I guess if Intel is dropping them on the market they arn't the Chipset so... I'd go running for cover when those Dragons come looking for the wise guy who did this
First off there are allready a few Office type pacages for Linux.. Not Microsoft Office.. but Star Office and so on...
Now there is Gnome Foundation.. add to that KDE Office and you have two perficly good open source Office pacages... and then there is Star going open source of course...
Linux users as a rule hiss and spit when they hear "Microsoft". They as a rule don't want anything to do with Microsoft.. the evil empire...
Yes Microsoft IS in this game to make money. Sounds greedy dosn't it? But we all gota eat right?
And thats why I wonder what Microsoft is playing at when I hear Microsoft is writing Office for Linux. Becouse let's face it.. even Microsoft knows they WILL NOT make ANY money trying to sell Office to pack of Microsoft hating "Zellots"...
That is unless Microsoft has some underhanded plans....
But having read the articals I'm convenced Microsoft plans nothing of the sort... They don't want anything to do with Linux... Mainsoft would like to do the porting... Microsoft dosn't want to... and personally I don't think we want anything to do with Mainsofts ports sence they arn't doing real ports but running emulation...
Might do better selling hotdogs at a Vegan convention...
The comments that "a Microsoft spokesperson" made can be boild down to "Linux can't do it and dosn't have the users".
Reality is of course Office applications are not complex and quite frankly my Commodore 64 could do it and software exists for the Apple ][ along the same lines.
The comments are flat out insults....
Linux not only can do it... it dose it...
As for the users... I've found Microsoft will say that of anyone they compeate with...
The reality... software companys have done well with a small user base by simply providing a quality product in the past. The total user base is a great deal largger today than it once was and while Linux may still look small comparied to Microsofts marketshare it's pritty good compaired to the numbers from systems in the 1970s/1980s.
Maybe you can not afford to throw huge amounts of money develuping software for Linux. But then if you are doing something simple like office you don't need to.
What the Microsoft spokesperson won't say is that Linux users as a rule don't want anything to do with Microsoft products in the first place. They don't want to admit a larg body of users find Windows to be useless. They don't want to admit that Linux users would not buy Office if it were ever produced...
I think the main part is correct... it's a rummor...
The Mainsoft artical talks about porting IE to Unix... It dose not mention porting Office nore dose it mention porting to Linux...
Linux is mentioned in the "About Mainsoft" area but this dose not mean Microsoft has any intrests where Linux is conserned..
Mainsoft seems to be a profesional "quick port" company that basicly slips the software into a Windows emulation for pacaging into Unix platforms.
I would like to state this is a bad thing... It encurages software develupers to write software for Windows and then just MainSoft it to Unix. This will produce less than effective results on Unix and generally drag Unix systems down.
You should talk with your IT manager about the dangers of using emulated pacages. Ask him if he'd run Windows software under emulation on the servers or workstations? Point out that it's no diffrent if the emulation is part of the pacage.
It's not a real Unix solution if it's running in emulation
>No companies will move people over en-masse to something like StarOffice because work would essentially *stop* as people adjusted to it from MS Office.
This will happen anyway... you are moving from Windows to Linux. The move from Ms Office to Star Office is minnor it's the move to Linux that will slow things down...
>I just can't quite figure it out... assuming they actually release it and its not full of bugs, whats the downside here?
We are refering to Microsoft here... They have a really bad track record for bugs.
But let's assume... The question is why...
Microsoft has been pritty hostile to Linux over the years. Not supprising really when you rember Linux users are activly hostile to Microsoft. Why should Microsoft bother making anything for Linux?
Ms Office isn't something I'd want to see ported to Linux.. There are allready a few good open source office pacages and chances are good more will come...
I think Microsoft is worryed for the future of Ms.Office and believe they can use it's current popularity amoung busness types to curve intrest amoung NON-busness types in develuping office like pacages.
With Star Office and Gnome Foundation Microsoft is posably worryed about thies getting to far along.
They are posably confused. They believe the demand for Office style applications will stall out once Microsoft Office arrives. If anything it will only increase it.
I don't believe they see themselfs stopping Star or Gnome but rather preventing any future effors.
KDE Office, Star Office and Gnome Foundation represent a trend.
Making an operating system is a major effort. We have Linux...
Making powerful 3D games a massive effort...
There are some efforts to produce 3D FPS type games for Linux in open source...
Making a group of office tools.. the kind that ran on the Apple ][.... is really not that hard.
Microsoft Office is Microsofts hold on some users....
Microsoft dosn't want to see to many open source office type efforts...
It's not just what they'll see on Linux that worrys them....
It's the Windows and Mac ports....
Gnome Foundation and KDE Office may never see a Windows or Mac version....
but if enough open source office pacages are made... one will.... and THAT will compleate head to head with Microsoft office....
If someone can get open source out there and prove to the avrage busness man that open source is good.... We'll win a major battle against Microsoft..
From there it's the slippery slope to open source...
They only oppsed on the beta... and Bruce and Taco kinda botched it too by being public about the whole deal...
Most GPL violations are handled in private... this was one exeption...
Apparently even Microsoft violated the GPL once and made good...
He was fighting with new ideas trying out new busness plans and hoping to find the neglected nitch.
He would buy populare but dying software and try to breath life into it.
He tried to find groundwork to proffit from open source software.
His cutting edge busness plans cut to deep. Did to much damage. He didn't have the cool or the persona to stay strong.
More over he did not fully understand the arenas he was entring. Doing battle with Microsoft in far to many fronts when Microsoft not only has the lead but the experence. Cowpland was outmached.
I was hopping he'd come on top in the end. In his enept nature he showed us how to work with companys new to the whole open source arena.
He was a path blazer.. maybe not the ideal canidate for the job. Not quite the stuff of RMS and Linus or even Henry Ford. But he had one thing in commen with them all... he had... and still has.. balls....
Most people know how to cover ass
on
BSD And Politics
·
· Score: 3
Politicians do dictate everything no matter how much they do or don't know.
Bush selected Microsoft becouse in the Republican idiolog only the wealthyest corpration in America could produce the best operating system. Free is garbage and Bill Gates is the solution.
Al Gore selected Linux becouse the Democrats basic philosophy of people. Again not an informed tech choice but an idilog that matches the realitys.
Had Linus been rich and Gates poor Bush would have used Linux...
Had Windows been open sourced and Linux closed Al would have used Windows...
It's all idiolog... yes they live sleep eat breath and umm go to the bathroom.. in idilog.. they live what they speak. The become what they say. This allows them to get away with murder as even when covered in blood they embody the views others have. They need not even believe those ideas. Just live them... And with that the need not cover anything.
Bill Clinton was cought with an intern. Let's face it.. any moron can get away with an affare with a willing subordinate. That was a really sloppy coverup...
But we forgive him becouse he eat sleeps and breaths what we want him to believe. We'll never know if he believes a word of it. We do know he acts the part really well.
Thats the point....
No the os is going to be an idilog choice...
I'm supprised BSD was used... I'd be supprised of Solarus was used. Thies are better choices but don't match the idilogs as well as Linux or Windows.
By now my grandmother knows what Linux and Windows is. Not that she could make in informed tech choice. She'd say "I don't use computers" and thats her os choice... NONE...
In local political campaigns canidates will use oponents choice of operating system to sniff out political views...
You better belive it matters....
In my view it dosn't matter what is in place or how noble or enlightend or great it is... It's been in place for about 40 years and it hasn't worked. At some point you have to say "Enough" and try again.
Welfare was a great idea but it was made to save the United States during the depression. It did the job. Maybe not elegently but it worked.
The problem is this quickfix was extended for decades. It should have NEVER run this long. It stopped working in the 1960s and thats becouse it was in place far to long by that time...
It worked.. it worked well.. It it's not a long term solution.
The education system was ment to be the long term solution. However from my point of view it seems many school adminstraters learnned they get more money when the schools don't teach than when they do. Rewarded by falure.
This was never so hilighted as when the local school administation gave themselvs rases when the voters gave the schools more money. In short the voters voted for a pay rase and didn't even know it untill it was to late.
Russia dosn't have this problem. No democracy.
The problem is people like our friend here would run screamming with hands over ears when ever anyone said anything bad about the school system or welfare. They prefer the narrow mindedness of supporting the status que.
Anyone who challanges welfare.. shows it to be a failure.. is branded anti-poor.
Anyone who challanges the school system is similerly branded...
No you can't have a valid consider and be against me... nooo you have to be evil... the dark side... darth vader...
And then there are people who just want to lable Slashdot... throw around stuff becouse they want open source to be in one political camp.
They can't stand to realise... a politican canidate who has been STRONGLY open source... Ralf Nader... is NOT Libertarian but a member of the Green Party... A very very propoverty...
Oh.. and as for consern... want consern? Your are gona love this.... Now I love the green party supporters to death and they are all great people and really have huge hearts... so don't mistake what I'm about to say...
But the green party party line views the poor as a ecological desaster...
Yeah.. and amazingly enough the Green Party cares more about the poor than any other party but the offical line lables them not as a human or socal consern but an ecological one...
Oh well... you really can't read the minds of the people by party lines.
I don't visit K5 much but it's intresting you've read so much on Slashdot about poverty considering Slashdot amd K5 are tech forums and poverty never comes up byond some fears that the poor don't have access to technology. But thats all consern for the poor and you say no such exists so no such debate could exist thus no conversaion and nothing on Slashdot to read.
You are eather a troll or reading with a nurological filter and see only what you want to see. Both are strong posabilitys. But the posability your arguments are valid are nill
Office politcys are dictated by canidate
on
BSD And Politics
·
· Score: 2
One thing to learn very quickly in polytics is every politician is a micro dictator.
They dictate everything from server policy to office methidology.
Anything a canidate can do himself he will do himself.
No some hippy did NOT pick server policy. If there is some hippy running the servers he was hand picked by the canidate himself. Not the best person for the job but a volintear the canidate himself feels good about. In short only way you'll get a hippy tech is from a hippy canidate...
Micro dictators meaning they fight the urge and they know better but they WANT to Micromanage. They can't. But anything they can dabble with they will.
The first thing that happend when the servers went up was the canidate himself picked the os. Windows for the Republicans becouse the worlds richest corpration makes the best operating systems. It runs on from there.
Server policy is very much idilogicly defined and the idilog making those choices is the canidate himself. Not the SysAdm.. who is most likely a volintear with a similer world view...
Canidates do this becouse let's face it.. voters do what Slashdot is doing. Every step every look every blink must present the canidates agenda. They can not allow some kid to pick the system if say Linux dosn't say of the canidate all the canidate wants.
One area where libertarians and the green party agree is on poverty. They don't agree on solutions but they agree a dramaticly diffrent policy on poverty is nessisary. In that they disagree with the Republicans and Democrats ideas on addressing poverty.
A classic addatude BTW is "AntiPoor" means "Disagrees with my solution".
The Republicans DO have a solution for poverty. You may find it distastful and wrong and just plain stupid but it's clearly not "throw them to the wolfs". Thow some conservitive Republicans I've talked to do feel poverty is not an issue to address.. they have the "if they weren't lazy they wouldn't be poor" addatude it dosn't accually boil down so simply however it's compatable with the sentiment. Probably better said "If they work really hard they won't be poor for long" a bit more of an enlightend view suggesting that poverty itself is a sign of hard times and hard times are overcome with hard work.
It's a good idea. But it takes more than that. I do believe hard work is part of the over all solution but it's going to take some leadership to convence the poor to work hard and give them a target to work for. Not workfair or any such simple minded goals. But now I'm politicing and my ideals arn't running so I'll shut up on that for now.
The Democrats want to use governemt policys. This is ok. Help programs etc. The addatude here is "Only by government can anything be done" a absolutly wrong addatude.
This policy can work becouse the governemnt can get things done. But by far this is not the only posable solution.
Libertarians (at least the ones I talked to) want to solve the homeless problem with non-proffits. Many Democrats and Republicans also view this as a good solution.
Also preposed for local enforcment was zoning areas where homeless can set up tents or home made structures. Such policys are not populare and may be very short sited. This policy gets most of it's support from the green and libertarian partys. It gets NO support from the Democrats or Republicans.
Back to my politicing. My personal favorate policy is to take money going to the welfair burrocracy and send it out to non-proffits in the form of governemnt grants. This is becouse non-proffits have a better success rate for getting poor into work. They have more comprehensive programs. They do trainning etc. They find the needs of the poor and addapt accordingly.
One non-proffit I know asked why people had a hard time getting work. The answer.. they couldn't present themselvs properly. They came to the interviews dressed improperly they didn't have a mailing address that sort of problem.
That is a problem with busness today...
When your accountent isn't trustworthy you get embeselment. When your managment isn't turstworthy you get mismanagment. When your techs aren't trustworthy you get back doors. When your asembly line workers arn't trustworthy you get sloppy work.
Even fast food needs to turst it's employees. If Taco Bells people aren't turst worthy they will not be able to asemble the food orders very fast at all. As it is Taco Bell prides itself (internally) on speed. It hypes it to the staff. They compeate with other Taco Bells.
But managment gets paranoid the more complex and sensitive the process gets. They start micro managing.. they start snooping in on staff. They start saying "No tinkering with the source". They start setting tech policy when they have no busness doing so. They become paranoid. Paranoia will distory ya...
Looking at all the DotComs that die off and it's no wonder... if the managment can't trust it's own technical experts then where dose managment turn when it needs technical expertise? A software companys sales staff? Oh yeah thats really gona help....
You need to trust your staff. What keeps your accountent from embeslment? You trust him.. what keeps your security staff from stealing secrets? You trust them. Yet... yet.. embeslment and industreal theft happen... a lot...
Techs don't back door employers very often and when they do they don't need source code.
Windows, Back Oraface.... Unix: Hidden account... MacOs: Trojen... Os/2... Trojen
Usually a trojen will do the trick.. if your using a multiuser operating system then a hidden acount works (easyer to discover but it dose provide more access if set up correctly.. like an alternet root)
If you don't trust your techs.. toss your equipment....
Trojen = You accually have to write one. Windows allready has off the shelf trojens such as BO for you to use. It dosn't really ammount to a hill of beans of diffrence in the real world. Trojens are SOO easy to make and deploy... Unix may have an easyer alternitive (hidden account) but it's not that much easyer...
People do talk about FUD factor but in the real world you end up using what works or you DIE...
FUD dosn't change it...
The busness process may not favor Linux but Linux ends up being the choice... Start with Windows find it dosn't work install Linux.. at times BSD is the third option...
But people talk about the FUD...
Could the FUD simply be an easy point of attack?
The more FUD the more worryed people become when Windows dosn't work as sold.
Smaller glitches become greater issues of panic... and then there is Linux...
You know people put up with Linux defects more than Windows defects. No Linux has fewer but thats not the point... A single BSoD issues screams and hissy fits.. BSoDs happen a lot but it only takes one to throw a person into screams...
Linux has Xfree lockups... It's rare but the point is it happends and it dosn't get people as pissed off.
Why? One of a few reasons... BSoDs happen more often... but it only takes one to throw a person into fits of rage...
You can fix the code in Xfree and Linux didn't crash.. Xfree did.. and you know what app did the dirty work...
No.. most users arn't so savy to figure such things out.. can't fix the code.. and really have no benifit...
The council of "Microsoft will fix it" just dosn't work in the face of so many lies...
That dosn't save the tech savy significant other from being told "fix it".. but then running Windows won't prevent that...
In the end... maybe... just maybe... thies articals are just setting more and more people against Microsoft...
Microsoft says... But the techs say... who do I believe? A corprate giant? Or a massive body of technical opinion...
>Now... who put these assholes in charge?
Nobody...
People in charg of stuff don't have time to write mag articals...
People who are out of the loop need the extra income that comes from Linux bashing
Microsofts programmers are not morons but very bright programmers.
(I blame the busness process for Windows defects not the coders whom I'd be willing to PAY to write Linux code if I could afford them...)
Having said that... thies bright coders are the best at doing pritty much anything (if allowed to).
But then... such people are legendary for back doors.. and thats what Firstbrook is hinting at...
In my view.. having someone I can't trust to screw around with my box running my box really really scares the hack out of me...
Emmett is an open source game develuper, an open source advocate and a really nice guy. But he dose not and never has gone by the name "CmdrTaco".
Back doors have a long history in closed source and is the very reason companys have been willing to cough up the big bucks for access to the source code.
If you can not trust your own SysAdm to not install a back door then you are toast sence such a thing can run in visual basic, Dos batch, Bash, perl, C, home made virus, etc etc etc... You need to source code to spot and remove back doors.. you don't need it to put them in...
The history of back doors has been that of closed source... piriod...
But to someone who isn't a tech the back door issue might be real. He certenly isn't the first to voice it.
The reality is source code is the ultimate documenation. You can spot and remove a back door about as easly as you can remove a roage VB script.
A virus... thats annother issue... open or closes source those things are nasty...
Windows NT is not a part of the technical process.
Microsoft can and do make changes in the system that go undocumented. Maybe by mistake or by intention.
On the other hand the SysAdm who is the only one who really needs to know how the system works can make changes no one else knows about. Security by obscurity is posably the worst form of security but isn't that the single most populare system in busness?
No a manager dose not need to snoop over a SysAdms sholder every second. That is micro managment and is very ineffecent.
The effecent manager knows the job but leaves it to the employees. He dose not need to know every code change just that the SysAdm is doing his job. So the SysAdm can add a feature the secures the system in some obscure way no one else knows about. Great then a cracker can waist his time attacking the system at it's strongest point.
There is only one issue an expert in finnances should address when dealing with technology: COST!!!
Linux is free and becouse it's source open tech experts such as SysAdm do not need tech support from someone who is basicly below him on the technical food chain.
Windows however requires tech support due to poor documentation, poor design and no easy solutions for the SysAdm.
Under Windows a SysAdm can not do his job.. keep the machines running.. Instead that must be handled by technical support personel at additional cost.
Linux is free.. upgrades are fee documentation is free and support comes from the on site techs who you hired to support your hardware... believe it or not that is the job they do.
If you want a more busness intigrated operating system. One more in touch with the burrocacy then use BSDi. BSD is the operating system of the Internet.. Linux being in effect it's child. BSDi is the commertal version of BSD. With technical support etc BSD can handle the whole process.
What happends if say.. something horrific happends to BSD.. say a cort ordered break up.. The FBI creeps in and says "Oh sorry you gotta add this so we can read users e-mail" to BSD or worse a compeating company pays BSD to add trojen back doors.... FreeBSD... the free counterpart to BSDi.
That dosn't sute you?
Solarus.. the totally compertal Unix. Solarus provides what I would call the Tech support death squad. If Sun provided more tech support they'd be supplying your SysAdm... They allmost do it allready...
Sun trains and certifys Solarus Sysadm better than Microsoft.. better than anyone...
Linux hobbyests are better trainned than MSCE...that is unless your MSCE is also a Linux hobbyest...
And thats not saying much... There is a reason the tech industry dose not consider the term "Hacker" the stamp of quality it is in the hobby domain.
In the end you need something better than a hobbyest not someone who is basicly certifyed to know how to set up a box. You need someone who knows the system inside and out.
Unix thats doable. BSD and Linux it's easy.. Sun leaves nothing to chance and makes sure your people are trainned in rewriting Solarus from ground up using a manual rom burnner (those stupid boxes that let you enter the rom image by hand then burn the rom... not around anymore)
You may not know it but I dispise Sun Microsystems. But the reality is reality... Sun provides the best busness side and tech side right now.
I don't think very highly of Suns addatude or Suns software.....
I went looking for Quake III for Linux in the stores. No one could be bothered to carry it.
One store says they carryed Quake I and II for Linux and it didn't sell so they arn't bothering with Quake III.
At issue ID make a huge mistake reasing a Quake I and II Linux pacage. No one bought them becouse anyone who would want Quake I or II bought it for Windows a long time ago and got the Linux binarys.
But the stores don't know this. They think it's the first chance Linux users had to get Quake for Linux. They don't know what is happening and just assume Linux gamers don't exist. Pack up and don't bother with Quake III.
So the rest of us are stuck doing what we allways did. Buy Quake III and download the binarys.
Reality... can't get Linux games if people won't sell them...
And the Game shops DO NOT know that Quake and Doom for Linux has existed for years it just never existed as a pacage you could buy in the stores.
I know ID never planned this. They didn't realise the stores could be so ignorent of one of the most populare games in the industry.
But they are... and thats the point...
So don't release it to the stores for box sale if it's existed in binary for Linux for over a year.
Linux users are not unfamilure with downloading software. Thats where 90% of Linux software is... on-line waiting to be downloaded.
For now the best solution is to drop the Linux binary on the CD or on an FTP site and count operating systems by a busness reply card not by box sale.
Then when you can show the stores significant Linux numbers you can talk them into carrying new titles in box form.
And for hacks sake.. don't ship boxes of outdated products for Linux to stores. Sell them yes.. At Linux shops etc who are familure with what will and won't sell. But not at Babages or CompUSA who can't tell you the diffrence between Slackware Linux and Mandrake Linux.
Right now still not enough people are on-line to make a real diffrence but canidates will go online for the gimmic value alone.
When I ran for office (local office nothing big) in 1997 I put stuff up on my home page and the local paper published my web url. I lost becouse I botched my campaign and didn't get my message out at all (excluding my website).
Websites are going to be sereous as a good mesure of voters are on-line and some day soon enough voters will be on-line to make an impact.
Voter information groups have websites as it's cheaper and easyer to provide information over the web but will continue to provide information in the more expensive printed form for those who request it.
Maybe I'm wrong on the impact of on-line voters sence the number of people going online is increasing all the time and at some point soon it will matter. It will matter long before the gimmic value dies off.
As for the Canidates.. In my view Bush and Gore are not very good tech canidates, I belive one third party canidate has a better grasp than the rest. (Do the research.. shouldn't be hard to figure out who I'm talking about as the rest are pritty clueless... if you can't indentify him then maybe I'm wrong about him...)
As for me.. I know who I'm voting for... and I expect he'll lose... but I'm voting anyway
Sun is a hardware vender first Unix vender second
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 1
Sun sells some of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) hardware on the market.
Thies boxes run two operating systems.. Solarus and Linux...
Sun prefers Solarus as it's far more powerful. However Solarus also waists the power of the hardware it runs on.
The Sun UltraSparc is ideal hardware for Linux. The old x86 really dosn't stand up well.
In the end Sun UltraSparcs could run something as obsolete as CP/M and people would still grab them up.
But Sun chouses something not archain. Prefering what they believe shows Sun in the best light and that is Solarus. I personally disagree feeling Linux makes the Sparc look even better.. but thats Suns option...
It's not just you...
The life span of IP is well byond the life span of it's value.
Companys however will still seek to defend IP out of some burrocratic sence of protecting property.
Occasionally you run accorst someone with a good understanding of what is happening and releases the IP into public domain or some sort of open liccens.
(In one case all the IP rights reverted to the tech who created a video game console.. he liccensed those rights to everyone for personal use... something to that effect anyway)
I understand why they have copyrights last 50 to 70 years after the authors death. In many cases IP is valuable for that piriod of time.
But in software with a 6 month turnnover for technology it dose not make as much sence to maintain copyrights more than 10 years.
Instead of using a set target copyrights should expire about 4 or 5 years after they are idle.
Cybersquating BTW may not seem like being creative but there is an art to creating good busness names and there are accually companys who exist to name products.
But most squated names are really not that creative. The same is true of software. Most of it is pritty bland.
Example... the file copyer I used for the Commodore computer is one I memerised.. I never saved it to disk or anything. I'd just type it up when ever I needed to copy a file.
The single file copyers for the 64 usually looked pritty much like the one I wrote myself. Not a whole lot of creativity there. Just read the file from one point and save it at annother.
Mine lacked an interface of course sence it was one use the file name was simply included in the code. But the interface was the only inovation I could find in other file copyers and even then not very often.
There simply isn't that much creativity to be done in most cases.
But occasionally.
There is one key diffrence... when the software is on the market it is of value. It's when the software leaves the market and really has no hope of returnning that software companys become squaters.
It's irritating to colecters of old computers. The software is gone and (with few exceptions) the companys arn't selling the software anymore. Yet they do not wish to release the rights.
So in short.. yeah.. it's totally squating... and it's annoying...
Unlike music the brodcast TV industry makes it's money from a viewer count.
Cable provides a service that improves signal quality and draws in more viewers. Any such rebroudcast could improve viewership and help the broudcast TV industry.
However the broudcast TV industry wants instead to use cable to gain an additional proffit. They currently have the ability to CHARG cable for carrying the signal. This is incredably short sited.
Internet TV has a great deal of potental and I think it would be great if someone did set up a cable/TV rebroudcast service. However such a service would run afoul of the current laws that allow TV stations to charg for rebrodcasting of TV signal.
I think the broudcast TV industry is basicly being stupid about this. They should be on the forfront trying to push Internet TV not on the back burnner letting someone else do it.
There is quite a bit to be made. The could send a free signal and make money from comertals.
In fact ZD TV allready dose this. You can get ZD TV signal over the net using RealPlayer. I can and do view ZD TV this way. In fact I don't have cable or any TV at all so this is the only TV I watch.
Take a look at the download rate, I'm getting an impressive amout of speed from Slashdot vs other websites. MySQL aside Slashdot runs pritty decently...
However Slashdot loads a larg amount of data perpage. It's not very effecent. I prefer the KDE browser when loading Slashdot. It caches the images and renders HTML faster than Netscape. If IE ran faster I'd think Microsoft would tout the improvment.
My experence has been however that Netscape is bogged down and poorly design and generally takes a considerable amount of time to render pages.
I count a good 2 or 3 seconds after Slashdot is fully loaded before the page ever displays. Thats on a good day.
All web servers seem to produce similer preforcmence loading at a decent rate and then idling the browser while it renders the page.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess if Intel is dropping them on the market they arn't the Chipset so... I'd go running for cover when those Dragons come looking for the wise guy who did this
First off there are allready a few Office type pacages for Linux.. Not Microsoft Office.. but Star Office and so on...
Now there is Gnome Foundation.. add to that KDE Office and you have two perficly good open source Office pacages... and then there is Star going open source of course...
Linux users as a rule hiss and spit when they hear "Microsoft". They as a rule don't want anything to do with Microsoft.. the evil empire...
Yes Microsoft IS in this game to make money. Sounds greedy dosn't it? But we all gota eat right?
And thats why I wonder what Microsoft is playing at when I hear Microsoft is writing Office for Linux. Becouse let's face it.. even Microsoft knows they WILL NOT make ANY money trying to sell Office to pack of Microsoft hating "Zellots"...
That is unless Microsoft has some underhanded plans....
But having read the articals I'm convenced Microsoft plans nothing of the sort... They don't want anything to do with Linux... Mainsoft would like to do the porting... Microsoft dosn't want to... and personally I don't think we want anything to do with Mainsofts ports sence they arn't doing real ports but running emulation...
Might do better selling hotdogs at a Vegan convention...
The comments that "a Microsoft spokesperson" made can be boild down to "Linux can't do it and dosn't have the users".
Reality is of course Office applications are not complex and quite frankly my Commodore 64 could do it and software exists for the Apple ][ along the same lines.
The comments are flat out insults....
Linux not only can do it... it dose it...
As for the users... I've found Microsoft will say that of anyone they compeate with...
The reality... software companys have done well with a small user base by simply providing a quality product in the past. The total user base is a great deal largger today than it once was and while Linux may still look small comparied to Microsofts marketshare it's pritty good compaired to the numbers from systems in the 1970s/1980s.
Maybe you can not afford to throw huge amounts of money develuping software for Linux. But then if you are doing something simple like office you don't need to.
What the Microsoft spokesperson won't say is that Linux users as a rule don't want anything to do with Microsoft products in the first place. They don't want to admit a larg body of users find Windows to be useless. They don't want to admit that Linux users would not buy Office if it were ever produced...
I think the main part is correct... it's a rummor...
The Mainsoft artical talks about porting IE to Unix... It dose not mention porting Office nore dose it mention porting to Linux...
Linux is mentioned in the "About Mainsoft" area but this dose not mean Microsoft has any intrests where Linux is conserned..
Mainsoft seems to be a profesional "quick port" company that basicly slips the software into a Windows emulation for pacaging into Unix platforms.
I would like to state this is a bad thing... It encurages software develupers to write software for Windows and then just MainSoft it to Unix. This will produce less than effective results on Unix and generally drag Unix systems down.
You should talk with your IT manager about the dangers of using emulated pacages. Ask him if he'd run Windows software under emulation on the servers or workstations? Point out that it's no diffrent if the emulation is part of the pacage.
It's not a real Unix solution if it's running in emulation
>No companies will move people over en-masse to something like StarOffice because work would essentially *stop* as people adjusted to it from MS Office.
This will happen anyway... you are moving from Windows to Linux. The move from Ms Office to Star Office is minnor it's the move to Linux that will slow things down...
>I just can't quite figure it out... assuming they actually release it and its not full of bugs, whats the downside here?
We are refering to Microsoft here... They have a really bad track record for bugs.
But let's assume... The question is why...
Microsoft has been pritty hostile to Linux over the years. Not supprising really when you rember Linux users are activly hostile to Microsoft. Why should Microsoft bother making anything for Linux?
Ms Office isn't something I'd want to see ported to Linux.. There are allready a few good open source office pacages and chances are good more will come...
I think Microsoft is worryed for the future of Ms.Office and believe they can use it's current popularity amoung busness types to curve intrest amoung NON-busness types in develuping office like pacages.
With Star Office and Gnome Foundation Microsoft is posably worryed about thies getting to far along.
They are posably confused. They believe the demand for Office style applications will stall out once Microsoft Office arrives. If anything it will only increase it.
I don't believe they see themselfs stopping Star or Gnome but rather preventing any future effors.
KDE Office, Star Office and Gnome Foundation represent a trend.
Making an operating system is a major effort. We have Linux...
Making powerful 3D games a massive effort...
There are some efforts to produce 3D FPS type games for Linux in open source...
Making a group of office tools.. the kind that ran on the Apple ][.... is really not that hard.
Microsoft Office is Microsofts hold on some users....
Microsoft dosn't want to see to many open source office type efforts...
It's not just what they'll see on Linux that worrys them....
It's the Windows and Mac ports....
Gnome Foundation and KDE Office may never see a Windows or Mac version....
but if enough open source office pacages are made... one will.... and THAT will compleate head to head with Microsoft office....
If someone can get open source out there and prove to the avrage busness man that open source is good.... We'll win a major battle against Microsoft..
From there it's the slippery slope to open source...
Bruce and Micheal had a talk....
It got fixed....
They only oppsed on the beta... and Bruce and Taco kinda botched it too by being public about the whole deal...
Most GPL violations are handled in private... this was one exeption...
Apparently even Microsoft violated the GPL once and made good...
He was fighting with new ideas trying out new busness plans and hoping to find the neglected nitch.
He would buy populare but dying software and try to breath life into it.
He tried to find groundwork to proffit from open source software.
His cutting edge busness plans cut to deep. Did to much damage. He didn't have the cool or the persona to stay strong.
More over he did not fully understand the arenas he was entring. Doing battle with Microsoft in far to many fronts when Microsoft not only has the lead but the experence. Cowpland was outmached.
I was hopping he'd come on top in the end. In his enept nature he showed us how to work with companys new to the whole open source arena.
He was a path blazer.. maybe not the ideal canidate for the job. Not quite the stuff of RMS and Linus or even Henry Ford. But he had one thing in commen with them all... he had... and still has.. balls....
Politicians do dictate everything no matter how much they do or don't know.
Bush selected Microsoft becouse in the Republican idiolog only the wealthyest corpration in America could produce the best operating system. Free is garbage and Bill Gates is the solution.
Al Gore selected Linux becouse the Democrats basic philosophy of people. Again not an informed tech choice but an idilog that matches the realitys.
Had Linus been rich and Gates poor Bush would have used Linux...
Had Windows been open sourced and Linux closed Al would have used Windows...
It's all idiolog... yes they live sleep eat breath and umm go to the bathroom.. in idilog.. they live what they speak. The become what they say. This allows them to get away with murder as even when covered in blood they embody the views others have. They need not even believe those ideas. Just live them... And with that the need not cover anything.
Bill Clinton was cought with an intern. Let's face it.. any moron can get away with an affare with a willing subordinate. That was a really sloppy coverup...
But we forgive him becouse he eat sleeps and breaths what we want him to believe. We'll never know if he believes a word of it. We do know he acts the part really well.
Thats the point....
No the os is going to be an idilog choice...
I'm supprised BSD was used... I'd be supprised of Solarus was used. Thies are better choices but don't match the idilogs as well as Linux or Windows.
By now my grandmother knows what Linux and Windows is. Not that she could make in informed tech choice. She'd say "I don't use computers" and thats her os choice... NONE...
In local political campaigns canidates will use oponents choice of operating system to sniff out political views...
You better belive it matters....
In my view it dosn't matter what is in place or how noble or enlightend or great it is... It's been in place for about 40 years and it hasn't worked. At some point you have to say "Enough" and try again.
Welfare was a great idea but it was made to save the United States during the depression. It did the job. Maybe not elegently but it worked.
The problem is this quickfix was extended for decades. It should have NEVER run this long. It stopped working in the 1960s and thats becouse it was in place far to long by that time...
It worked.. it worked well.. It it's not a long term solution.
The education system was ment to be the long term solution. However from my point of view it seems many school adminstraters learnned they get more money when the schools don't teach than when they do. Rewarded by falure.
This was never so hilighted as when the local school administation gave themselvs rases when the voters gave the schools more money. In short the voters voted for a pay rase and didn't even know it untill it was to late.
Russia dosn't have this problem. No democracy.
The problem is people like our friend here would run screamming with hands over ears when ever anyone said anything bad about the school system or welfare. They prefer the narrow mindedness of supporting the status que.
Anyone who challanges welfare.. shows it to be a failure.. is branded anti-poor.
Anyone who challanges the school system is similerly branded...
No you can't have a valid consider and be against me... nooo you have to be evil... the dark side... darth vader...
And then there are people who just want to lable Slashdot... throw around stuff becouse they want open source to be in one political camp.
They can't stand to realise... a politican canidate who has been STRONGLY open source... Ralf Nader... is NOT Libertarian but a member of the Green Party... A very very propoverty...
Oh.. and as for consern... want consern? Your are gona love this.... Now I love the green party supporters to death and they are all great people and really have huge hearts... so don't mistake what I'm about to say...
But the green party party line views the poor as a ecological desaster...
Yeah.. and amazingly enough the Green Party cares more about the poor than any other party but the offical line lables them not as a human or socal consern but an ecological one...
Oh well... you really can't read the minds of the people by party lines.
I don't visit K5 much but it's intresting you've read so much on Slashdot about poverty considering Slashdot amd K5 are tech forums and poverty never comes up byond some fears that the poor don't have access to technology. But thats all consern for the poor and you say no such exists so no such debate could exist thus no conversaion and nothing on Slashdot to read.
You are eather a troll or reading with a nurological filter and see only what you want to see. Both are strong posabilitys. But the posability your arguments are valid are nill
One thing to learn very quickly in polytics is every politician is a micro dictator.
They dictate everything from server policy to office methidology.
Anything a canidate can do himself he will do himself.
No some hippy did NOT pick server policy. If there is some hippy running the servers he was hand picked by the canidate himself. Not the best person for the job but a volintear the canidate himself feels good about. In short only way you'll get a hippy tech is from a hippy canidate...
Micro dictators meaning they fight the urge and they know better but they WANT to Micromanage. They can't. But anything they can dabble with they will.
The first thing that happend when the servers went up was the canidate himself picked the os. Windows for the Republicans becouse the worlds richest corpration makes the best operating systems. It runs on from there.
Server policy is very much idilogicly defined and the idilog making those choices is the canidate himself. Not the SysAdm.. who is most likely a volintear with a similer world view...
Canidates do this becouse let's face it.. voters do what Slashdot is doing. Every step every look every blink must present the canidates agenda. They can not allow some kid to pick the system if say Linux dosn't say of the canidate all the canidate wants.
One area where libertarians and the green party agree is on poverty. They don't agree on solutions but they agree a dramaticly diffrent policy on poverty is nessisary. In that they disagree with the Republicans and Democrats ideas on addressing poverty.
A classic addatude BTW is "AntiPoor" means "Disagrees with my solution".
The Republicans DO have a solution for poverty. You may find it distastful and wrong and just plain stupid but it's clearly not "throw them to the wolfs". Thow some conservitive Republicans I've talked to do feel poverty is not an issue to address.. they have the "if they weren't lazy they wouldn't be poor" addatude it dosn't accually boil down so simply however it's compatable with the sentiment. Probably better said "If they work really hard they won't be poor for long" a bit more of an enlightend view suggesting that poverty itself is a sign of hard times and hard times are overcome with hard work.
It's a good idea. But it takes more than that. I do believe hard work is part of the over all solution but it's going to take some leadership to convence the poor to work hard and give them a target to work for. Not workfair or any such simple minded goals. But now I'm politicing and my ideals arn't running so I'll shut up on that for now.
The Democrats want to use governemt policys. This is ok. Help programs etc. The addatude here is "Only by government can anything be done" a absolutly wrong addatude.
This policy can work becouse the governemnt can get things done. But by far this is not the only posable solution.
Libertarians (at least the ones I talked to) want to solve the homeless problem with non-proffits. Many Democrats and Republicans also view this as a good solution.
Also preposed for local enforcment was zoning areas where homeless can set up tents or home made structures. Such policys are not populare and may be very short sited. This policy gets most of it's support from the green and libertarian partys. It gets NO support from the Democrats or Republicans.
Back to my politicing. My personal favorate policy is to take money going to the welfair burrocracy and send it out to non-proffits in the form of governemnt grants. This is becouse non-proffits have a better success rate for getting poor into work. They have more comprehensive programs. They do trainning etc. They find the needs of the poor and addapt accordingly.
One non-proffit I know asked why people had a hard time getting work. The answer.. they couldn't present themselvs properly. They came to the interviews dressed improperly they didn't have a mailing address that sort of problem.
History :) :)
This OT post is just to cool to let die...
Normally I dislike trolls but this one did a really good job
Thhht!
That is a problem with busness today...
When your accountent isn't trustworthy you get embeselment. When your managment isn't turstworthy you get mismanagment. When your techs aren't trustworthy you get back doors. When your asembly line workers arn't trustworthy you get sloppy work.
Even fast food needs to turst it's employees. If Taco Bells people aren't turst worthy they will not be able to asemble the food orders very fast at all. As it is Taco Bell prides itself (internally) on speed. It hypes it to the staff. They compeate with other Taco Bells.
But managment gets paranoid the more complex and sensitive the process gets. They start micro managing.. they start snooping in on staff. They start saying "No tinkering with the source". They start setting tech policy when they have no busness doing so. They become paranoid. Paranoia will distory ya...
Looking at all the DotComs that die off and it's no wonder... if the managment can't trust it's own technical experts then where dose managment turn when it needs technical expertise? A software companys sales staff? Oh yeah thats really gona help....
You need to trust your staff. What keeps your accountent from embeslment? You trust him.. what keeps your security staff from stealing secrets? You trust them. Yet... yet.. embeslment and industreal theft happen... a lot...
Techs don't back door employers very often and when they do they don't need source code.
Windows, Back Oraface.... Unix: Hidden account... MacOs: Trojen... Os/2... Trojen
Usually a trojen will do the trick.. if your using a multiuser operating system then a hidden acount works (easyer to discover but it dose provide more access if set up correctly.. like an alternet root)
If you don't trust your techs.. toss your equipment....
Trojen = You accually have to write one. Windows allready has off the shelf trojens such as BO for you to use. It dosn't really ammount to a hill of beans of diffrence in the real world. Trojens are SOO easy to make and deploy... Unix may have an easyer alternitive (hidden account) but it's not that much easyer...
The scary part is.. you make absolute sence...
... But the techs say ... who do I believe? A corprate giant? Or a massive body of technical opinion...
People do talk about FUD factor but in the real world you end up using what works or you DIE...
FUD dosn't change it...
The busness process may not favor Linux but Linux ends up being the choice... Start with Windows find it dosn't work install Linux.. at times BSD is the third option...
But people talk about the FUD...
Could the FUD simply be an easy point of attack?
The more FUD the more worryed people become when Windows dosn't work as sold.
Smaller glitches become greater issues of panic... and then there is Linux...
You know people put up with Linux defects more than Windows defects. No Linux has fewer but thats not the point... A single BSoD issues screams and hissy fits.. BSoDs happen a lot but it only takes one to throw a person into screams...
Linux has Xfree lockups... It's rare but the point is it happends and it dosn't get people as pissed off.
Why? One of a few reasons... BSoDs happen more often... but it only takes one to throw a person into fits of rage...
You can fix the code in Xfree and Linux didn't crash.. Xfree did.. and you know what app did the dirty work...
No.. most users arn't so savy to figure such things out.. can't fix the code.. and really have no benifit...
The council of "Microsoft will fix it" just dosn't work in the face of so many lies...
That dosn't save the tech savy significant other from being told "fix it".. but then running Windows won't prevent that...
In the end... maybe... just maybe... thies articals are just setting more and more people against Microsoft...
Microsoft says
>Now... who put these assholes in charge?
Nobody...
People in charg of stuff don't have time to write mag articals...
People who are out of the loop need the extra income that comes from Linux bashing
Microsofts programmers are not morons but very bright programmers.
(I blame the busness process for Windows defects not the coders whom I'd be willing to PAY to write Linux code if I could afford them...)
Having said that... thies bright coders are the best at doing pritty much anything (if allowed to).
But then... such people are legendary for back doors.. and thats what Firstbrook is hinting at...
In my view.. having someone I can't trust to screw around with my box running my box really really scares the hack out of me...
Thinking has been outlawed on the Internet by the MIB...
>>Posted by emmett<<
Emmett is an open source game develuper, an open source advocate and a really nice guy. But he dose not and never has gone by the name "CmdrTaco".
Back doors have a long history in closed source and is the very reason companys have been willing to cough up the big bucks for access to the source code.
If you can not trust your own SysAdm to not install a back door then you are toast sence such a thing can run in visual basic, Dos batch, Bash, perl, C, home made virus, etc etc etc... You need to source code to spot and remove back doors.. you don't need it to put them in...
The history of back doors has been that of closed source... piriod...
But to someone who isn't a tech the back door issue might be real. He certenly isn't the first to voice it.
The reality is source code is the ultimate documenation. You can spot and remove a back door about as easly as you can remove a roage VB script.
A virus... thats annother issue... open or closes source those things are nasty...
Windows NT is not a part of the technical process.
Microsoft can and do make changes in the system that go undocumented. Maybe by mistake or by intention.
On the other hand the SysAdm who is the only one who really needs to know how the system works can make changes no one else knows about. Security by obscurity is posably the worst form of security but isn't that the single most populare system in busness?
No a manager dose not need to snoop over a SysAdms sholder every second. That is micro managment and is very ineffecent.
The effecent manager knows the job but leaves it to the employees. He dose not need to know every code change just that the SysAdm is doing his job. So the SysAdm can add a feature the secures the system in some obscure way no one else knows about. Great then a cracker can waist his time attacking the system at it's strongest point.
There is only one issue an expert in finnances should address when dealing with technology: COST!!!
Linux is free and becouse it's source open tech experts such as SysAdm do not need tech support from someone who is basicly below him on the technical food chain.
Windows however requires tech support due to poor documentation, poor design and no easy solutions for the SysAdm.
Under Windows a SysAdm can not do his job.. keep the machines running.. Instead that must be handled by technical support personel at additional cost.
Linux is free.. upgrades are fee documentation is free and support comes from the on site techs who you hired to support your hardware... believe it or not that is the job they do.
If you want a more busness intigrated operating system. One more in touch with the burrocacy then use BSDi. BSD is the operating system of the Internet.. Linux being in effect it's child. BSDi is the commertal version of BSD. With technical support etc BSD can handle the whole process.
What happends if say.. something horrific happends to BSD.. say a cort ordered break up.. The FBI creeps in and says "Oh sorry you gotta add this so we can read users e-mail" to BSD or worse a compeating company pays BSD to add trojen back doors.... FreeBSD... the free counterpart to BSDi.
That dosn't sute you?
Solarus.. the totally compertal Unix. Solarus provides what I would call the Tech support death squad. If Sun provided more tech support they'd be supplying your SysAdm... They allmost do it allready...
Sun trains and certifys Solarus Sysadm better than Microsoft.. better than anyone...
Linux hobbyests are better trainned than MSCE...that is unless your MSCE is also a Linux hobbyest...
And thats not saying much... There is a reason the tech industry dose not consider the term "Hacker" the stamp of quality it is in the hobby domain.
In the end you need something better than a hobbyest not someone who is basicly certifyed to know how to set up a box. You need someone who knows the system inside and out.
Unix thats doable. BSD and Linux it's easy.. Sun leaves nothing to chance and makes sure your people are trainned in rewriting Solarus from ground up using a manual rom burnner (those stupid boxes that let you enter the rom image by hand then burn the rom... not around anymore)
You may not know it but I dispise Sun Microsystems. But the reality is reality... Sun provides the best busness side and tech side right now.
I don't think very highly of Suns addatude or Suns software.....
I went looking for Quake III for Linux in the stores. No one could be bothered to carry it.
One store says they carryed Quake I and II for Linux and it didn't sell so they arn't bothering with Quake III.
At issue ID make a huge mistake reasing a Quake I and II Linux pacage. No one bought them becouse anyone who would want Quake I or II bought it for Windows a long time ago and got the Linux binarys.
But the stores don't know this. They think it's the first chance Linux users had to get Quake for Linux. They don't know what is happening and just assume Linux gamers don't exist. Pack up and don't bother with Quake III.
So the rest of us are stuck doing what we allways did. Buy Quake III and download the binarys.
Reality... can't get Linux games if people won't sell them...
And the Game shops DO NOT know that Quake and Doom for Linux has existed for years it just never existed as a pacage you could buy in the stores.
I know ID never planned this. They didn't realise the stores could be so ignorent of one of the most populare games in the industry.
But they are... and thats the point...
So don't release it to the stores for box sale if it's existed in binary for Linux for over a year.
Linux users are not unfamilure with downloading software. Thats where 90% of Linux software is... on-line waiting to be downloaded.
For now the best solution is to drop the Linux binary on the CD or on an FTP site and count operating systems by a busness reply card not by box sale.
Then when you can show the stores significant Linux numbers you can talk them into carrying new titles in box form.
And for hacks sake.. don't ship boxes of outdated products for Linux to stores. Sell them yes.. At Linux shops etc who are familure with what will and won't sell. But not at Babages or CompUSA who can't tell you the diffrence between Slackware Linux and Mandrake Linux.
Right now still not enough people are on-line to make a real diffrence but canidates will go online for the gimmic value alone.
When I ran for office (local office nothing big) in 1997 I put stuff up on my home page and the local paper published my web url. I lost becouse I botched my campaign and didn't get my message out at all (excluding my website).
Websites are going to be sereous as a good mesure of voters are on-line and some day soon enough voters will be on-line to make an impact.
Voter information groups have websites as it's cheaper and easyer to provide information over the web but will continue to provide information in the more expensive printed form for those who request it.
Maybe I'm wrong on the impact of on-line voters sence the number of people going online is increasing all the time and at some point soon it will matter. It will matter long before the gimmic value dies off.
As for the Canidates.. In my view Bush and Gore are not very good tech canidates, I belive one third party canidate has a better grasp than the rest. (Do the research.. shouldn't be hard to figure out who I'm talking about as the rest are pritty clueless... if you can't indentify him then maybe I'm wrong about him...)
As for me.. I know who I'm voting for... and I expect he'll lose... but I'm voting anyway
Sun sells some of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) hardware on the market.
Thies boxes run two operating systems.. Solarus and Linux...
Sun prefers Solarus as it's far more powerful. However Solarus also waists the power of the hardware it runs on.
The Sun UltraSparc is ideal hardware for Linux. The old x86 really dosn't stand up well.
In the end Sun UltraSparcs could run something as obsolete as CP/M and people would still grab them up.
But Sun chouses something not archain. Prefering what they believe shows Sun in the best light and that is Solarus. I personally disagree feeling Linux makes the Sparc look even better.. but thats Suns option...
It's not just you...
The life span of IP is well byond the life span of it's value.
Companys however will still seek to defend IP out of some burrocratic sence of protecting property.
Occasionally you run accorst someone with a good understanding of what is happening and releases the IP into public domain or some sort of open liccens.
(In one case all the IP rights reverted to the tech who created a video game console.. he liccensed those rights to everyone for personal use... something to that effect anyway)
I understand why they have copyrights last 50 to 70 years after the authors death. In many cases IP is valuable for that piriod of time.
But in software with a 6 month turnnover for technology it dose not make as much sence to maintain copyrights more than 10 years.
Instead of using a set target copyrights should expire about 4 or 5 years after they are idle.
Cybersquating BTW may not seem like being creative but there is an art to creating good busness names and there are accually companys who exist to name products.
But most squated names are really not that creative. The same is true of software. Most of it is pritty bland.
Example... the file copyer I used for the Commodore computer is one I memerised.. I never saved it to disk or anything. I'd just type it up when ever I needed to copy a file.
The single file copyers for the 64 usually looked pritty much like the one I wrote myself. Not a whole lot of creativity there. Just read the file from one point and save it at annother.
Mine lacked an interface of course sence it was one use the file name was simply included in the code. But the interface was the only inovation I could find in other file copyers and even then not very often.
There simply isn't that much creativity to be done in most cases.
But occasionally.
There is one key diffrence... when the software is on the market it is of value. It's when the software leaves the market and really has no hope of returnning that software companys become squaters.
It's irritating to colecters of old computers. The software is gone and (with few exceptions) the companys arn't selling the software anymore. Yet they do not wish to release the rights.
So in short.. yeah.. it's totally squating... and it's annoying...
Unlike music the brodcast TV industry makes it's money from a viewer count.
Cable provides a service that improves signal quality and draws in more viewers. Any such rebroudcast could improve viewership and help the broudcast TV industry.
However the broudcast TV industry wants instead to use cable to gain an additional proffit. They currently have the ability to CHARG cable for carrying the signal. This is incredably short sited.
Internet TV has a great deal of potental and I think it would be great if someone did set up a cable/TV rebroudcast service. However such a service would run afoul of the current laws that allow TV stations to charg for rebrodcasting of TV signal.
I think the broudcast TV industry is basicly being stupid about this. They should be on the forfront trying to push Internet TV not on the back burnner letting someone else do it.
There is quite a bit to be made. The could send a free signal and make money from comertals.
In fact ZD TV allready dose this. You can get ZD TV signal over the net using RealPlayer. I can and do view ZD TV this way. In fact I don't have cable or any TV at all so this is the only TV I watch.
Take a look at the download rate, I'm getting an impressive amout of speed from Slashdot vs other websites.
MySQL aside Slashdot runs pritty decently...
However Slashdot loads a larg amount of data perpage. It's not very effecent.
I prefer the KDE browser when loading Slashdot. It caches the images and renders HTML faster than Netscape. If IE ran faster I'd think Microsoft would tout the improvment.
My experence has been however that Netscape is bogged down and poorly design and generally takes a considerable amount of time to render pages.
I count a good 2 or 3 seconds after Slashdot is fully loaded before the page ever displays. Thats on a good day.
All web servers seem to produce similer preforcmence loading at a decent rate and then idling the browser while it renders the page.