these
I also got that exact reply from Senator Cantwell, and an equally bland reply from Senator Murray.
Both Senators contend that the DMCA is a good thing, which is alarming enough. Both seem to promote intellectual property protection uber alles. Both contend that the DMCA is good for consumer protection (!). I'm sure if the SSSCA comes up for vote, they'll both vote in favor of it, because the lobbydogs of the MPAA and RIAA will enthusiastically sell it as law protects IP and consumers at the same time (but wait, if you vote now, we'll give you this set of ginsu knives....)
Senator Cantwell is a business person through and through. If you can explain to her why the SSSCA (and DMCA for that matter) is bad for business, AND get a large mass of other people to do the same, you'll get her attention. But as it is, the SSSCA is being sold as a good thing for the business of content delivery, and I would expect her to vote for it.
Senator Murray seems highly concerned with family issues (which is cool). If you could concretely explain to her why things like the DMCA and SSSCA are short changing our childrens future (with requisite large group of people), then I would suspect you have a decent chance of her looking critically at the SSSCA.
On the other hand, I've sent regular letters to my Rep. in the house (Jay Inslee). I have received serveral non-form letters from him about the DMCA and SSSCA, and he seems genuinely concerned about consumer safety. Slashdot readers who live in his district would be well advised to send him [polite] correspondance (particularly asking him to support the efforts of Representative Boucher).
"You mean the same way that DVD players with the DIVX checkbox swept the market?ou mean the same way that DVD players with the DIVX checkbox swept the market?
No, more like the "Works with Windows" logo proliferated...
> What incentive could companies posisbly have > to add this to their products
The Joe Sixpack and PIY phenomenon. Consider this:
Joe Six pack heads down to CompUSA to do some comparison shopping of computers so he can play "Son of Nascar".
Flybynite Computer puts a sticker saying "Approved by the MPAA" with a little box and check-mark through it on their computers.
Freedom brand computers doesn't, not buying the need to limit the use of it's PC's and screw it's customer base.
Joe Sixpack, most likely ignorant of what MPAA is, sees the check-mark on the Flybynite, sees that Freedom brand doesn't have it, and with little separating the two in regards to price, figures he's getting more for his dollar.
Likewise, the MPAA shows it's appreciation by making sure every shot with a computer in "Charlies Angels 2: justice at the beach" is a Flybynite... Oddly enough, CA2:jatb is a huge hit with the 13-24 year-old males in America. Suddenly, the Sixpack's and PIY's of America, flock to Flybynite brand computers, because of (1) their exta features, and/or (2) the fact that they get the babes.
Freedom brand, loosing market share, knuckes under, and puts the checkbox on their computers. Next thing you know Jeff Goldblum is seen figuring out that he can only hack the aliens computers using the superior technology of a Freedom laptop in "Re-Independance Day"
I wonder if it would cause any problems if a large number of users with battle.net chat clients logged on and transmitted the text of the DMCA simultaneously at some scheduled time?
Microsoft acheived it's monopoly in part because it does a decent job of giving people what they want. The masses wanted an OS that had a cheap up-front cost (compared to the the other proprietary OS's), and could be configured by your sub-average (thus cheaper) admin. Microsoft gave it to them.
Microsoft spends tons of money and time every year figuring out what it's customers want --- by asking them. Guess what subject constantly doesn't make it to the "important" list? It's customer base, unlike lots of UNIX (or UNIX like) users, weren't/aren't as concerned with security as they should be.
When the Microsoft marketing/sales teams start gathering data that a significant portion of it's paying customer base are willing to give a bit of convenience for security, you bet you're they'll come out with a secured OS.
However, until the Joe Sixpack's and PHB's of the word get a handle on the importance of this security "thing" (a.k.a. when hell freezes over), expect Microsoft to continue making tons of money on Software that uses swiss cheese as it's security model.
The patent clames:
1. A method for testing a web site comprising:
formulating a test configuration file
comprising a series of test inquiries
for a web site to be tested
So in my prefs.js configuration file for Mozilla, my homepage is setup to look at the / doc on my companies web site.
initiating an HTTP communication to form a connection with said web site;
Every morning at work I fire up Mozilla. Upon starting, Moz' automatically contacts the webserver, requesting the home page (as per my configuration file).
repetitively communicating with said web site by:
receiving HTML from said web site;
analyzing said HTML for errors and storing results in a database;
and formulating a new HTTP communication based upon said received HTML and said test configuration file.
If the document doesn't exist, then I'd be alerted to the error condition with a 404 message.
If the home page exists (as per my prefs.js config file), Moz' downloads the content, and chances are it stores the document in a datbase [it's cache].
Then Moz' analyzes the HTML content, repetitively executing more HTTP requests for any images, scripts, and other objects referenced in the HTML, because Moz's configuration file says to automatically get images.
If an image doesn't exist, I'm alerted to the problem with the generic-busted-graphic image.
Gosh-golly, it sure is nifty that Mozilla violates the First claim of the patent.
*sigh*
I guess it's gopher[?]
for everyone.
"Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous," says Firstbrook.
Anti-Linux comments or not, if Firstbrook is nervous because he's got someone in his emply with the ability/skillset to work on the Linux (or any OS) kernel, then there's some significantly wrong with Firstrbooks value system. In my world, talented people like this are often sought after and not considered a liability.
"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor."
Being an IT person, I don't install anything [at work] just because it's cool (or at least not by the definiton of "cool" that Firstbrook uses). I install technology because I have a goal to be made, and I want the tool(s) that perform the job best, with the lowest allocation of resources. When I deploy Linux, it's because it's the best tool for the job. Same for the OpenBSD, Solaris, and NT boxen I've deployed. I suspect my motivations aren't all that unique among other IT staff across the globe. I take offense to Firstbrook implying that my motives are anything different than trying to do the best job for my customer.
Based on the snippit CFO magazine gave, I believe this Firstbrook person from MetaGroup really has no idea on why intelligent people are valuable to business, nor how an IT group works. This would make me think Mr. Firstbrook no business advising CFO's, and I'm curious as to why CFO magazine would pick someone this backwards to quote in their article.
Slashdot Mirror
> You're blaming Windows because it didn't
> handle your misconfigured HD gracefully
Yeah.
The disk wasn't changed from factory default, nor was the factory default a misconfiguration. SuSE's installer worked with this configuration, but the Microsoft installer failed to handle a condition of a master storage device without an attached slave.
> or because you tried to access an update
> site through a header-mangling proxy server
Again, yes.
SuSE handled this without so much as a hiccup, but Microsoft's update mechanism failed to handle a reasonable scenerio.The proxy server wasn't even a problem, once the user agent header mangling was changed.
In both cases, Windows failed with a situation where Linux worked. Being that the difference really comes down to code, this is very clear a situation where it was "the developers who dropped the ball."
But the point wasn't about Windows failing to handle these situations. I was simply trying to point out that such user stories are less than insightful when trying to diagram an OS'es inherit difficulty (or ease) because there will inevitably be another user with a contrasting example.
Although I understand what you're saying, these kinds of user experiences are worthless. For every "Linux is too complex for simple tasks" story, there's the reverse user experience.
Here's mine (and while I may not be more techically able than you, I'm reasonable sophisticated):
I built a new PC for my sister. I initially set this up as a Linux system because I wanted to play with it for a couple weeks. After that it was to run Windows 2000 Home.
Relevant hardware:
Gigabyte 7DX+ main board, TNT2 M64 Video adapter, Western Digital 40G Hard disk, Liteon CDRW, Generic PCI NIC (Realtek chipset).
First try(Linux):
An install of Suse 8.0.
The installer detected all my hardware correctly, setup Xfree86 4. correctly.
Updated the distro using SuSE's Yast2 automagic update. After one restart, the system was completely up to date (with new video drivers too).
First try (Windows):
First, I booted from a floppy to MSDOS and used FDISK to wipe out the partition and MBR.
Next I W2K booted from CD. The installer got to the end of formatting the partition and the install failed complaining about an unrecoverable error during the format.
Second try (Windows):
Searched on Microsofts web site, found nothing. Google found a thread on a user forum where a a similiar mainboard and the same error had a work-around of updating the bios.
Flashed the bios to the most recent version, attempted a re-install, same damn problem at the end of formating the partition.
Third try (Windows):
On a lark, I moved the jumper on the hard disk from Master to Cable Select, attempted a reinstall. Everything proceeded normily, all my hardware was detected correctly except my NIC, which I had manually install (Add/Remove Hardware) and provide the manufacturer diskette for.
After installation I went to the windows update, and got an message to the effect "you're not using internet explorer so we won't let you use this URL."
Disabled the fake user agent string in my squid proxy server. Re-attempted the windows update with sucess.
After serveral reboots (3 or 4?), W2K had all recommended and critical updates from the windowsupdate web site.
Decided to allow windows to update the sound drivers from the web site. After "sucessfully" completing the install, Windows rebooted but the sound didn't work.
Removed the updated driver, re-booted, used the default driver from the CD when the new hardware was detected, re-attempted the update from the web site. Again, the sound system failed on reboot.
Removed the updated driver [again], reinstalled the default driver [again], and left it there.
I wasted hours getting Win2K to work and updated, and spent less than 45 minutes on Linux.
Like you, I hate baby sitting my OS. Linux might not always be pretty, but I rarely waste alot of cycles getting things to work with Linux, and when something fails, I found there's little guess work into correcting the situation. Windows NT and 2000 have never provided me that luxury.
I'll cast my vote in for the Volkwagen TDI engines also.
I swapped my Ford behemoth SUV in for 2001 TDI New Beetle, and haven't regretted the decision.
The Insight was never an option for me because I would need to haul largish dogs on rare occassion, or a third passenger more frequently.
With the TDI Jetta/Beetle getting simliar gas mileage to the Prius [for my driving habits], it came down to which one met my lifestyle more.
I opted for the Beetle given ability to easily adapt to odd (dog) shaped cargo, comfort, and better handling than the Prius.
Of course, the best thing about the New Beetle [for me] is filling up every three weeks instead of every three days.
Build your own computer. It's a worthwhile endevor, and you'll probably end up liking your product better than anyone elses.
There are a few things you should pay attention to when building your own computer.
1) Expect to pay more.
You can save money over a name-brand or white box, but if you do it right (by buying the highest quality components you can) you'll pay more.
This doesn't mean getting only 2.53Ghz P4's and nVidia Geforce4's. This means researching each component and selecting the best. If you've only got $50 for a CPU, do you get a 1.2Ghz Duron, or a 900Mhz Athlon?
2) If you buy online, don't use more than two merchants.
More than two merchants to get all your components, and any money that might've been considered a savings can be kissed goodbye in shipping charges.
Likewise, shipping monitors is expensive, and I find the price difference from local vs online to be negligable (YMMV).
3) Pay attention to what resllerratings.com has to say about a merchant.
These guys will save you a ton of headache.
Give preference to shops that have had plenty of reviews thrown at them and still maintain a decent rating (6.5+), and lower preference shops that only have a one or two reviews.
If you buy from an online shop, supply a honest review to resellerratings.com about your experience with a merchant.
4) Buy components that are known to work well with your favorite flavor of *BSD.
Why? Because if you do, you'll know your box will probably work nicely with pretty much any OS you throw on it, and will steer you away from things like Winmodems.
5) Overclock everything.
This is the sweet creamy center that is the oreo cookie of building your own computer.
Eek out the extra performance as you can only do with a computer that you built. Mild to wild, it's up to you, but definately squeeze out some extra power.
Yes, but which drivers that get certified are limited, File filter drivers, I think, require no certification, but if badly implemented can cause serious havoc.
Additionally, as you mentioned, Windows will alert the user to a uncertified driver, but will happily install anything if the correct button is clicked.
> "Microsoft can't control that process. If the
> printer driver tanks the system, who do you
> hold liable?"
On drivers specifically, this is a valid complaint . While I don't suggest that Windows is a highly stable OS, the image of Windows instability is partially undeserved.
There are many badly written (non-microsoft) printer/file filter/device drivers that make things go horribly wrong on Windows, and near as the end user can figure, it's just Windows crapping out.
Such a liability law would likely require Microsoft to increase it's legal department just to keep up with the number of cliams wrongly filed against it --- if Microsoft's business practices remained unchanged.
This problem is relatively straight forward for Microsoft to get around. Come up with an exhaustive certification program for all Windows drivers, offer no MSI support for uncertified drivers, and change their increasingly restrictive EULA to state that the use of uncertified drivers is a violation of the "agreement."
As a side effect, such a program might make Windows too expensive of an OS for companies to develop for, and then we'd get flood of devices and low quality drivers showing up on Linux.
( I can't believe I just came out in defense of Microsoft... I've got to go take a shower now )
> Specifically building sites for IE is
> a shortcoming on the developer side.
I'm glad to see this. I've often thought browser specific pages are a reflection of the developers inability to create a robust web interface.
It seems to me that if a tester encountered a page that was built exclusively for the wrong product, you'd remove that page from the test.
This testing methodology might prove interesting in the future, however. We may very well see a complaint from C-Net after they attempt to install Microsoft Office from the command line on FreeBSD:
"Attempting to execute the SETUP.EXE on FreeBSD completely fails, making the install far too difficult for the average user. Why is this important? Lots of user have starting using UNIX on their desktop..."
Given the infamous nature of this company, I wonder if we'll see a statement from Microsoft that tries to distance themselves from this press statement?
I mean, about the only thing worse would be to have Dr. Kevorkian come out touting the medical uses for Windows XP.
> ...so, in a nutshell, Nader is saying that
... then that's just icing on the cake.
> the government should make an effort to
> influence the marketplace in a certain
> direction
The goverment is part of the marketplace, and because they're so big, they influence it no matter what they do. Nader is asking the government to spend U.S. tax money in a responsible way.
Microsoft is making some very loud and scary noises at the government, trying to convince the people that spend U.S. tax dollars, that if they use OSS the U.S. will come crashing down around them (and by the way, stick Redmondware and you'll be safe). They are, in fact, attempting to get the government to influence the marketplace in their favor.
I look at Naders letter, and see that he's trying to get our government to act responsibly by making an organization that purchases lots of "stuff":
(1) ignore the hype, and
(2) ask the question "is the smartest way to spend our money?"
Basically Nader wants our government to act like an educated consumer (Microsoft's biggest nightmare).
Now... If it the goverment does ask the tough questions that Nader is requesting it to, AND it happens to help get OSS adopted [at the expense of Microsoft]
I'm feeling grim, but I just don't think this will suceed in any way.
... As soon as one person gets it, it's all over the networks for free."
Benyola from Raymond James Financial said:
"I think you'll be able to count the number of sales on one hand
If this track shows up on a single peer to peer network, the recording industry will parade this in front congress as the prime example of why legistlation is required: "See, even if we give them [internet users] a product as a very low price, they continue to steal it!"
Even if a large number of internet users reward the recording industry for good behavior by making the purchase (symbolic or not), I'm sure the recording industry will find some way to spin any sucess as a failure. We might see something like:
"This wasn't a real show of acceptance because there was a grass roots movement to buy this MP3 track. The results were inflated, and as such indicate that this isn't a viable market."
This is a token gesture at best.
This would seem to be a dangerous game for Microsoft to play. They could easily motivate someone at the Pentagon to look closely at the bulk of it's software solutions and come to the realization that they've been paying a too much to commercial software houses.
"Sir, we can afford more HumVees if we dump Windows 2000 and use OpenBSD and Samba."
This, of course, could be dangerous for the military too. If the Pentagon doesn't issue a general order for the use of free software to be banned, I'm sure the next thing we'll read about is the BSA telling all branches of the military to complete a software audit in a very short amount of time.
...the socialist nature of this idea is a bit appealing. It is kind of nice to see big industry players thinking outside of the box.
This idea, at first glance, seems less evil than the legistlation and copy distruption that the RIAA and MPAA have been going after.
Given the choice of the MPAA/RIAA regulating my PC into something only slightly more useful than a VCR and including DRM in every IP packet, or paying my ISP an extra dollar so someone else can download music --- I choose to pay $1.
Of course, this is Verizon --- your standard telco. This $1 per month charge will be turned into a healthy profit margin. They'll be happy to add the $1/mo. charge that goes to the artists. They'll even be happier because they get to charge you another $14 per month ($1 to cover the costs of adding another line item to your bill, $4 to cover the extra cost of charging you the original $1, $4 to cover the accounting costs, and another $5 for sending the check to the artists.)
[ And don't forget any local taxes for the service of charging you that extra $15/mo. ]
By shifting schools to linux you deprive students of a chance to learn the most common os in business which may give them a competitive disadvantage after they graduate when looking for a job.
I agree with Rocketboy's sentiment.
In fact, being the father of a teenage daughter who graduated high school last year, I feel pretty confident in saying that statement is BS.
Most of the Microsoft Office skills that kids need are probably picked up at home, when the kid figures out how to navigate Word in order to type a report, or the parents help their child with a chart for their science project.
Having watched my daughter (and her friends) look for a job (between high school and college), one thing became pretty clear: There aren't a lot of employers that care if a high school student (or recent graduate) has any skills with Microsoft software. Those skills just aren't required for sorting mail, changing automobile fluids, busing tables, and preparing foods. These kinds of jobs require slightly more generic skills, like reading, math, English, and [occasionally] the ability to type. Fortunately, none of these skills require Microsoft software to learn.
I'll even go completely the other direction. Linux in schools may give kids an advantage in the workplace. If school districts can save money by NOT buying Microsoft software, then perhaps they can hire more teachers. More teachers can reduce class size. Smaller classes tend to be better learning environments. Better learning environments help kids develop the skills that are really important in the workplace.
> An excellent presentation of an
> excellent film; a must-have for
> any science fiction fan.
As big of a science fiction fan as I am, and as much as this film appeals to my inner-geek-child, I consider this movie a must-pass.
Disney is pushing hard for the SSSCA, because (near as I can tell) they consider you, me, world+dog a criminal.
Jon Johansen was indicted for the henious crime of distributing a tool that allowed people to watch the DVD's that they own in a manner that the wish to.
I dislike being treated as a criminal, and I prefer to not do business with organizations that do. I refuse to give any of my money to an organization that might use it to lobby congress for the SSSCA. I prefer to not help any member of the movie industry that would support such draconian acts as Mr. Johansen has endured.
Maybe I'll used the money I might've spent on the DVD and buy one of these
Don't get excited.
I also got that exact reply from Senator Cantwell, and an equally bland reply from Senator Murray.
Both Senators contend that the DMCA is a good thing, which is alarming enough. Both seem to promote intellectual property protection uber alles. Both contend that the DMCA is good for consumer protection (!). I'm sure if the SSSCA comes up for vote, they'll both vote in favor of it, because the lobbydogs of the MPAA and RIAA will enthusiastically sell it as law protects IP and consumers at the same time (but wait, if you vote now, we'll give you this set of ginsu knives....)
Senator Cantwell is a business person through and through. If you can explain to her why the SSSCA (and DMCA for that matter) is bad for business, AND get a large mass of other people to do the same, you'll get her attention. But as it is, the SSSCA is being sold as a good thing for the business of content delivery, and I would expect her to vote for it.
Senator Murray seems highly concerned with family issues (which is cool). If you could concretely explain to her why things like the DMCA and SSSCA are short changing our childrens future (with requisite large group of people), then I would suspect you have a decent chance of her looking critically at the SSSCA.
On the other hand, I've sent regular letters to my Rep. in the house (Jay Inslee). I have received serveral non-form letters from him about the DMCA and SSSCA, and he seems genuinely concerned about consumer safety. Slashdot readers who live in his district would be well advised to send him [polite] correspondance (particularly asking him to support the efforts of Representative Boucher).
"You mean the same way that DVD players with the DIVX checkbox swept the market?ou mean the same way that DVD players with the DIVX checkbox swept the market?
No, more like the "Works with Windows" logo proliferated...
You missed my mistake of typing PIY instead of PFY.
In a couple years you could grow up to replace the grammar and spell check in Outlook.
> What incentive could companies posisbly have
> to add this to their products
The Joe Sixpack and PIY phenomenon. Consider this:
Joe Six pack heads down to CompUSA to do some comparison shopping of computers so he can play "Son of Nascar".
Flybynite Computer puts a sticker saying "Approved by the MPAA" with a little box and check-mark through it on their computers.
Freedom brand computers doesn't, not buying the need to limit the use of it's PC's and screw it's customer base.
Joe Sixpack, most likely ignorant of what MPAA is, sees the check-mark on the Flybynite, sees that Freedom brand doesn't have it, and with little separating the two in regards to price, figures he's getting more for his dollar.
Likewise, the MPAA shows it's appreciation by making sure every shot with a computer in "Charlies Angels 2: justice at the beach" is a Flybynite... Oddly enough, CA2:jatb is a huge hit with the 13-24 year-old males in America. Suddenly, the Sixpack's and PIY's of America, flock to Flybynite brand computers, because of (1) their exta features, and/or (2) the fact that they get the babes.
Freedom brand, loosing market share, knuckes under, and puts the checkbox on their computers. Next thing you know Jeff Goldblum is seen figuring out that he can only hack the aliens computers using the superior technology of a Freedom laptop in "Re-Independance Day"
I wonder if it would cause any problems if a large number of users with battle.net chat clients logged on and transmitted the text of the DMCA simultaneously at some scheduled time?
Microsoft acheived it's monopoly in part because it does a decent job of giving people what they want. The masses wanted an OS that had a cheap up-front cost (compared to the the other proprietary OS's), and could be configured by your sub-average (thus cheaper) admin. Microsoft gave it to them.
Microsoft spends tons of money and time every year figuring out what it's customers want --- by asking them. Guess what subject constantly doesn't make it to the "important" list? It's customer base, unlike lots of UNIX (or UNIX like) users, weren't/aren't as concerned with security as they should be.
When the Microsoft marketing/sales teams start gathering data that a significant portion of it's paying customer base are willing to give a bit of convenience for security, you bet you're they'll come out with a secured OS.
However, until the Joe Sixpack's and PHB's of the word get a handle on the importance of this security "thing" (a.k.a. when hell freezes over), expect Microsoft to continue making tons of money on Software that uses swiss cheese as it's security model.
1. A method for testing a web site comprising:
-
formulating a test configuration file
comprising a series of test inquiries
for a web site to be tested
So in my prefs.js configuration file for Mozilla, my homepage is setup to look at the / doc on my companies web site.Every morning at work I fire up Mozilla. Upon starting, Moz' automatically contacts the webserver, requesting the home page (as per my configuration file).
If the document doesn't exist, then I'd be alerted to the error condition with a 404 message.
If the home page exists (as per my prefs.js config file), Moz' downloads the content, and chances are it stores the document in a datbase [it's cache].
Then Moz' analyzes the HTML content, repetitively executing more HTTP requests for any images, scripts, and other objects referenced in the HTML, because Moz's configuration file says to automatically get images.
If an image doesn't exist, I'm alerted to the problem with the generic-busted-graphic image.
Gosh-golly, it sure is nifty that Mozilla violates the First claim of the patent.
*sigh*
I guess it's gopher[?] for everyone.
Anti-Linux comments or not, if Firstbrook is nervous because he's got someone in his emply with the ability/skillset to work on the Linux (or any OS) kernel, then there's some significantly wrong with Firstrbooks value system. In my world, talented people like this are often sought after and not considered a liability.
"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor."
Being an IT person, I don't install anything [at work] just because it's cool (or at least not by the definiton of "cool" that Firstbrook uses). I install technology because I have a goal to be made, and I want the tool(s) that perform the job best, with the lowest allocation of resources. When I deploy Linux, it's because it's the best tool for the job. Same for the OpenBSD, Solaris, and NT boxen I've deployed. I suspect my motivations aren't all that unique among other IT staff across the globe. I take offense to Firstbrook implying that my motives are anything different than trying to do the best job for my customer.
Based on the snippit CFO magazine gave, I believe this Firstbrook person from MetaGroup really has no idea on why intelligent people are valuable to business, nor how an IT group works. This would make me think Mr. Firstbrook no business advising CFO's, and I'm curious as to why CFO magazine would pick someone this backwards to quote in their article.