Right, in most cases (rare exceptions notwithstanding), Microsoft actually fixes the OS. Apple definitely has a sort of arrogance about them when it comes to "old" hardware. They've always had a tight tie between OS versions to their current hardware.
There are many different perspectives on the Chaos theory. I'm in the camp that believes that randomness is just a human concept used to describe phenomena that's too complext to predict (as you mentioned), but that true randomness does not really exist.
Nothing is truly random about a lava lamp, or even the fractals on a leaf. "Randomness" as we understand it has always been about complex order and large numbers. Meaning, it's too complex for us to see the pattern and the statistical possibility of numbers occuring in a measurable pattern over time is extremely low.
It's possible that NVidia could still offer a solution, but I doubit. Based on pretty reliable sources, the XBox2 is not going to be x86 based. This would require customization on NVidia's part, customization that they are probably not interested in doing. MS will probably go straight to the source: Realtek for network, Creative for sound, and internally for the chipset (probably using chip designers from the WebTV team).
I know - it's almost the size of a DVD player. And, worst of all, it fits the formfactor of my other A/V components so it can be stacked with them.
Honestly, although it would be nice if the XBox was smaller, it takes up less _practical_ space than my gamecube. Because I can't stack the gamecube, and because it's top loading, it either has to go on the very top of my entertainment center or on the floor.
Doesn't work w/millions of hardware combinations. Let's see how well OS X does on x86. (Note: I'm not dissing OS X as a whole - it's a cool OS. I'm just saying that they have it very easy when it comes to device driver management when it compares to x86 OS's)
why did Netscape go ballistic when Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows and why is IE now the dominant browser?
Why is explorer the most dominant file browsing software? What about all of those shells for DOS pre win95? Why is Windows TCP/IP more dominant than Trumpet Winsock? Because all of these technologies have become commodities and commonplace in a consumer desktop OS.
Also, as a hardcore NS user of the time, you have to admit that NS4 was a step BACK from NS3, and that IE4 was miles ahead of anything else in the market.
What inherently flawed OS structure? Could you please elaborate? Also, please submit the OS that you designed that can work with millions of hardware combinations with a device driver system that makes it impossible for device drivers to crash the OS.
If they're talking device drivers.. well, that's a different issue entirely.
On the other hand, if this is the case, what the heck is that MS certification process for?
To ensure that those device drives won't cause system stability issues. The problem is, many drivers are not MS certified, and most users install the drivers anyway regardless of MS's warning.
Working with a higher level language (such as Perl, Tcl, Python or Scheme) would let you abstract much more rapidly away from the low level details (like memory management or types)
Java and C# do not require memory management. Scripts force you to deal with types as well. That's why you see funky variable names like nAmount and rsResults (numeric Amount and a RecordSet object). I've spent 65% of my career in loosely typed environments. I hate them for large projects because they create so many potentials for bugs. Sure, it's a _little_ faster initially to output a numeric variable as a string with no worry, but the cost of type-mismatch runtime errors is not worth it. And really, if you keep everything intuitively designed, casting and parsing is trivial.
I'm no fan of the kludge that C is, but for an app of this size I would say that a compiled language would be nice. I personally believe that larger projects (more than a few thousand lines) can be developed more quickly in strongly typed, compiled, and OO-centric languages (like Java). I believe in RAD where applicable (eg: NOT doom3!), and I beleive that for larger projects that Java, C#, etc. are provide better RAD than Perl, Python, and VB6.
Side note: this is based on my professional experience with Perl, PHP, Cold Fusion, ASP/VBScript, C#, and Java over the last 6 years. I haven't had the chance to review Delphi professionally (but it looks cool), nor PowerBuilder, Python and many other RAD platforms available. Obviously, use the right tool for the job. There's exceptions to the use of OO, etc. I'm talking about general application here.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price
Right, the freedom for me to reditribute the software for free (as in $0) which makes people think, "why would I pay the price?". It's one thing to sell support (Red Hat) or a box (manual, CD, etc.) but the software itself is still given away for free.
Trying to understand Linux as a "Windows substitute" is a doomed prospect.
Then why does almost everything Linux do (and I'm talking about the larger scope of Linux, not just the kernal) attempt to emulate Windows? Although Linux itself may not be a Windows substitute, it seems as anything related to the GUI and consumer related functionality is at least "inspired" (lol) by Windows, if not directly copied (please, no "mac"/"xerox" references). Like it or not, Windows is what many Linux developers use as a reference point.
I can't get support from my cable company because most of their customers use Windows.
The will always be true for underdog OS's... I'm glad that there will always be choices. I'll continue to use FreeBSD, and I expect that I'll always have this problem.
My boss worries about using OpenOffice.org because it may not be compatible with MS Office.
I would worry about it more because it's less productive. I used OpenOffice exclusively for about 18months. There was a lot I liked about it _personally_, but I could see how it's still not quite ready for prime time (it's getting their though).
I have to pay more for a laptop because it has Windows preinstalled or the OEM pays MS even if it doesn't.
Right, the so-called "M$ tax". An OEM gets a good deal for putting Windows on all of it's machines. Therefore, they pay a very small amount per machine (depending on contract). The IBM's an Dell's probably spend $25-40 (XP Home/Pro) per machine. Now, if this was Lindows, they'd be paying the same amount (Lindows OEM's aren't discounted as much, so the resulting price hardly cheaper than Windows). The point is, it'd either be Lindows, Windows, Lycoris, or some consumer friendly OS that's NOT FREE. And that's what companies care about - Consumer OS's, not YOUR OS (I'm assuming Lindows isn't your OS of choice, but that's not the point). Furthermore, just get an Acer barebones laptop and build it yourself. It's cheaper, and more custom (which is what you want anyway).
Then there's the availablity of apps or clients or drivers, compatibility with Windows networks, Winmodems, kids' games.
Again, the underdogg OS's will always have this problem. You're just forcing your preference to be one of the major contenders. There's really not room for more than two popular consumer OS's.
If a company with the resources like Oracle isn't bothered by their threats then we can assume that their lawyers told them that SCO's claims are baseless.
No, it's because they have those resources to pay the licensing fees should the need arise.
How about VS.NET Enterprise Architect? It's got additional features like the latest Visio for reverse engineering C# to UML (and back).
The one area that VS.NET lacks is refactoring (although I'm of the camp that one should keep refactoring to a minimum). I'm hoping that this gets addressed by the next release.
First, MS does profit in other areas, it just shows up in interesting from in the SEC reports. For example, Windows Server products profits, and I believe that includes products like MSSqlServer and Exchange (which, AFAIK, are both profiting products).
Second, "products" like Windows Media Player, IE, etc. would stay with the OS company. So, the problem that the EU has would not go away. It makes sense too. Apple's strategy is just like MS's, and whether or not you are a monopoly I believe that it is both ethical and legal. The stragey is to "make your OS more compelling by giving the customer more value outside of just a good kernal and GUI". This means out of the box browser (Safari), media player (quicktime, iTunes), and PPP support to name a few. The last mentioned item is significant because it used to be that PPP wasn't included for macOS or windows, and you had to buy a 3rd party piece of software. However, it made more sense to include PPP with the OS, so both OS makers did so. This is not abuse of MS's monopoly, it was a good product decision that in the end benefited the consumer. Remember, whatever solution that comes of all of this should be designed to beneifit the consumer, not hurt MS for the sake of hurting MS (eg: forcing them to make a sub-par product).
I think that the EU doesn't "get it", as many on/. don't either. WMP can only become illegal if Microsoft starts selling it. This would mean that they would've grossly abused their Windows monopoly by including a free addon, waiting until it hit "critical mass", and then taking it out and charging for it. But that's just not happening. If you look at the history of Windows pricing, and then compare that to all of the "addons" (TCP/IP stack, File Explorer, WWW Browser, Windows Media Player), the pricing hasn't hanged enough to warrant the argument that MS has been effectively charging for these products through Windows price increases.
Finally, if you do want a 3rd party browser, media player, or email reader, Windows does nothing to prevent you from installing them. Furthermore, OEM's can trivially override IE as the default browser and put an Opera icon on the desktop and remove IE's (for example). Consumers can do the same. I fail to see the problem.
The problem with your post and some of the replies to yours (and mine) is simply that you are all using your own logic. Although your logic makes sense, it may not be the logic that the law uses. I'm just trying to go inline with the law as I understand it (which is very little). I too find it baffling that SCO is still selling Caldera with knowledge if it's violating parts, however, I don't think this is a slam-dunk argument on Linux's part.
Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.
This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
For example: I write some commercial code. You get the code under a license for internal modification. Later I decided to create a distribution for a cool project on Sourceforge. However, you took some of the code I licensed to you and contributed it to that project without my knowledge. Because you don't have ownership of that code, you do not have the right to GPL it. I distribute that project with no knowledge that my commercial code exists within it. This does not mean that I explicitly GPL'd my commercial code. Therefore, no one with the right to GPL said code GPL'd the code.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that SCO's claims are valid, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in this commonly used argument.
The problem with your argument is the assumption that sicence can explain everything that is, or that science can explain all truth. Science is a system that is a human creation to observe the things around us within our finite senses. You're correct that people can get very creative when it comes to the religious and "soul-searching" type discussions, but just as much as any scientists with his data based on finite measurements and sometime atrocious assumptions. Unfortunately weeding out the BS is not a trivial task. Narrowing the scope to "scientific debate" (unless specifically appropriate) is regularly trivializing the issue as it is not considering other relevant disciplines.
Keep going with your "How do I do, " [Insert PowerUser feature here] and you'll further underscore the problem with many developers. You're talking about features that the general user doesn't use and probably won't understand or have a need for.
Have you used VS.NET? I always stayed away from VS, but was then given VS.NET to try at work a couple years ago. I absolutely loved it - it is nothing like the cruft that VS6 and below was.
On the flip side, most of my Java coding counterparts claim that Eclipse crushes VS.NET. I've tried Eclipse, and although it was good (and free) I wasn't extremely impressed (no offense to OSS, but my experience has always been that a commercial IDE is far better than it's OSS counterpart). I'll have to try out IntelliJ based on your recommendation to see how it compares - although it ain't cheap! (VS.NET is cheaper when you consider all of the software you get with MSDN. Individually VS.NET is the same or more expensive depending on what version you get).
I don't know if I have one coherent point, and this is pretty much all opinion with little basis in tangible evidence, mostly just gut feelings.
Thank you for summarizing my rebuttal! Seriously, I'm not an "OO" purist by all means (I moved from procedural to OO 2.5years ago) but I find that OO combined with a high level "OO centric" language like Java or C# to be far easier to debug and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft would NEVER do this.
Right, in most cases (rare exceptions notwithstanding), Microsoft actually fixes the OS. Apple definitely has a sort of arrogance about them when it comes to "old" hardware. They've always had a tight tie between OS versions to their current hardware.
There are many different perspectives on the Chaos theory. I'm in the camp that believes that randomness is just a human concept used to describe phenomena that's too complext to predict (as you mentioned), but that true randomness does not really exist.
Nothing is truly random about a lava lamp, or even the fractals on a leaf. "Randomness" as we understand it has always been about complex order and large numbers. Meaning, it's too complex for us to see the pattern and the statistical possibility of numbers occuring in a measurable pattern over time is extremely low.
It's possible that NVidia could still offer a solution, but I doubit. Based on pretty reliable sources, the XBox2 is not going to be x86 based. This would require customization on NVidia's part, customization that they are probably not interested in doing. MS will probably go straight to the source: Realtek for network, Creative for sound, and internally for the chipset (probably using chip designers from the WebTV team).
I know - it's almost the size of a DVD player. And, worst of all, it fits the formfactor of my other A/V components so it can be stacked with them.
Honestly, although it would be nice if the XBox was smaller, it takes up less _practical_ space than my gamecube. Because I can't stack the gamecube, and because it's top loading, it either has to go on the very top of my entertainment center or on the floor.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't work w/millions of hardware combinations. Let's see how well OS X does on x86. (Note: I'm not dissing OS X as a whole - it's a cool OS. I'm just saying that they have it very easy when it comes to device driver management when it compares to x86 OS's)
why did Netscape go ballistic when Microsoft started bundling IE with Windows and why is IE now the dominant browser?
Why is explorer the most dominant file browsing software? What about all of those shells for DOS pre win95? Why is Windows TCP/IP more dominant than Trumpet Winsock? Because all of these technologies have become commodities and commonplace in a consumer desktop OS.
Also, as a hardcore NS user of the time, you have to admit that NS4 was a step BACK from NS3, and that IE4 was miles ahead of anything else in the market.
What inherently flawed OS structure? Could you please elaborate? Also, please submit the OS that you designed that can work with millions of hardware combinations with a device driver system that makes it impossible for device drivers to crash the OS.
If they're talking device drivers.. well, that's a different issue entirely.
On the other hand, if this is the case, what the heck is that MS certification process for?
To ensure that those device drives won't cause system stability issues. The problem is, many drivers are not MS certified, and most users install the drivers anyway regardless of MS's warning.
Working with a higher level language (such as Perl, Tcl, Python or Scheme) would let you abstract much more rapidly away from the low level details (like memory management or types)
Java and C# do not require memory management. Scripts force you to deal with types as well. That's why you see funky variable names like nAmount and rsResults (numeric Amount and a RecordSet object). I've spent 65% of my career in loosely typed environments. I hate them for large projects because they create so many potentials for bugs. Sure, it's a _little_ faster initially to output a numeric variable as a string with no worry, but the cost of type-mismatch runtime errors is not worth it. And really, if you keep everything intuitively designed, casting and parsing is trivial.
I'm no fan of the kludge that C is, but for an app of this size I would say that a compiled language would be nice. I personally believe that larger projects (more than a few thousand lines) can be developed more quickly in strongly typed, compiled, and OO-centric languages (like Java). I believe in RAD where applicable (eg: NOT doom3!), and I beleive that for larger projects that Java, C#, etc. are provide better RAD than Perl, Python, and VB6.
Side note: this is based on my professional experience with Perl, PHP, Cold Fusion, ASP/VBScript, C#, and Java over the last 6 years. I haven't had the chance to review Delphi professionally (but it looks cool), nor PowerBuilder, Python and many other RAD platforms available. Obviously, use the right tool for the job. There's exceptions to the use of OO, etc. I'm talking about general application here.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price
Right, the freedom for me to reditribute the software for free (as in $0) which makes people think, "why would I pay the price?". It's one thing to sell support (Red Hat) or a box (manual, CD, etc.) but the software itself is still given away for free.
But there IS a reason that waiting lists for immigration to America, among other countries, are filled with people from India.
the "Undisclosed Fortune 500 Company" is none other than Microsoft
I doubt it...
A) It's already common knowledge that MS has purchased some sort of unix license from SCO.
B) If it was MS they probably would have said "Fortune 100" or smaller in order to have an even larger PR impact.
Trying to understand Linux as a "Windows substitute" is a doomed prospect.
Then why does almost everything Linux do (and I'm talking about the larger scope of Linux, not just the kernal) attempt to emulate Windows? Although Linux itself may not be a Windows substitute, it seems as anything related to the GUI and consumer related functionality is at least "inspired" (lol) by Windows, if not directly copied (please, no "mac"/"xerox" references). Like it or not, Windows is what many Linux developers use as a reference point.
I'll bite...
I can't get support from my cable company because most of their customers use Windows.
The will always be true for underdog OS's... I'm glad that there will always be choices. I'll continue to use FreeBSD, and I expect that I'll always have this problem.
My boss worries about using OpenOffice.org because it may not be compatible with MS Office.
I would worry about it more because it's less productive. I used OpenOffice exclusively for about 18months. There was a lot I liked about it _personally_, but I could see how it's still not quite ready for prime time (it's getting their though).
I have to pay more for a laptop because it has Windows preinstalled or the OEM pays MS even if it doesn't.
Right, the so-called "M$ tax". An OEM gets a good deal for putting Windows on all of it's machines. Therefore, they pay a very small amount per machine (depending on contract). The IBM's an Dell's probably spend $25-40 (XP Home/Pro) per machine. Now, if this was Lindows, they'd be paying the same amount (Lindows OEM's aren't discounted as much, so the resulting price hardly cheaper than Windows). The point is, it'd either be Lindows, Windows, Lycoris, or some consumer friendly OS that's NOT FREE. And that's what companies care about - Consumer OS's, not YOUR OS (I'm assuming Lindows isn't your OS of choice, but that's not the point). Furthermore, just get an Acer barebones laptop and build it yourself. It's cheaper, and more custom (which is what you want anyway).
Then there's the availablity of apps or clients or drivers, compatibility with Windows networks, Winmodems, kids' games.
Again, the underdogg OS's will always have this problem. You're just forcing your preference to be one of the major contenders. There's really not room for more than two popular consumer OS's.
If a company with the resources like Oracle isn't bothered by their threats then we can assume that their lawyers told them that SCO's claims are baseless.
No, it's because they have those resources to pay the licensing fees should the need arise.
How about VS.NET Enterprise Architect? It's got additional features like the latest Visio for reverse engineering C# to UML (and back).
The one area that VS.NET lacks is refactoring (although I'm of the camp that one should keep refactoring to a minimum). I'm hoping that this gets addressed by the next release.
Splitting won't solve the problem.
/. don't either. WMP can only become illegal if Microsoft starts selling it. This would mean that they would've grossly abused their Windows monopoly by including a free addon, waiting until it hit "critical mass", and then taking it out and charging for it. But that's just not happening. If you look at the history of Windows pricing, and then compare that to all of the "addons" (TCP/IP stack, File Explorer, WWW Browser, Windows Media Player), the pricing hasn't hanged enough to warrant the argument that MS has been effectively charging for these products through Windows price increases.
First, MS does profit in other areas, it just shows up in interesting from in the SEC reports. For example, Windows Server products profits, and I believe that includes products like MSSqlServer and Exchange (which, AFAIK, are both profiting products).
Second, "products" like Windows Media Player, IE, etc. would stay with the OS company. So, the problem that the EU has would not go away. It makes sense too. Apple's strategy is just like MS's, and whether or not you are a monopoly I believe that it is both ethical and legal. The stragey is to "make your OS more compelling by giving the customer more value outside of just a good kernal and GUI". This means out of the box browser (Safari), media player (quicktime, iTunes), and PPP support to name a few. The last mentioned item is significant because it used to be that PPP wasn't included for macOS or windows, and you had to buy a 3rd party piece of software. However, it made more sense to include PPP with the OS, so both OS makers did so. This is not abuse of MS's monopoly, it was a good product decision that in the end benefited the consumer. Remember, whatever solution that comes of all of this should be designed to beneifit the consumer, not hurt MS for the sake of hurting MS (eg: forcing them to make a sub-par product).
I think that the EU doesn't "get it", as many on
Finally, if you do want a 3rd party browser, media player, or email reader, Windows does nothing to prevent you from installing them. Furthermore, OEM's can trivially override IE as the default browser and put an Opera icon on the desktop and remove IE's (for example). Consumers can do the same. I fail to see the problem.
The problem with your post and some of the replies to yours (and mine) is simply that you are all using your own logic. Although your logic makes sense, it may not be the logic that the law uses. I'm just trying to go inline with the law as I understand it (which is very little). I too find it baffling that SCO is still selling Caldera with knowledge if it's violating parts, however, I don't think this is a slam-dunk argument on Linux's part.
Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.
This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
For example: I write some commercial code. You get the code under a license for internal modification. Later I decided to create a distribution for a cool project on Sourceforge. However, you took some of the code I licensed to you and contributed it to that project without my knowledge. Because you don't have ownership of that code, you do not have the right to GPL it. I distribute that project with no knowledge that my commercial code exists within it. This does not mean that I explicitly GPL'd my commercial code. Therefore, no one with the right to GPL said code GPL'd the code.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that SCO's claims are valid, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in this commonly used argument.
The problem with your argument is the assumption that sicence can explain everything that is, or that science can explain all truth. Science is a system that is a human creation to observe the things around us within our finite senses. You're correct that people can get very creative when it comes to the religious and "soul-searching" type discussions, but just as much as any scientists with his data based on finite measurements and sometime atrocious assumptions. Unfortunately weeding out the BS is not a trivial task. Narrowing the scope to "scientific debate" (unless specifically appropriate) is regularly trivializing the issue as it is not considering other relevant disciplines.
Keep going with your "How do I do, " [Insert PowerUser feature here] and you'll further underscore the problem with many developers. You're talking about features that the general user doesn't use and probably won't understand or have a need for.
Have you used VS.NET? I always stayed away from VS, but was then given VS.NET to try at work a couple years ago. I absolutely loved it - it is nothing like the cruft that VS6 and below was.
On the flip side, most of my Java coding counterparts claim that Eclipse crushes VS.NET. I've tried Eclipse, and although it was good (and free) I wasn't extremely impressed (no offense to OSS, but my experience has always been that a commercial IDE is far better than it's OSS counterpart). I'll have to try out IntelliJ based on your recommendation to see how it compares - although it ain't cheap! (VS.NET is cheaper when you consider all of the software you get with MSDN. Individually VS.NET is the same or more expensive depending on what version you get).
I don't know if I have one coherent point, and this is pretty much all opinion with little basis in tangible evidence, mostly just gut feelings.
Thank you for summarizing my rebuttal! Seriously, I'm not an "OO" purist by all means (I moved from procedural to OO 2.5years ago) but I find that OO combined with a high level "OO centric" language like Java or C# to be far easier to debug and maintain.