Not all Catholics are Christians, and very few Christians are Catholic. Catholic is almost a subclass of Christianity, in some cases with overriding methods.
*yawn*. Typical/. "monopoly == you can't do anything" mentality. Having a monopoly does not put your business in handcuffs, it has certain, specific, and limited restrictions on what you can do as a business. Auditing customers for license compliance, amongst other things, are not reserved for companies with a small marketshare.
12K would maybe cover 1-2 weeks of a lawyers time, barely enough to ask for a dismissal. And if it doesn't get dismissed? He'd need a few hundred grand, or he could have settled for another 12K. When you're going to school (eg: don't have time to be in court all day), and you have limited funds, the risks were too great.
I've heard the "all.NET languages are just C#ish look-a-likes" argument, and to an extent this is true. One big problem with the.NET CLR is that it doesn't support Multiple Inheritence. Note: I'm perfectly happy that the "mainstream languages" of.NET (C#, VB.NET) both Single Inheritence, but the CLR needs to support MI for other languages. That being said, Microsoft Research as some interesting projects related to functional programming in.NET, which really do vary from the "C#ish" languages. Even COBOL.NET, although it's not COBOL, is more than just a syntactical difference.
Actually, there is a higher ROI with IIS. Sure, Apache is on more servers, but the point is generally to infect clients. IIS is on Windows and that Windows box can be used to infect clients.
Don't get me wrong, I know it's generally understood that Apache (depending on mod's) is far more secure than IIS (at least version 5 and below).
Although I appreciate your point, it is entirely valid to critique a corporation as a system, or unit of power. A corporation, albeit run by people, has more power and has different legal standing than any individual. So, although people make the actions, these people are part of a system, and the system is up for critique.
Remember that open-source is not necessarily free-as-in-beer. Your company can charge for the source code and the binaries if it wants...
But the problem is that once your company releases the source to the buyer, that buyer can then redistribute it for free or for a minimal cost. So, in many ways, once the "cat is out of the bag", open-source is "free-as-in-beer".
I completely agree accept for your final entry, the blue & white powermac... quite ugly and cheap looking IMHO.
Re:The problem: Improving programmer productivity
on
Preview of Java 1.5
·
· Score: 1
Most applications these days can be written in higher-level languages, resulting in 5-10 times less source code compared to Java/C#, and making them correspondingly simpler to code and maintain.
I've been looking over some old Perl of mine, and I'm not convinced that a C# equivilant would be anywhere near "5-10" times larger... or noticeably larger at all.
Also, less code does not always mean less maintenance. After coding in dynamically typed languages professionally for over 4 years (Perl, Cold Fusion, PHP, ASP/VBScript), I'm very relieved to be working on applications in a statically typed, compiled environment (scripts always have their place, of course). Compiling is so stupid-easy and quick in Java and C# that it really doesn't add any measurable time to the development process (it takes 10 sec to compile 25Klines of code on minimal hardware in VS.NET). Plus, compiling can help you find bugs before you test in runtime, so for larger applications it actually saves you time. Static typing add a small (very small) amount of work on the dev's side (casting, parsing, and type checking), but it makes the code much easier to read because you understand what's going on, and helps prevent bugs due to unknown datatypes. Remember, code is read much more than it is written. That's also why Apple, MS, and others opt for rediculously long type names in their API's (eg: FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage). When you read it, you know exactly what it does, and because it's strongly typed, the IDE can tell you what to pass in, and what it returns. No questions asked.
Personally, I would've never written SlashCode in Perl. I think it's a mess (yes, I have looked at SlashCode before), and it would be much more elegant if written in Java or C#. Again, I also highly doubt that Perl would be more productive, and result in less code than it's Java or C# equivilent. But hey, that's why we have choice - you use your language, I'll use mine!
Considering the fact that Netscape 4 was a very poor browser, and that it's very arguable that IE won on legit merit, and MS doesn't make any money off of it. I think AOL got the upper hand. 1% of MS's yearly income may not hurt them much, but it's still noteable.
they have to reduce their price pretty much across the board
A) Historically, MS software is cheaper than most alternatives (accept OSS, of course).
B) MS cut the cost of Windows 2003 server by 40% or 50% for those who use it for serving web sites. Yes, you are "getting less", but a large majority of servers are essentially "IIS boxes".
Okay, so if this story had been "MS comes out with XBox Home+ with a 120GB HD, DVDRW, etc.", all the +5 posts would have been to the tune of "See, it's just MS trying to take over the living room", and "XBox is just a closed, proprietary computer". Instead, since it's Sony it's "cool, look at these new features - MS is way behind".
Your insulting of my intelligence has shown that this is a complete waste of time. Guess what, you are a criminal when you speed - you shouldn't be allowed to make money either. I thought your sig made you out be an insightful person, but now I see you're simply a fundamentalist: you don't respect the complexity of the MS issue, the level of subjectivity involved, and you're quick to judge. Reread your sig in a way that truely understands the radical nature of Christ - when understood correctly it's quite profound.
Apple, understanding that College students are relatively poor, should sign volume deals with Universities to allow students to receive discounts on song and album downloads.
[$30B fine] would be a more just punishment then they got.
So the moral of the story is, don't become too successful in the US. Remember that the courts could never prove that MS got all of that money or their monopoly illegally, rather, simply that they were trying to hang on to that monopoly using questionable tactics (the stupid IE fiasco not being one of them). Personally, if MS did not stop it's strong-armed OEM practice, I would have started really pusing for some legal rememdy. But again those practices helped keep their monopoly in place, but did not help earn their monopoly.
Bingo. Sony makes 1 billion per year, Ms has 40 billion in cash. Does that seem like a fair fight? I don't think so.
Apply the same analogy to Nintendo and Sony. Sony flooded the market place with tons of marketing and pushed Nintendo out of it's Final Fantasy licensing by give Square a better "deal". Sony's equity is 3 times that of nintendo's, and Microsoft's equity is a little less than 3 times that of Sony's, so the comparison is perfect. Business isn't communism - everybody doesn't get an equal lump sum to start a venture.
Sony has its hands in almost everything electronic, and because of that it was able to not only out-invest Nintendo, but also manufacture and design the electronics for a lot cheaper.
And stop comparing MS's cash reserves. As much as it is (and it is a LOT!), MS's business is different than a corp. like Sony's. Sony OWNES a lot (to the tune of $80B worth of assets). Many companies only keep about 10% cash (sony has about 7.5B). In Sony's case, they own manufacturing plants, huge product lines, and the like. MS, on the other hand, is a software company that doesn't need all of that infrustructure, and their accountants decided to keep more cash than usual. Microsoft's total assets are about $75B - $5B less than Sony (MS is still worth ~2.8x more in Equity because they have less debt).
It's illegal do practice "dumping" especially for a monopoly.
There's nothing "especially" about it. Regardless of whethor or not you're a monopoly, it's illegal. What MS is doing, however, is not product dumping. Having a loss-leader (like every other console on the market) is legit business. Futhermore, MS has the highest attach rate (accesseries and games sold, etc.) with the XBox, so it makes more money per console sold than Nintendo or Sony. The only reason MS has not profited on the XBox, is because it can't touch the volume of Sony because of Sony's incredible market presence, and because the R&D of a "first of kind" product for a company is huge, and will take until the second generation (at least, which is usual) to realize an ROI.
IBM survived by getting out of any industry in which MS has a monoply.
The only area they pulled out of was the desktop OS, in which IBM was competing BEFORE MS had a Monopoly. And no matter how many stories you hear about MS "screwing over IBM", the bottom line is, many people (myself included) lost HD's to OS/2 Warp. So, let's be thankful that today we have OS X and Linux as great and good alternatives respectively. Apple, that small company that MS "saved", is competing just fine. And speaking of IBM, it has been consitantly out-profiting MS to the tune of $1-$2B or more per QUARTER. Food for thought.
I think it worked great. There was a time where everyone went with Apple - mainly because of their influence in the classrooms. The problem is that Mac's got stale. Apple got really comfortable with their product line and got way behind in the industry, while MS released Win95 and competed very well. Mac's also couldn't be used effectively in a large office environment, where MS had them beat with relatively cheap and easy to use servers, with domain based security built in. Hence why MS took over the client in businesses, and people who work have more money than people in school. People started buying MS.
IMHO Apple should keep flooding schools with as much product as possible. They have, for a large demographic of users, superior products to many of the "PC" alternatives. Start with the schools, get into businesses, then get into the homes.
So if an NPO gets 5 copies of Windows XP, but doesn't have any use for them (maybe all their computers are too old), they now have 5 coasters, and MS can take $1000 in tax deductions.
No, they'd maybe get $10 or less in tax deductions. You can only receive deductions on expenses, not potential revenue.
I know most people don't study or have a clue about business on/., so let me challenge your conspiracy theory with, "No, MS can not get a tax writeoff for a $1000 Windows Server License", simply because a tax writeoff has to do with cost, not potential revenue.
The vast majority of goodwill that the Gates Foundation participates in is unrelated to technology (eg: AIDS research and vaccines for 3rd world countries). I find it appauling that your religion critizes such things.
MS is able to kill any company on the planet anytime they want. Bill Gates is the most powerful human being on the plant.
Right, so we should just fine them $30B so that it's more "fair". First off, MS can't just "dump" money into the XBox. This will piss off shareholders because it's their money that's being dumped, and MS is liable. Second, Sony has quite a bit of cash, and is not on any financial ropes right now. Sure, they're barely profiting $1B a year, which isn't great considering the size of their company. But they have a lot of pull from a lot of different industries. And sure, they don't have a monopoly on anything, but so what? MS's monopolies have little relevance for the console industry. Also, a lot of people on/. seem to think that having a monopoly means that you're effectively put in a coma as a company. True, there are special restrictions for having a monopoly, but not many. It is perfectly legal (and ethical IMHO) for MS to pursue the console industry. If MS started to package the XBox with Windows, effectively "forcing" people to buy an XBox, than you'd have a point. But that's not hapening.
MS is able to kill any company on the planet anytime they want.
If this was true, Apple, IBM, Sony, and a slew of other companies would not be in existance. The fact of the matter is, IBM alone is a much large company than Microsoft, and $40B in cash couldn't even start to buy that company.
MS is not any other company. Their cash reserves are more then most companies revenues.
So Sony, a multibillion dollar corporation who used it's cash to push Sega out of the industry, and who squashed Nintendo's marketshare, can't compete with MS?
Slashdot Mirror
Not all Catholics are Christians, and very few Christians are Catholic. Catholic is almost a subclass of Christianity, in some cases with overriding methods.
*yawn*. Typical /. "monopoly == you can't do anything" mentality. Having a monopoly does not put your business in handcuffs, it has certain, specific, and limited restrictions on what you can do as a business. Auditing customers for license compliance, amongst other things, are not reserved for companies with a small marketshare.
12K would maybe cover 1-2 weeks of a lawyers time, barely enough to ask for a dismissal. And if it doesn't get dismissed? He'd need a few hundred grand, or he could have settled for another 12K. When you're going to school (eg: don't have time to be in court all day), and you have limited funds, the risks were too great.
I've heard the "all .NET languages are just C#ish look-a-likes" argument, and to an extent this is true. One big problem with the .NET CLR is that it doesn't support Multiple Inheritence. Note: I'm perfectly happy that the "mainstream languages" of .NET (C#, VB.NET) both Single Inheritence, but the CLR needs to support MI for other languages. That being said, Microsoft Research as some interesting projects related to functional programming in .NET, which really do vary from the "C#ish" languages. Even COBOL.NET, although it's not COBOL, is more than just a syntactical difference.
C# and Java semantics are so close
Because they both based on C. C# has some fundamental differences - it acts more like a "Cish Delphi" (thanks to, as you mentioned, Anders).
Actually, there is a higher ROI with IIS. Sure, Apache is on more servers, but the point is generally to infect clients. IIS is on Windows and that Windows box can be used to infect clients.
Don't get me wrong, I know it's generally understood that Apache (depending on mod's) is far more secure than IIS (at least version 5 and below).
Although I appreciate your point, it is entirely valid to critique a corporation as a system, or unit of power. A corporation, albeit run by people, has more power and has different legal standing than any individual. So, although people make the actions, these people are part of a system, and the system is up for critique.
Remember that open-source is not necessarily free-as-in-beer. Your company can charge for the source code and the binaries if it wants...
But the problem is that once your company releases the source to the buyer, that buyer can then redistribute it for free or for a minimal cost. So, in many ways, once the "cat is out of the bag", open-source is "free-as-in-beer".
I completely agree accept for your final entry, the blue & white powermac... quite ugly and cheap looking IMHO.
Most applications these days can be written in higher-level languages, resulting in 5-10 times less source code compared to Java/C#, and making them correspondingly simpler to code and maintain.
I've been looking over some old Perl of mine, and I'm not convinced that a C# equivilant would be anywhere near "5-10" times larger... or noticeably larger at all.
Also, less code does not always mean less maintenance. After coding in dynamically typed languages professionally for over 4 years (Perl, Cold Fusion, PHP, ASP/VBScript), I'm very relieved to be working on applications in a statically typed, compiled environment (scripts always have their place, of course). Compiling is so stupid-easy and quick in Java and C# that it really doesn't add any measurable time to the development process (it takes 10 sec to compile 25Klines of code on minimal hardware in VS.NET). Plus, compiling can help you find bugs before you test in runtime, so for larger applications it actually saves you time. Static typing add a small (very small) amount of work on the dev's side (casting, parsing, and type checking), but it makes the code much easier to read because you understand what's going on, and helps prevent bugs due to unknown datatypes. Remember, code is read much more than it is written. That's also why Apple, MS, and others opt for rediculously long type names in their API's (eg: FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage). When you read it, you know exactly what it does, and because it's strongly typed, the IDE can tell you what to pass in, and what it returns. No questions asked.
Personally, I would've never written SlashCode in Perl. I think it's a mess (yes, I have looked at SlashCode before), and it would be much more elegant if written in Java or C#. Again, I also highly doubt that Perl would be more productive, and result in less code than it's Java or C# equivilent. But hey, that's why we have choice - you use your language, I'll use mine!
Considering the fact that Netscape 4 was a very poor browser, and that it's very arguable that IE won on legit merit, and MS doesn't make any money off of it. I think AOL got the upper hand. 1% of MS's yearly income may not hurt them much, but it's still noteable.
Nevertheless India's economy is very poor, except for the fortunate. I'm friends with such fortunate - they're in the US for a reason.
they have to reduce their price pretty much across the board
A) Historically, MS software is cheaper than most alternatives (accept OSS, of course).
B) MS cut the cost of Windows 2003 server by 40% or 50% for those who use it for serving web sites. Yes, you are "getting less", but a large majority of servers are essentially "IIS boxes".
If those people lost network access, how would Microsoft know?
Maybe they used System Restore to restore their system to a point prior to the patch? Or maybe they just picked up the phone.
the only way to fix my system was to re-install and re-update Windoze
So you couldn't uninstall the patch via Add/Remove programs or use System Restore?
Sony has beat MS to the punch again.
Okay, so if this story had been "MS comes out with XBox Home+ with a 120GB HD, DVDRW, etc.", all the +5 posts would have been to the tune of "See, it's just MS trying to take over the living room", and "XBox is just a closed, proprietary computer". Instead, since it's Sony it's "cool, look at these new features - MS is way behind".
Your insulting of my intelligence has shown that this is a complete waste of time. Guess what, you are a criminal when you speed - you shouldn't be allowed to make money either. I thought your sig made you out be an insightful person, but now I see you're simply a fundamentalist: you don't respect the complexity of the MS issue, the level of subjectivity involved, and you're quick to judge. Reread your sig in a way that truely understands the radical nature of Christ - when understood correctly it's quite profound.
Apple, understanding that College students are relatively poor, should sign volume deals with Universities to allow students to receive discounts on song and album downloads.
[$30B fine] would be a more just punishment then they got.
So the moral of the story is, don't become too successful in the US. Remember that the courts could never prove that MS got all of that money or their monopoly illegally, rather, simply that they were trying to hang on to that monopoly using questionable tactics (the stupid IE fiasco not being one of them). Personally, if MS did not stop it's strong-armed OEM practice, I would have started really pusing for some legal rememdy. But again those practices helped keep their monopoly in place, but did not help earn their monopoly.
Bingo. Sony makes 1 billion per year, Ms has 40 billion in cash. Does that seem like a fair fight? I don't think so.
Apply the same analogy to Nintendo and Sony. Sony flooded the market place with tons of marketing and pushed Nintendo out of it's Final Fantasy licensing by give Square a better "deal". Sony's equity is 3 times that of nintendo's, and Microsoft's equity is a little less than 3 times that of Sony's, so the comparison is perfect. Business isn't communism - everybody doesn't get an equal lump sum to start a venture.
Sony has its hands in almost everything electronic, and because of that it was able to not only out-invest Nintendo, but also manufacture and design the electronics for a lot cheaper.
And stop comparing MS's cash reserves. As much as it is (and it is a LOT!), MS's business is different than a corp. like Sony's. Sony OWNES a lot (to the tune of $80B worth of assets). Many companies only keep about 10% cash (sony has about 7.5B). In Sony's case, they own manufacturing plants, huge product lines, and the like. MS, on the other hand, is a software company that doesn't need all of that infrustructure, and their accountants decided to keep more cash than usual. Microsoft's total assets are about $75B - $5B less than Sony (MS is still worth ~2.8x more in Equity because they have less debt).
It's illegal do practice "dumping" especially for a monopoly.
There's nothing "especially" about it. Regardless of whethor or not you're a monopoly, it's illegal. What MS is doing, however, is not product dumping. Having a loss-leader (like every other console on the market) is legit business. Futhermore, MS has the highest attach rate (accesseries and games sold, etc.) with the XBox, so it makes more money per console sold than Nintendo or Sony. The only reason MS has not profited on the XBox, is because it can't touch the volume of Sony because of Sony's incredible market presence, and because the R&D of a "first of kind" product for a company is huge, and will take until the second generation (at least, which is usual) to realize an ROI.
IBM survived by getting out of any industry in which MS has a monoply.
The only area they pulled out of was the desktop OS, in which IBM was competing BEFORE MS had a Monopoly. And no matter how many stories you hear about MS "screwing over IBM", the bottom line is, many people (myself included) lost HD's to OS/2 Warp. So, let's be thankful that today we have OS X and Linux as great and good alternatives respectively. Apple, that small company that MS "saved", is competing just fine. And speaking of IBM, it has been consitantly out-profiting MS to the tune of $1-$2B or more per QUARTER. Food for thought.
Not much in my opinion.
I think it worked great. There was a time where everyone went with Apple - mainly because of their influence in the classrooms. The problem is that Mac's got stale. Apple got really comfortable with their product line and got way behind in the industry, while MS released Win95 and competed very well. Mac's also couldn't be used effectively in a large office environment, where MS had them beat with relatively cheap and easy to use servers, with domain based security built in. Hence why MS took over the client in businesses, and people who work have more money than people in school. People started buying MS.
IMHO Apple should keep flooding schools with as much product as possible. They have, for a large demographic of users, superior products to many of the "PC" alternatives. Start with the schools, get into businesses, then get into the homes.
So if an NPO gets 5 copies of Windows XP, but doesn't have any use for them (maybe all their computers are too old), they now have 5 coasters, and MS can take $1000 in tax deductions.
No, they'd maybe get $10 or less in tax deductions. You can only receive deductions on expenses, not potential revenue.
I know most people don't study or have a clue about business on /., so let me challenge your conspiracy theory with, "No, MS can not get a tax writeoff for a $1000 Windows Server License", simply because a tax writeoff has to do with cost, not potential revenue.
The vast majority of goodwill that the Gates Foundation participates in is unrelated to technology (eg: AIDS research and vaccines for 3rd world countries). I find it appauling that your religion critizes such things.
fyi: I absoultely love your sig.
/. seem to think that having a monopoly means that you're effectively put in a coma as a company. True, there are special restrictions for having a monopoly, but not many. It is perfectly legal (and ethical IMHO) for MS to pursue the console industry. If MS started to package the XBox with Windows, effectively "forcing" people to buy an XBox, than you'd have a point. But that's not hapening.
MS is able to kill any company on the planet anytime they want. Bill Gates is the most powerful human being on the plant.
Right, so we should just fine them $30B so that it's more "fair". First off, MS can't just "dump" money into the XBox. This will piss off shareholders because it's their money that's being dumped, and MS is liable. Second, Sony has quite a bit of cash, and is not on any financial ropes right now. Sure, they're barely profiting $1B a year, which isn't great considering the size of their company. But they have a lot of pull from a lot of different industries. And sure, they don't have a monopoly on anything, but so what? MS's monopolies have little relevance for the console industry. Also, a lot of people on
MS is able to kill any company on the planet anytime they want.
If this was true, Apple, IBM, Sony, and a slew of other companies would not be in existance. The fact of the matter is, IBM alone is a much large company than Microsoft, and $40B in cash couldn't even start to buy that company.
MS is not any other company. Their cash reserves are more then most companies revenues.
So Sony, a multibillion dollar corporation who used it's cash to push Sega out of the industry, and who squashed Nintendo's marketshare, can't compete with MS?