Microsoft publicly claims that OSS/FS (in particular its most common license, the GPL) will eliminate innovation
Microsoft has been publically opposing the GPL exclusively (nor particularly), and supporting (through action) Open Source via the BSD and "Shared Source" licenses. This is very similar to Apple's approach as well (although Apple has obviously taken it to a much farther level with Darwin).
Indeed, recent court cases give strong evidence that the only reason the proprietary Internet Explorer was the #1 web browser was due to years of illegal use of monopoly power by Microsoft.
Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS. If there where better alternatives then maybe everyone wouldn't have flocked to IE. Now that Opera is up to par it's gained incredible marketshare (especially considering the fact that it's a commercial browser). And, the 3MB download is not inconvenient on most any modern connection.
Indeed, when examining the most important software innovations, it's quickly discovered that Microsoft invented no key innovations
I thought this was about the benefits of Open Source software, not some poorly documented anti-MS troll fest. Too bad this article won't be taken to heart by many. The blatent bias in some areas discredit the author.
It's amazing how religious "computer scientists" can be about technology.
The evidence supports my view very well. The only "Anti-OSS-PR" from MS that I've seen are taken out of context (miscommunicated or misread Anti-GPL statements). The proof is in Windows 2000, some of which is based on FreeBSD. The proof is also in their complete opening of the Windows source code to Academia, their non-commercial "Shared Source License" which can be found for products like Windows CE and the.NET Framework, and contributions into open standards like SOAP (arguable due to IBM and MS patenting), XML, and C#.
One of the problems is that there are some people (inside MS as well) who confuse Open Source with the GPL. Recently, however, MS has made it very clear that they are not attacking (or never were attacking) Open Source as a whole, just the GPL licensing model for Business or Government useage.
If you're going to critisize someones math at least get the numbers right. WinXP can be bought for about $88 for consumers building their own machines (or OS-less machines), and the cost to large OEM's like DELL is far less.
Nothing is keeping ANYONE from using GPL software,
I think he ment in the sense of GPL'd code. Sure, MS can use little GPL'd utitlities, but they can't use the code unless it's for a GPL'd project. That's the point I think the poster was trying to make.
How can this speculative statement be modded as Insightful? No insight is given, and there is absolutely no factual basis for the statement. MS has never been against Open Source. They may be a "lesser Open Source" friendly company then say, Apple, but they have a lot of open source involvement (especially with FreeBSD).
I do believe some amount of maturity has to be displayed,
I am in total agreement. What I'm attempting to do is make a clear distinction between what's LEGAL and what's curtious/mature/etc. It's not illegal to be immature.
Even if there is nothing illegal about linking to images/content, but the owner of the site requests that you at least ask him/her, send them an email asking.
Exactly. Again, this should never be illegal, but some common edicate should be used when linking to someone elses content.
Most of our content is available for syndication. If you like it and want to use it, ASK.
You're posting your content on a free, publically accessable network. Although I may not copy it and claim it as my own, I may make hyperlinks to any and all content that is deemed "public" (this includes your images).
If you feel that I should not be able to [img src="YourHighRezImage"], don't make YourHighRezImage publically accessable to all websites. There are a number of ways to make content (images/binary or HTML/text) viewable to people visiting your site while disabling the ability to directly link to it.
The web is a web of hyperlinks linking to publically available information.
It may be a common courtesy to ask to link to your content, but if it's on a public network I should not legally have to. Repeat after me, "Hyperlinking is NOT theft"!
Which is not a problem, as one can religiously follow facts the same as objective logic. For example, "I religiously calculate prime numbers" is a purely objective, scientific practice in which you do not care about anything but the True or Correct calculation. Just because you do something religiously doesn't mean that you are doing it in the name of religion. The two applications of the root "religion" can not be accurately compared as they are completely different contexts.
First of all, they do not have a Criminal track record. Although you and other/. posters tend to believe that the antitrust issue is as morally "cut-and-dry" as "murder being wrong", it isn't. Yes, MS was found guilty, but they are guilty of a very complex set of legal regulations. It's simple to say, "dealing crack is criminal". It's NOT simple to say that integrating a browser into the OS is criminal, or even aggressive OEM agreements. Now, you and I may see these things as "wrong" (for me the OEM agreements are horrendous), however, these are our personaly beliefs, and are very complex issues. Give these postmodern capitalistic issues the intellectual investment that they deserve.
This all being said, this whole passport thing is nonsense:-)
This is coming from a person who A) Generally recommends Microsoft solutions (objectively, not religously) and B) believes that Passport.NET will eventually be secure once it matures, I think that this is a Very Bad Thing(tm). I normally debunk MS FUD and Conspiracy Theories, but I just have to ask, "who got what favors for this ludicrous idea?"
Operation Flashpoint... Also uses Ogg Vorbis - except you never saw that as a headline on slashdot.org
Ya, funny how one of the most popular games, based on the most popular FPS game engine, get's mentioned but a far less popular, niche-market targetted game doesn't get mentioned.
I'm leaving aside the claim that MS makes "reliable and scalable" servers.
And it's good that you did. Many hate to admit that Win2K has been proven by some of the top web sites to be both extremely reliable and scalable. What it has not proven to be is secure, but AMD made no such claims.
A) Halcyon's iNET does not (as of yet) run ASP.NET (which is much more important then ASP).
B) They require a seperate runtime that sits ON TOP of your Java Application Server. Double licenses per box (unless you use an Open Source JAS, however, I have yet to find an "enterprise quality" one).
However, it is pretty cool what they've done with the.NET stuff. Talk about a huge undertaking.
Actually, you have to remember that a lot of security issues have to do with ASP. They are _NOT_ rewriting the ASP ISAPI, so any related security issues will not be affected by the rewrite. They have rewritten IIS6 with a focus on bounds checking due to the ludicrous amounts of buffer overflow holes. Companies will also be moveing away from the clumsy ASP to the not-even-in-the-same-league ASP.NET which is, in theory, a lot more secure.
Exactly. AFAIK, Apache has always been faster than IIS for static page loading. What's new? However, for dynamic requests (depending on multiple factors) I've seen benchmarks that show IIS bests Apache. The fact that they didn't give us a whole lot of info leave's the claims holding little ground. Also, Apache 2.0 is very new, and IIS 5.0 is not so new. Let's wait and compare it with IIS 6.0 (XML conf files, more security (we'll see), faster performance, and a stainless steel kitchen sink) when it comes out.
Plus, those of you saying that "Apache can run ASP" are forgetting that A) larger apps generally don't port all that well, and B) ASP is dead (or will die soon - hopefully!), as ASP.NET is where a lot of new development is headed.
However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.
I'm not quite sure what this means, but essentially, if your app uses ASP that does more then the simple "Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it", then ChiliSoft is not a good solution for serious apps.
http://www.antimonopoly.com/
http://www.psmonopoly.com/
http://space.monopoly.iwarp.com/
http://www.monopolyinc.com/
http://www.themonopolystore.com/ (not affiliated with Hasbro)
http://www.newmonopoly.com/
http://www.monopoly-builders.com/ (must be one of MS's consulting firms)
All of that is true, but C# programs written for windows will probably not be portable to other platforms.
True, but this bears no relevance on the fact that C# as a language is a true standard. I'm not trying to say that C# is just as portable as Java - obviously it's not. Whethor or not it _should_ be, well, that's another debate:-).
The Java language does not have a GUI. There are many ways to implement a GUI using the Java language, one of which is Swing. Swing is part of the Java Foundation Classes. The only difference here is that MS has not made a cross-platform set of GUI classes. Someone else could, and you could have a completely Open Source C# compiler with an Open Source GTK. Sun says, "we'll build it, but ultimately we control it". MS says, "We'll build part of it as the standard, the rest on our own proprietary system, and if you want to build it on your system(s) power to you".
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft publicly claims that OSS/FS (in particular its most common license, the GPL) will eliminate innovation
Microsoft has been publically opposing the GPL exclusively (nor particularly), and supporting (through action) Open Source via the BSD and "Shared Source" licenses. This is very similar to Apple's approach as well (although Apple has obviously taken it to a much farther level with Darwin).
Indeed, recent court cases give strong evidence that the only reason the proprietary Internet Explorer was the #1 web browser was due to years of illegal use of monopoly power by Microsoft.
Any objective person will see that IE was the better browser then "Netscape Communicator" and it was gaining incredible popularity well before IE was "integrated" into the OS. If there where better alternatives then maybe everyone wouldn't have flocked to IE. Now that Opera is up to par it's gained incredible marketshare (especially considering the fact that it's a commercial browser). And, the 3MB download is not inconvenient on most any modern connection.
Indeed, when examining the most important software innovations, it's quickly discovered that Microsoft invented no key innovations
I thought this was about the benefits of Open Source software, not some poorly documented anti-MS troll fest. Too bad this article won't be taken to heart by many. The blatent bias in some areas discredit the author.
It's amazing how religious "computer scientists" can be about technology.
The evidence supports my view very well. The only "Anti-OSS-PR" from MS that I've seen are taken out of context (miscommunicated or misread Anti-GPL statements). The proof is in Windows 2000, some of which is based on FreeBSD. The proof is also in their complete opening of the Windows source code to Academia, their non-commercial "Shared Source License" which can be found for products like Windows CE and the .NET Framework, and contributions into open standards like SOAP (arguable due to IBM and MS patenting), XML, and C#.
One of the problems is that there are some people (inside MS as well) who confuse Open Source with the GPL. Recently, however, MS has made it very clear that they are not attacking (or never were attacking) Open Source as a whole, just the GPL licensing model for Business or Government useage.
If you're going to critisize someones math at least get the numbers right. WinXP can be bought for about $88 for consumers building their own machines (or OS-less machines), and the cost to large OEM's like DELL is far less.
Nothing is keeping ANYONE from using GPL software,
I think he ment in the sense of GPL'd code. Sure, MS can use little GPL'd utitlities, but they can't use the code unless it's for a GPL'd project. That's the point I think the poster was trying to make.
How can this speculative statement be modded as Insightful? No insight is given, and there is absolutely no factual basis for the statement. MS has never been against Open Source. They may be a "lesser Open Source" friendly company then say, Apple, but they have a lot of open source involvement (especially with FreeBSD).
Your attempt to gain support for the GPL is weak.
I do believe some amount of maturity has to be displayed,
I am in total agreement. What I'm attempting to do is make a clear distinction between what's LEGAL and what's curtious/mature/etc. It's not illegal to be immature.
Even if there is nothing illegal about linking to images/content, but the owner of the site requests that you at least ask him/her, send them an email asking.
Exactly. Again, this should never be illegal, but some common edicate should be used when linking to someone elses content.
Most of our content is available for syndication. If you like it and want to use it, ASK.
You're posting your content on a free, publically accessable network. Although I may not copy it and claim it as my own, I may make hyperlinks to any and all content that is deemed "public" (this includes your images). If you feel that I should not be able to [img src="YourHighRezImage"], don't make YourHighRezImage publically accessable to all websites. There are a number of ways to make content (images/binary or HTML/text) viewable to people visiting your site while disabling the ability to directly link to it.
The web is a web of hyperlinks linking to publically available information. It may be a common courtesy to ask to link to your content, but if it's on a public network I should not legally have to. Repeat after me, "Hyperlinking is NOT theft"!
Which in itself can be religiously followed...
Which is not a problem, as one can religiously follow facts the same as objective logic. For example, "I religiously calculate prime numbers" is a purely objective, scientific practice in which you do not care about anything but the True or Correct calculation. Just because you do something religiously doesn't mean that you are doing it in the name of religion. The two applications of the root "religion" can not be accurately compared as they are completely different contexts.
My only agenda is logical objectivity over religiosity.
Why not educate consumers so that they can PROTECT THEMSELVES instead of relying on the government every time?
First of all, they do not have a Criminal track record. Although you and other /. posters tend to believe that the antitrust issue is as morally "cut-and-dry" as "murder being wrong", it isn't. Yes, MS was found guilty, but they are guilty of a very complex set of legal regulations. It's simple to say, "dealing crack is criminal". It's NOT simple to say that integrating a browser into the OS is criminal, or even aggressive OEM agreements. Now, you and I may see these things as "wrong" (for me the OEM agreements are horrendous), however, these are our personaly beliefs, and are very complex issues. Give these postmodern capitalistic issues the intellectual investment that they deserve.
:-)
This all being said, this whole passport thing is nonsense
This is coming from a person who A) Generally recommends Microsoft solutions (objectively, not religously) and B) believes that Passport.NET will eventually be secure once it matures, I think that this is a Very Bad Thing(tm). I normally debunk MS FUD and Conspiracy Theories, but I just have to ask, "who got what favors for this ludicrous idea?"
Operation Flashpoint... Also uses Ogg Vorbis - except you never saw that as a headline on slashdot.org
Ya, funny how one of the most popular games, based on the most popular FPS game engine, get's mentioned but a far less popular, niche-market targetted game doesn't get mentioned.
You, Sir, are a narrow minded Troll.
Where did you get the quote about deconstructing the education system? Just curious...
I'm leaving aside the claim that MS makes "reliable and scalable" servers.
And it's good that you did. Many hate to admit that Win2K has been proven by some of the top web sites to be both extremely reliable and scalable. What it has not proven to be is secure, but AMD made no such claims.
A) Halcyon's iNET does not (as of yet) run ASP.NET (which is much more important then ASP).
.NET stuff. Talk about a huge undertaking.
B) They require a seperate runtime that sits ON TOP of your Java Application Server. Double licenses per box (unless you use an Open Source JAS, however, I have yet to find an "enterprise quality" one).
However, it is pretty cool what they've done with the
Actually, you have to remember that a lot of security issues have to do with ASP. They are _NOT_ rewriting the ASP ISAPI, so any related security issues will not be affected by the rewrite. They have rewritten IIS6 with a focus on bounds checking due to the ludicrous amounts of buffer overflow holes. Companies will also be moveing away from the clumsy ASP to the not-even-in-the-same-league ASP.NET which is, in theory, a lot more secure.
What a crappy 'comparison'
Exactly. AFAIK, Apache has always been faster than IIS for static page loading. What's new? However, for dynamic requests (depending on multiple factors) I've seen benchmarks that show IIS bests Apache. The fact that they didn't give us a whole lot of info leave's the claims holding little ground. Also, Apache 2.0 is very new, and IIS 5.0 is not so new. Let's wait and compare it with IIS 6.0 (XML conf files, more security (we'll see), faster performance, and a stainless steel kitchen sink) when it comes out.
Plus, those of you saying that "Apache can run ASP" are forgetting that A) larger apps generally don't port all that well, and B) ASP is dead (or will die soon - hopefully!), as ASP.NET is where a lot of new development is headed.
However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.
I'm not quite sure what this means, but essentially, if your app uses ASP that does more then the simple "Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it", then ChiliSoft is not a good solution for serious apps.
There's a difference between a "hack" and a solid implementation.
http://www.antimonopoly.com/
http://www.psmonopoly.com/
http://space.monopoly.iwarp.com/
http://www.monopolyinc.com/
http://www.themonopolystore.com/ (not affiliated with Hasbro)
http://www.newmonopoly.com/
http://www.monopoly-builders.com/ (must be one of MS's consulting firms)
All of that is true, but C# programs written for windows will probably not be portable to other platforms.
:-).
True, but this bears no relevance on the fact that C# as a language is a true standard. I'm not trying to say that C# is just as portable as Java - obviously it's not. Whethor or not it _should_ be, well, that's another debate
If they come out with a better notepad wouldn't they be using their monopoly power to crush the competition?
VERY insightful... please mod parent up.
The Java language does not have a GUI. There are many ways to implement a GUI using the Java language, one of which is Swing. Swing is part of the Java Foundation Classes. The only difference here is that MS has not made a cross-platform set of GUI classes. Someone else could, and you could have a completely Open Source C# compiler with an Open Source GTK. Sun says, "we'll build it, but ultimately we control it". MS says, "We'll build part of it as the standard, the rest on our own proprietary system, and if you want to build it on your system(s) power to you".