On the contrary. Time-Warner will still be hurt and MORE pressure would be put on them if they couldn't get decent actors/actresses, writers, directors, etc because of a boycott. The boycott would also put pressure on the people involved to not participate in any Time-Warner films.
Yes, the people involved wouldn't make as much money, but it would be the fault of a boycott on Time-Warner policy. The point of a boycott is to put pressure to "force" change. You can't put pressure on a company as big as Time-Warner without hurting someone.
So yes, it does mean you should avoid it if your conscience dictates it.
In addition, Windows 2000 uses a 'lite' version of Veritas' Volume Manager, which (IMHO) is an excellent product that allows for all sorts of otherwise unheard of file system ajustments.
When I saw the title, the first thing that came to my mind was "Great! Now only if Motorola would make a decent phone."
I've got a friend the works on the RF circuits for Motorola in Chicago, and his advice was "buy a Nokia".
I've owned both phones and I have to say, I like my Nokia alot better than the Mot piece o' shit I had. Admittedly, the Mot phone was older, but when I was looking at the new ones, they weren't much better.
Let me tell you, nothing is more annoying than frequently dropping calls....
I'll stick with Nokia until Mot gets their act together, which hopefully will be soon, because I do like alot of their other stuff (chips).
It took MS more than 10 years to create DOS and turn it into Windows, so don't think that linux/BSD have to follow for eternity.
The only disadvantage to Open Source is that MOST of the software for it has to be written from scratch, reverse engineered, etc...
I think that as time goes on and more people and companies contribute you will see Open Source catch up and eventually surpass the rest. INCLUDING MS. After all, MS went from DOS to where they are now. It won't be easy for Open Source to infiltrate both the desktop and server markets and it won't happen overnight, but MS didn't have an easy time either.
1) It's a whole lot easier to set up and use "out of the box" than Linux. This fact has little to do with anti-trust practices (except driver support and that's just nitpicking)
If we're excluding driver support, then Linux is not any harder to install than Windows. Installation is easy when you don't have to do the work to create/format partitions. Most computers come with Windows already loaded, so any comparison isn't on a level basis.
2)Microsoft's office suite is damn good. Some may argue that it's "good" because of anti-competitive integration with the operating system, but regardless, objectively, it is a feature-rich, fast, and easy-to-use suite. Nobody I know has ever had a problem learning Word.
When you kill off your competition by leveraging your OS and everyone who wants the functionality must buy your product, it's a hell of a lot easier to spend whatever you want in time and money on development. Isn't it ?
3)Breaking up Microsoft will have little effect on its day-to-day business. Sure, the overhead will increase, but I don't think it'll help foster competition. It shouldn't be allowed to unfairly push manufacturers, but breaking it up will have no effect on all this.
Bullshit to everything in that statement. If MS is broken up, the applications company would not have any incentive to stick to a strictly MS platform. Their shareholders wouldn't stand for it. Therefore, for example, the OS division would not get sales from people who need Office, but would otherwise choose a non-MS OS.
In addition, profits derived from OS sales, advertising, etc would not be diverted to another product. The shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
Each piece that the company is broken into will have to make a profit to keep the shareholders happy.
How will this help competition ? I think it's obvious. 4)Microsoft shouldn't be punished for having a better product. Netscape (which helped initiate the litigation) complains about IE, and although I agree it shouldn't be forcibly packaged without alternatives by OEMs, the fact remains that today IE is way better than Navigator. Shell integration aside, IE crashes on me less often than Navigator.
MS is not being punished for being better. They are being punished for using illegal tactics to create and maintain monopolies. Do you think that IE would have been as "good" and successful if MS didn't divert funds derived from it's OS monopoly, advertising, and applications to create and NOT sell (although it really is sold...you're forced to buy it when you buy Windows) IE? Do you think that IE would still be as widely used if people had to download it from the net ? Do you think that IE would be as widely used if it wasn't welded into the OS? If MS had to write IE for different OSs, do you think it would still be as good as it is ? NO. Their attempt at a Unix version of IE was/is horrible...unusable. Do you think that if Netscape didn't have to keep up with a company that had a nearly unlimited amount of resources due to it's monopolies that Netscape wouldn't be better ? How much easier is development if you own both the browser AND the OS and don't have to port to other platforms to keep alive?
If IE is so much better than Netscape, then why did MS feel that they had to weld it into the OS? If IE is so much better than Netscape, why did MS feel the need to create contracts with companies that prevented those companies from mentioning, installing, or providing support for Netscape ? If IE is so much better than Netscape, then why did MS have to bribe companies to move off of Netscape ?
If MS creates better products, then why does MS not adhere to industry standards ? Why do they create products strictly for their own OS (surely if they created better products there would be nothing to fear in creating software to compete with other software on different platforms, for example, since most of the net does not use NT for their web servers, why doesn't MS have a Unix version of IIS) ?
To sum it up, if you think that MS is being punished for being better, you're very poorly informed.
Why make them open up the source code ? It would make it a hell of alot harder for them to hide designed incompatabilities. It would make it a hell of alot easier to create compatibility because you don't have to go by how MS says is should behave. You can look at the code itself and see how it really does behave.
Re:Hate to say this, but...
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 1
Hate to say this, but....
That would be easy to defeat... Change letter from lower case to upper in one of the files and you can distribute the real DeCSS until you get discovered. Get alot more ppl involved and it's unmanagable again.
This is just one of the MANY ways to make the jobs of those searching for the DeCSS code more difficult.
The ONLY reason why MS is saying that there needs to be an open standard is because they want AOL's IM users. PERIOD. By saying that they want everyone to be able to communicate no matter what software they are using, they were trying to get a movement going so that AOL would open it's IM protocol. You know as well as I do (AOL knows this too, no doubt) that as soon as AOL opens up it's IM protocol, MS will "embrace and extend" it so that the users will only use the MS IM Client and IM server. There is no doubt that MS has the user base through it's OS and browser to achieve this rather quickly and easily.
I'm not a fan of AOL, but I'm glad that they're keeping their protocol proprietary. It keeps yet another "market" out of MS's reach.
I agree that their needs to be and should be an open IM protocol, but currently, there isn't a way to do this without MS taking advantage of their monopoly and using the open protocol to steer users into the MS realm of control.
Why is it that ever science fiction story is considered a prediction ? Gibson didn't write about cyberspace to predict it. The Matrix didn't include a world takeover by AI to predict it. The story of being undone by one's creation is one of the oldest in the book (hello...Frankenstein...) and stories like these are just a modern variation on an old theme.
To me, it sounds more like fear of change than fear of a "Cyberclypse"(what a stupid word...must we preceed everything that has to do with technology as "cyber").
The bottom line is that people will make do with what they have. It won't be the end of civilization. At this point in time, alot of people have disposable income and an interest in electronic gadgets, so developement and sales of these items are up. It isn't due to a "need" for these items. As soon as people lose interest, you will see the decline and this "cyberclysm" will be just another of the many fears of society.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary. Time-Warner will still be hurt and MORE pressure would be put on them if they couldn't get decent actors/actresses, writers, directors, etc because of a boycott. The boycott would also put pressure on the people involved to not participate in any Time-Warner films.
Yes, the people involved wouldn't make as much money, but it would be the fault of a boycott on Time-Warner policy. The point of a boycott is to put pressure to "force" change. You can't put pressure on a company as big as Time-Warner without hurting someone.
So yes, it does mean you should avoid it if your conscience dictates it.
You are confusing issues...
In addition, Windows 2000 uses a 'lite' version of Veritas' Volume Manager, which (IMHO) is an excellent product that allows for all sorts of otherwise unheard of file system ajustments.
*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT* WRONG!
Verisign supports both mod_ssl and Apache-SSL.
See http://www.verisign.com/cus/srv/install/s/
for installation instructions.
Well aware...
Got the Nokia from the same Company on the same net...
..thus the conclusion that the phone sucks...
Amen!
When I saw the title, the first thing that came to my mind was "Great! Now only if Motorola would make a decent phone."
I've got a friend the works on the RF circuits for Motorola in Chicago, and his advice was "buy a Nokia".
I've owned both phones and I have to say, I like my Nokia alot better than the Mot piece o' shit I had. Admittedly, the Mot phone was older, but when I was looking at the new ones, they weren't much better.
Let me tell you, nothing is more annoying than frequently dropping calls....
I'll stick with Nokia until Mot gets their act together, which hopefully will be soon, because I do like alot of their other stuff (chips).
Please tell me you're joking....
It took MS more than 10 years to create DOS and turn it into Windows, so don't think that linux/BSD have to follow for eternity.
The only disadvantage to Open Source is that MOST of the software for it has to be written from scratch, reverse engineered, etc...
I think that as time goes on and more people and companies contribute you will see Open Source catch up and eventually surpass the rest. INCLUDING MS. After all, MS went from DOS to where they are now. It won't be easy for Open Source to infiltrate both the desktop and server markets and it won't happen overnight, but MS didn't have an easy time either.
1) It's a whole lot easier to set up and use "out of the box" than Linux. This fact has little to do with anti-trust practices (except driver support and that's just nitpicking)
If we're excluding driver support, then Linux is not any harder to install than Windows. Installation is easy when you don't have to do the work to create/format partitions. Most computers come with Windows already loaded, so any comparison isn't on a level basis.
2)Microsoft's office suite is damn good. Some may argue that it's "good" because of anti-competitive
integration with the operating system, but regardless, objectively, it is a feature-rich, fast, and easy-to-use
suite. Nobody I know has ever had a problem learning Word.
When you kill off your competition by leveraging your OS and everyone who wants the functionality must buy your product, it's a hell of a lot easier to spend whatever you want in time and money on development. Isn't it ?
3)Breaking up Microsoft will have little effect on its day-to-day business. Sure, the overhead will
increase, but I don't think it'll help foster competition. It shouldn't be allowed to unfairly push
manufacturers, but breaking it up will have no effect on all this.
Bullshit to everything in that statement. If MS is broken up, the applications company would not have any incentive to stick to a strictly MS platform. Their shareholders wouldn't stand for it. Therefore, for example, the OS division would not get sales from people who need Office, but would otherwise choose a non-MS OS.
In addition, profits derived from OS sales, advertising, etc would not be diverted to another product. The shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
Each piece that the company is broken into will have to make a profit to keep the shareholders happy.
How will this help competition ? I think it's obvious.
4)Microsoft shouldn't be punished for having a better product. Netscape (which helped initiate the
litigation) complains about IE, and although I agree it shouldn't be forcibly packaged without alternatives
by OEMs, the fact remains that today IE is way better than Navigator. Shell integration aside, IE crashes
on me less often than Navigator.
MS is not being punished for being better. They are being punished for using illegal tactics to create and maintain monopolies. Do you think that IE would have been as "good" and successful if MS didn't divert funds derived from it's OS monopoly, advertising, and applications to create and NOT sell (although it really is sold...you're forced to buy it when you buy Windows) IE? Do you think that IE would still be as widely used if people had to download it from the net ? Do you think that IE would be as widely used if it wasn't welded into the OS? If MS had to write IE for different OSs, do you think it would still be as good as it is ? NO. Their attempt at a Unix version of IE was/is horrible...unusable. Do you think that if Netscape didn't have to keep up with a company that had a nearly unlimited amount of resources due to it's monopolies that Netscape wouldn't be better ? How much easier is development if you own both the browser AND the OS and don't have to port to other platforms to keep alive?
If IE is so much better than Netscape, then why did MS feel that they had to weld it into the OS? If IE is so much better than Netscape, why did MS feel the need to create contracts with companies that prevented those companies from mentioning, installing, or providing support for Netscape ? If IE is so much better than Netscape, then why did MS have to bribe companies to move off of Netscape ?
If MS creates better products, then why does MS not adhere to industry standards ? Why do they create products strictly for their own OS (surely if they created better products there would be nothing to fear in creating software to compete with other software on different platforms, for example, since most of the net does not use NT for their web servers, why doesn't MS have a Unix version of IIS) ?
To sum it up, if you think that MS is being punished for being better, you're very poorly informed.
Why make them open up the source code ? It would make it a hell of alot harder for them to hide designed incompatabilities. It would make it a hell of alot easier to create compatibility because you don't have to go by how MS says is should behave. You can look at the code itself and see how it really does behave.
Hate to say this, but....
That would be easy to defeat...
Change letter from lower case to upper in one of the files and you can distribute the real DeCSS until you get discovered. Get alot more ppl involved and it's unmanagable again.
This is just one of the MANY ways to make the jobs of those searching for the DeCSS code more difficult.
The ONLY reason why MS is saying that there needs
to be an open standard is because they want AOL's IM users. PERIOD. By saying that they want everyone to be able to communicate no matter what software they are using, they were trying to get a movement going so that AOL would open it's IM protocol. You know as well as I do (AOL knows this too, no doubt) that as soon as AOL opens up it's IM protocol, MS will "embrace and extend" it so that the users will only use the MS IM Client and IM server. There is no doubt that MS has the user base through it's OS and browser to achieve this rather quickly and easily.
I'm not a fan of AOL, but I'm glad that they're keeping their protocol proprietary. It keeps yet another "market" out of MS's reach.
I agree that their needs to be and should be an open IM protocol, but currently, there isn't a way to do this without MS taking advantage of their monopoly and using the open protocol to steer users into the MS realm of control.
Why is it that ever science fiction story is considered a prediction ? Gibson didn't write about cyberspace to predict it. The Matrix didn't include a world takeover by AI to predict it. The story of being undone by one's creation is one of the oldest in the book (hello...Frankenstein...) and stories like these are just a modern variation on an old theme.
To me, it sounds more like fear of change than fear of a "Cyberclypse"(what a stupid word...must we preceed everything that has to do with technology as "cyber").
The bottom line is that people will make do with what they have. It won't be the end of civilization. At this point in time, alot of people have disposable income and an interest in electronic gadgets, so developement and sales of these items are up. It isn't due to a "need" for these items. As soon as people lose interest, you will see the decline and this "cyberclysm" will be just another of the many fears of society.
HelloOOoo...if you buy ANYTHING on credit and make the minimum payments your going to pay at LEAST close to double the original value of the item...
Which is why you pay more than the minimum and pay it off EARLY...
--E_D