This MSFT/YHOO nonsense is a testament to how unownable both stocks are. If MSFT thinks they need YHOO to survive, they are so misguided that they need to overhaul their decision calculus methods. YHOO not taking that deal to begin with was a joke. Their turnaround plan is basically vaporware! They should change their symbol to DNF already!
Go RTFA. The media has reported this, including The Economist.
I'm just amazed that the media wouldn't be more onto this story because it
would indeed be the story of the decade or century. People also stand to profit
from something like this and if it was a serious problem, MSFT would be paying
the price. It's been 8.5 years since this article was published and, despite
how urgent it is, the dotcom bust, and now the new credit bust, nothing has
come of it. I'll stand corrected if this is actually valid, but there seems
to be nothing right now to indicate that Microsoft is taking down huge losses.
Why? I didn't claim they did anything illegal. I merely said that you are
wrong to conclude that Microsoft is doing well because they report great results.
Companies can, and do, paper over bad results for a while. Microsoft has enough
cash that they can probably look pretty good for the next decade no matter what.
Apparently this Parish told the SEC back in 1999 and they did nothing about
it. This would indeed cause so many people to lose faith in the financial system
that it would have to be stopped, yet they aren't. Short sellers would take
this stock down, but they haven't. Maybe this just isn't as credible as you
have thought.
Well, that's all you ever seem to do: look on the surface.
No, that's wrong. I took the time to use FOSS software, evaluate it, and the
based upon my decision calculus I made the switch to as much FOSS software as
I could. What I am arguing here is that RMS and you are wasting your time by
taking shots at Gates and his charity. There are better uses of public time
in order to advocate the adoption of FOSS.
Whose "truth" is this? Yours? My mother couldn't even tell Bill Gates from
Richard Stallman.
Is the purpose of free software to not achieve widespread adoption and near
universal acceptance? RMS making statements that caricaturize and hurt the community
are simply not positive. This article was published on the BBC. Many people
are going to read it. RMS is just going to look like an angry hippie to so many
of them. This is not a way to positively advance the community.
Says who? Are you a PR expert? No? Then stop giving unsolicited advice.
Besides, even if your strategy were right, you are essentially suggestion
that Stallman should keep quiet about the Gates Foundation's sleazy policies
in order to help free software adoption. He's not going to do that, and he shouldn't.
The fact that you suggest it says something about your lack of ethics.
It doesn't take an expert to realize that these are not the strategies that
need to be taken now. To me, Linux has hit a wall. It really doesn't seem to
be growing where it needs to be growing. Complaining about Microsoft, Gates,
and his charity really are not the steps that need to be taken to increase FOSS
adoption. People have already heard the types of arguments that RMS has been
making for many years now. Maybe it's time to change how things work in order
to take FOSS to the next level.
Is RMS' inclusion of shots at Gates' net beneficial? Maybe to an idealist that sort of question would lack ethics, but to a realist,
one would realize that one must pick and choose their fights. Throwing in pot
shots at Gates' charity in an article about free software is simply not one
of them.
Then you should check again. It actually stands for "free AND open source
software". The acronym was created exactly because "free software" and "open
source software" are different things. For that reason, it's often written as
"F/OSS".
Congratulations, you got me there. I just wish that the sort of effort that
goes into these debates over language would go into efforts to actually achieve
more widespread adoption. In other words, the point behind FOSS. If you want
to keep FOSS a totally academic idea with no real impact on the world, be my
gues
Apparently I am. Apparently so are all of the short sellers out their that would make tons of money by shorting the stock. Apparently the media is under a rock. That's the same media that could be breaking the story of the decade, if not century if these accusations were even close to being true. Apparently the SEC is under a rock. The DOJ is too.
Your evidence is just fantastic. It is also dated from 1999. I don't think there is too much more to say about this other than the fact that it is conjecture that never played out.
What's wrong with "protesting a charity"? The Gates Foundation has been criticized by many people, not just Stallman. And the fact that the Gates Foundation is a vehicle for promoting Windows means that it is highly relevant to FOSS users.
Probably because it just looks very wrong on the surface. You can be as idealistic as you want, but the truth is that it's the laypeople that need to be switched to Linux, not the technical people. To your average retail customer or the manager that chooses which system to go with, RMS is totally self-destructing to the FOSS community when he does things like this. It just doesn't look professional and doesn't gain the trust that is necessary switch people.
Really? You're really going to split hairs over "FOSS" and "free software"? Last I checked, "FOSS" stood for "FREE open source software". Arguing between the two is just a pedantic argument over language. Well, perhaps you and RMS should think about this. When a person hears "free" they tend to only think "free as in beer". When you include the "open source" component, it's easier for the layperson to understand the difference and arrive at the "free as in speech" meaning. Either way though, it really doesn't matter. People just want a system that they can use. Arguing about this point is counterproductive to FOSS in general as it is almost entirely academic.
No, you don't. It seems "extremely literal" to you because you simply know next to nothing.
You don't take the time to thoughtfully deconstruct my statements and arguments to show why you think they are wrong. You just wave your hand and tell me that I'm wrong. That is not an effective means of persuasion.
And, for the record, I never said "open source" by itself.
If free software had been pussy-footing around for the last 20 years, it would be dead and Microsoft would own the entire industry. People need to speak up about how evil Microsoft actually has been and what kind of self-serving organization the Gates Foundation is. Maybe sooner or later, even you will get the message.
Even if I grant your position, you make the assumption that the FOSS community needs to continue to use the tactics of the past 20 years to continue to fight the non-FOSS community. This is just wrong. RMS' behavior turns away those that matter: the people who aren't using FOSS. If you think they won't care, just check out the response to RMS on Slashdot alone. Words and phrases like "shameful", "embarrassment", and "harmful" are being used to describe him. Consider too that Slashdot would have a greater propensity to side with RMS. If you want to have greater adoption of FOSS, the community simply needs better representation. Having someone up there that looks like a ranting lunatic is not going to be the best way to proceed going forward. FOSS needs a change of imagine so that it can be more widely adopted. That change needs to happen soon so that it can progress faster than it is now.
Microsoft beats earning expectations because they manipulate those expectations.
Do you have any evidence for this statement? If you don't, please put your tinfoil hat away. If you do, you should probably take a short position in MSFT or tip the SEC to do an investigation.
A spokesman is a person that has a specific function relative to an organization. RMS is a spokesman for the Free Software Foundation. He is not a spokesman for the people who produce free software (for example, Linus is one of the biggest producers of free software, and neither Linus nor RMS would say that either speaks for the other).
Fine, you beat me. He isn't literally a spokesman for FOSS. But when you have him speaking and articles get written about him, things like Linux and FOSS invariably get thrown into articles as well. So, when you have RMS protesting a charity, it builds negative associations that can greatly hurt the community.
And RMS has nothing to do with FOSS; he hates the concept of open source software.
Is this for real or is it a linguistic trick of technicalities? Either way, RMS is too focused on linguistic technicalities that don't affect the broad-based adoption of FOSS, specifically Linux.
The fault is with your understanding, not with reality or my explanation of it.
How? Can you provide a reason for why I am not understand your viewpoint? Your viewpoint is extremely literal. I understand it. Sadly though, not understanding the symbolism of one's actions and ancillary effects of those actions must be taken into account. Is RMS a literal spokesman for FOSS? No. Can there even be one? No. But is RMS one of FOSS' most visible figureheads? Undeniably so. Is RMS the spokesman for theFree Software Foundation? You said so yourself in your own post. Is RMS going to be very closely associated with FOSS? Totally. To say that he isn't only hurts the FOSS movement and, likewise, a broad-based adoption of it.
You have done an excellent job at just further reinforcing your viewpoint, not the reality of the situation. If Microsoft was "failing at everything they do", they wouldn't have beaten earnings expectations for the past 4 quarters according to Earnings Whispers.
And to say that RMS is not a spokesman is downright absurd. When the general audience reads an article like this in the paper, they equate RMS with FOSS. Even people in the FOSS community do this. To think otherwise is the reflection of an extremely internalized view. FOSS needs someone who can help persuade people and not simply go around attacking everyone available.
What great imagery. It sums up the position perfectly!
RMS's methods of taking down Microsoft is totally unrealistic. Could we please get a new spokesman for the FOSS community? Maybe we could get someone that would actually be persuasive to get real change versus just attack everyone's ideologies.
RMS' behavior paints their entire FOSS community as being rabid, ideal wielding zealots who go around trashing people who are successful and run charities. A marketing team and image consultant would have a field day with RMS. Whether you like it or not, you can't always say what you want if you intend to accomplish a greater good. You have to be diplomatic if you want to turn people. From what I have read, RMS does nothing of the sort. He needs to change his method if he actually wants to help.
This is an excellent point. It reminds me of Henry Ford's sentiment that someone could have any color for their car so long as it was black. The FOSS community can keep trying to do what they can to unseat Microsoft's reign, but until their products actually as designed totally with the average user in mind, Microsoft will dominate.
I didn't realize you meant SP3 itself. Well, I don't run it, but I'm sure that plenty of those security updates are little bit more urgent than optional...
I don't think this is fair. I have used just about every version of Windows regularly from 3.1 to Windows XP SP2. Windows XP is a good OS. Just so you know, I did use Linux on my desktop for about 6 months with only switching over for things that I literally had to. It was a good experience. Linux is great for desktop and especially great for the server, but I just prefer Windows XP as a desktop because it genuinely seems better for that purpose.
Excluding video functions and extensive use of the image function, Google is a good example of something that really only needs what I would now dub "millebandwidth" or "microbandwidth". The work those people do is just amazing. Sure, you're latency might be elevated, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
And on the video ads, I find them totally obnoxious. I know someone's gotta pay the bills, but come on!
A lot of things take a lot of money to become ready for use and internet is one of them. When you consider the shear volume of information and content at your fingertips, the speed at which you can get it, and the cost that it would take to get that, the price is more than reasonable. When you consider that prices haven't really been going up as speeds keep going up, the value because more apparent. I'm pretty sure my cable bill has not increased recently at all. This means that with inflation, the real cost of the service has gone down over time.
And there is another point. Let's take away your internet and see how reasonable the price is then!
While I do partially share your share your view of publicly held companies, I think you are too romantic. Cash is king on the Street and dictates just about everything, including voting rights. Most companies are held by institutional investors. They don't care about Google or Yahoo!. They care about GOOG and YHOO. When they make their buck, they move on. It's their fiduciary responsibility.
I think this is probably the greatest aspect and most tragic flaw of the Street. It's also why the market can be so fun and so painful all at the same time!
This is the heart of the matter. Things become more feasible as the landscape changes. Deep water offshore drilling, coal liquefaction, solar, and wind technologies were all prohibitively expensive five years ago. With crude oil pushing towards $150, that all changes and it becomes economically viable to use other technologies.
Unless water and oxygen start running out, I'm okay with us leaving our doomsday scenarios to the nuclear weapons disarmament folks.
I totally agree. Early Americans faced dilemmas that were not unlike what we face today. One example was what to do about the fact that they were tearing through their timber stock for many uses, especially heat. Solution? Burn coal!
Acting as if we have to sustain ourselves with our current technologies only is absurd. Technology advances for a reason!
This sounds like a sensationalist story. There's a difference between "uneconomical" and "unavailable". Didn't people think we were going to run out of oil by now? The difference is that you can't go dig a well with your pickax and shovel in your backyard anymore. You have to do deep water offshore drilling or extract it from oil sands. There is even coal liquefaction technology.
The shortage of metals is something that we will deal with in one way or another. Fiber optics replace copper for telecommunications, composites can replace metals in certain applications, and so forth. What we need to look at is when it is economically viable to make the switch. The free market is much more efficient than people give it credit for. It will do its job one way or another.
I don't view texting as fun. I view it as a way of communicating when I don't need or want to have a conversation. Some things don't need a phone call.
Person 1: "You coming tonight?" Person 2: "No." Person 1: "Going to be fun, eh?" Person 2: "Yeah..."
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Finance is good, but I still use other sites most of the time anyway.
This MSFT/YHOO nonsense is a testament to how unownable both stocks are. If MSFT thinks they need YHOO to survive, they are so misguided that they need to overhaul their decision calculus methods. YHOO not taking that deal to begin with was a joke. Their turnaround plan is basically vaporware! They should change their symbol to DNF already!
Go RTFA. The media has reported this, including The Economist.
I'm just amazed that the media wouldn't be more onto this story because it would indeed be the story of the decade or century. People also stand to profit from something like this and if it was a serious problem, MSFT would be paying the price. It's been 8.5 years since this article was published and, despite how urgent it is, the dotcom bust, and now the new credit bust, nothing has come of it. I'll stand corrected if this is actually valid, but there seems to be nothing right now to indicate that Microsoft is taking down huge losses.
Why? I didn't claim they did anything illegal. I merely said that you are wrong to conclude that Microsoft is doing well because they report great results. Companies can, and do, paper over bad results for a while. Microsoft has enough cash that they can probably look pretty good for the next decade no matter what.
Apparently this Parish told the SEC back in 1999 and they did nothing about it. This would indeed cause so many people to lose faith in the financial system that it would have to be stopped, yet they aren't. Short sellers would take this stock down, but they haven't. Maybe this just isn't as credible as you have thought.
Well, that's all you ever seem to do: look on the surface.
No, that's wrong. I took the time to use FOSS software, evaluate it, and the based upon my decision calculus I made the switch to as much FOSS software as I could. What I am arguing here is that RMS and you are wasting your time by taking shots at Gates and his charity. There are better uses of public time in order to advocate the adoption of FOSS.
Whose "truth" is this? Yours? My mother couldn't even tell Bill Gates from Richard Stallman.
Is the purpose of free software to not achieve widespread adoption and near universal acceptance? RMS making statements that caricaturize and hurt the community are simply not positive. This article was published on the BBC. Many people are going to read it. RMS is just going to look like an angry hippie to so many of them. This is not a way to positively advance the community.
Says who? Are you a PR expert? No? Then stop giving unsolicited advice.
Besides, even if your strategy were right, you are essentially suggestion that Stallman should keep quiet about the Gates Foundation's sleazy policies in order to help free software adoption. He's not going to do that, and he shouldn't. The fact that you suggest it says something about your lack of ethics.
It doesn't take an expert to realize that these are not the strategies that need to be taken now. To me, Linux has hit a wall. It really doesn't seem to be growing where it needs to be growing. Complaining about Microsoft, Gates, and his charity really are not the steps that need to be taken to increase FOSS adoption. People have already heard the types of arguments that RMS has been making for many years now. Maybe it's time to change how things work in order to take FOSS to the next level.
Is RMS' inclusion of shots at Gates' net beneficial? Maybe to an idealist that sort of question would lack ethics, but to a realist, one would realize that one must pick and choose their fights. Throwing in pot shots at Gates' charity in an article about free software is simply not one of them.
Then you should check again. It actually stands for "free AND open source software". The acronym was created exactly because "free software" and "open source software" are different things. For that reason, it's often written as "F/OSS".
Congratulations, you got me there. I just wish that the sort of effort that goes into these debates over language would go into efforts to actually achieve more widespread adoption. In other words, the point behind FOSS. If you want to keep FOSS a totally academic idea with no real impact on the world, be my gues
Well said. This is the kind of thoughtful response that the FOSS community needs to progress and grow.
Are you living under a rock? Go search on Google.
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
Apparently I am. Apparently so are all of the short sellers out their that would make tons of money by shorting the stock. Apparently the media is under a rock. That's the same media that could be breaking the story of the decade, if not century if these accusations were even close to being true. Apparently the SEC is under a rock. The DOJ is too.
Your evidence is just fantastic. It is also dated from 1999. I don't think there is too much more to say about this other than the fact that it is conjecture that never played out.
What's wrong with "protesting a charity"? The Gates Foundation has been criticized by many people, not just Stallman. And the fact that the Gates Foundation is a vehicle for promoting Windows means that it is highly relevant to FOSS users.
Probably because it just looks very wrong on the surface. You can be as idealistic as you want, but the truth is that it's the laypeople that need to be switched to Linux, not the technical people. To your average retail customer or the manager that chooses which system to go with, RMS is totally self-destructing to the FOSS community when he does things like this. It just doesn't look professional and doesn't gain the trust that is necessary switch people.
That's about as dumb as confusing Switzerland and Sweden
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Really? You're really going to split hairs over "FOSS" and "free software"? Last I checked, "FOSS" stood for "FREE open source software". Arguing between the two is just a pedantic argument over language. Well, perhaps you and RMS should think about this. When a person hears "free" they tend to only think "free as in beer". When you include the "open source" component, it's easier for the layperson to understand the difference and arrive at the "free as in speech" meaning. Either way though, it really doesn't matter. People just want a system that they can use. Arguing about this point is counterproductive to FOSS in general as it is almost entirely academic.
No, you don't. It seems "extremely literal" to you because you simply know next to nothing.
You don't take the time to thoughtfully deconstruct my statements and arguments to show why you think they are wrong. You just wave your hand and tell me that I'm wrong. That is not an effective means of persuasion.
And, for the record, I never said "open source" by itself.
If free software had been pussy-footing around for the last 20 years, it would be dead and Microsoft would own the entire industry. People need to speak up about how evil Microsoft actually has been and what kind of self-serving organization the Gates Foundation is. Maybe sooner or later, even you will get the message.
Even if I grant your position, you make the assumption that the FOSS community needs to continue to use the tactics of the past 20 years to continue to fight the non-FOSS community. This is just wrong. RMS' behavior turns away those that matter: the people who aren't using FOSS. If you think they won't care, just check out the response to RMS on Slashdot alone. Words and phrases like "shameful", "embarrassment", and "harmful" are being used to describe him. Consider too that Slashdot would have a greater propensity to side with RMS. If you want to have greater adoption of FOSS, the community simply needs better representation. Having someone up there that looks like a ranting lunatic is not going to be the best way to proceed going forward. FOSS needs a change of imagine so that it can be more widely adopted. That change needs to happen soon so that it can progress faster than it is now.
Microsoft beats earning expectations because they manipulate those expectations.
Do you have any evidence for this statement? If you don't, please put your tinfoil hat away. If you do, you should probably take a short position in MSFT or tip the SEC to do an investigation.
A spokesman is a person that has a specific function relative to an organization. RMS is a spokesman for the Free Software Foundation. He is not a spokesman for the people who produce free software (for example, Linus is one of the biggest producers of free software, and neither Linus nor RMS would say that either speaks for the other).
Fine, you beat me. He isn't literally a spokesman for FOSS. But when you have him speaking and articles get written about him, things like Linux and FOSS invariably get thrown into articles as well. So, when you have RMS protesting a charity, it builds negative associations that can greatly hurt the community.
And RMS has nothing to do with FOSS; he hates the concept of open source software.
Is this for real or is it a linguistic trick of technicalities? Either way, RMS is too focused on linguistic technicalities that don't affect the broad-based adoption of FOSS, specifically Linux.
The fault is with your understanding, not with reality or my explanation of it.
How? Can you provide a reason for why I am not understand your viewpoint? Your viewpoint is extremely literal. I understand it. Sadly though, not understanding the symbolism of one's actions and ancillary effects of those actions must be taken into account. Is RMS a literal spokesman for FOSS? No. Can there even be one? No. But is RMS one of FOSS' most visible figureheads? Undeniably so. Is RMS the spokesman for theFree Software Foundation? You said so yourself in your own post. Is RMS going to be very closely associated with FOSS? Totally. To say that he isn't only hurts the FOSS movement and, likewise, a broad-based adoption of it.
You have done an excellent job at just further reinforcing your viewpoint, not the reality of the situation. If Microsoft was "failing at everything they do", they wouldn't have beaten earnings expectations for the past 4 quarters according to Earnings Whispers.
And to say that RMS is not a spokesman is downright absurd. When the general audience reads an article like this in the paper, they equate RMS with FOSS. Even people in the FOSS community do this. To think otherwise is the reflection of an extremely internalized view. FOSS needs someone who can help persuade people and not simply go around attacking everyone available.
What great imagery. It sums up the position perfectly!
RMS's methods of taking down Microsoft is totally unrealistic. Could we please get a new spokesman for the FOSS community? Maybe we could get someone that would actually be persuasive to get real change versus just attack everyone's ideologies.
You totally missed the point.
RMS' behavior paints their entire FOSS community as being rabid, ideal wielding zealots who go around trashing people who are successful and run charities. A marketing team and image consultant would have a field day with RMS. Whether you like it or not, you can't always say what you want if you intend to accomplish a greater good. You have to be diplomatic if you want to turn people. From what I have read, RMS does nothing of the sort. He needs to change his method if he actually wants to help.
This is an excellent point. It reminds me of Henry Ford's sentiment that someone could have any color for their car so long as it was black. The FOSS community can keep trying to do what they can to unseat Microsoft's reign, but until their products actually as designed totally with the average user in mind, Microsoft will dominate.
I didn't realize you meant SP3 itself. Well, I don't run it, but I'm sure that plenty of those security updates are little bit more urgent than optional...
I don't think this is fair. I have used just about every version of Windows regularly from 3.1 to Windows XP SP2. Windows XP is a good OS. Just so you know, I did use Linux on my desktop for about 6 months with only switching over for things that I literally had to. It was a good experience. Linux is great for desktop and especially great for the server, but I just prefer Windows XP as a desktop because it genuinely seems better for that purpose.
*the value becomes more apparent
Excluding video functions and extensive use of the image function, Google is a good example of something that really only needs what I would now dub "millebandwidth" or "microbandwidth". The work those people do is just amazing. Sure, you're latency might be elevated, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference.
And on the video ads, I find them totally obnoxious. I know someone's gotta pay the bills, but come on!
I agree in some respects, but content keeps becoming more and more bandwidth intensive. Flash-based ads seem to almost be the norm now.
A lot of things take a lot of money to become ready for use and internet is one of them. When you consider the shear volume of information and content at your fingertips, the speed at which you can get it, and the cost that it would take to get that, the price is more than reasonable. When you consider that prices haven't really been going up as speeds keep going up, the value because more apparent. I'm pretty sure my cable bill has not increased recently at all. This means that with inflation, the real cost of the service has gone down over time.
And there is another point. Let's take away your internet and see how reasonable the price is then!
I agree totally with you on this point. I thought you were talking about proxy fights!
While I do partially share your share your view of publicly held companies, I think you are too romantic. Cash is king on the Street and dictates just about everything, including voting rights. Most companies are held by institutional investors. They don't care about Google or Yahoo!. They care about GOOG and YHOO. When they make their buck, they move on. It's their fiduciary responsibility.
I think this is probably the greatest aspect and most tragic flaw of the Street. It's also why the market can be so fun and so painful all at the same time!
This is the heart of the matter. Things become more feasible as the landscape changes. Deep water offshore drilling, coal liquefaction, solar, and wind technologies were all prohibitively expensive five years ago. With crude oil pushing towards $150, that all changes and it becomes economically viable to use other technologies.
Unless water and oxygen start running out, I'm okay with us leaving our doomsday scenarios to the nuclear weapons disarmament folks.
I totally agree. Early Americans faced dilemmas that were not unlike what we face today. One example was what to do about the fact that they were tearing through their timber stock for many uses, especially heat. Solution? Burn coal!
Acting as if we have to sustain ourselves with our current technologies only is absurd. Technology advances for a reason!
This sounds like a sensationalist story. There's a difference between "uneconomical" and "unavailable". Didn't people think we were going to run out of oil by now? The difference is that you can't go dig a well with your pickax and shovel in your backyard anymore. You have to do deep water offshore drilling or extract it from oil sands. There is even coal liquefaction technology.
The shortage of metals is something that we will deal with in one way or another. Fiber optics replace copper for telecommunications, composites can replace metals in certain applications, and so forth. What we need to look at is when it is economically viable to make the switch. The free market is much more efficient than people give it credit for. It will do its job one way or another.
Get RAID-1337. Mirror a RAID 3 of a RAID 3 of a non-standard RAID 7.
Owned (data reliability)!
And your power supply too!
Oops, sorry! I modded this as "overrated" when I really meant "funny"!
Seriously. I saw one in Staples the other week and it looked like the same stuff they were selling back in 2002-2003.
I don't view texting as fun. I view it as a way of communicating when I don't need or want to have a conversation. Some things don't need a phone call.
Person 1: "You coming tonight?"
Person 2: "No."
Person 1: "Going to be fun, eh?"
Person 2: "Yeah..."
*awkward pause*
Person 1: "Um, okay, bye."
Person 2: "Yeah, bye."