Gates isn't smart, he's desperate. MSFT has barely nudged +/- $3 over the past four years while the rest of the tech market has taken off (particularly old rival AAPL). They're getting desperate in their smear campaign because its all about $$$...its become practically impossible to make MSFT rise with straight financials or new products, so they are trying mudslinging.
In open source projects the tendency is for nearly 100% of the capital available (often a very small amoutn) is dedicated to creating value.
In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders who are better served by reinvestment in the firm.
The same can be said for many industries. I think Americans underestimate, for example, how much of their healthcare spending goes into executive compensation, which is worse in that industry than most others. It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.
In 1900 the economy was still alost entirely agriculture-based. Industrialization was filthy business but not widespread enough to have an impact. Does any take history anymore?
maybe in your redneck neighborhood people expose their plumbing to the sun...over here in the industrialized world we tend to obscure our plumbing between floors or under the house. good thing you posted as an AC, a plumber might call you on you BS.
They are slowly morphing into a Forbes/Economist pseudo-fascist neocon wannabe rag with the perceived "rightward drift" of the public and the frothiness of the market.
You talk as if these customers are witless dolts who will throw money at whatever the vendor sends their way. I disagree. At these price points the buyers know the market, know what technologies have been End-of-life'd, know the trends etc.
I highly doubt any of them will be throwing good money at Itanium, and they will probably just drop HP if they feel they can't get better options.
I agree that x86 will be with us for a long time, but only insofar as we are tied to PCs. Game units have jumped on the IBM bandwagon, personal media players and other digital devices are probably still up for grabs. The Mac is of course non-x86 but it is not nor will it ever again be a mass-market product, nascent sub $500 headless units notwithstanding.
Its got to happen at some point, this project has been a complete business failure for Intel...regardless of the pet project clusters and supercomputer projects, the number of shipped units is only a tiny tiny percentage of Intel's vision for this project, although I am sure many here will attempt to justify Itanium as a niche product.
Sounds like you can't focus on something for more than ten seconds.
You were buying security, not spacecraft
on
US to Pay to go to ISS
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You were paying to keep missile specialists and other assorted weapons designers from going to work for dubious nations. That actually pretty much describes the entire purpose of Russian involvement: the US wanted to keep rocket scientists from going to Iran after the fall of the USSR, so it paid them to make space junk.
I don't think any company relished the concept of Microsoft being in control of their user's data records. Microsoft just doesn't have the goodwill to get something like this done.
When it arrives, single sign-on is going to have to come with some bill of rights for users...I don't see MS providing any level of transparency.
Functionality is not the only criteria for evaluating an OS. Access to source code is also an important criteria that OSX mostly fails (yes I know about Darwin, it is only a piece of OSX).
If openness were not a requirement, we would not have the OS landscape we have today, we could have enabled rock-solid computing with any number of non-free alternatives like VMS, AIX, etc
Does it reliably enable true modern computing?
on
What's Wrong with Unix?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Does unix enable people to build clusters, serve multimedia content, create sustainable high-throughput networks etc etc? Yes. Most implementations also provide for these true modern computing environments reliably and cheaply. What else do you want an OS to do? If an OS can reliably enable the modern application layer, to me it has satisfied the criteria of an OS.
While I agree that the core OS has not moved much in decades, I also see very little motivation for this as much of the required functionality has moved up the stack to the application layer.
When Barrett took over, AMD was at best a minor annoyance to Intel, a percentage point off of the quarterly revenue. Now AMD is stealing marketshare. Bye Craig, you will not be missed.
Read your local lately? You'll find maybe ten percent new local content put alongside 90% of yesterday's wire service stories. This is just a transport mechanism for the dozens of advert flyers that are the real purpose of the paper. LET THEM DIE.
Okay, so you have one network, and you haven't factored in the huge sunk cost to acquire the olympic rights. did you bother looking anywhere else...like YHOO, AOL etc? Try AOL, they were the world's largest media firm at the time.
The ad rates drop...of course you are still going to see 20 mins of advertising per 40 minutes of programming. They'll fill it up with ads for their own programs or public service messages if need be.
Slashdot Mirror
Gates isn't smart, he's desperate. MSFT has barely nudged +/- $3 over the past four years while the rest of the tech market has taken off (particularly old rival AAPL). They're getting desperate in their smear campaign because its all about $$$...its become practically impossible to make MSFT rise with straight financials or new products, so they are trying mudslinging.
In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders who are better served by reinvestment in the firm.
The same can be said for many industries. I think Americans underestimate, for example, how much of their healthcare spending goes into executive compensation, which is worse in that industry than most others. It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.
judicious use of wildcard matches over time (for example, *ads.osdn*) will remove most annoying crap from almost any site you visit.
In 1900 the economy was still alost entirely agriculture-based. Industrialization was filthy business but not widespread enough to have an impact. Does any take history anymore?
maybe in your redneck neighborhood people expose their plumbing to the sun...over here in the industrialized world we tend to obscure our plumbing between floors or under the house. good thing you posted as an AC, a plumber might call you on you BS.
Its becoming obvious that a totally open non-DRM format is a precondition for digital music.
A new development where they aren't using plastic tubing? I find that suspicious.
They are slowly morphing into a Forbes/Economist pseudo-fascist neocon wannabe rag with the perceived "rightward drift" of the public and the frothiness of the market.
I highly doubt any of them will be throwing good money at Itanium, and they will probably just drop HP if they feel they can't get better options.
I agree that x86 will be with us for a long time, but only insofar as we are tied to PCs. Game units have jumped on the IBM bandwagon, personal media players and other digital devices are probably still up for grabs. The Mac is of course non-x86 but it is not nor will it ever again be a mass-market product, nascent sub $500 headless units notwithstanding.
Its got to happen at some point, this project has been a complete business failure for Intel...regardless of the pet project clusters and supercomputer projects, the number of shipped units is only a tiny tiny percentage of Intel's vision for this project, although I am sure many here will attempt to justify Itanium as a niche product.
Something about retiring a 60 lb behemoth for a seven pound monitor.
You can always tell what apps use wxWidgets...the ugly ones.
it is neither kneejerk nor uninformed. i am right and you are wrong.
Sounds like you can't focus on something for more than ten seconds.
You were paying to keep missile specialists and other assorted weapons designers from going to work for dubious nations. That actually pretty much describes the entire purpose of Russian involvement: the US wanted to keep rocket scientists from going to Iran after the fall of the USSR, so it paid them to make space junk.
The notion of the "security key" id apart from the normal login. Its a kluge approach which confuses users that they need to fix long term.
When it arrives, single sign-on is going to have to come with some bill of rights for users...I don't see MS providing any level of transparency.
If openness were not a requirement, we would not have the OS landscape we have today, we could have enabled rock-solid computing with any number of non-free alternatives like VMS, AIX, etc
While I agree that the core OS has not moved much in decades, I also see very little motivation for this as much of the required functionality has moved up the stack to the application layer.
When Barrett took over, AMD was at best a minor annoyance to Intel, a percentage point off of the quarterly revenue. Now AMD is stealing marketshare. Bye Craig, you will not be missed.
Read your local lately? You'll find maybe ten percent new local content put alongside 90% of yesterday's wire service stories. This is just a transport mechanism for the dozens of advert flyers that are the real purpose of the paper. LET THEM DIE.
Okay, so you have one network, and you haven't factored in the huge sunk cost to acquire the olympic rights. did you bother looking anywhere else...like YHOO, AOL etc? Try AOL, they were the world's largest media firm at the time.
look at the SEC 10Q forms for any media company in 2001, you will find ample statistics detailing the drop in ad revenue.
The ad rates drop...of course you are still going to see 20 mins of advertising per 40 minutes of programming. They'll fill it up with ads for their own programs or public service messages if need be.