While reading the article is optional, it is highly recommended that posters read posts they're replying to.
I guess my point (which apparently wasn't clear) is everyone does it and I don't think that MS should not be able to "say or write things" in it's memos just because it has a monopoly.
Ya, I'm sure there's NO internal emails in the Apple mail server archive that says, "undermine MS's crappy OS". And RedHat? Of course not! Especially with the older and mature executives and CEO that they have.
Microsoft is a monopoly. It is NOT illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to be an asshole about being a monopoly. There is a difference.
For those who are not lawyers and/or don't have access to LexisNexis, this law can be found in chapter 4 subsection C of the AntiCorporateAsshole act of 1996.
This sounds like the same boiler-plate resposne for the PS1, and even the PS2 (to a lesser extent). "No Games", "New to Market", "Not Enough Sales". The PS1 especially took some time to gain momentum. Finally, consider that the XBox was launched during a very low point in the world economy, and it's no doubt that A) less people are buying consoles and B) people would rather get a PS2 or GC for a LOT cheaper. Finally, MS got their pricing right internationally, and their sales have gone up significantly. And don't underestimate the XBox's 3rd part support. Read the E3 reports on XBox developers and titles. The XBox may be in 3rd place, but it's doing quite well.
A lot of pastors have been against Bush regarding federal funding for religious activities. However, I choose not to support the initiative because the site groups "Athiests and freethinkers" against me, when as a Chrisitian, I agree with thier political agenda. I'm also arguably a lot more "free thinking" then most secular humanists (it's not exactly popular to believe in God within scientific circles). The whole "us vs. them" is really creating a divide that makes everyone look close minded, when in reality, there are both open and close minded people with a very diverse set of beliefs. I hope that as you support this organization you consider these points. Regardless, let's just hope that we maintain the seperation from Church and State.
I agree that I had a huge bias with The GIMP because I was already familiar with PS. However, I also started using Paintshop Pro (a lot cheaper then PS) and althought I didn't _like_ the interface as much (again, I'm biased towards what I'm used to), I found it to be relatively intuitive. I'm saying that with the GIMP I didn't feel that way. Of course, this isn't specifically my point. My point is that you and I can each have our differing subjective opinions, and that niether of us has the information or arguably even the competance to determine if the UI is good for the market in which the product is targetted.
So what he was saying that Gimp UI is about as good as Photoshop's because it is very similar, n'est pas?
I started using Photoshop around version 3.0. I personally found it very easy to use (less a few minor annoyances). I personally did not find the Gimp as intuitive, or similiar in any significant way (this was a couple years ago so maybe it's changed).
I like this analogy. However, is it fair to say that a software project like WinXP Pro (2+Billion lines of code, right?) or something as complex as an Enterprise Relational Database Engine is actually far more complex then a Car - especially when defining a "reasonable working condition". Either a car is running reasonably well, or it's not. Either it meets simple safty regulations, or it's not. With software, the functionality is not only far more complex, but the potential failures are also far more complex. Many times it takes a serious investigation just to determine which software package caused the problem (was it caused by Linux? Mod_Perl? Apache? MySql?), and even then we aren't always sure. "Best Guesses" may work for debugging and fixing a problem but it won't work in court.
Gimp can do almost everything that Photoshop can. It's GUI is everey bit as intuitive (not that either are particulary so) as PS, and much more modern looking.
This is one of the biggest problems with OSS: Poor evaluation of software quality.
Geeks don't generally use photoshop, artists (the types who don't frequent/.) do. Yes, there is such a thing as a geek who's an artist (I'm a self-proclaimed one myself), but this is very different then an artist who's heavily involved in the graphic design industry, and likes their simple Mac. But all of this is irrelevant. Where's the market research showing what graphic artists want and need? Where's the usability studies to prove that the Gimp is intuitive at all? You are proving the Parent post's contention of "Blind Faith" just by replying with this extremely subjective yet authoritative stance.
They aren't bad because of the two words "police state".
I see where you're going with this, but I dissagree. Police states are bad because the WILL get abused, not because "sometimes abuse happens within a Police State". This is where it's extremely critical to agree on the fundamental principle that we as humans are inherintly (Evil|Greedy|Bad|etc.). A lot of systems would work great (eg: Communism) if this weren't the case.
but he makes some good points about Microsoft's monopoly
No he doesn't. This has nothing to do with MS, and everything to do with a failed/flawed concept. Why does/. have to be so painfully biased? I understand that "it's in italics" so it was the submitter who made this statement, but/. is posting it so therefore they are behind it. This really takes a lot of credit away from your site.
A) I don't hold any MS stock - I just like to be objective. B) The schools chose MS. Many schools still run off of Apple's. C) I know schools are poor, but that doesn't excuse lack of payment. If they're poor, then don't buy so many fricken computers - I'd rather have books too. D) MS is NOT IN THE RIGHT by being so aggressive (don't get me wrong). It bothers me that they don't see the big picture. However, the attitude that the schools should be allowed to steal from MS just because it's MS bothers me as well. I'm saying that both sides are in the wrong for different, and virtually equal reasons. E) MS makes nothing off of corporate welfare other then excercising their right to manage their money to reduce taxation (just like every other business in the country). They are liable to their shareholders if they neglect doing so. If you don't like this you need to change the laws. This has nothing to do with MS, but with how our system is set up in the "United Corporations of America".
I'm probably more incensed over the way M$ is trying to blackmail the education system
Ya, I can't believe MS is requiring the schools to pay $30 for Windows and Office per machine. Come on. Microsoft gives schools a 90%+ discount on their software and the schools essentially slap them in the face by not paying them. Is MS being too aggressive? Yes (when aren't they). But this doesn't mean that they are completely out of line. It's too bad our schools are so poorly managed (and funded) that they can't do something as simple as pay for cheap software licenses. They seem to be able to pay book publishers for their $30-40 books (per student, per subject) just fine.
So it's just another monopolistic extortion scam from the company with $40 billion cash in the bank. You'd think that the corporations that are the victims of this licensing scam
Great post until this point. MS is aggressive, but they're aggressive in collecting fee's that the school system OWE's them. No one has the right to steal anything, not even schools (especially considering that schools get Windows+Office combo licesenses at a huge discount - something like $20-30 per box). This is like saying that the major publishing corporations are commiting extortion scams by requiring schools to pay for their books.
You mention Office and Star Office. I say the schools look at Mac OS X as OS X is not only a great desktop for schools but it also comes with Appleworks. Appleworks may not be a full blown office suite, but it's simple elegance easily outweighs the bells and whistles found in other programs.
And another thing, why can't Netscape take IE's place in HTML help?
For the same reason why I don't test my Intranet applications on Netscape. Because it's a controlled environment. Within a controlled environment it is perfectly legitimate (and it arguably behooves us) to use a single component for the sake of A) Quality control B) Less software testing, and C) Exploit proprietary features of said component.
I love being able to know how my Intranet's interface will render to a T. I can't do this if our users are allowed to use Mozilla.
Your link to cnet is largly based on subjective material. Although I agree with some of said material (and some if it just pisses me off!), my stance is not disproven. This is not as cut-and-dry as your analogy implies. You and I may have our opinions about some of the evidence, but the issue is extremely complex and deserves the scrutiny that many on/. are not willing to give it.
Thank you for insulting me. Those CS classes are really teaching you good debate skills.
MS decided that using DHTML would be the most efficient method for certain features (ie MSHELP) and they require IE because of A) ActiveX, B) IE specific HTML and C) Quality Control - They know exactly how it's going to render. Now, you may disagree with their technical decision, but it's NOT YOUR PRODUCT.
On the other hand, MS should be forced to allow OEM's to A) replace the IE icon on the desktop and use another default browser and B) allow multiboot machines (eg. Windows/FreeBSD). However, this has nothing to do with their technology, as this is allready technically possible. It's just the license agreements that need to be changed.
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove.
Please mod parent up. This is an extremely important point - especially to those conspiracy theorists that are claiming that MS has bought the DOJ hence why the demo is not important. Wrong. The demo is irrelevant.
The point is MS designed Windows for Consumers and has integrated certain functionality that is critical to features that Consumers (arguably) want. Whethor or not it's technically possible to make a "Modular Windows Based OS" is irrelvant (and trivial). The point is, the States have not proven that they can make a marketable version of Windows that will, A) has the full functionality of Windows (MS-HELP uses ActiveX and IE specficic DHTML), and B) that is reasonably cost effecitve to support.
There are millions of things that are technically feasable. The point is whethor or not it's possible to remove IE but not remove critical functionality (like MS-HELP, Active Desktop, Explorer, and the hundreds of third party applications that rely on it). "Win98Lite" doesn't even remove the core browsing engine. _IT'S STILL THERE!_.
Now, what MS _can_ do is allow OEM's to remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace it with, say, Opera.
Some call me a MS fanboy based on my love for.NET, Win2K, my XBox, etc. However, I just use the technology that works best for the situation. This being said, I'm not quite sure why Outlook is not classified as a TROJAN. In a corporate environment Exchange can filter viruses and enforce group wide policies like "no executeables". This is actually pretty secure (in my experiences). However, on an unprotected home or small business machine, Outlook is almost as bad as COTDC's backorifice. At least with backorifice you have to somewhat target the attack to the machine in which it is installed. With Outlook, thanks to it's convenient address book feature, your friend and your friend's friend (and so on) is a victim. MS really needs to get their act together on this one. It's embarrassing, especially for those of us who work with MS technology everyday.
Slashdot Mirror
While reading the article is optional, it is highly recommended that posters read posts they're replying to.
I guess my point (which apparently wasn't clear) is everyone does it and I don't think that MS should not be able to "say or write things" in it's memos just because it has a monopoly.
Ya, I'm sure there's NO internal emails in the Apple mail server archive that says, "undermine MS's crappy OS". And RedHat? Of course not! Especially with the older and mature executives and CEO that they have.
Microsoft is a monopoly. It is NOT illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to be an asshole about being a monopoly. There is a difference.
For those who are not lawyers and/or don't have access to LexisNexis, this law can be found in chapter 4 subsection C of the AntiCorporateAsshole act of 1996.
This sounds like the same boiler-plate resposne for the PS1, and even the PS2 (to a lesser extent). "No Games", "New to Market", "Not Enough Sales". The PS1 especially took some time to gain momentum. Finally, consider that the XBox was launched during a very low point in the world economy, and it's no doubt that A) less people are buying consoles and B) people would rather get a PS2 or GC for a LOT cheaper. Finally, MS got their pricing right internationally, and their sales have gone up significantly. And don't underestimate the XBox's 3rd part support. Read the E3 reports on XBox developers and titles. The XBox may be in 3rd place, but it's doing quite well.
A lot of pastors have been against Bush regarding federal funding for religious activities. However, I choose not to support the initiative because the site groups "Athiests and freethinkers" against me, when as a Chrisitian, I agree with thier political agenda. I'm also arguably a lot more "free thinking" then most secular humanists (it's not exactly popular to believe in God within scientific circles). The whole "us vs. them" is really creating a divide that makes everyone look close minded, when in reality, there are both open and close minded people with a very diverse set of beliefs. I hope that as you support this organization you consider these points. Regardless, let's just hope that we maintain the seperation from Church and State.
I agree that I had a huge bias with The GIMP because I was already familiar with PS. However, I also started using Paintshop Pro (a lot cheaper then PS) and althought I didn't _like_ the interface as much (again, I'm biased towards what I'm used to), I found it to be relatively intuitive. I'm saying that with the GIMP I didn't feel that way. Of course, this isn't specifically my point. My point is that you and I can each have our differing subjective opinions, and that niether of us has the information or arguably even the competance to determine if the UI is good for the market in which the product is targetted.
So what he was saying that Gimp UI is about as good as Photoshop's because it is very similar, n'est pas?
I started using Photoshop around version 3.0. I personally found it very easy to use (less a few minor annoyances). I personally did not find the Gimp as intuitive, or similiar in any significant way (this was a couple years ago so maybe it's changed).
I like this analogy. However, is it fair to say that a software project like WinXP Pro (2+Billion lines of code, right?) or something as complex as an Enterprise Relational Database Engine is actually far more complex then a Car - especially when defining a "reasonable working condition". Either a car is running reasonably well, or it's not. Either it meets simple safty regulations, or it's not. With software, the functionality is not only far more complex, but the potential failures are also far more complex. Many times it takes a serious investigation just to determine which software package caused the problem (was it caused by Linux? Mod_Perl? Apache? MySql?), and even then we aren't always sure. "Best Guesses" may work for debugging and fixing a problem but it won't work in court.
Gimp can do almost everything that Photoshop can. It's GUI is everey bit as intuitive (not that either are particulary so) as PS, and much more modern looking.
/.) do. Yes, there is such a thing as a geek who's an artist (I'm a self-proclaimed one myself), but this is very different then an artist who's heavily involved in the graphic design industry, and likes their simple Mac. But all of this is irrelevant. Where's the market research showing what graphic artists want and need? Where's the usability studies to prove that the Gimp is intuitive at all? You are proving the Parent post's contention of "Blind Faith" just by replying with this extremely subjective yet authoritative stance.
This is one of the biggest problems with OSS: Poor evaluation of software quality.
Geeks don't generally use photoshop, artists (the types who don't frequent
Thanks - at least you're being honest!
They aren't bad because of the two words "police state".
I see where you're going with this, but I dissagree. Police states are bad because the WILL get abused, not because "sometimes abuse happens within a Police State". This is where it's extremely critical to agree on the fundamental principle that we as humans are inherintly (Evil|Greedy|Bad|etc.). A lot of systems would work great (eg: Communism) if this weren't the case.
but he makes some good points about Microsoft's monopoly
/. have to be so painfully biased? I understand that "it's in italics" so it was the submitter who made this statement, but /. is posting it so therefore they are behind it. This really takes a lot of credit away from your site.
No he doesn't. This has nothing to do with MS, and everything to do with a failed/flawed concept. Why does
You are correct, however, there where some songs that where actually "mish mashed" together, albeit whithin a medley.
Moulin Rouge featured a lot of very interesting repurposes and so called "mish mashes" of music. My favourite was the "Nirvana/Can-Can Techno Remix".
A) I don't hold any MS stock - I just like to be objective.
B) The schools chose MS. Many schools still run off of Apple's.
C) I know schools are poor, but that doesn't excuse lack of payment. If they're poor, then don't buy so many fricken computers - I'd rather have books too.
D) MS is NOT IN THE RIGHT by being so aggressive (don't get me wrong). It bothers me that they don't see the big picture. However, the attitude that the schools should be allowed to steal from MS just because it's MS bothers me as well. I'm saying that both sides are in the wrong for different, and virtually equal reasons.
E) MS makes nothing off of corporate welfare other then excercising their right to manage their money to reduce taxation (just like every other business in the country). They are liable to their shareholders if they neglect doing so. If you don't like this you need to change the laws. This has nothing to do with MS, but with how our system is set up in the "United Corporations of America".
I'm probably more incensed over the way M$ is trying to blackmail the education system
Ya, I can't believe MS is requiring the schools to pay $30 for Windows and Office per machine. Come on. Microsoft gives schools a 90%+ discount on their software and the schools essentially slap them in the face by not paying them. Is MS being too aggressive? Yes (when aren't they). But this doesn't mean that they are completely out of line. It's too bad our schools are so poorly managed (and funded) that they can't do something as simple as pay for cheap software licenses. They seem to be able to pay book publishers for their $30-40 books (per student, per subject) just fine.
So it's just another monopolistic extortion scam from the company with $40 billion cash in the bank. You'd think that the corporations that are the victims of this licensing scam
Great post until this point. MS is aggressive, but they're aggressive in collecting fee's that the school system OWE's them. No one has the right to steal anything, not even schools (especially considering that schools get Windows+Office combo licesenses at a huge discount - something like $20-30 per box). This is like saying that the major publishing corporations are commiting extortion scams by requiring schools to pay for their books.
You mention Office and Star Office. I say the schools look at Mac OS X as OS X is not only a great desktop for schools but it also comes with Appleworks. Appleworks may not be a full blown office suite, but it's simple elegance easily outweighs the bells and whistles found in other programs.
And another thing, why can't Netscape take IE's place in HTML help?
For the same reason why I don't test my Intranet applications on Netscape. Because it's a controlled environment. Within a controlled environment it is perfectly legitimate (and it arguably behooves us) to use a single component for the sake of A) Quality control B) Less software testing, and C) Exploit proprietary features of said component.
I love being able to know how my Intranet's interface will render to a T. I can't do this if our users are allowed to use Mozilla.
Your link to cnet is largly based on subjective material. Although I agree with some of said material (and some if it just pisses me off!), my stance is not disproven. This is not as cut-and-dry as your analogy implies. You and I may have our opinions about some of the evidence, but the issue is extremely complex and deserves the scrutiny that many on /. are not willing to give it.
Thank you for insulting me. Those CS classes are really teaching you good debate skills.
MS decided that using DHTML would be the most efficient method for certain features (ie MSHELP) and they require IE because of A) ActiveX, B) IE specific HTML and C) Quality Control - They know exactly how it's going to render. Now, you may disagree with their technical decision, but it's NOT YOUR PRODUCT.
On the other hand, MS should be forced to allow OEM's to A) replace the IE icon on the desktop and use another default browser and B) allow multiboot machines (eg. Windows/FreeBSD). However, this has nothing to do with their technology, as this is allready technically possible. It's just the license agreements that need to be changed.
Gates admitted that Embedded XP was modular and was based on the same technology as regular XP. He admited it could be modular IF Microsoft Wanted. What more is there to prove.
Please mod parent up. This is an extremely important point - especially to those conspiracy theorists that are claiming that MS has bought the DOJ hence why the demo is not important. Wrong. The demo is irrelevant.
Anyone who thinks the case or even this isolated issue is this cut-and-dry is ignoring intelect and thriving on zealotry.
The point is MS designed Windows for Consumers and has integrated certain functionality that is critical to features that Consumers (arguably) want. Whethor or not it's technically possible to make a "Modular Windows Based OS" is irrelvant (and trivial). The point is, the States have not proven that they can make a marketable version of Windows that will, A) has the full functionality of Windows (MS-HELP uses ActiveX and IE specficic DHTML), and B) that is reasonably cost effecitve to support.
There are millions of things that are technically feasable. The point is whethor or not it's possible to remove IE but not remove critical functionality (like MS-HELP, Active Desktop, Explorer, and the hundreds of third party applications that rely on it). "Win98Lite" doesn't even remove the core browsing engine. _IT'S STILL THERE!_.
Now, what MS _can_ do is allow OEM's to remove the IE icon from the desktop and replace it with, say, Opera.
I've been running WinAmp as my default audio player since IE4. I'm running IE6, and MP3's (etc.) automatically play in Winamp when I click on them.
Some call me a MS fanboy based on my love for .NET, Win2K, my XBox, etc. However, I just use the technology that works best for the situation. This being said, I'm not quite sure why Outlook is not classified as a TROJAN. In a corporate environment Exchange can filter viruses and enforce group wide policies like "no executeables". This is actually pretty secure (in my experiences). However, on an unprotected home or small business machine, Outlook is almost as bad as COTDC's backorifice. At least with backorifice you have to somewhat target the attack to the machine in which it is installed. With Outlook, thanks to it's convenient address book feature, your friend and your friend's friend (and so on) is a victim. MS really needs to get their act together on this one. It's embarrassing, especially for those of us who work with MS technology everyday.