That's precisely why it is so important when you do start working out to keep a training journal. If you don't keep track of your progress, then it is very likely that you won't make any progress. It's very easy to simply do the same thing all the time and never push your body enough to force it to adapt. In fact, the only thing easier than staying at the same fitness level is to do nothing and become increasingly unfit. Not everyone responds to the same training modalities, and 50 minutes of cardio at 75% of your original max power output is precisely the sort of exercise regime that's basically guaranteed to fail for some people. If you start with a low enough maximum power output then your body has to adapt very little to maintain longer and longer bouts of 75% of that power output.
Part of the problem is that most people think that hamstering away mindlessly for hours on some sort of treadmill or exercise bike is the answer to fitness, and that's not really the case. If steady-state aerobics isn't making progress for you (or if you find it to be boring, like I do), then you need to try something like the Tabata Protocol or you need to mix in some resistance training to increase your max power output. Simply adding more hamstering to the equation isn't going to solve the problem.
You're kidding right? The article said that "Linux" servers sales amounted to nearly as much revenue as Windows server sales. It doesn't take much of a math genius to realize that "revenue" doesn't account for all of the Debian, Slackware, CentOS, and who knows what else that gets installed on server hardware. Linux is absolutely shaking up the UNIX server business, and it's giving Windows a run for its money as well.
I'm not sure what sort of business you are in, but if Free Software doesn't already play an important role in your organization, then you are almost certainly behind the eight ball.
Sure, Microsoft has the cash to afford to do this sort of thing indefinitely. Unfortunately for Microsoft execs, it's not likely that MSFT's investors are going to appreciate that sort of largesse. You see, on Wall Street isn't how much revenues you generate, or how much profit margin you have that matters, it is how much you grow. Microsoft was able to grow about 12% last year, largely on the back of cost cutting measures. Duplicating that growth this year could likely prove difficult. The uber expensive XBox project could easily become the sacrificial lamb. The XBox is pretty much Microsoft's one product that isn't profitable, and it's ridiculously unprofitable.
Not really. Sony was able to drive down the cost of their console because it owned all of the pieces and could integrate them. However, with the original XBox the manufacturing costs basically stayed level over the entire life of the console. Microsoft still loses over a hundred bucks when it sells an original XBox today. Microsoft's problem with the original XBox was that it specced what were basically commodity parts when it launched. It chose the least expensive hard drive that it could find, a processor that was already in the sweet spot for price/performance, and a graphics chipset that was made by a competitor of its processor. No integration was possible, and the only component that hadn't had all of the profit squeezed out of it was the memory. While it is certainly true that these components get cheaper over time, there is a floor price below which the price doesn't drop. That's why newer XBoxes come with larger hard drives than the original run of XBoxes. Microsoft would happily purchase 8G hard drives if someone was offering them at a lower price than 20G hard drives, but no one is. Likewise Intel is still charging almost the same price for the XBox processors that it did when the XBox first came out. Microsoft's XBox bought Microsoft a spot at the table, but it did so because Microsoft was willing to give away billions in hardware. The XBox has lost nearly 3 billion dollars over its lifetime, and it is still losing money.
It appears that this time Microsoft has essentially made the same mistake with the 360. It's possible that IBM's Cell processors will drop dramatically in price over their lifetime, but both Sony and Nintendo will also be using variants of the same chip (and Sony owns enough of the technology that it will probably benefit most). You can guarantee that if Microsoft comes close to making a profit that Nintendo and Sony will simply undercut them. Microsoft has also tied a great deal of the functionality of the XBox to a hard drive, and the price on those is not likely to drop substantially over time.
Microsoft is giving away too much hardware yet again, and it is going to bite them.
IIS just seems like it does as much because the administration tools for it are so complicated. If there's one beautiful thing about apache it is that if you get a solid configuration you can simply scp it to the next machine and you are golden. However, comparing the functionality built into IIS to Apache's built in functionality is just ridiculous. I haven't used the newer versions of IIS, but I am pretty sure that they can't be configured as a proxy server, and I am positive that they don't have Apache's powerful URL rewriting ability. You also can easily setup up Apache to authenticate against all sorts of data sources from plain text files, to Active directory, to databases like PostgreSQL or MySQL. I am sure that the real Apache gurus could make a very long list of the features that Apache has that IIS doesn't have.
That's only because Microsoft is baking it's own DRM directly into the operating system. There's a big fight coming up to see who is going to be in charge of distributing all of Hollywood's precious content, and currently Sony and Microsoft are the two leading contenders for this crown. Microsoft is happy as a clam that Sony's DRM plans went down the tubes. That makes it easier for Microsoft's DRM plans to win out.
On the bright side, you no longer have to be happy with Microsoft.
And here's where this particular study strays from reality. It lumps remotely exploitable attacks and local attacks that give root access into the same "high severity" rating. Here's the quote from the paper.
A vulnerability is "high severity" if:
it allows a remote attacker to violate the security protection of a system (i.e. gain some sort of user or root account), it allows a local attack that gains complete control of a system, it is important enough to have an associated CERT/CC advisory.
Lumping remote exploits and local exploits into the same pot is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter how many local exploits I might have if the attacker can't log into the box. I am not saying that local root exploits aren't problematic, but they are nowhere near as problematic as remote exploits.
Which "casual gamers" plunk down $400 on a newly released system? Especially when the original XBox (which they likely already have) is still a pretty decent system. I mean seriously, its not like the XBox 360's sports games are a quantum leap forward.
The real question isn't whether KDE will be included on SuSE Linux, or supported by Novell. The real question is how much money is Novell willing to spend *developing* KDE.
Sure, and while you are waiting for Windows Vista to actually ship you can just run your business with some paper and a stack of pencils.
Gartner has this one right. Unless you are willing to eschew using computers altogether you have to invest in the third-party products now. When Vista does ship you could toss that investment out the Window (ha ha) and pay extra to get Windows Vista, or you can simply hold off on purchasing Windows Vista until purchasing new machines. Considering the number of businesses that are still running Windows 2000, I expect that Windows XP should be Microsoft's most popular OS for some time to come.
I have never really liked KDE, and I personally think that Gnome has the better set of applications (especially when you lump in the GTK-only applications with Gnome), but I will agree that the *desktop* part of KDE is much more solid than Gnome.
Any way you slice it, however, Novell has a long row to hoe with Linux. Basically Novell is in the same situation that Caldera was in after in bought SCO's Unix. Everyone knows that Linux is the future, but the current revenues all point at Netware, and competing with pure play Red Hat (with its much lower R&D requirements) is definitely tricky. Novell can't afford to develop three different email servers (Netmail, Groupwise, and OpenExchange) and so it spun off OpenExchange and "freed" Hula. Novell can't really afford to develop KDE either, especially since a huge part of Novell's message is that Windows C# developers can easily port to SuSE Linux. There was a time when it looked like Novell might consider Mono bindings for QT, but licensing issues nixed that pretty thoroughly.
Novell also had little choice but to open up YaST and create a Free version of SuSE. SuSE has always had a nicer distribution than Red Hat (as did Caldera back in the day), but the fact that Red Hat's installation tools were GPLed guaranteed that Red Hat's tools were the ones that got spread far and wide. If Novell is to survive it needs to be able to compete with Red Hat for marketshare and mindshare, and that means that a Free Software version of SuSE has to be at least as usable as Red Hat's Fedora.
Hopefully Novell will be able to make the transition from a proprietary software company to a company that is far more "services" based, but right now the company is in freefall. It's Netware core is dying, and the Linux business just can't make up the slack. This means that a lot of the choices that Novell would *like* to make simply aren't viable.
Three years from now OpenDocument will be pervasive (the momentum is getting too great for it to fail now, especially when organizations face just as big of a transition to OfficeXML if they decided to go that route), and the #1 implementation, by far, will be Microsoft Office.
I am not sure that will be the case. Switching to OpenOffice.org is quite a bit cheaper than switching to to MS Office 12, and if you plan on using the OpenDocument formats there is little reason to spend money on MS Office 12. If there is any problems sharing documents in OpenDocument formats the pressure will be on the MS Office users to simply download the "free" OpenOffice.org program.
Thank you. KDE is an example of an awesome technology that *should* win, but won't. KDE got off to an early lead, and it has some definite advantages over Gnome, but the licensing issues are destined to sink it. TrollTech is a development tools company and they have set up KDE so that everyone that wants to develop commercial software for KDE has to talk to them, and that's simply not something that the major Linux distributors are going to let happen. In the real world these sorts of licensing issues almost always trump the actual technology. In this case I think that KDE licensing issues are going to derail KDE even if a market for proprietary Linux desktop software never materializes.
It's not that Novell can't afford the price of a few development licenses, but rather it is that Novell can't afford to put another company between itself and customers that want to develop for Novell's desktop. Imagine the following discussion between a Novell salesman and a potential development partner.
Novell salesman: "You want to develop software for the Novell Linux Desktop? Ok, well go talk to some tiny company in the Netherlands," (yes, I know that the company is actually Norwegian, I am making a point), "they own a critical piece of our development toolkit."
Development Partner: "Let me get this straight. You want me to develop software using an oddball development framework written in C++, and you don't even own the framework."
Novell salesman: "That's correct, on the plus side if you skip our fancy KDE libraries you can run your software on Windows too. Of course, QT-only applications also don't take advantage of some of the nice features of Windows, but if the cell phone industry ever comes out with a useful Linux-based cell phone you could probably port to that as well."
Development Partner: "I think that I am going to talk to Red Hat now."
Any way you slice it the fact that Novell doesn't own QT is problematic for Novell's use of KDE. Throw in the fact that most of the applications that Novell wants to sell as part of the Novell Linux desktop are either Gnome applications or allied with Gnome, and the fact that with Mono Novell can point Microsoft developers to a "way out" while still reusing their C# code and its no wonder that KDE is getting the short end of the stick at Novell. KDE is getting the short end of the stick from all of the big Linux players. IBM based SWT on GTK for the exact same reasons, and Firefox is based on GTK as well.
Heck, if he had been paying attention he would have realized that "Windows" isn't a registered Trademark, but that "Microsoft Windows" is instead. The trademark-ability of "Windows" featured prominently in Microsoft's case against Lindows. Microsoft *paid* Linspire over $20 million to stop using the "Lindows" trademark.
Re:dreamcast was "failed" only for non-owners
on
XBOX 360=Dreamcast 2.0?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Here's how you can tell that Dreamcast failed. Instead of making Sega piles of money, it lost Sega piles of money, and it caused them to get out of the console business forever.
Believe it or not, the gaming business isn't about giving you and your friends fun games to play, it's about making money. That's why it's hard to qualify the XBox as a success. The XBox lost more money than any other console in history. Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on the XBox. Heck, it's still losing money on a quarterly basis as Microsoft readies the 360. If the XBox 360 is as big a financial disaster as the XBox then Microsoft investors are almost certainly going to wonder what they are doing throwing their money down a hole.
Yes, and I like xfce, but that doesn't mean that I think that xfce is going to be the desktop that my grandmother uses when Linux takes over the desktop.
Patrick is awesome, but he isn't actually doing KDE development. He is simply *packaging* KDE. The real issue is who is going to pay for the next generation of KDE development if SuSE isn't going to pay.
QT isn't dual-licensed as far as Novell is concerned. The last thing that Novell wants to do is to have to start worrying about yet another license when shipping Linux software, especially a commercial license. Novell wants software that can be combined with both commercial and GPLed software without having to talk to a pile of lawyers, and that limits its choice of development libraries to either an MIT-style license or the LGPL.
Not to mention the fact that Novell is trying to build a set of developer tools that it can use to woo Windows developers to Linux. It doesn't want to tell these developers that if they want to build commercial applications they need to talk to some company in Sweden.
That's a good point. However, a schism in the KDE world would have been much easier to deal with than two completely different toolkits that only share X as a common denominator.
Novell is hardly "running SuSE into the ground." In fact, Novell has *increased* the investment that SuSE has received, has released YaST and Hula and has done lots of other stuff that SuSE needed to do to stay competitive with RedHat.
However, Novell's investors want to see a leaner Novell, and Novell's professional desktop (the one it sells) is based on Gnome software (just like everyone else's professional desktop). The KDE folks should have seen the writing on the wall when Novell made Mono their primary development option, and when the "Novell Desktop" was a modified Gnome desktop.
What Novell hasn't done well is create the "complete package" that everyone thought that they would. Heck, Novell hasn't even integrated its server software with SuSE yet. Personally I agree with Novell's management. If Novell isn't going to sell KDE, why should they spend money developing it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's precisely why it is so important when you do start working out to keep a training journal. If you don't keep track of your progress, then it is very likely that you won't make any progress. It's very easy to simply do the same thing all the time and never push your body enough to force it to adapt. In fact, the only thing easier than staying at the same fitness level is to do nothing and become increasingly unfit. Not everyone responds to the same training modalities, and 50 minutes of cardio at 75% of your original max power output is precisely the sort of exercise regime that's basically guaranteed to fail for some people. If you start with a low enough maximum power output then your body has to adapt very little to maintain longer and longer bouts of 75% of that power output.
Part of the problem is that most people think that hamstering away mindlessly for hours on some sort of treadmill or exercise bike is the answer to fitness, and that's not really the case. If steady-state aerobics isn't making progress for you (or if you find it to be boring, like I do), then you need to try something like the Tabata Protocol or you need to mix in some resistance training to increase your max power output. Simply adding more hamstering to the equation isn't going to solve the problem.
You're kidding right? The article said that "Linux" servers sales amounted to nearly as much revenue as Windows server sales. It doesn't take much of a math genius to realize that "revenue" doesn't account for all of the Debian, Slackware, CentOS, and who knows what else that gets installed on server hardware. Linux is absolutely shaking up the UNIX server business, and it's giving Windows a run for its money as well.
I'm not sure what sort of business you are in, but if Free Software doesn't already play an important role in your organization, then you are almost certainly behind the eight ball.
Sure, Microsoft has the cash to afford to do this sort of thing indefinitely. Unfortunately for Microsoft execs, it's not likely that MSFT's investors are going to appreciate that sort of largesse. You see, on Wall Street isn't how much revenues you generate, or how much profit margin you have that matters, it is how much you grow. Microsoft was able to grow about 12% last year, largely on the back of cost cutting measures. Duplicating that growth this year could likely prove difficult. The uber expensive XBox project could easily become the sacrificial lamb. The XBox is pretty much Microsoft's one product that isn't profitable, and it's ridiculously unprofitable.
Not really. Sony was able to drive down the cost of their console because it owned all of the pieces and could integrate them. However, with the original XBox the manufacturing costs basically stayed level over the entire life of the console. Microsoft still loses over a hundred bucks when it sells an original XBox today. Microsoft's problem with the original XBox was that it specced what were basically commodity parts when it launched. It chose the least expensive hard drive that it could find, a processor that was already in the sweet spot for price/performance, and a graphics chipset that was made by a competitor of its processor. No integration was possible, and the only component that hadn't had all of the profit squeezed out of it was the memory. While it is certainly true that these components get cheaper over time, there is a floor price below which the price doesn't drop. That's why newer XBoxes come with larger hard drives than the original run of XBoxes. Microsoft would happily purchase 8G hard drives if someone was offering them at a lower price than 20G hard drives, but no one is. Likewise Intel is still charging almost the same price for the XBox processors that it did when the XBox first came out. Microsoft's XBox bought Microsoft a spot at the table, but it did so because Microsoft was willing to give away billions in hardware. The XBox has lost nearly 3 billion dollars over its lifetime, and it is still losing money.
It appears that this time Microsoft has essentially made the same mistake with the 360. It's possible that IBM's Cell processors will drop dramatically in price over their lifetime, but both Sony and Nintendo will also be using variants of the same chip (and Sony owns enough of the technology that it will probably benefit most). You can guarantee that if Microsoft comes close to making a profit that Nintendo and Sony will simply undercut them. Microsoft has also tied a great deal of the functionality of the XBox to a hard drive, and the price on those is not likely to drop substantially over time.
Microsoft is giving away too much hardware yet again, and it is going to bite them.
IIS just seems like it does as much because the administration tools for it are so complicated. If there's one beautiful thing about apache it is that if you get a solid configuration you can simply scp it to the next machine and you are golden. However, comparing the functionality built into IIS to Apache's built in functionality is just ridiculous. I haven't used the newer versions of IIS, but I am pretty sure that they can't be configured as a proxy server, and I am positive that they don't have Apache's powerful URL rewriting ability. You also can easily setup up Apache to authenticate against all sorts of data sources from plain text files, to Active directory, to databases like PostgreSQL or MySQL. I am sure that the real Apache gurus could make a very long list of the features that Apache has that IIS doesn't have.
That's only because Microsoft is baking it's own DRM directly into the operating system. There's a big fight coming up to see who is going to be in charge of distributing all of Hollywood's precious content, and currently Sony and Microsoft are the two leading contenders for this crown. Microsoft is happy as a clam that Sony's DRM plans went down the tubes. That makes it easier for Microsoft's DRM plans to win out.
On the bright side, you no longer have to be happy with Microsoft.
And here's where this particular study strays from reality. It lumps remotely exploitable attacks and local attacks that give root access into the same "high severity" rating. Here's the quote from the paper.
Lumping remote exploits and local exploits into the same pot is just ridiculous. It doesn't matter how many local exploits I might have if the attacker can't log into the box. I am not saying that local root exploits aren't problematic, but they are nowhere near as problematic as remote exploits.
It's possible that I am just jaded. The last console I owned was a 3D0.
Which "casual gamers" plunk down $400 on a newly released system? Especially when the original XBox (which they likely already have) is still a pretty decent system. I mean seriously, its not like the XBox 360's sports games are a quantum leap forward.
Exactly. Podcast producers already have a far better idea as to what their listener base is doing than radio broadcasters.
Heck, I just want a Finite Improbability Generator. Those babies sound like they would be fun at parties.
The real question isn't whether KDE will be included on SuSE Linux, or supported by Novell. The real question is how much money is Novell willing to spend *developing* KDE.
Sure, and while you are waiting for Windows Vista to actually ship you can just run your business with some paper and a stack of pencils.
Gartner has this one right. Unless you are willing to eschew using computers altogether you have to invest in the third-party products now. When Vista does ship you could toss that investment out the Window (ha ha) and pay extra to get Windows Vista, or you can simply hold off on purchasing Windows Vista until purchasing new machines. Considering the number of businesses that are still running Windows 2000, I expect that Windows XP should be Microsoft's most popular OS for some time to come.
I have never really liked KDE, and I personally think that Gnome has the better set of applications (especially when you lump in the GTK-only applications with Gnome), but I will agree that the *desktop* part of KDE is much more solid than Gnome.
Any way you slice it, however, Novell has a long row to hoe with Linux. Basically Novell is in the same situation that Caldera was in after in bought SCO's Unix. Everyone knows that Linux is the future, but the current revenues all point at Netware, and competing with pure play Red Hat (with its much lower R&D requirements) is definitely tricky. Novell can't afford to develop three different email servers (Netmail, Groupwise, and OpenExchange) and so it spun off OpenExchange and "freed" Hula. Novell can't really afford to develop KDE either, especially since a huge part of Novell's message is that Windows C# developers can easily port to SuSE Linux. There was a time when it looked like Novell might consider Mono bindings for QT, but licensing issues nixed that pretty thoroughly.
Novell also had little choice but to open up YaST and create a Free version of SuSE. SuSE has always had a nicer distribution than Red Hat (as did Caldera back in the day), but the fact that Red Hat's installation tools were GPLed guaranteed that Red Hat's tools were the ones that got spread far and wide. If Novell is to survive it needs to be able to compete with Red Hat for marketshare and mindshare, and that means that a Free Software version of SuSE has to be at least as usable as Red Hat's Fedora.
Hopefully Novell will be able to make the transition from a proprietary software company to a company that is far more "services" based, but right now the company is in freefall. It's Netware core is dying, and the Linux business just can't make up the slack. This means that a lot of the choices that Novell would *like* to make simply aren't viable.
I am not sure that will be the case. Switching to OpenOffice.org is quite a bit cheaper than switching to to MS Office 12, and if you plan on using the OpenDocument formats there is little reason to spend money on MS Office 12. If there is any problems sharing documents in OpenDocument formats the pressure will be on the MS Office users to simply download the "free" OpenOffice.org program.
Thank you. KDE is an example of an awesome technology that *should* win, but won't. KDE got off to an early lead, and it has some definite advantages over Gnome, but the licensing issues are destined to sink it. TrollTech is a development tools company and they have set up KDE so that everyone that wants to develop commercial software for KDE has to talk to them, and that's simply not something that the major Linux distributors are going to let happen. In the real world these sorts of licensing issues almost always trump the actual technology. In this case I think that KDE licensing issues are going to derail KDE even if a market for proprietary Linux desktop software never materializes.
Yes, in fact, SuSE was one of the primary sponsors of KDE. A lot of the KDE developers had (and maybe still have) jobs at SuSE.
It's not that Novell can't afford the price of a few development licenses, but rather it is that Novell can't afford to put another company between itself and customers that want to develop for Novell's desktop. Imagine the following discussion between a Novell salesman and a potential development partner.
Novell salesman: "You want to develop software for the Novell Linux Desktop? Ok, well go talk to some tiny company in the Netherlands," (yes, I know that the company is actually Norwegian, I am making a point), "they own a critical piece of our development toolkit."
Development Partner: "Let me get this straight. You want me to develop software using an oddball development framework written in C++, and you don't even own the framework."
Novell salesman: "That's correct, on the plus side if you skip our fancy KDE libraries you can run your software on Windows too. Of course, QT-only applications also don't take advantage of some of the nice features of Windows, but if the cell phone industry ever comes out with a useful Linux-based cell phone you could probably port to that as well."
Development Partner: "I think that I am going to talk to Red Hat now."
Any way you slice it the fact that Novell doesn't own QT is problematic for Novell's use of KDE. Throw in the fact that most of the applications that Novell wants to sell as part of the Novell Linux desktop are either Gnome applications or allied with Gnome, and the fact that with Mono Novell can point Microsoft developers to a "way out" while still reusing their C# code and its no wonder that KDE is getting the short end of the stick at Novell. KDE is getting the short end of the stick from all of the big Linux players. IBM based SWT on GTK for the exact same reasons, and Firefox is based on GTK as well.
Heck, if he had been paying attention he would have realized that "Windows" isn't a registered Trademark, but that "Microsoft Windows" is instead. The trademark-ability of "Windows" featured prominently in Microsoft's case against Lindows. Microsoft *paid* Linspire over $20 million to stop using the "Lindows" trademark.
Here's how you can tell that Dreamcast failed. Instead of making Sega piles of money, it lost Sega piles of money, and it caused them to get out of the console business forever.
Believe it or not, the gaming business isn't about giving you and your friends fun games to play, it's about making money. That's why it's hard to qualify the XBox as a success. The XBox lost more money than any other console in history. Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on the XBox. Heck, it's still losing money on a quarterly basis as Microsoft readies the 360. If the XBox 360 is as big a financial disaster as the XBox then Microsoft investors are almost certainly going to wonder what they are doing throwing their money down a hole.
Yes, and I like xfce, but that doesn't mean that I think that xfce is going to be the desktop that my grandmother uses when Linux takes over the desktop.
Patrick is awesome, but he isn't actually doing KDE development. He is simply *packaging* KDE. The real issue is who is going to pay for the next generation of KDE development if SuSE isn't going to pay.
QT isn't dual-licensed as far as Novell is concerned. The last thing that Novell wants to do is to have to start worrying about yet another license when shipping Linux software, especially a commercial license. Novell wants software that can be combined with both commercial and GPLed software without having to talk to a pile of lawyers, and that limits its choice of development libraries to either an MIT-style license or the LGPL.
Not to mention the fact that Novell is trying to build a set of developer tools that it can use to woo Windows developers to Linux. It doesn't want to tell these developers that if they want to build commercial applications they need to talk to some company in Sweden.
That's a good point. However, a schism in the KDE world would have been much easier to deal with than two completely different toolkits that only share X as a common denominator.
Novell is hardly "running SuSE into the ground." In fact, Novell has *increased* the investment that SuSE has received, has released YaST and Hula and has done lots of other stuff that SuSE needed to do to stay competitive with RedHat.
However, Novell's investors want to see a leaner Novell, and Novell's professional desktop (the one it sells) is based on Gnome software (just like everyone else's professional desktop). The KDE folks should have seen the writing on the wall when Novell made Mono their primary development option, and when the "Novell Desktop" was a modified Gnome desktop.
What Novell hasn't done well is create the "complete package" that everyone thought that they would. Heck, Novell hasn't even integrated its server software with SuSE yet. Personally I agree with Novell's management. If Novell isn't going to sell KDE, why should they spend money developing it.