However AudioGalaxy does it, isn't really our worry. They may have a central database, that others use, or they may make a list and send it out world wide. The point is, if you've opted out, from a list, then you have opted out from the list. Perhaps the spammer, should send their emails though AudioGalaxy to be sure that the addresses are still optin.
I don't know the particulars of the case, but it seems to me, that if a company is providing an opt out service, it should work. The details are the companies problems. (but the judge didn't see it that way:(
I simply had to see this artical before replying. The headline seems too anti microsoft to be real. Then I read the artical. Wow, it sure puts things in perspective.
FOCUS Magazine Interview with Bill Gates:
Microsoft Code Has No Bugs (that Microsoft cares about)
In this interview, Big Bill gets distracted and reveals his contempt for you, his loyal customer.
Note: this page is also available in Italiano, Español, and Japanese.
In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212), Microsoft`s Mr. Bill Gates has made some statements about software quality of MS products. [See executive summary, below.] After lengthy inquiries about how PCs should and could be used (including some angry comments on some questions which Mr. Gates evidently did not like), the interviewer comes to storage requirements of MS products; it ends with the following dispute:
FOCUS: Every new release of a software which has less bugs than the older one is also more complex and has more features...
Gates: No, only if that is what'll sell!
FOCUS: But...
Gates: Only if that is what'll sell! We've never done a piece of software unless we thought it would sell. That's why everything we do in software... it's really amazing: We do it because we think that's what customers want. That's why we do what we do.
FOCUS: But on the other hand - you would say: Okay, folks, if you don't like these new features, stay with the old version, and keep the bugs?
Gates: No! We have lots and lots of competitors. The new version - it's not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason we come up with a new version.
FOCUS: But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to have fixed.
Gates: No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed.
FOCUS: Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the page numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from version 5.11 to 6.0".
Gates: No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?
FOCUS: Yeah, I did...
Gates: It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.
FOCUS: How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version?
Gates: No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that basis.
FOCUS: Probably you have other contacts to your software developers. But if Mister Anybody, like me, calls up a store or a support line and says, "Hey listen, there's a bug"... 90 percent of the time I get the answer "Oh, well, yeah, that's not too bad, wait to the next version and it'll be fixed". That's how the system works.
Gates: Guess how much we spend on phone calls every year.
FOCUS: Hm, a couple of million dollars?
Gates: 500 million dollars a year. We take every one of these phone calls and classify them. That's the input we use to do the next version. So it's like the worlds biggest feedback loop. People call in - we decide what to do on it. Do you want to know what percentage of those phonecalls relates to bugs in the software? Less than one percent.
FOCUS: So people call in to say "Hey listen, I would love to have this and that feature"?
Gates: Actually, that's about five percent. Most of them call to get advice on how to do a certain thing with the software. That's the primary thing. We could have you sit and listen to these phone calls. There are millions and millions of them. It really isn't statistically significant. Sit in and listen to Win 95 calls, sit in and listen to Word calls, and wait, just wait for weeks and weeks for someone to call in and say "Oh, I found a bug in this thing"....
FOCUS: So where does this common feeling of frustration come from that unites all the PC users? Everybody experiences it every day that these things simply don't work like they should.
Gates: Because it's cool. It's like, "Yeah, been there done that - oh, yeah, I know that bug." - I can understand that phenomenon sociologically, not technically.
Executive Summary:
So...
Bug reports are statistically, therefore actually, unimportant; If you want a bug fixed, you are (by definition) in the minority; Microsoft doesn't care about bugs because bug fixes are not a significant source of revenue; If you think you found a bug, it really only means you're incompetent; Anyway, people only complain about bugs to show how cool they are, not because bugs cause any real problems.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
More information....
(Not all software is as unreliable as Microsoft's. For example, PCs running Linux often run for many months without need to reboot for any reason.)
Text for this page is extracted from the RISKS archive:
This is the raw interview transcript (from which the magazine article was transcribed in German) kindly provided by the interviewer, Dr. Jürgen Scriba. The introductory text at the top is from Klaus Brunnstein, as found in . (A big Thank You to Drs. Scriba, Brunnstein, Neumann, and Marshall for making this material available, to Michele Beltrame for the Italian translation, to Iñaky Peréz Gonzáles for the castellano translation, and SHINYAMA Yusuke for the Japanese translation.)
If you maintain a web page, you are encouraged to make a link to this one.
Do you mean you would give a male acquaintance a female acquaintances number? I'm always very careful about that sort of thing, and usually say something like, "it's in the book, look it up". If it's not, then there's probably a good reason for it.
As as been talked about on slashdot, credit checks can alter your credit rating. In other words you can be directly affected by other people snooping, even if you don't know why. I think credit checks should only happen on me if I authorize it. And as far as I know (Canadian citizen) that is the only way they can happen.
What about the electoral roll?
If a doctor has his home address on their registration that is their choice. and as far as printing their personal details I think you're confusing your courtroom drama shows.
What does a doctors home address have to do with verifying the doctors medical qualifications?
Obviously different countries have different laws, but in general we all agree that we all deserve the right to decide for ourselves who get's our info. This was the point that I was making.
Yes, I think that stalking if done by a PI, or the government or individuals is a bad thing. I think they are responsible. They are giving out private information that they either have special access to, or have gone out of their way to find (stalking).
What I call a right to privacy is the right to decide whom I want to deal with, and in what situation. From the US constitution... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ". This right was breached.
1.st Why would you assume that I'm a US citizen? 2.nd from your link The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "unwashed masses" is the general public. They are not corporate citizens, but owe no allegiance to anyone but themselves. Who better to decide what software should be, then the people who use it.
Your point that extreme polarization that seems to permeate these debates is only the result of extreme views of the closed source shops.(read on before answering) A closed source shop will have by definition the view that only "they" can change the binaries. As Dr. David S. Touretzky, so nicely pointed out in his post trial memoradum Binaries are only a representation of speech. There is no such thing in nature as copyright protection or patent protection. It is an unnatural system. And has only been around for a couple of hundred years, so it really hasn't been given the test of time, as compared with something like money, or land ownership.
On the other hand there is the opensource people who say (more or less), once you buy the software it's yours to modify as you will. Like buying a car.
Obviously selling software that can be resold without recompense would put people out of business which isn't a good thing. On the other hand selling software that people can only use by your say so (upgrades, hardware dependancies, Per seat licensing) isn't a good solution either.
I don't pretend to know what the best solution is.
My point is that close software is an extreme even though it is the norm in many peoples minds. Polorization occurs because everything else appears so different from that extreme.
I liked LOTR I, but with 2 I kept getting distracted by various things.
For example, did anyone else notice that whenever there was a closeup of human warriors in battle armor, standing at attention, or searching outside the big gate for Frodo and company, that their eyes looked very feminine. I saw this several times in the movie. Is this a case of casting couch casting, or male actors with pretty eyes? I don't know. But it was distracting.
Also the CG in the second one for mob scenes was very fake. Like when Aragon and the King rode out through the orcs. All the orcs fell down halfway off the bridge. That is the body was lying on the bridge and the feet sticking off (straight out). And I guess orc bodies don't bounce... Instead they fall flat and stick to the ground.
I for one would rather have this type of compition then the legal tactics that have been used over the last few years. This is a way that cd producers have of:
1. advertising, by giving bits of good and then givng an ad.
2. Getting an unknown group some exposure without the huge costs that are usually involved in promotion.
3. Changing their business model to more accurately reflect todays Internet world.
Now the rest of the world will repond with some methodolgy that will rate the material.
It's competion, and it's the way the market should work.
I've heard that they have a master hard disk, and plug it into the computer. Then they boot with a special floppy and ghost the image over onto the drive C: hard disk. But this might be just one manufacture's method. I don't pretend to know them all.
I think you misunderstood. I meant why am I charged about $100 more for a PC with windows then one without. I was disagreeing with the $15 price the original poster made. I wasn't talking about "on the self" versions (which here in Canada go for closer to $150).
Your right about your car analogy. It is bad.;) A high volume PC producer has a master hard disk that he bulk copies to every "drive C:" hard disk he sells inside a computer. This takes time. They also have options to have second hard disks added to the system (which are blank). To "alter the assembly line" in this case, means, give him one of the blank ones. A better analogy would be, viewing the car options. Do you want it with a radio or not.
On the otherhand, I only deal with the Mom and Pop hardware stores, since they usually have a better idea of what's what, and provide better service. (how about that!) They will also sell me a computer for only the cost of the parts plus a reasonable percent (that doesn't include penalties for not buying some particular item or software).
First off I think OEM's pay something like $15 per liscense for windows. That means if there were any discount it would only be $15 at most. Then why am I charged closer to 100 for it?
Second you need to look at the fact it costs far more to make a computer to different specs. That means a computer with no OS costs MORE to make, that means that you actually get a discount for ordering your computer the same way that a billion other users ordered it.
Not my concern if your manufacturing methods are not optimal. Seems to me the last step in manufacturing a computer is to copy the software on. If it costs you more to not put software on a computer, there is something wrong with your company!
Last you should examine the price, how many $999 or $1199 or $1399 computers have you see on the market? You think that is a direct refelection of the cost of goods? No not really, computer companies pick numbers that look good from a marketing stanpoint when they set retail prices. So if computers all came OS free then you would see computers for the same price as when you buy windows.
The following artical explains: "11/7/2002 5:00:00 PM - Privacy experts explain why widespread surveillance of online communication won't prevent another tragedy like Sept. 11. Plus: The implications of Lawful Access"
Interesting reading, and relevent.
Re:This decision was bad news for MS in the long r
on
Microsoft's New Hurdles
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
If you've got nothing useful to say....
Why are you saying it?
Re:This decision was bad news for MS in the long r
on
Microsoft's New Hurdles
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
This is interesting. Could you expand on what you mean by revenue side financials and income=stream differentials? I'm not familiar with those terms.
MS is in the business of selling software. The juggernaut of OS's is comming to a close, so they have for the last few years been expanding into other areas. (If you own 99% of the market in one area, why would you stay there?)
So now they've got office software, game software, mouse hardware, keyboard hardware, xbox hardware...
They need to decide what is the best way to keep making money. Competing against OS which they cannot compete against, (and have already gotten the most market share they will ever get). Or giving the OS away, to keep the monopoly of other areas viable.
Really, then what happend to the Bono bill. Did it go back and forth a bunch of times? And then was passed after he nosedived into a tree whilst skiing. (Sympathy vote?)
Slashdot Mirror
However AudioGalaxy does it, isn't really our worry. They may have a central database, that others use, or they may make a list and send it out world wide. The point is, if you've opted out, from a list, then you have opted out from the list. Perhaps the spammer, should send their emails though AudioGalaxy to be sure that the addresses are still optin.
:(
I don't know the particulars of the case, but it seems to me, that if a company is providing an opt out service, it should work. The details are the companies problems. (but the judge didn't see it that way
Swarms, though, are based on a very small set of unchanging ideas.
But if you take any number of these ideas, and add them together, it makes a new idea. In this way it is like genetic algorithms.
This technique sounds suspiciously like genetic algorithms.
Put out a bunch of genes, see which ones survive. The ones that don't die, the ones that do are re-integrated.
Put out a bunch of ants, see which bring back food. The ones that do, copy, the ones that don't forget about.
Or how about neural networks. Put out a bunch of connections. The ones that work, strengthen, the ones that don't weaken.
Is it just me or is it all the same general idea.
I simply had to see this artical before replying. The headline seems too anti microsoft to be real. Then I read the artical. Wow, it sure puts things in perspective.
... it's really amazing: We do it because we think that's what customers want. That's why we do what we do.
... 90 percent of the time I get the answer "Oh, well, yeah, that's not too bad, wait to the next version and it'll be fixed". That's how the system works.
...
FOCUS Magazine Interview with Bill Gates:
Microsoft Code Has No Bugs (that Microsoft cares about)
In this interview, Big Bill gets distracted and reveals his contempt for you, his loyal customer.
Note: this page is also available in Italiano, Español, and Japanese.
In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS (nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212), Microsoft`s Mr. Bill Gates has made some statements about software quality of MS products. [See executive summary, below.] After lengthy inquiries about how PCs should and could be used (including some angry comments on some questions which Mr. Gates evidently did not like), the interviewer comes to storage requirements of MS products; it ends with the following dispute:
FOCUS:
Every new release of a software which has less bugs than the older one is also more complex and has more features...
Gates:
No, only if that is what'll sell!
FOCUS:
But...
Gates:
Only if that is what'll sell! We've never done a piece of software unless we thought it would sell. That's why everything we do in software
FOCUS:
But on the other hand - you would say: Okay, folks, if you don't like these new features, stay with the old version, and keep the bugs?
Gates:
No! We have lots and lots of competitors. The new version - it's not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason we come up with a new version.
FOCUS:
But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to have fixed.
Gates:
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed.
FOCUS:
Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the page numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from version 5.11 to 6.0".
Gates:
No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?
FOCUS:
Yeah, I did...
Gates:
It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software properly, so you should look into that. -- The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that people are asking for. And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason.
FOCUS:
How come I keep being told by computer vendors "Well, we know about this bug, wait till the next version is there, it'll be fixed"? I hear this all the time. How come? If you're telling me there are no significant bugs in software and there is no reason to do a new version?
Gates:
No. I'm saying: We don't do a new version to fix bugs. We don't. Not enough people would buy it. You can take a hundred people using Microsoft Word. Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version because of bugs?" You won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs. We'd never be able to sell a release on that basis.
FOCUS:
Probably you have other contacts to your software developers. But if Mister Anybody, like me, calls up a store or a support line and says, "Hey listen, there's a bug"
Gates:
Guess how much we spend on phone calls every year.
FOCUS:
Hm, a couple of million dollars?
Gates:
500 million dollars a year. We take every one of these phone calls and classify them. That's the input we use to do the next version. So it's like the worlds biggest feedback loop. People call in - we decide what to do on it. Do you want to know what percentage of those phonecalls relates to bugs in the software? Less than one percent.
FOCUS:
So people call in to say "Hey listen, I would love to have this and that feature"?
Gates:
Actually, that's about five percent. Most of them call to get advice on how to do a certain thing with the software. That's the primary thing. We could have you sit and listen to these phone calls. There are millions and millions of them. It really isn't statistically significant. Sit in and listen to Win 95 calls, sit in and listen to Word calls, and wait, just wait for weeks and weeks for someone to call in and say "Oh, I found a bug in this thing".
FOCUS:
So where does this common feeling of frustration come from that unites all the PC users? Everybody experiences it every day that these things simply don't work like they should.
Gates:
Because it's cool. It's like, "Yeah, been there done that - oh, yeah, I know that bug." - I can understand that phenomenon sociologically, not technically.
Executive Summary:
So...
Bug reports are statistically, therefore actually, unimportant;
If you want a bug fixed, you are (by definition) in the minority;
Microsoft doesn't care about bugs because bug fixes are not a significant source of revenue;
If you think you found a bug, it really only means you're incompetent;
Anyway, people only complain about bugs to show how cool they are, not because bugs cause any real problems.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
More information....
(Not all software is as unreliable as Microsoft's. For example, PCs running Linux often run for many months without need to reboot for any reason.)
Text for this page is extracted from the RISKS archive:
This is the raw interview transcript (from which the magazine article was transcribed in German) kindly provided by the interviewer, Dr. Jürgen Scriba. The introductory text at the top is from Klaus Brunnstein, as found in . (A big Thank You to Drs. Scriba, Brunnstein, Neumann, and Marshall for making this material available, to Michele Beltrame for the Italian translation, to Iñaky Peréz Gonzáles for the castellano translation, and SHINYAMA Yusuke for the Japanese translation.)
If you maintain a web page, you are encouraged to make a link to this one.
Send email: ncm-nospam@cantrip.org Copyright ©1996 by Nathan Myers. All Rights Reserved. URL:
BTW... Scientology and Scientology.
Looking up your credit card numbers social secuity number, etc. isn't a search or a seizure?
Do you read what you are typing?
Do you mean you would give a male acquaintance a female acquaintances number? I'm always very careful about that sort of thing, and usually say something like, "it's in the book, look it up". If it's not, then there's probably a good reason for it.
As as been talked about on slashdot, credit checks can alter your credit rating. In other words you can be directly affected by other people snooping, even if you don't know why. I think credit checks should only happen on me if I authorize it. And as far as I know (Canadian citizen) that is the only way they can happen.
What about the electoral roll?
If a doctor has his home address on their registration that is their choice. and as far as printing their personal details I think you're confusing your courtroom drama shows.
What does a doctors home address have to do with verifying the doctors medical qualifications?
Obviously different countries have different laws, but in general we all agree that we all deserve the right to decide for ourselves who get's our info. This was the point that I was making.
Yes, I think that stalking if done by a PI, or the government or individuals is a bad thing. I think they are responsible. They are giving out private information that they either have special access to, or have gone out of their way to find (stalking).
What I call a right to privacy is the right to decide whom I want to deal with, and in what situation. From the US constitution... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ". This right was breached.
1.st Why would you assume that I'm a US citizen?
2.nd from your link
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's too bad that someone had to die before the courts got involved. You'd think that the right to privacy would be a right.
The "unwashed masses" is the general public. They are not corporate citizens, but owe no allegiance
to anyone but themselves. Who better to decide what software should be, then the people who use it.
Your point that extreme polarization that seems to permeate these debates is only the result of extreme views of the closed source shops.(read on before answering) A closed source shop will have by definition the view that only "they" can change the binaries. As Dr. David S. Touretzky, so nicely pointed out in his post trial memoradum Binaries are only a representation of speech. There is no such thing in nature as copyright protection or patent protection. It is an unnatural system. And has only been around for a couple of hundred years, so it really hasn't been given the test of time, as compared with something like money, or land ownership.
On the other hand there is the opensource people who say (more or less), once you buy the software it's yours to modify as you will. Like buying a car.
Obviously selling software that can be resold without recompense would put people out of business which isn't a good thing. On the other hand selling software that people can only use by your say so (upgrades, hardware dependancies, Per seat licensing) isn't a good solution either.
I don't pretend to know what the best solution is.
My point is that close software is an extreme even though it is the norm in many peoples minds. Polorization occurs because everything else appears so different from that extreme.
I liked LOTR I, but with 2 I kept getting distracted by various things.
For example, did anyone else notice that whenever there was a closeup of human warriors in battle armor, standing at attention, or searching outside the big gate for Frodo and company, that their eyes looked very feminine. I saw this several times in the movie. Is this a case of casting couch casting, or male actors with pretty eyes? I don't know. But it was distracting.
Also the CG in the second one for mob scenes was very fake. Like when Aragon and the King rode out through the orcs. All the orcs fell down halfway off the bridge. That is the body was lying on the bridge and the feet sticking off (straight out). And I guess orc bodies don't bounce... Instead they fall flat and stick to the ground.
Was I alone in seeing this stuff?
I for one would rather have this type of compition then the legal tactics that have been used over the last few years.
This is a way that cd producers have of:
1. advertising, by giving bits of good and then givng an ad.
2. Getting an unknown group some exposure without the huge costs that are usually involved in promotion.
3. Changing their business model to more accurately reflect todays Internet world.
Now the rest of the world will repond with some methodolgy that will rate the material.
It's competion, and it's the way the market should work.
I always thought of Susan Calvin as a female!
:)
This sci fi stuff is getting stranger all the time
presumably after reading through the beginner section, you will no longer be a beginner, and are ready for the interediate section.
So take off the software warranty as well. (I never use them anyways.)
:)
I've found that buying a used laptop, they don't mind terribly much if you leave the windows manual behind
I've heard that they have a master hard disk, and plug it into the computer. Then they boot with a special floppy and ghost the image over onto the drive C: hard disk. But this might be just one manufacture's method. I don't pretend to know them all.
Then why am I charged closer to 100 for it?
;) A high volume PC producer has a master hard disk that he bulk copies to every "drive C:" hard disk he sells inside a computer. This takes time. They also have options to have second hard disks added to the system (which are blank). To "alter the assembly line" in this case, means, give him one of the blank ones. A better analogy would be, viewing the car options. Do you want it with a radio or not.
Several reasons... [snip]
I think you misunderstood. I meant why am I charged about $100 more for a PC with windows then one without. I was disagreeing with the $15 price the original poster made. I wasn't talking about "on the self" versions (which here in Canada go for closer to $150).
Your right about your car analogy. It is bad.
On the otherhand, I only deal with the Mom and Pop hardware stores, since they usually have a better idea of what's what, and provide better service. (how about that!) They will also sell me a computer for only the cost of the parts plus a reasonable percent (that doesn't include penalties for not buying some particular item or software).
First off I think OEM's pay something like $15 per liscense for windows. That means if there were any discount it would only be $15 at most.
Then why am I charged closer to 100 for it?
Second you need to look at the fact it costs far more to make a computer to different specs. That means a computer with no OS costs MORE to make, that means that you actually get a discount for ordering your computer the same way that a billion other users ordered it.
Not my concern if your manufacturing methods are not optimal. Seems to me the last step in manufacturing a computer is to copy the software on. If it costs you more to not put software on a computer, there is something wrong with your company!
Last you should examine the price, how many $999 or $1199 or $1399 computers have you see on the market? You think that is a direct refelection of the cost of goods? No not really, computer companies pick numbers that look good from a marketing stanpoint when they set retail prices. So if computers all came OS free then you would see computers for the same price as when you buy windows.
Apparently not!
The following artical explains:
"11/7/2002 5:00:00 PM - Privacy experts explain why widespread surveillance of online communication won't prevent another tragedy like Sept. 11. Plus: The implications of Lawful Access"
Interesting reading, and relevent.
If you've got nothing useful to say....
Why are you saying it?
This is interesting. Could you expand on what you mean by revenue side financials and income=stream differentials? I'm not familiar with those terms.
MS is in the business of selling software. The juggernaut of OS's is comming to a close, so they have for the last few years been expanding into other areas. (If you own 99% of the market in one area, why would you stay there?)
So now they've got office software, game software, mouse hardware, keyboard hardware, xbox hardware...
They need to decide what is the best way to keep making money. Competing against OS which they cannot compete against, (and have already gotten the most market share they will ever get). Or giving the OS away, to keep the monopoly of other areas viable.
It's a no brainer folks.
Really, then what happend to the Bono bill. Did it go back and forth a bunch of times? And then was passed after he nosedived into a tree whilst skiing. (Sympathy vote?)