You hit the nail on the head. I'm from the other side of the fence - I'm a.NET consultant. However, I know that.NET would not be around if it wasn't for J2EE. Instead of whining about Sun's licensing, Microsoft stepped up to the plate and made an awesome platform. Sun needs to take the same approach. Sun does not need Microsoft to make a successful platform, all they need is good technology.
I'll agree that capitalism has it's problems, and I'm actually pretty critical of it. however, as long as I live in America I'll play by the rules, and live by the rules because you can't be a semi-socialist in a capitalistic country - you'll lose out. So, until I move to Canada, Sweden, or England, I'm playing the capitalist game.
He can't. He's essentially been voted out of MS as a shareholder. Over time, he must slowly sell his shares off so that he slowly loses equity in the company.
Of what exactly? This statement can be a bit misleading. AFAIK, the judge could care less about the stupid IE vs. Netscape issue. Thankfully the DOJ stopped listening to the whiners who "lost out" and started focusing on the real issue - OEM restrictions and strong-armed contracts. Microsoft is now under direct order to allow A) multi-boot systems, B) reasoanble customization of Windows, and C) release certain API's.
Does it really make sense for society to have competing teams developing against each other,
Yes, it's called Capitalism. We can discuss the merits of Capitalism all we want, but the reality is if you live in America you are supporting a Capitalistic system, and quite frankly it seems to be working.
I know I sound like a MS shill most every time I post, but even though I generally defend Windows, IE,.NET, MSSQL server, etc., I've always been very crtical about MS's OEM licensing. Although I honestly don't believe that 1-4yrs ago BeOS or Linux had a chance even IF people baught dual booted Dells, however, I think that a product should be successful based SOLEY ON MERIT and not strong-armed contracts. I'm glad that what I've read so far prohibits this kind of behavior, and I hope to read more about punishment.
You'd do a lot more good if you A) didn't lowball your own salary and donated the extra money and B) donated some time at your local library (for example) teaching people about technology.
Programming is a talent, and it's the only profession that I know of that seeks to lower their own value. I'm not trying to make six figures, I just want to avoid making $45K/year when I'm 35 because a large group of idealists are working for free.
Engineers don't offer a service. They design and/or build something. I don't know any Boeing engineers that contribute to an Open Source airplane design project. I do know a few that get together to build their own plane as a fun project, and they may eventually publish their plans for free on the 'net, but this is far different then a large group of engineers getting together to design the next learjet.
Can you proove this? Every home application and game company, IT software (web based e-commerce apps, admin tools, etc.), HR software for small businesses, etc. are all "boxed software" that is sold for a profit. There are a ton of firms that make a lot of money off of this market, and there are a lot of programmers who feed their families off this market. Certain OSS projects seem aimed to undermine this market, which doesn't make sense to me.
we're widening the market by creating a platform of commodity software
I can understand this with small "Widgets" or simple utitlies, but what about enterprise database servers, clustering technology, etc.? It seems like we are just lowballing our talent when really it's worth a lot more.
Every example you provided is based on a company paying programmers to work on OS software. Anecdotally I have found that most code is still contributed by individuals. This is what I don't understand (see my original post).
This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer
No, why Microsoft did is add a very obvious feature to their OS, therefore increasing value for thier customers. Think about it. Should we sue MS for including explorer (file browser) because it put the people who made all the "treeview" apps for DOS out of business? Or how about removing DUN and PPP from Windows because it removed the need for Trumpet Winsock. Using the WWW is one of the most common tasks of a desktop computer - why shouldn't the OS have the ability to browse it as a native feature. Technology changes and puts people out of business all the time. What was once a Niche (the browser "market") is now ubiquitous functionality. Of course, it didn't help that Netscape 4 absolutely sucked and was farther then IE ever was from the W3C standards (disclaimer: I was a hard-core NS follower and even put notes on my sites saying that IE users needed to "upgrade" to NS since IE was so broken pre-4.0).
I think the real point of this fact is that Microsoft (unlike many corporations) kept it's hands clear of political nonsense and just ran their business. Once the government started bugging them (for a somewhat good reason, albeit the DOJ doesn't have a clue about what they've gotten themselves into IMHO) then Microsoft started the political contributions as a defense mechanism. If the DOJ would have let the market be, it would have A) corrected itself (see a real Unix Desktop: OSX, and a soon to be real Unix Desktop: Linux/Gnome), and B) MS wouldn't have been forced to "play the political game".
I still think that in practice a fully Open Source world will create a lack of jobs for myself and other programmers. Seriously, what other profession (Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, etc.) works for FREE, effectively lowering the value of their profession? I simply don't understand it. Now, small community or school funded projects are a great application of Open Source, or Industry Standard projects like a protocol also make sense. Finally, all government work should be BSD'd unless classified. But for an individual to contribute 100's of hours towards a large project like Apache or Linux, when he could be A) spending it with his family or B) making money to feed his family is beyond me. First, you complain about major corporations like MS and their power, and then you work for them for FREE. That's right, when you give away your software, even GPL'd, you are increasing the profit margins of other companies with no personal gain for yourself. I simply don't get it.
As already posted by others it seems that you haven't been actively using a recent version of Windows. DLL Hell is a thing of the past for two reasons:
1) The NT5.x kernal has built in dll version management. From the end-user perspective DLL Hell is a thing of the past. There are still, however, some (very) small headaches for developers.
2).NET has not only completely eliminated DLL Hell, it has one upped the issue by not locking the DLL while in use, so that the DLL's can be dynamically updated w/o reboot.
Name any OS that hasn't gone through hundreds of patches before it's reached certain levels of security, stability, or predictability. Quite frankly, if/. wants to maintain any level of credibility as a technology site (not a blind MS-bashing site) then it shouldn't post comments like this.
Have you even BEEN to the Microsoft Campus? it doesn't matter that they're all in the same campus - you can't just run over from Building 3 to Building 42 when you have a performance question:-)
I think the point is that RAD is still the most important factor, and as we optimize RAD platforms (like J2EE and.NET) we get close to the performance of natively compiled languages so we essentially get the best of both worlds.
Bzzz, wrong again. Microsoft is pointing out that when they sell you Windows at a severely discounted price, they are NOT selling you the right to re-sell the software (it must stay with the machine). If K-Mart went to Costco and bought a ton of Windows copies, they'd be able to resell it all they wanted.
The caller cannot see what you are dealing with, and merrily goes on about their side of the call.
Which is why I've dropped my phone when I've really needed to consentrate, or I've asked the person if I could call them back because traffic is starting to get worse. I can prioritize just fine on the phone, it's the passengers that get me.
The US uses Laser extensively too. AFAIK the problem with Laser is that the officer can only use it while stationary, whereas radar can be used while they are driving.
XBox fanboy? More like Fact Fanboy. PS2 had a 12-14month lead, not a 2 year lead. If you look at some of the games on the XBox and compare them to the PS2 (since I have both I can do that very well), there is a HUGE difference, unless of course you're talking about "cross-platform ports" which then yields a minor difference. Screenshots don't do any console justice. Also, don't forget the 256channel sound with 5.1 dolby digital (it really is quite amazing) - it's not just about the graphics.
And, please go take an economics course. Investing into 1 billion into the platform (with approx 1billion left for XBox2) is NOT a 1billion/year loss.
Looking at my PS2 (WITH multitap and HD upgrade) side-by-side with my XBox there's not THAT big of a difference. Laptops are small, and also cost a lot more to build.
Loud? Well, I have my evidence, you have your opinion.
Fragile: Plastic is mutable. Well, then all consoles are fragile and it's a moot point.
Power-Consuming: Again, I cite laptops. How come a laptop can have a GF4 and 60GB and run off a battery fine. Let's see, my Inspiron 8200 does not run off a battery "fine" (not even 2hrs on 1 batt if playing games). First, the Gf4 is an MX which is actually LESS powerful then the XBox's GPU. Second, as I already mentioned Laptops are much more expensive to build because of their small size. Laptops are a very poor comparison.
$150 loss: the XBox was INITIALLY made from the cheapest parts to keep costs down. Uhm, cost of XBox production has gone down since day 1, as with all other consoles. This is simple economics, and it applies much more in the x86 market because of x86's ubiquity.
Personally, I hold the GC is very high respect. So do I. I didn't at first because of A) it's crappy controller (quality of parts is really poor, and it looks like a toy), and B) it's launch titles. Now that the GC has matured, I'll definitely pick one up once 3rd parties come up with higher quality controllers with analog sticks that I'm not afraid to break off.
Could you give me some data on this? Anecdotally that person is usually looking at you (read: not on the road). The argument that the passenger is "helping you drive" is ludicrous.
Just look at XBox: Big, loud, fragile, power-consuming, sold at 150$ loss - and still behind Gamecube and Playstation.
Please, if you must diss MS, diss them on fact, not blind zeal.
XBox: Big. Sure, I'll give you that. It's also the most powerful console.
Loud: Not any louder then my PS2. The fricken DVD players are loud on these things - like a mini F16! Contrary to ignorant beliefs, the HD is actually pretty quiet.
Fragile: I take my XBox everywhere in a backpack. On the bus, to XBox parties, and in my car (in which I drive aggressively!). Still works great.
Power-Consuming: Ya, MS hasn't figured out how to make an electronic device that doesn't consume electricity. Seriously, get the HD add-on for the PS2 and your power consumption is not a whole lot less then the XBox. Of course, a GF4 requires more power then a GF2, or a 2Ghz p4 takes more power then a 1.4Ghz P4, so it makes perfect sense that again, the most powerful console requires the most power. (DUH?)
$150 loss: This is pure speculation. I know many people inside MS who laugh at this number. What's normally not considered is how fast x86 parts drop. Even if the $150 number was true last year, it sure isn't true today. Until I see real data from MS or Flextronics (the manufacturer), it's just as easy to believe that they lose only $15.
Still behind GC and PS2: Well, the PS2 was out way before the XBox, and had the momentum from the incredible success from the PS. The GameCube is, well, Nintendo. A brand that we all remember as a kid. The GC is also $50 cheaper (thanks to really crappy controllers, and a good hardware design), and has incredible titles that build off exclusive Nintendo brands like Mario and Zelda. Microsoft is also the first American company to seriously compete in the console industry. They've got an uphill battle. I say, selling half of what Nintendo sells is a HUGE success for their position.
Slashdot Mirror
You hit the nail on the head. I'm from the other side of the fence - I'm a .NET consultant. However, I know that .NET would not be around if it wasn't for J2EE. Instead of whining about Sun's licensing, Microsoft stepped up to the plate and made an awesome platform. Sun needs to take the same approach. Sun does not need Microsoft to make a successful platform, all they need is good technology.
I'll agree that capitalism has it's problems, and I'm actually pretty critical of it. however, as long as I live in America I'll play by the rules, and live by the rules because you can't be a semi-socialist in a capitalistic country - you'll lose out. So, until I move to Canada, Sweden, or England, I'm playing the capitalist game.
He can't. He's essentially been voted out of MS as a shareholder. Over time, he must slowly sell his shares off so that he slowly loses equity in the company.
Microsft is guilty.
Of what exactly? This statement can be a bit misleading. AFAIK, the judge could care less about the stupid IE vs. Netscape issue. Thankfully the DOJ stopped listening to the whiners who "lost out" and started focusing on the real issue - OEM restrictions and strong-armed contracts. Microsoft is now under direct order to allow A) multi-boot systems, B) reasoanble customization of Windows, and C) release certain API's.
Does it really make sense for society to have competing teams developing against each other,
Yes, it's called Capitalism. We can discuss the merits of Capitalism all we want, but the reality is if you live in America you are supporting a Capitalistic system, and quite frankly it seems to be working.
I know I sound like a MS shill most every time I post, but even though I generally defend Windows, IE, .NET, MSSQL server, etc., I've always been very crtical about MS's OEM licensing. Although I honestly don't believe that 1-4yrs ago BeOS or Linux had a chance even IF people baught dual booted Dells, however, I think that a product should be successful based SOLEY ON MERIT and not strong-armed contracts. I'm glad that what I've read so far prohibits this kind of behavior, and I hope to read more about punishment.
You'd do a lot more good if you A) didn't lowball your own salary and donated the extra money and B) donated some time at your local library (for example) teaching people about technology.
Programming is a talent, and it's the only profession that I know of that seeks to lower their own value. I'm not trying to make six figures, I just want to avoid making $45K/year when I'm 35 because a large group of idealists are working for free.
Engineers don't offer a service. They design and/or build something. I don't know any Boeing engineers that contribute to an Open Source airplane design project. I do know a few that get together to build their own plane as a fun project, and they may eventually publish their plans for free on the 'net, but this is far different then a large group of engineers getting together to design the next learjet.
Most firms do not make software for money.
Can you proove this? Every home application and game company, IT software (web based e-commerce apps, admin tools, etc.), HR software for small businesses, etc. are all "boxed software" that is sold for a profit. There are a ton of firms that make a lot of money off of this market, and there are a lot of programmers who feed their families off this market. Certain OSS projects seem aimed to undermine this market, which doesn't make sense to me.
we're widening the market by creating a platform of commodity software
I can understand this with small "Widgets" or simple utitlies, but what about enterprise database servers, clustering technology, etc.? It seems like we are just lowballing our talent when really it's worth a lot more.
Every example you provided is based on a company paying programmers to work on OS software. Anecdotally I have found that most code is still contributed by individuals. This is what I don't understand (see my original post).
This is exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer
No, why Microsoft did is add a very obvious feature to their OS, therefore increasing value for thier customers. Think about it. Should we sue MS for including explorer (file browser) because it put the people who made all the "treeview" apps for DOS out of business? Or how about removing DUN and PPP from Windows because it removed the need for Trumpet Winsock. Using the WWW is one of the most common tasks of a desktop computer - why shouldn't the OS have the ability to browse it as a native feature. Technology changes and puts people out of business all the time. What was once a Niche (the browser "market") is now ubiquitous functionality. Of course, it didn't help that Netscape 4 absolutely sucked and was farther then IE ever was from the W3C standards (disclaimer: I was a hard-core NS follower and even put notes on my sites saying that IE users needed to "upgrade" to NS since IE was so broken pre-4.0).
I think the real point of this fact is that Microsoft (unlike many corporations) kept it's hands clear of political nonsense and just ran their business. Once the government started bugging them (for a somewhat good reason, albeit the DOJ doesn't have a clue about what they've gotten themselves into IMHO) then Microsoft started the political contributions as a defense mechanism. If the DOJ would have let the market be, it would have A) corrected itself (see a real Unix Desktop: OSX, and a soon to be real Unix Desktop: Linux/Gnome), and B) MS wouldn't have been forced to "play the political game".
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily anti-OS.
I still think that in practice a fully Open Source world will create a lack of jobs for myself and other programmers. Seriously, what other profession (Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, etc.) works for FREE, effectively lowering the value of their profession? I simply don't understand it. Now, small community or school funded projects are a great application of Open Source, or Industry Standard projects like a protocol also make sense. Finally, all government work should be BSD'd unless classified. But for an individual to contribute 100's of hours towards a large project like Apache or Linux, when he could be A) spending it with his family or B) making money to feed his family is beyond me. First, you complain about major corporations like MS and their power, and then you work for them for FREE. That's right, when you give away your software, even GPL'd, you are increasing the profit margins of other companies with no personal gain for yourself. I simply don't get it.
As already posted by others it seems that you haven't been actively using a recent version of Windows. DLL Hell is a thing of the past for two reasons:
.NET has not only completely eliminated DLL Hell, it has one upped the issue by not locking the DLL while in use, so that the DLL's can be dynamically updated w/o reboot.
1) The NT5.x kernal has built in dll version management. From the end-user perspective DLL Hell is a thing of the past. There are still, however, some (very) small headaches for developers.
2)
Too bad it takes 3 Service Packs..."
/. wants to maintain any level of credibility as a technology site (not a blind MS-bashing site) then it shouldn't post comments like this.
Name any OS that hasn't gone through hundreds of patches before it's reached certain levels of security, stability, or predictability. Quite frankly, if
Have you even BEEN to the Microsoft Campus? it doesn't matter that they're all in the same campus - you can't just run over from Building 3 to Building 42 when you have a performance question :-)
I think the point is that RAD is still the most important factor, and as we optimize RAD platforms (like J2EE and .NET) we get close to the performance of natively compiled languages so we essentially get the best of both worlds.
It's not a poor business plan because you have two options:
A) Buy it for $200 as an asset (which you can then resell, etc.)
B) Buy it with a more restrictive license for $30 (which means the OS stays with the machine and can not be sold seperately).
KMart wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Bzzz, wrong again. Microsoft is pointing out that when they sell you Windows at a severely discounted price, they are NOT selling you the right to re-sell the software (it must stay with the machine). If K-Mart went to Costco and bought a ton of Windows copies, they'd be able to resell it all they wanted.
The caller cannot see what you are dealing with, and merrily goes on about their side of the call.
Which is why I've dropped my phone when I've really needed to consentrate, or I've asked the person if I could call them back because traffic is starting to get worse. I can prioritize just fine on the phone, it's the passengers that get me.
The US uses Laser extensively too. AFAIK the problem with Laser is that the officer can only use it while stationary, whereas radar can be used while they are driving.
XBox fanboy? More like Fact Fanboy. PS2 had a 12-14month lead, not a 2 year lead. If you look at some of the games on the XBox and compare them to the PS2 (since I have both I can do that very well), there is a HUGE difference, unless of course you're talking about "cross-platform ports" which then yields a minor difference. Screenshots don't do any console justice. Also, don't forget the 256channel sound with 5.1 dolby digital (it really is quite amazing) - it's not just about the graphics.
And, please go take an economics course. Investing into 1 billion into the platform (with approx 1billion left for XBox2) is NOT a 1billion/year loss.
XBox: Huge.
Looking at my PS2 (WITH multitap and HD upgrade) side-by-side with my XBox there's not THAT big of a difference. Laptops are small, and also cost a lot more to build.
Loud? Well, I have my evidence, you have your opinion.
Fragile: Plastic is mutable. Well, then all consoles are fragile and it's a moot point.
Power-Consuming: Again, I cite laptops. How come a laptop can have a GF4 and 60GB and run off a battery fine. Let's see, my Inspiron 8200 does not run off a battery "fine" (not even 2hrs on 1 batt if playing games). First, the Gf4 is an MX which is actually LESS powerful then the XBox's GPU. Second, as I already mentioned Laptops are much more expensive to build because of their small size. Laptops are a very poor comparison.
$150 loss: the XBox was INITIALLY made from the cheapest parts to keep costs down.
Uhm, cost of XBox production has gone down since day 1, as with all other consoles. This is simple economics, and it applies much more in the x86 market because of x86's ubiquity.
Personally, I hold the GC is very high respect. So do I. I didn't at first because of A) it's crappy controller (quality of parts is really poor, and it looks like a toy), and B) it's launch titles. Now that the GC has matured, I'll definitely pick one up once 3rd parties come up with higher quality controllers with analog sticks that I'm not afraid to break off.
Could you give me some data on this? Anecdotally that person is usually looking at you (read: not on the road). The argument that the passenger is "helping you drive" is ludicrous.
Just look at XBox: Big, loud, fragile, power-consuming, sold at 150$ loss - and still behind Gamecube and Playstation.
Please, if you must diss MS, diss them on fact, not blind zeal.
XBox: Big. Sure, I'll give you that. It's also the most powerful console.
Loud: Not any louder then my PS2. The fricken DVD players are loud on these things - like a mini F16! Contrary to ignorant beliefs, the HD is actually pretty quiet.
Fragile: I take my XBox everywhere in a backpack. On the bus, to XBox parties, and in my car (in which I drive aggressively!). Still works great.
Power-Consuming: Ya, MS hasn't figured out how to make an electronic device that doesn't consume electricity. Seriously, get the HD add-on for the PS2 and your power consumption is not a whole lot less then the XBox. Of course, a GF4 requires more power then a GF2, or a 2Ghz p4 takes more power then a 1.4Ghz P4, so it makes perfect sense that again, the most powerful console requires the most power. (DUH?)
$150 loss: This is pure speculation. I know many people inside MS who laugh at this number. What's normally not considered is how fast x86 parts drop. Even if the $150 number was true last year, it sure isn't true today. Until I see real data from MS or Flextronics (the manufacturer), it's just as easy to believe that they lose only $15.
Still behind GC and PS2: Well, the PS2 was out way before the XBox, and had the momentum from the incredible success from the PS. The GameCube is, well, Nintendo. A brand that we all remember as a kid. The GC is also $50 cheaper (thanks to really crappy controllers, and a good hardware design), and has incredible titles that build off exclusive Nintendo brands like Mario and Zelda. Microsoft is also the first American company to seriously compete in the console industry. They've got an uphill battle. I say, selling half of what Nintendo sells is a HUGE success for their position.