> They did; furthermore, it's quite possible to
> have very-much-higher-than AGP access speeds
> with an on-die solution; this should give you a
> better idea of where the future will be.
>
> At a guess, for example, Hammer or some near-
> future version will have memory controllers on
> die. I expect integration to be a strong trend,
> because we've gotten to the point where the
> current bottlenecks are the communication
> channels between parts.
Obviously if the GPU is directly tied to the motherboard you get a lot of performance wins. However, when I said "focus on improving memory access and AGP speed", I meant that they should keep the expandability option open. Not forgetting that things do break and not work as expected. Maybe something like a GPU socket? where you have a CPU socket and a GPU socket - I think that could satisfy my "expandability" criteria.
From the press release:
PR> Designed to deliver the ultimate multimedia
PR> experience, nForce is the architectural
PR> foundation for Microsoft's highly-anticipated
PR> Xbox game console. In addition, NVIDIA has
PR> secured design wins with the industry's top
PR> PC ODMs, including ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE,
PR> Mitac, and Abit; and expects to announce many
PR> other OEM design wins by the winter of 2001.
The good thing is for integrated hardware developers (things like the X-Box) will be able to bypass the AGP tech and have an onboard video card. Cool. However, the other ODM's mainly push consumer/business end PC mobos and not integrated solutions. Granted there is a place for the "all-in-one" motherboard, my bias is towards the techy end-user (eg. the guy or gal that enjoys building their own systems with bits and pieces).
I hold firm that integrating the video card onto the motherboard is, for the most part, "silly". I feel that, according to the specs, there is more power than the average desktop workstation needs (to justify costs, that is) as opposed to a non-integrated solution. Where I work, most users get an ATI rage IIe. Doesn't hold much for 3D, but it does fine for 2D - which is what most businesses use. Businesses or users that need the 3D power would probably be disappointed by the specs.
My opinion: Too much power for the average worker, too little power for those that need it.
Now, if you can put the CPU, videocard, soundcard, and ethernet adaptor all on the main processor... well.. I hope you see why I think it can get a little "silly."
They're already the Microsoft of the Video card industry, why not take the Microsoft practice of "embrace-and-extend" as well?
Look at history though. I think you'll see that NVIDIA won because it produced better stuff in a tighter development cycle than it's competitors. And it's competitors still exist. I think ATI has a lot of strength in the TV-Video thing and is leverging that strength in the 3D arena. Even though NVIDIA bought up 3DFX, that doesn't leave the entire market to them (although they do have a large chunk).
If I were NVIDIA, I'd be worried about the DOJ and see if they want to attack their monopoly.
My biggest problem with integrating so much into the systemboard is the lack of upgrade options. A standard PC, with seperate sound, video, and other cards allows you to upgrade any component (including the systemboard/processor) without "losing" the others.
eg. if my systemboard blows, I can buy a new one and salvage the video card from the blown system. However, if the component is integrated into the systemboard I loose this feature.
I'd be hardpressed to buy or recommend something like this for personal use. Perhaps computer labs would be interested (where there are 200 identical computers and any problem systems are swapped for new systems). In that respect I do see the advantage (drivers, integration, etc).
It's cool now, but five years from now? I just don't like throwing things away because they are obsolete. Even if the system board is current, the video card may become useless - install a "full" video card into the AGP slot and the onboard chipset becomes a useless waste of space.
Why not focus on improving memory access or AGP speed? Why not further communication between the graphic chipset and the CPU instead of developing these (IMHO) silly integrated solutions?
After reading your question, I went out on the net and found this interesting document. It really runs down on what DSL technology is about (history, terms, and lots of good info)...
For the paranoid, the url is: http://www.telebyteusa.com/dslprimer/dslfull.htm
If I want to support a company I'll buy some of it's shares. Even if it's OTC, it's a better way than simply "giving" the company money. Stock doesn't necessarily gain interest or returns, but in the end you get something for your $ - you own a small part of the company.
I donate to charities because it is a good thing to do - help other people / causes / etc.
I do not "donate" to companies that exist to make profit. The notion is so absurd that I will stop writing this post.
>> Why do they not use project Mayo?
>Are you kidding?
> Maybe cause, um, they don't give a flying crap
> about the geek/linux community and want to use
> a commercially acceptable format that people
> usually have?
Arugh. Please quote people entirely when you respond...
I _actually_ said:
>> You should be asking: why aren't they using
>> Project Mayo (a/k/a/ DivX part Deux)?
>>
>> I dunno.;-)
(trying, of course, to keep my tounge firmly in cheek).
DivX;-) is an illegal hack of one of Microsoft's codecs. I believe that all it does is remove the restrictions on dimention limits and introduces the ability to use MP3 as the audio codec.
You should be asking: why aren't they using Project Mayo (a/k/a/ DivX part Deux)?
I dunno.;-) ---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
It's akin to writing "call 555-1212 for a good time" on a bathroom wall. Lets pretend that YOUR phone number is 555-1212. All of a sudden, you have a bunch of weirdos calling you all the time and your friends can no longer reach you.
DNS pointers do not consume bandwidth in and of themselves, but the traffic they generate can cost money. Why should Ford pay bandwidth fees for a domain it doesn't want or control?
AFAIK, it's not about having a SomethingSucks.com website, it's about (a) damaging the image of a company and (b) unfair use of resources (Ford's bandwidth). 2600 _could_ have pointed the domain at their own servers. Instead they act like children and point it at Ford.
Again, AFAIK General Motors has no relation to Ford. In fact, AFAIK, they compete with each other. If typing in "GeneralMotorsSucks.com" leads you Ford's homepage, what are you going to think about Ford? Oh, instead of competing they resort to slander. Yeah. Okay.
Ford has been wronged here.
2600 has not done ANYTHING in this case that could be "standing up for their freedoms". Grow up.
"Open source" means that anyone can get a copy of the source code. Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
Yeah... ok... everyone who understands how to read/write "open source" computer code is an evil little bastard out to "get" something.
The statement _is_ true, however but the obvious spin is not. Yes, it is easier to find bugs in software where you can see the code - it is also just as easy to fix in a timely manner those same problems. In a beast like Windows, you can very easily find bugs but you can't do anything about it until the vendor decides to release a patch - and they only do that when the problem is serious enough for them to care - which is only when their big industry clients have problems (so much for your "small business" retail thing...).
To Slashdot editors: please help stop Microsoft by ignoring them. If everyone just ignores Microsoft and gets on with the things we need to do, the beast will surely die.
Most @home AUPs read in something about users not allowed to run servers. This would include your Quake 3 server, 5GB pr0n ftp, and gnutella servers. I _think_ things like PCAnywhere could qualify as *personal* use, but most other servers would not qualify.
But most gnutella clients are also servers. The client is fine - a legitmate network client tool, much like lynx, telnet, or ssh - but the server part is not permitted - much like apache, telnetd, or sshd would be frowned upon.
Most people seem to forget that these lines are intended for *personal* use only. More bandwidth comes at a cheaper price because some company will pay more for the right to run services - a premium.
In the end, make sure you read your ISP's AUP to understand where you stand. If they do not allow server software, chances are the MPAA will only need to mention "server" to get you in trouble.
The basic point is that AOL doesn't want unauthorized clients on it's network. Circumventaion is STILL circumvention, no matter HOW you do it. There are SEVERAL alternative routes to breaking into the AOL network:
1) talk to some FCC rep and complain that AOL/TW are abusing their monopoly power by restricting access to their communication network - one that is very popular and should be open to encourage competition. eg. compete on client features on an open network.
2) create an independant network and demand interoperability between the networks via sanctioned gateways. As I recall, the FCC wanted AOL/TW to allow other networks (such as Microsoft's MSN Messanger network and ICQ...) to communicate with AOL's network users. I don't know what kind of progress has been done, but it could work like so: an icq user would look like 1234567.icq to IM users and IM users would be visible by their nicks to ICQ users - or whatever. The point is, gateways between the networks would route the required messages. You could even look at extending Gnutella to be a messanger type network (although the file search bandwidth is not scaleable, a distributed messanging network may work fine). Also, if enough users support an open network (and drop IM), AOL may decide to open their service to attract these users back.
3) Piss off. If you don't like their policies, don't use their service.
Honestly... don't make me use caps here: If AOL doesn't want your client accessing its network, then there is ABSOLUTLY no "legitamite" way for your client to access the network - even by the "proxying" method as described in the article.
I think business consumers should be mindful of alternatives as a preventative measure. Like making sure if one supplier disappears, you can always find another. This is one good thing about the OSF/FSF/BLAH/BLAH/BLAH initatives - if one supplier disappears (say, RedHat falters), you can always go eleswhere (SuSE, Slack, etc) and get a similar product. In the event that something happens to the developer of a product, someone else can pick up where they left off - without the red-tape of business to hamper their work.
I think what I said in the end is true, however. There will be higer costs up-front for traditional boxed software, but lower overall cost - since you only buy it once. There will be a lower initial cost and lower recurring costs with "on-tap" software because you pay-as-you-go and can stop at any time.
When you compare the two, there are some advantages for consumers. But these advantages (stoping at any time, for example) are only worth anything if there is competition. Something that Microsoft simply doesn't understand - their idea is to buy out competing products and integrate them. When the competition goes, so do the advantages of "on-tap" software.
Lets say you rent a car from some car rental place for 4 weeks. Sometime on week 2, the company is liquidated and they pull out of the car rental business. Now... do you really think that car belongs to you? Even though the people who loaned you the car don't exist? Nope. It belongs to the people with invested interest in the company - creditors. The assets (cars) will be sold off to pay the creditors as much as possible. It is possible that you could *buy* the car for an additional fee, but you may decide to go to another car loan company for your needs.
Unlike the above example, software isn't a tangable thing. You have a right to use the software for as long as your licence term is valid, but once it is no longer valid you are required to stop using it - it no longer belongs to you - even if the company goes under. However, the creditors of the company may choose to do one of two things: (1) sell unlimited licences to recoup any losses, (2) sell the software rights to another company. In case 1, you may be given the chance to get an unlimited version that will never expire. Cool. However, if the company takes route 2 - which is likely if they can get a larger amount of $$$ up front - you'll have to deal with the new company for your needs OR go somewhere else.
The good thing for consumers (on the software loan thing) is that we get to choose month-by-month what software we use. If we get tired of Word, for example, we stop using it and find another product - without wasting the whole cost up front. Say $10 per month for three months until you realize you don't like the software instead of $2000 up front with (as Microsoft seems to want it) no right to sell it to recoup your losses.
Good: Choice, lower costs (short term), keeps software up-to-date.
Bad: Instability of companies, higher cost (long term), someone else controls your software, lack of privacy (?).
You decide. ---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I wonder if anyone has given any thought to the entre economy - not just saving the enviroment. Lots of people are shouting that the oil industry is too big and powerful - and will prevent any "eco-vehicle" from entering the market, but there are more insidious things going on here:
- Design and Mfg'ing: Someone has to design and manufacture these vehicles in a large enough quantity that they are affordable enough. Perhaps no one is willing to risk enough cash to get someone started. Could you design something to retro-fit existing assembly lines (= cheaper production / design).
- Consumer acceptance: not all consumers care about the environment. Will they accept a vehicle that costs more to own (assuming the next step)?
- Gas costs alot, but it's out there in brute force. Most cities have dozens of gas-stations already there. How would you get the fuel to the end user? Will they compete with the gas bars or will they work in their own market (eg. a gas/econ-fuel hybrid station, or something).
- How are you going to sell it. AFAIK, it's taken 10 years to market the electric cars and they still have a very low acceptance level.
Anyhow, I think it goes back to that old addage: you can have any two of: cost, quality, and time. I doubt it will be affordabe (at first), the quality will be questionable if it remains untested, and it certainly won't be out today or tomorrow. Perhaps in a year or two when people are tired of breathing in toxic fumes they'll quit smoking and think about this kind of car;-).
I'm all for companies protecting their *products* (ie: Microsoft is free to protect Windows), but strong against companies blocking others simply because they were there first. Okay... give 'em some monopoly time to enjoy (as a reward for innovating) but I think that, in the software economy, you need to let others in sooner.
Take a website like/.. When it first started,/. was unique and original. Now go out and look at all the clones. But wait... they all do the same thing, but they each do it in slightly different ways. These 'differences' allow end-users to find the one program that suits their entire needs. Imagine if/. were a company that had patented its' software. Then, as a prudent company would, defended against all the clones (assuming they were awarded the patent). Suddenly any site that wants to do a forum has to license from/. and they all end up looking the same.
By removing software patents (or expiring them faster) the market-place opens and allows more choice and better products for consumers. Competition creates this because companies try to one-up each other with different features. Each serves its' own unique consumer base and each has its' niche. Without this open market, software becomes stale, bland, and digs itself into obsolecance.
The biggest problem with Windows is not that it's a crappy program - far from it. Windows 95, for instance, was a good thing when early 586's dominated the consumer scene. Now with faster and more powerful computers, Windows 95 is not optimized for this power - and does not exploit newer features. Microsoft tries to keep pace with the industry by patching it and pushing it into new areas, but the old Windows becomes stale. Oh shit.. I was supposed to make a point.. umm.. err... ok... here goes...
Microsoft not too long ago said something like "Linux is bad for competition" (or something like that). Actually, I think the growth of "other os's" comes from people wanting choice. What if Microsoft had obtained a patent on "computer operating systems" (not too far off if yout think about it... 1988ish... get a patent for DOS... although there WOULD be a lot of prior art). Could you imagine if your only choice was Windows? Ugh. Oh well.
(* break out the Metallica good/bad voice *)
Choice = GOOD.
Patents = BAD.
Patents are like unions... they used to be good... but we need to think if we *really* need them anymore - or can the market handle itself.
Microsoft should be against patents or they are hipocrits (sp?). I'd like to know their stance on s/w patents - given their "freedom to innovate" propaganda.
Sigh... Life sucks... ---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
(1) Free software developer believes that s/w patents are silly and companies should relinquish them. Pulling a Microsoft-ish move, the community leaders pressure companies by asking for compensation for their work.
(2) Companies that have built business models on open-source / free (pick one) software should be able to conduct their business so long as they don't violate the software licences (GPL et. al.) they have agreed to.
Of course s/w patents are silly, but attacking the companies is (IMHO) the wrong way to go. You need to lobby the government and show them how silly they are. Or even suggest a reasonable alternative - such as shortening the period of patents to meet the increasing momentum of the industry. Tell them WHY 8 years (or whatever) is too long.
Things like the.GIF compression patent and the Amazon 1-click patnet really hurt the end-user in that they restrict otehr sites from implementing useful features. Yes, in a perfect world companies would not take software patents.
We need a perminant solution - not a temporary hack. The patent office needs to catch up to modern methods - and that 'aint gonna happen if you do an end-run around them.
Links to anyone actually doing this? Lobbying the government? I know of the searches for prior-art, but I'm looking for stuff that tries to nail the gov't to the wall.;-)
I'll be honest: I never saw that post;). You are right, however, that is the "proof" that I used as a basis. I learned of it four years ago in a high-school class. Best teacher I ever had;).
You're right. I never said I was perfect and I know I make a lot of mistakes. I'll quote some of their work for your amusement.
"There is a risk that people will choose other companies over our company that's why it is important to advertise our corporation the best way we can to attract businessees or individual to us."
"If we want to hire a person for programmer position then minimum qualification would be Diploma or Degree and minimum of 6 months experience in the relative field."
"The key people within our business are basically the four co-owners of the business."
"Our products will primarily be produced within Software Solutions building. Packaging is as simple as placing the CD in a box with the appropriate documentation contained." [note: this one REALLY gets me because they NEVER explain who creates the documentation or the software. Our fictional company would develop software and documentation internally and sell that to clients.]
I had to re-write a 40 page report in less than a day - including researching potential competition, market trends, costs, etc. Even worse, it took them 4 weeks to write that bullshit (and there is A LOT more where that comes from).
Ni. ---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
>
> I can't wait until colleges begin offering
> AOLSpeak 101.
>
Yay! Time for a rant. Divert your eyes if you are sensetive to ranting and raving.
I am in a third year systems analyst course at an unnamed (*coughSheridancoughCollegecough*) Canadian College. I don't expect my classmates to be brilliant computer wonders who eat design and shit code. However, I am at a loss to describe the level of illeteracy in our entire group. With a few exceptions, the average person in our class has a literacy level of about grade 9. It's disgusting to think that we will graduate in December and these people can barely read and write english (let alone program, document, or design solutions). The college is very well respected for it's animation and illustration departments (Disney and ILM take most of our anim/illus grads) and has a decent reputation for it's computer schools. What I fear is that my class will get out into the workforce and, for all intensive purposes, smear the name of the College and destroy anything my diploma will stand for.
The Slashdot crowd would enjoy some of the phrases these people have come up with in a recent report. It makes the "all your base are belong to us" look like Shakespiere in comparison. I'm not great at english (lord knows I can barely spell at times) and I don't really expect that. But they have no ideas, no opinions, no ambition, no goals, no desire, and possess nothing to offer the IT industry.
Worse yet, I see and hear everyday that I am not alone - schools across the country are experiencing the exact same thing. People are coming into "computer techology / IT" courses simply because they are told they will be successful. We now have the illeterate drop-out Bill Gates wannabe's - minus the business savvy and intelligence.
Being a systems analyst is all about communication - the ability to design and document new systems. I fear that the majority of people in my course do not possess anything close to this and should have left a long time ago.
I've tried working with them. I've tried helping them. I've tried pushing them. I've tried encouraging them. Nothing works.
Worse yet is that I am forced to do projects with them. I want to be proud of my submissions and I end up doing all of the work - including their work would be equivlant to smearing fecal matter over my work. I'm not perfect - I am trying to learn. These people, however, are only here for the money and it's pissing me off.
But... but... the bridge didn't collapse in the simulation! How would I know that people would put vehicles on top of it. Sheesh. Besides... it wasn't my fault... it was a software glitch. Blame the app-vendor.
;)
---
I came here for a good argument!
No you didn't! No, you came here for an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
> They did; furthermore, it's quite possible to
> have very-much-higher-than AGP access speeds
> with an on-die solution; this should give you a
> better idea of where the future will be.
>
> At a guess, for example, Hammer or some near-
> future version will have memory controllers on
> die. I expect integration to be a strong trend,
> because we've gotten to the point where the
> current bottlenecks are the communication
> channels between parts.
Obviously if the GPU is directly tied to the motherboard you get a lot of performance wins. However, when I said "focus on improving memory access and AGP speed", I meant that they should keep the expandability option open. Not forgetting that things do break and not work as expected. Maybe something like a GPU socket? where you have a CPU socket and a GPU socket - I think that could satisfy my "expandability" criteria.
From the press release:
PR> Designed to deliver the ultimate multimedia
PR> experience, nForce is the architectural
PR> foundation for Microsoft's highly-anticipated
PR> Xbox game console. In addition, NVIDIA has
PR> secured design wins with the industry's top
PR> PC ODMs, including ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE,
PR> Mitac, and Abit; and expects to announce many
PR> other OEM design wins by the winter of 2001.
The good thing is for integrated hardware developers (things like the X-Box) will be able to bypass the AGP tech and have an onboard video card. Cool. However, the other ODM's mainly push consumer/business end PC mobos and not integrated solutions. Granted there is a place for the "all-in-one" motherboard, my bias is towards the techy end-user (eg. the guy or gal that enjoys building their own systems with bits and pieces).
I hold firm that integrating the video card onto the motherboard is, for the most part, "silly". I feel that, according to the specs, there is more power than the average desktop workstation needs (to justify costs, that is) as opposed to a non-integrated solution. Where I work, most users get an ATI rage IIe. Doesn't hold much for 3D, but it does fine for 2D - which is what most businesses use. Businesses or users that need the 3D power would probably be disappointed by the specs.
My opinion: Too much power for the average worker, too little power for those that need it.
Now, if you can put the CPU, videocard, soundcard, and ethernet adaptor all on the main processor... well.. I hope you see why I think it can get a little "silly."
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
They're already the Microsoft of the Video card industry, why not take the Microsoft practice of "embrace-and-extend" as well?
Look at history though. I think you'll see that NVIDIA won because it produced better stuff in a tighter development cycle than it's competitors. And it's competitors still exist. I think ATI has a lot of strength in the TV-Video thing and is leverging that strength in the 3D arena. Even though NVIDIA bought up 3DFX, that doesn't leave the entire market to them (although they do have a large chunk).
If I were NVIDIA, I'd be worried about the DOJ and see if they want to attack their monopoly.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
My biggest problem with integrating so much into the systemboard is the lack of upgrade options. A standard PC, with seperate sound, video, and other cards allows you to upgrade any component (including the systemboard/processor) without "losing" the others.
eg. if my systemboard blows, I can buy a new one and salvage the video card from the blown system. However, if the component is integrated into the systemboard I loose this feature.
I'd be hardpressed to buy or recommend something like this for personal use. Perhaps computer labs would be interested (where there are 200 identical computers and any problem systems are swapped for new systems). In that respect I do see the advantage (drivers, integration, etc).
It's cool now, but five years from now? I just don't like throwing things away because they are obsolete. Even if the system board is current, the video card may become useless - install a "full" video card into the AGP slot and the onboard chipset becomes a useless waste of space.
Why not focus on improving memory access or AGP speed? Why not further communication between the graphic chipset and the CPU instead of developing these (IMHO) silly integrated solutions?
Bah.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I plan to live forever... so far, so good. ;)
If I should die, it would only be because I got bored with living and decided not to live forever.
There. I now have immortality (for as long as I want it).
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Everyone pitch in and give Bill the finger...
;)
#1) Install / login to your favourite *nix OS.
#2) type: finger billg@microsoft.com
and give him the finger!
or just ping -f microsoft.com... whatever.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
After reading your question, I went out on the net and found this interesting document. It really runs down on what DSL technology is about (history, terms, and lots of good info)...
For the paranoid, the url is: http://www.telebyteusa.com/dslprimer/dslfull.htm
:)
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
If I want to support a company I'll buy some of it's shares. Even if it's OTC, it's a better way than simply "giving" the company money. Stock doesn't necessarily gain interest or returns, but in the end you get something for your $ - you own a small part of the company.
I donate to charities because it is a good thing to do - help other people / causes / etc.
I do not "donate" to companies that exist to make profit. The notion is so absurd that I will stop writing this post.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
>> Why do they not use project Mayo?
;-)
>Are you kidding?
> Maybe cause, um, they don't give a flying crap
> about the geek/linux community and want to use
> a commercially acceptable format that people
> usually have?
Arugh. Please quote people entirely when you respond...
I _actually_ said:
>> You should be asking: why aren't they using
>> Project Mayo (a/k/a/ DivX part Deux)?
>>
>> I dunno.
(trying, of course, to keep my tounge firmly in cheek).
Now.. what were we talking about?
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
DivX ;-) is an illegal hack of one of Microsoft's codecs. I believe that all it does is remove the restrictions on dimention limits and introduces the ability to use MP3 as the audio codec.
;-)
You should be asking: why aren't they using Project Mayo (a/k/a/ DivX part Deux)?
I dunno.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
It's akin to writing "call 555-1212 for a good time" on a bathroom wall. Lets pretend that YOUR phone number is 555-1212. All of a sudden, you have a bunch of weirdos calling you all the time and your friends can no longer reach you.
DNS pointers do not consume bandwidth in and of themselves, but the traffic they generate can cost money. Why should Ford pay bandwidth fees for a domain it doesn't want or control?
AFAIK, it's not about having a SomethingSucks.com website, it's about (a) damaging the image of a company and (b) unfair use of resources (Ford's bandwidth). 2600 _could_ have pointed the domain at their own servers. Instead they act like children and point it at Ford.
Again, AFAIK General Motors has no relation to Ford. In fact, AFAIK, they compete with each other. If typing in "GeneralMotorsSucks.com" leads you Ford's homepage, what are you going to think about Ford? Oh, instead of competing they resort to slander. Yeah. Okay.
Ford has been wronged here.
2600 has not done ANYTHING in this case that could be "standing up for their freedoms". Grow up.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Yeah... ok... everyone who understands how to read/write "open source" computer code is an evil little bastard out to "get" something.
The statement _is_ true, however but the obvious spin is not. Yes, it is easier to find bugs in software where you can see the code - it is also just as easy to fix in a timely manner those same problems. In a beast like Windows, you can very easily find bugs but you can't do anything about it until the vendor decides to release a patch - and they only do that when the problem is serious enough for them to care - which is only when their big industry clients have problems (so much for your "small business" retail thing...).
To Slashdot editors: please help stop Microsoft by ignoring them. If everyone just ignores Microsoft and gets on with the things we need to do, the beast will surely die.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Most @home AUPs read in something about users not allowed to run servers. This would include your Quake 3 server, 5GB pr0n ftp, and gnutella servers. I _think_ things like PCAnywhere could qualify as *personal* use, but most other servers would not qualify.
But most gnutella clients are also servers. The client is fine - a legitmate network client tool, much like lynx, telnet, or ssh - but the server part is not permitted - much like apache, telnetd, or sshd would be frowned upon.
Most people seem to forget that these lines are intended for *personal* use only. More bandwidth comes at a cheaper price because some company will pay more for the right to run services - a premium.
In the end, make sure you read your ISP's AUP to understand where you stand. If they do not allow server software, chances are the MPAA will only need to mention "server" to get you in trouble.
Sorry, but that's the way it is - as I see it.
;P
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
The basic point is that AOL doesn't want unauthorized clients on it's network. Circumventaion is STILL circumvention, no matter HOW you do it. There are SEVERAL alternative routes to breaking into the AOL network:
1) talk to some FCC rep and complain that AOL/TW are abusing their monopoly power by restricting access to their communication network - one that is very popular and should be open to encourage competition. eg. compete on client features on an open network.
2) create an independant network and demand interoperability between the networks via sanctioned gateways. As I recall, the FCC wanted AOL/TW to allow other networks (such as Microsoft's MSN Messanger network and ICQ...) to communicate with AOL's network users. I don't know what kind of progress has been done, but it could work like so: an icq user would look like 1234567.icq to IM users and IM users would be visible by their nicks to ICQ users - or whatever. The point is, gateways between the networks would route the required messages. You could even look at extending Gnutella to be a messanger type network (although the file search bandwidth is not scaleable, a distributed messanging network may work fine). Also, if enough users support an open network (and drop IM), AOL may decide to open their service to attract these users back.
3) Piss off. If you don't like their policies, don't use their service.
Honestly... don't make me use caps here: If AOL doesn't want your client accessing its network, then there is ABSOLUTLY no "legitamite" way for your client to access the network - even by the "proxying" method as described in the article.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I think business consumers should be mindful of alternatives as a preventative measure. Like making sure if one supplier disappears, you can always find another. This is one good thing about the OSF/FSF/BLAH/BLAH/BLAH initatives - if one supplier disappears (say, RedHat falters), you can always go eleswhere (SuSE, Slack, etc) and get a similar product. In the event that something happens to the developer of a product, someone else can pick up where they left off - without the red-tape of business to hamper their work.
;).
I think what I said in the end is true, however. There will be higer costs up-front for traditional boxed software, but lower overall cost - since you only buy it once. There will be a lower initial cost and lower recurring costs with "on-tap" software because you pay-as-you-go and can stop at any time.
When you compare the two, there are some advantages for consumers. But these advantages (stoping at any time, for example) are only worth anything if there is competition. Something that Microsoft simply doesn't understand - their idea is to buy out competing products and integrate them. When the competition goes, so do the advantages of "on-tap" software.
Blah... remember, my opinions only
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
Lets say you rent a car from some car rental place for 4 weeks. Sometime on week 2, the company is liquidated and they pull out of the car rental business. Now... do you really think that car belongs to you? Even though the people who loaned you the car don't exist? Nope. It belongs to the people with invested interest in the company - creditors. The assets (cars) will be sold off to pay the creditors as much as possible. It is possible that you could *buy* the car for an additional fee, but you may decide to go to another car loan company for your needs.
Unlike the above example, software isn't a tangable thing. You have a right to use the software for as long as your licence term is valid, but once it is no longer valid you are required to stop using it - it no longer belongs to you - even if the company goes under. However, the creditors of the company may choose to do one of two things: (1) sell unlimited licences to recoup any losses, (2) sell the software rights to another company. In case 1, you may be given the chance to get an unlimited version that will never expire. Cool. However, if the company takes route 2 - which is likely if they can get a larger amount of $$$ up front - you'll have to deal with the new company for your needs OR go somewhere else.
The good thing for consumers (on the software loan thing) is that we get to choose month-by-month what software we use. If we get tired of Word, for example, we stop using it and find another product - without wasting the whole cost up front. Say $10 per month for three months until you realize you don't like the software instead of $2000 up front with (as Microsoft seems to want it) no right to sell it to recoup your losses.
Good: Choice, lower costs (short term), keeps software up-to-date.
Bad: Instability of companies, higher cost (long term), someone else controls your software, lack of privacy (?).
You decide.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I always knew the economy would be the death of us all..
dammit Jim... I'm a doctor, not an auto mechanic.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I wonder if anyone has given any thought to the entre economy - not just saving the enviroment. Lots of people are shouting that the oil industry is too big and powerful - and will prevent any "eco-vehicle" from entering the market, but there are more insidious things going on here:
;-).
- Design and Mfg'ing: Someone has to design and manufacture these vehicles in a large enough quantity that they are affordable enough. Perhaps no one is willing to risk enough cash to get someone started. Could you design something to retro-fit existing assembly lines (= cheaper production / design).
- Consumer acceptance: not all consumers care about the environment. Will they accept a vehicle that costs more to own (assuming the next step)?
- Gas costs alot, but it's out there in brute force. Most cities have dozens of gas-stations already there. How would you get the fuel to the end user? Will they compete with the gas bars or will they work in their own market (eg. a gas/econ-fuel hybrid station, or something).
- How are you going to sell it. AFAIK, it's taken 10 years to market the electric cars and they still have a very low acceptance level.
Anyhow, I think it goes back to that old addage: you can have any two of: cost, quality, and time. I doubt it will be affordabe (at first), the quality will be questionable if it remains untested, and it certainly won't be out today or tomorrow. Perhaps in a year or two when people are tired of breathing in toxic fumes they'll quit smoking and think about this kind of car
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I'm all for companies protecting their *products* (ie: Microsoft is free to protect Windows), but strong against companies blocking others simply because they were there first. Okay... give 'em some monopoly time to enjoy (as a reward for innovating) but I think that, in the software economy, you need to let others in sooner.
/.. When it first started, /. was unique and original. Now go out and look at all the clones. But wait... they all do the same thing, but they each do it in slightly different ways. These 'differences' allow end-users to find the one program that suits their entire needs. Imagine if /. were a company that had patented its' software. Then, as a prudent company would, defended against all the clones (assuming they were awarded the patent). Suddenly any site that wants to do a forum has to license from /. and they all end up looking the same.
Take a website like
By removing software patents (or expiring them faster) the market-place opens and allows more choice and better products for consumers. Competition creates this because companies try to one-up each other with different features. Each serves its' own unique consumer base and each has its' niche. Without this open market, software becomes stale, bland, and digs itself into obsolecance.
The biggest problem with Windows is not that it's a crappy program - far from it. Windows 95, for instance, was a good thing when early 586's dominated the consumer scene. Now with faster and more powerful computers, Windows 95 is not optimized for this power - and does not exploit newer features. Microsoft tries to keep pace with the industry by patching it and pushing it into new areas, but the old Windows becomes stale. Oh shit.. I was supposed to make a point.. umm.. err... ok... here goes...
Microsoft not too long ago said something like "Linux is bad for competition" (or something like that). Actually, I think the growth of "other os's" comes from people wanting choice. What if Microsoft had obtained a patent on "computer operating systems" (not too far off if yout think about it... 1988ish... get a patent for DOS... although there WOULD be a lot of prior art). Could you imagine if your only choice was Windows? Ugh. Oh well.
(* break out the Metallica good/bad voice *)
Choice = GOOD.
Patents = BAD.
Patents are like unions... they used to be good... but we need to think if we *really* need them anymore - or can the market handle itself.
Microsoft should be against patents or they are hipocrits (sp?). I'd like to know their stance on s/w patents - given their "freedom to innovate" propaganda.
Sigh... Life sucks...
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
There are two sides to this story:
.GIF compression patent and the Amazon 1-click patnet really hurt the end-user in that they restrict otehr sites from implementing useful features. Yes, in a perfect world companies would not take software patents.
;-)
(1) Free software developer believes that s/w patents are silly and companies should relinquish them. Pulling a Microsoft-ish move, the community leaders pressure companies by asking for compensation for their work.
(2) Companies that have built business models on open-source / free (pick one) software should be able to conduct their business so long as they don't violate the software licences (GPL et. al.) they have agreed to.
Of course s/w patents are silly, but attacking the companies is (IMHO) the wrong way to go. You need to lobby the government and show them how silly they are. Or even suggest a reasonable alternative - such as shortening the period of patents to meet the increasing momentum of the industry. Tell them WHY 8 years (or whatever) is too long.
Things like the
We need a perminant solution - not a temporary hack. The patent office needs to catch up to modern methods - and that 'aint gonna happen if you do an end-run around them.
Links to anyone actually doing this? Lobbying the government? I know of the searches for prior-art, but I'm looking for stuff that tries to nail the gov't to the wall.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
I'll be honest: I never saw that post ;). You are right, however, that is the "proof" that I used as a basis. I learned of it four years ago in a high-school class. Best teacher I ever had ;).
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
/me breaks down on his knees and begins to cry.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
note: Three third year college students wrote almost 10 pages of that crap. The worst thing about it is there is no substance to their work.
It's fustrating to do the work of four people.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
You're right. I never said I was perfect and I know I make a lot of mistakes. I'll quote some of their work for your amusement.
"There is a risk that people will choose other companies over our company that's why it is important to advertise our corporation the best way we can to attract businessees or individual to us."
"If we want to hire a person for programmer position then minimum qualification would be Diploma or Degree and minimum of 6 months experience in the relative field."
"The key people within our business are basically the four co-owners of the business."
"Our products will primarily be produced within Software Solutions building. Packaging is as simple as placing the CD in a box with the appropriate documentation contained." [note: this one REALLY gets me because they NEVER explain who creates the documentation or the software. Our fictional company would develop software and documentation internally and sell that to clients.]
I had to re-write a 40 page report in less than a day - including researching potential competition, market trends, costs, etc. Even worse, it took them 4 weeks to write that bullshit (and there is A LOT more where that comes from).
Ni.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
>
;-)
> I can't wait until colleges begin offering
> AOLSpeak 101.
>
Yay! Time for a rant. Divert your eyes if you are sensetive to ranting and raving.
I am in a third year systems analyst course at an unnamed (*coughSheridancoughCollegecough*) Canadian College. I don't expect my classmates to be brilliant computer wonders who eat design and shit code. However, I am at a loss to describe the level of illeteracy in our entire group. With a few exceptions, the average person in our class has a literacy level of about grade 9. It's disgusting to think that we will graduate in December and these people can barely read and write english (let alone program, document, or design solutions). The college is very well respected for it's animation and illustration departments (Disney and ILM take most of our anim/illus grads) and has a decent reputation for it's computer schools. What I fear is that my class will get out into the workforce and, for all intensive purposes, smear the name of the College and destroy anything my diploma will stand for.
The Slashdot crowd would enjoy some of the phrases these people have come up with in a recent report. It makes the "all your base are belong to us" look like Shakespiere in comparison. I'm not great at english (lord knows I can barely spell at times) and I don't really expect that. But they have no ideas, no opinions, no ambition, no goals, no desire, and possess nothing to offer the IT industry.
Worse yet, I see and hear everyday that I am not alone - schools across the country are experiencing the exact same thing. People are coming into "computer techology / IT" courses simply because they are told they will be successful. We now have the illeterate drop-out Bill Gates wannabe's - minus the business savvy and intelligence.
Being a systems analyst is all about communication - the ability to design and document new systems. I fear that the majority of people in my course do not possess anything close to this and should have left a long time ago.
I've tried working with them. I've tried helping them. I've tried pushing them. I've tried encouraging them. Nothing works.
Worse yet is that I am forced to do projects with them. I want to be proud of my submissions and I end up doing all of the work - including their work would be equivlant to smearing fecal matter over my work. I'm not perfect - I am trying to learn. These people, however, are only here for the money and it's pissing me off.
See? I warned you.
---
Computer Science: solving today's problems tomorrow.
But... but... the bridge didn't collapse in the simulation! How would I know that people would put vehicles on top of it. Sheesh. Besides... it wasn't my fault... it was a software glitch. Blame the app-vendor.
;)
---
I came here for a good argument!
No you didn't! No, you came here for an argument.