Microsoft's problems do not stem from some sort of corporate culture clash, and I can guarantee you that when Bill speaks people working at Microsoft still jump.
The problem at Microsoft is that the people running the show (and that includes most Microsoft developers) are more concerned about Microsoft's stock price than the long term survival of the company. Microsoft stock is still priced for rapid growth, and so Microsoft has to come up with a way to provide that growth or Microsoft shares will eventually lose a significant portion of their present value. If you think that Microsoft's $40 Billion is an impressive number calculate what Bill Gates would lose personally if Microsoft's stock lost half of its value.
The question then becomes where does Microsoft hope to gain its future growth. Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side, and there is fierce competition (and very low margins) on the embedded front. That leaves Windows and MS Office, as all of Microsoft's other business units are actually losing money. The XBox is Microsoft's best bet for a new significant revenue stream, but Sony appears to be taking Microsof to lunch on this front.
That's not all of Microsoft's problems either. The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
So what does Microsoft do to keep growing their revenue? They raise prices, that's what. Microsoft knows that their existing customers have large investments in their Microsoft software. Replacing this software would be very difficult, and so Microsoft is making these customers pay the price of their misplaced loyalty.
I suppose that it is possible that Egypt (and other countries where software piracy is rampant) will pass and enforce strong intellectual property laws. I don't see why they would do this, as software piracy is in the best interest of their local economy, but who knows what those crazy foreigners will do:).
Personally I am against having the authorities raid individual homes looking for pirated software. Especially in countries like Egypt where everyone with a computer is likely to be using pirated software. I lived in Peru for several years, and I saw too many laws that were only enforced when the people in power wanted to punish an individual. They had certain laws that nearly everyone broke, and so when some petty bureaucrat wanted to ruin someone's life, they simply sent in their thugs.
In the end there is more to Free Software than low prices. If Egypt wants to remain dependent on the U.S. for their software then pirating their software is almost certainly the way to accomplish that. Eventually Microsoft and friends are either going to find out a way to make Egyptians pay for software or they are going to stop developing software for the Egyptian market.
I understand that oftentimes software is worth what you pay for it, especially if you have invested a great deal of time learning a particular program. However, the reason that you know Lightwave and not some other program has far more to do with economics than the quality of Lightwave as a program. Chances are good that when you first started using Lightwave professionals in the studios were using some ridiculously expensive package that ran on even more ridiculously expensive UNIX workstations. If you would have had unlimited amounts of money you probably would have opted for the more expensive package, but you didn't, and so you learned Lightwave, which was good enough at a much lower price. Now employers who are looking for artistic talent know that there is a fairly large pool of artists that know Lightwave, and so that's what they use.
Free Software, Blender in this case, changes the equation in two distinct ways. The first is that it lowers the bar significantly for people who are interested in learning 3D modelling. If you have $400 for a PC you can start learning. The second major change is that any programmer that is interested in creating new "features" for a 3D modeler can now start with the existing code available in Blender. For some types of software this makes a big difference, it will be interesting to see how this effects 3D modelling.
In short, I realize that Lightwave is worth the price for existing Lightwave users. The real question is whether or not that will continue to be the case for new users. At the very least Free Software makes that question more interesting. If Blender didn't exist then there would be no question that Lightwave would continue to dominate the low-end of 3D modelling, but Blender at least adds the potential for a sea change. Just because Lightwave is worth the price to you does not mean that it is worth its price to everyone that wants a 3D modeller.
No one is going to make money selling software in the Indian desktop market. It doesn't matter who writes the software, the folks in India aren't going to pay for it. Microsoft has a huge user base in India, but they aren't going to make any money from this user base until they are able to successfully charge money for their software. The harder Microsoft pushes to collect the more Indians are going to realize that Free Software isn't all that bad. Even if Microsoft slashed their prices for their software you can bet that many Indians with computers would rather learn Linux and OpenOffice than shell out $150 for software. I imagine that there are some software firms in India that target the local market, but my guess is that most firms target the international market, for this very reason. After all, if Microsoft can't collect what it is due then what are the chances that a small Indian development firm is going to be able to combat piracy effectively. In other words the fact that Indians tend to run Windows on their home and business computers is completely irrelevant. Indians aren't buying your software.
Software developers, whether they are Indian or American, or whatever, target folks that pay money. Which means that if you create a custom application that relies on Oracle you are essentially adding Oracle software licensing to the cost of your application. If you based your application on PostgreSQL instead, you could easily lower the total price of your application while still delivering higher gross margins. Now clearly this wouldn't work for all types of software or for all clients, but if you aren't pushing Free Software in those situations where it fits, then I can guarantee you that you are losing business and profits. After all, why line the pockets of the commercial software vendors when you can put their licensing fees in your own pocket.
Sure, learning PostgreSQL (or whatever) takes some time, but it is an investment that would quickly pay for itself with probably a single PostgreSQL installation.
Linuxers understand that it is all about the applications. In fact, applications are precisely the reason that Linux is eventually going to win out. Hardware is getting ridiculously inexpensive, but commercial software remains very expensive. You might be happy to pay thousands of dollars for Lightwave, MS Office, Photoshop, and whatever else you run on your machine, but lots of people would rather use Blender, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and the wealth of free tools that come with Linux. Interestingly enough, the hardware companies would especially like to see software become less expensive because that would leave consumers with more money for hardware.
Sure, the Linux tools might not be quite as powerful, and they might lack the polish of the commercial applications, but they are a heck of a lot cheaper, and they are actually pretty darn good. This is especially true in countries where the average computer user gets paid less than those of us in the first world. If it weren't for the fact that most commercial software is easy to pirate Free Software would already be the rule in the poorer areas of the world. The harder the commercial software companies try to stamp out piracy, the more prevalent Free Software is likely to become.
Even in the United States the only people that actually pay for applications like Photoshop are those folks that use it professionally. Most people use whatever photo editor came with their digital camera or scanner. The Gimp almost certainly kicks that software right in the head. Which is why, in the long run it is almost certain to gain wider use and acceptance, especially now that the Gimp runs on Windows.
Adobe isn't going to port to Linux, because they know that if their customers start experimenting with Linux they are very likely to start experimenting with other Free Software that comes included in most Linux distributions. Direct competition with Free Software would make it that much harder for Adobe to sell their commercial applications.
In the end Linux will continue its inexorable march towards ubiquity not because it is especially good, but because it is "good enough" at the right price. There are plenty of folks that would like to use their computers to do the things that you do with your computer, but that can't afford to purchase thousands of dollars worth of software. These people have no (legal) choice but to dig in and invest some of their time learning Linux.
Star/Open Office in the U.S. government would be the death knell for Microsoft. The U.S. government is not only the largest software purchaser on the planet, but every other business in the U.S., and most of the businesses in the world have some contact with the U.S. government. If the U.S. government standardized on StarOffice formats then businesses around the world would be forced to use StarOffice to some extent. When the U.S. government asks you for a document in a particular format that's the format that you send them. The fact that OpenOffice is free certainly wouldn't hurt its adoption either.
Microsoft would not only find itself losing marketshare, but it would also find itself increasingly on the wrong side of the "standards" fence. Instead of OpenOffice having to be 100% MS Office compatible, Microsoft would find that they would be forced to be 100% OpenOffice compatible. In short, Microsoft would soon find that one of their major cash cows was fighting a losing battle against a package that could be downloaded for free.
Microsoft's revenues would drop, their stock price would take a beating, and companies would switch simply because Microsoft would look like they were "losing."
The best part of this picture is that, to a certain extent, this is already happening overseas. When Microsoft finally does get cut down to size my guess is that StarOffice/OpenOffice is the primary culprit.
It'd only be a substantial difference if it was true.
The Freedom of Information Act was passed for exactly this type of situation. If the tax payer can not see what government officials (and this certainly includes the management of State Universities) is doing with their money then it leads to all sorts of possible abuses. This is why the terms of the contracts with public institutions are available to the public. That's the real story. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and yet somehow they are able to sign deals with a tax-funded institution and keep the terms of the contract secret. If the terms of this contract aren't publicly available then there could be all sorts of kickbacks involved and the public wouldn't be the wiser.
Personally, I think that this would be just as big a story if Sun, IBM, Apple, or even the Free Software Foundation tried to negotiate "secret" deals any government sponsored institution. If Microsoft's deal with these institutions is so great then what do they have to hide?
I don't hate Microsoft. Heck, I even own some of their stock, but just because I like Microsoft does not mean that I want them to be able to sign "secret" deals with government institutions.
The problem, of course, is that Universities pretty much have to use Windows and MS Office, but they certainly don't have to teach their development courses using VS.Net. Tying cheap licenses to the acceptance of VS.Net is almost precisely the type of thing that got Microsoft into trouble with the DOJ. As a convicted monopolist such an action would almost certainly land them into hot water again.
Which begs the question, if Microsoft isn't tying cheap licensing for Windows and MS Office to the acceptance of VS.Net then why are the deals secret? What exactly is Microsoft trying to hide?
Personally, I would be just as upset if Sun or IBM were pulling similar tricks. I have a right to know how my tax money is being spent. If the deal truly is a good one, then why is Microsoft requiring secrecy?
And if Microsoft did the same that would be fine. However, Microsoft is tying the price of their operating system and office suite to the acceptance of their development tools as part of the curriculum. Sun gave away their development tools and class materials, to pretty much anyone that wanted them, with no strings attached.
That's a fairly substantial difference.
If Microsoft were to give their development tools away to all takers then I wouldn't be surprised if some Universities used the language. However, that's not what this is about. This is about giving the entire University access to cheap Windows and MS Office licenses if the University will make sure that their CS students learn only MS technologies. That's pretty much exactly the reason that MS got into all of that trouble with the DOJ.
Not to mention the fact that any differences from Windows are likely to get slammed by the users (and by pundits such as Dvorak) as being incompatible. Good, bad, or indifferent if Linux is going to take over the desktop it is going to have to be easy for the current group of Windows users to understand.
It was evidence, and the prosecution probably guessed that actually having Dmitry on the stand would hurt their case. Of course, since this isn't one of those really backwards countries the defense was able to put Dmitry on the stand as one of their own witnesses.
It's too bad that I wasn't writing this as some sort of an essay, I have gotten a great deal of free copyediting:). Thanks!
You are certainly right, Saruman could have been given a coal mine. On the other hand, someone else pointed out that one of the complaints the Ents had was that the Orcs were cutting down trees and simply leaving them there. In other words, Orcs are just into destruction.
David Brin wants to link that to industrialization, but I think it makes more sense to simply attribute the Orcs actions to the fact that they are evil.
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes, I read the article. Although I admit that I was skimming near the end. You see, it was fairly clear to me that David Brin hadn't actually read the same story that I had. He was so deadset on proving that the LOTR was a romantic backlash against modernization he simply skipped along to the parts that could be rigged to fit his little theory.
For example, Brin makes a big deal about Saruman cutting down trees after he allies himself with Sauron. In his mind that is clearly symbolic of modernization and industry. However, it can just as easily be attributed to JRR Tolkien's attention to detail. When Saruman changed allegiances he started building an army of Orcs. Arming those Orcs requires steel, and steel requires a large amount of charcoal (or coal if you can get it). It's no wonder that Saruman started cutting down trees, he was making steel weapons. His only problem was that the nearest source of lumber just happened to be a forest in which the trees could fight back.
Now you could see that as symbolic of nature versus industrialization except for the fact that the Ents were in decline long before Saruman ever switched sides. They had been in decline the entire time Sauron was dormant and Saruman still working for the forces of light. The real reason for the Ents decline is that the Entwives actually preferred man's cultivated areas to the primeval forest of the Ents. In other words, the story of the Ents is nothing more than just another tragedy in a long string of bitter-sweet outcomes. The whole world was changing, and many of the changes were not particularly good. Sauron was thwarted, but at a great price.
Gandalf, Aragorn, and the rest didn't oppose Saruman and Sauron because they were bad for the environment, they did so because they were evil. That's why they also refused to use the ring. They would rather die than become like Sauron. Brin was quick to point out that the depictions of Sauron were much like ancient propaganda, but sometimes people are just evil. The propaganda leveled at Hitler during WWII didn't even begin to touch the surface of the atrocities committed by him and his henchmen. Tolkien created a world in which the lines between good and evil were more clearcut, but that's hardly revolutionary.
As for the Hobbits returning to the Shire to take on leadership roles, Sam, the former gardner was elected Mayor, but who wouldn't want Sam for a Mayor? That's Meritocracy if I have ever seen it. Sam rocks. Someone has to be Mayor, and instead of electing someone rich, the Hobbits elected a former gardner.
Aragorn shirking his duties is another reason why Brin is all wet. Aragorn might have been descended from kings, but that had been generations ago. The fact of the matter was that Aragorn was a nomad with a broken sword. Boromir certainly didn't treat Aragorn like his sovereign, and I have no doubt that had he not shown up with the riders of Rohan in tow he would have been completely ignored by the folks in Gondor, and the only reason he still had an army at his back when he arrived in Gondor was because Merry and Pippin got the Ents to save their butts at the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Brin's arguments about Star Wars are spot on, that story is chuck full of uber-men who live above the rest of mortality. The LOTR, on the other hand, is all about mostly normal folks that pitched in and made a difference when it counted. It's also about Gimli and Legolas seeing past their prejudices, and Frodo seeing the good that still existed in Gollum.
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually the Hobbit starts out by saying that the Tooks were richer than the Bagginses, and that Bilbo's father built Bag End with his wife's (a Took) money. The Bagginses were more respectable, but the Tooks were far more wealthy. The fact that outsiders to the Shire valued Bilbo's Mithril coat more than the rest of the Shire has very little to do with anything. Bilbo didn't know that the the coat was so valuable, and neither he nor Frodo were likely to sell it. Had it not been for the fact that Bilbo picked up the even more amazingly valuable "One Ring" the Mithril coat would have spent an eternity as a minor exhibit in a backwater Hobbit museum. Saying that Bilbo's coat made him the richest man in the Shire is like saying that the Bedouins of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula that were alive at 400 B.C. were rich because they were sitting on massive oil reserves.
Bilbo was certainly wealthy enough that he was able to live off his investments, but so is every retired person that you have ever met. Plenty of folks are able to retire early. And the book suggests that Bilbo actually spent most of his treasure before turning Bag End over to Frodo. Remember, some of the younger Hobbits even went so far as to dig for treasure in Bag End, but Bilbo had already spent it.
And that isn't even taking into consideration the fact that in many ways it is actually Sam that is responsible for the destruction of the One Ring, and you can't tell me that Sam was some sort of a high roller. He was a gardener!
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is where Brin's criticism of LOTR breaks down. Frodo might have been well-to-do, but he didn't have any idea that his armor was worth that much. Nor did he, or Bilbo, for that matter, realize that they had the "One Ring" on their mantelpiece. Sure, Frodo was comfortable, but he wasn't some sort of political power, even in the Shire.
As much as Brin wants to concentrate on Elrond, Galadriel, and the rest of the High Elves the story was really about a 4 foot tall hero from the middle of nowhere, and a pile of his diminuitive friends. Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are the folks that really make the difference, and I could probably throw any one of them across the room. Comparing those folks with "kings" is absolutely ridiculous. Especially since when their adventure was done they went back to the Shire as if nothing had happened.
Brin also misses the point that TLOTR is about the end of an era. The new era is ruled not by elves, but by the son of a woodsman. Aragorn may have been descended from "noble" blood, but his people spent generations as woodsmen protecting a people that mistrusted them. Aragorn starts the story as a nomad with a broken sword. He can hardly be considered a king. In fact, of the original fellowship only Boromir can really be considered as nobility, and look what happened to him.
The rest of the fellowship just happened to be the best that could be assembled at the time. Gandalf wasn't the chief of the wizards (Saruman was), but he was the best that was to be had. Legolas wasn't a High Elf, but he was willing to go, and Gimli went to represent the dwarves.
Speaking of Gimli and Legolas, Brin makes a big deal out of the fact that JRRT is some sort of a closet racist because he allows for the total destruction of the Orcs, but he forgets to mention the very important subplot where Gimli and Legolas face their racial prejudices and become friends.
In short, Brin is stretching. He has an axe to grind and he is trying to get the story to fit his preconceived notions.
Microsoft's recent studies done by IDG put Linux at a lower cost platform for webserving over a five year period despite the fact that they pegged Linux administration costs at 30% higher than Windows administration costs. The other workloads put Windows slightly ahead, but once again they charged a third more for Linux administrators, and they didn't add in any Windows upgrade costs for a five year period.
In other words it was a fairy tale scenario.
The reason that Linux is growing like crazy on the server side of the equation is that companies are realizing that Linux is pretty much a drop in replacement for both their Windows and commercial Unix servers at a far lower price.
This port isn't being marketed to gamers. PC Gamers run Windows.
That was the problem with Loki. They went for the AAA+ games, paid huge money for the porting rights, and then released the Linux version 6 months behind the Windows version. To add insult to injury they mostly ported games that required high end graphics cards that were barely supported under Linux. That meant higher support costs than the Windows version.
These guys strike me as being far more realistic. They are porting an interesting, but not very popular Windows game, and they waited to port until it was pretty clear that the game was a dud on Windows. Now they port it to Linux, advertise using inexpensive means (like/.'s front page:), and make a modest profit from guys like me whose other gaming alternative is NetHack.
I am not interested in running Windows just so that I can run a game. I don't have the time to deal with the added aggravation of running Windows, but I still like games.
Exactly right. This game sounds pretty interesting, and they almost certainly can get the rights to the port for a song. Even better, instead of competing against the mulititude of good Windows games the Linux port of Disciples 2 will basically be competing against NetHack. The desktop Linux market might be small, but it is large enough to support an effort like this as long as they keep it conservative.
The money to develop this game has already been spent, if the Linux port isn't too terribly difficult (perhaps they used SDL in the original) then a port certainly can't hurt.
The Linux market is a lot smaller than the Windows market, but there is also quite a bit less competition in this market. I know that I certainly am interested. As much as I like NetHack I am ready for something slightly more graphical.
If these people dislike logging so much why don't they simply wait until the fire season and start playing with matches.
Re:One user's views on usability...
on
Examining a Tablet PC
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Long story short. The Tablet PC completely replaced his sketchbook and pencil, but he still preferred to do the finish work on his normal PC (with a bigger monitor). Gabe liked the Tablet PC better than a laptop and a Wacom tablet. Here's a quote:
The tablet PC takes the place of the sketchbook, not the canvas. Is it an expensive sketchbook? Yeah. But it's the only sketchbook I've seen that lets me check my mail and surf the web.
Something tells me that most artists aren't going to be interested in a $2000 replacement for a sketchpad, pencils, and a scanner. Perhaps when these things become somewhat reasonably priced things will be different.
PCs have a lot of inertia. IT managers know how they work, and they have a handle on how much they cost. Microsoft has been a safe choice for years, and the newer versions of Windows and Office work well enough that there is little reason to rock the boat.
However, with Microsoft's new licensing scheme, and a down economy there are plenty of places that are looking at lowering the cost of their IT installations. People complained when organizations switched away from Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect too, but organizations still did it.
More to the point what is the cost of maintaining a building full of Windows PCs? X terminals have no moving parts and when they break you send a monkey to replace the defective unit in the trash and replace it with a new X terminal. Instead of sending a computer technician (with years of experience mucking around in the registry) to fix a broken PC you send a janitor. Want to upgrade to a new version of your Office suite. Instead of spending a month walking around with CDs in hand you simply pop your CD in the server and 25 minutes later you are done.
With thin clients you end up with precisely one machine to administer. The Crossover client allows you to have a single server that serves up both Linux applications, but also critical Windows applications like MS Word. Such a beast would be perfect for organizations looking at switching over to Linux-based thin clients over the long term, as it would allow their users to access both Linux and Windows applications easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's problems do not stem from some sort of corporate culture clash, and I can guarantee you that when Bill speaks people working at Microsoft still jump.
The problem at Microsoft is that the people running the show (and that includes most Microsoft developers) are more concerned about Microsoft's stock price than the long term survival of the company. Microsoft stock is still priced for rapid growth, and so Microsoft has to come up with a way to provide that growth or Microsoft shares will eventually lose a significant portion of their present value. If you think that Microsoft's $40 Billion is an impressive number calculate what Bill Gates would lose personally if Microsoft's stock lost half of its value.
The question then becomes where does Microsoft hope to gain its future growth. Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side, and there is fierce competition (and very low margins) on the embedded front. That leaves Windows and MS Office, as all of Microsoft's other business units are actually losing money. The XBox is Microsoft's best bet for a new significant revenue stream, but Sony appears to be taking Microsof to lunch on this front.
That's not all of Microsoft's problems either. The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
So what does Microsoft do to keep growing their revenue? They raise prices, that's what. Microsoft knows that their existing customers have large investments in their Microsoft software. Replacing this software would be very difficult, and so Microsoft is making these customers pay the price of their misplaced loyalty.
I suppose that it is possible that Egypt (and other countries where software piracy is rampant) will pass and enforce strong intellectual property laws. I don't see why they would do this, as software piracy is in the best interest of their local economy, but who knows what those crazy foreigners will do :).
Personally I am against having the authorities raid individual homes looking for pirated software. Especially in countries like Egypt where everyone with a computer is likely to be using pirated software. I lived in Peru for several years, and I saw too many laws that were only enforced when the people in power wanted to punish an individual. They had certain laws that nearly everyone broke, and so when some petty bureaucrat wanted to ruin someone's life, they simply sent in their thugs.
In the end there is more to Free Software than low prices. If Egypt wants to remain dependent on the U.S. for their software then pirating their software is almost certainly the way to accomplish that. Eventually Microsoft and friends are either going to find out a way to make Egyptians pay for software or they are going to stop developing software for the Egyptian market.
I understand that oftentimes software is worth what you pay for it, especially if you have invested a great deal of time learning a particular program. However, the reason that you know Lightwave and not some other program has far more to do with economics than the quality of Lightwave as a program. Chances are good that when you first started using Lightwave professionals in the studios were using some ridiculously expensive package that ran on even more ridiculously expensive UNIX workstations. If you would have had unlimited amounts of money you probably would have opted for the more expensive package, but you didn't, and so you learned Lightwave, which was good enough at a much lower price. Now employers who are looking for artistic talent know that there is a fairly large pool of artists that know Lightwave, and so that's what they use.
Free Software, Blender in this case, changes the equation in two distinct ways. The first is that it lowers the bar significantly for people who are interested in learning 3D modelling. If you have $400 for a PC you can start learning. The second major change is that any programmer that is interested in creating new "features" for a 3D modeler can now start with the existing code available in Blender. For some types of software this makes a big difference, it will be interesting to see how this effects 3D modelling.
In short, I realize that Lightwave is worth the price for existing Lightwave users. The real question is whether or not that will continue to be the case for new users. At the very least Free Software makes that question more interesting. If Blender didn't exist then there would be no question that Lightwave would continue to dominate the low-end of 3D modelling, but Blender at least adds the potential for a sea change. Just because Lightwave is worth the price to you does not mean that it is worth its price to everyone that wants a 3D modeller.
No one is going to make money selling software in the Indian desktop market. It doesn't matter who writes the software, the folks in India aren't going to pay for it. Microsoft has a huge user base in India, but they aren't going to make any money from this user base until they are able to successfully charge money for their software. The harder Microsoft pushes to collect the more Indians are going to realize that Free Software isn't all that bad. Even if Microsoft slashed their prices for their software you can bet that many Indians with computers would rather learn Linux and OpenOffice than shell out $150 for software. I imagine that there are some software firms in India that target the local market, but my guess is that most firms target the international market, for this very reason. After all, if Microsoft can't collect what it is due then what are the chances that a small Indian development firm is going to be able to combat piracy effectively. In other words the fact that Indians tend to run Windows on their home and business computers is completely irrelevant. Indians aren't buying your software.
Software developers, whether they are Indian or American, or whatever, target folks that pay money. Which means that if you create a custom application that relies on Oracle you are essentially adding Oracle software licensing to the cost of your application. If you based your application on PostgreSQL instead, you could easily lower the total price of your application while still delivering higher gross margins. Now clearly this wouldn't work for all types of software or for all clients, but if you aren't pushing Free Software in those situations where it fits, then I can guarantee you that you are losing business and profits. After all, why line the pockets of the commercial software vendors when you can put their licensing fees in your own pocket.
Sure, learning PostgreSQL (or whatever) takes some time, but it is an investment that would quickly pay for itself with probably a single PostgreSQL installation.
Linuxers understand that it is all about the applications. In fact, applications are precisely the reason that Linux is eventually going to win out. Hardware is getting ridiculously inexpensive, but commercial software remains very expensive. You might be happy to pay thousands of dollars for Lightwave, MS Office, Photoshop, and whatever else you run on your machine, but lots of people would rather use Blender, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and the wealth of free tools that come with Linux. Interestingly enough, the hardware companies would especially like to see software become less expensive because that would leave consumers with more money for hardware.
Sure, the Linux tools might not be quite as powerful, and they might lack the polish of the commercial applications, but they are a heck of a lot cheaper, and they are actually pretty darn good. This is especially true in countries where the average computer user gets paid less than those of us in the first world. If it weren't for the fact that most commercial software is easy to pirate Free Software would already be the rule in the poorer areas of the world. The harder the commercial software companies try to stamp out piracy, the more prevalent Free Software is likely to become.
Even in the United States the only people that actually pay for applications like Photoshop are those folks that use it professionally. Most people use whatever photo editor came with their digital camera or scanner. The Gimp almost certainly kicks that software right in the head. Which is why, in the long run it is almost certain to gain wider use and acceptance, especially now that the Gimp runs on Windows.
Adobe isn't going to port to Linux, because they know that if their customers start experimenting with Linux they are very likely to start experimenting with other Free Software that comes included in most Linux distributions. Direct competition with Free Software would make it that much harder for Adobe to sell their commercial applications.
In the end Linux will continue its inexorable march towards ubiquity not because it is especially good, but because it is "good enough" at the right price. There are plenty of folks that would like to use their computers to do the things that you do with your computer, but that can't afford to purchase thousands of dollars worth of software. These people have no (legal) choice but to dig in and invest some of their time learning Linux.
Star/Open Office in the U.S. government would be the death knell for Microsoft. The U.S. government is not only the largest software purchaser on the planet, but every other business in the U.S., and most of the businesses in the world have some contact with the U.S. government. If the U.S. government standardized on StarOffice formats then businesses around the world would be forced to use StarOffice to some extent. When the U.S. government asks you for a document in a particular format that's the format that you send them. The fact that OpenOffice is free certainly wouldn't hurt its adoption either.
Microsoft would not only find itself losing marketshare, but it would also find itself increasingly on the wrong side of the "standards" fence. Instead of OpenOffice having to be 100% MS Office compatible, Microsoft would find that they would be forced to be 100% OpenOffice compatible. In short, Microsoft would soon find that one of their major cash cows was fighting a losing battle against a package that could be downloaded for free.
Microsoft's revenues would drop, their stock price would take a beating, and companies would switch simply because Microsoft would look like they were "losing."
The best part of this picture is that, to a certain extent, this is already happening overseas. When Microsoft finally does get cut down to size my guess is that StarOffice/OpenOffice is the primary culprit.
The Freedom of Information Act was passed for exactly this type of situation. If the tax payer can not see what government officials (and this certainly includes the management of State Universities) is doing with their money then it leads to all sorts of possible abuses. This is why the terms of the contracts with public institutions are available to the public. That's the real story. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and yet somehow they are able to sign deals with a tax-funded institution and keep the terms of the contract secret. If the terms of this contract aren't publicly available then there could be all sorts of kickbacks involved and the public wouldn't be the wiser.
Personally, I think that this would be just as big a story if Sun, IBM, Apple, or even the Free Software Foundation tried to negotiate "secret" deals any government sponsored institution. If Microsoft's deal with these institutions is so great then what do they have to hide?
I don't hate Microsoft. Heck, I even own some of their stock, but just because I like Microsoft does not mean that I want them to be able to sign "secret" deals with government institutions.
That's the real story.
The problem, of course, is that Universities pretty much have to use Windows and MS Office, but they certainly don't have to teach their development courses using VS.Net. Tying cheap licenses to the acceptance of VS.Net is almost precisely the type of thing that got Microsoft into trouble with the DOJ. As a convicted monopolist such an action would almost certainly land them into hot water again.
Which begs the question, if Microsoft isn't tying cheap licensing for Windows and MS Office to the acceptance of VS.Net then why are the deals secret? What exactly is Microsoft trying to hide?
Personally, I would be just as upset if Sun or IBM were pulling similar tricks. I have a right to know how my tax money is being spent. If the deal truly is a good one, then why is Microsoft requiring secrecy?
And if Microsoft did the same that would be fine. However, Microsoft is tying the price of their operating system and office suite to the acceptance of their development tools as part of the curriculum. Sun gave away their development tools and class materials, to pretty much anyone that wanted them, with no strings attached.
That's a fairly substantial difference.
If Microsoft were to give their development tools away to all takers then I wouldn't be surprised if some Universities used the language. However, that's not what this is about. This is about giving the entire University access to cheap Windows and MS Office licenses if the University will make sure that their CS students learn only MS technologies. That's pretty much exactly the reason that MS got into all of that trouble with the DOJ.
Not to mention the fact that any differences from Windows are likely to get slammed by the users (and by pundits such as Dvorak) as being incompatible. Good, bad, or indifferent if Linux is going to take over the desktop it is going to have to be easy for the current group of Windows users to understand.
It was evidence, and the prosecution probably guessed that actually having Dmitry on the stand would hurt their case. Of course, since this isn't one of those really backwards countries the defense was able to put Dmitry on the stand as one of their own witnesses.
Spot on! I don't mind if the police use this kind of thing for leads, but this shouldn't be considered "hard" evidence.
It's too bad that I wasn't writing this as some sort of an essay, I have gotten a great deal of free copyediting :). Thanks!
You are certainly right, Saruman could have been given a coal mine. On the other hand, someone else pointed out that one of the complaints the Ents had was that the Orcs were cutting down trees and simply leaving them there. In other words, Orcs are just into destruction.
David Brin wants to link that to industrialization, but I think it makes more sense to simply attribute the Orcs actions to the fact that they are evil.
Yes, I read the article. Although I admit that I was skimming near the end. You see, it was fairly clear to me that David Brin hadn't actually read the same story that I had. He was so deadset on proving that the LOTR was a romantic backlash against modernization he simply skipped along to the parts that could be rigged to fit his little theory.
For example, Brin makes a big deal about Saruman cutting down trees after he allies himself with Sauron. In his mind that is clearly symbolic of modernization and industry. However, it can just as easily be attributed to JRR Tolkien's attention to detail. When Saruman changed allegiances he started building an army of Orcs. Arming those Orcs requires steel, and steel requires a large amount of charcoal (or coal if you can get it). It's no wonder that Saruman started cutting down trees, he was making steel weapons. His only problem was that the nearest source of lumber just happened to be a forest in which the trees could fight back.
Now you could see that as symbolic of nature versus industrialization except for the fact that the Ents were in decline long before Saruman ever switched sides. They had been in decline the entire time Sauron was dormant and Saruman still working for the forces of light. The real reason for the Ents decline is that the Entwives actually preferred man's cultivated areas to the primeval forest of the Ents. In other words, the story of the Ents is nothing more than just another tragedy in a long string of bitter-sweet outcomes. The whole world was changing, and many of the changes were not particularly good. Sauron was thwarted, but at a great price.
Gandalf, Aragorn, and the rest didn't oppose Saruman and Sauron because they were bad for the environment, they did so because they were evil. That's why they also refused to use the ring. They would rather die than become like Sauron. Brin was quick to point out that the depictions of Sauron were much like ancient propaganda, but sometimes people are just evil. The propaganda leveled at Hitler during WWII didn't even begin to touch the surface of the atrocities committed by him and his henchmen. Tolkien created a world in which the lines between good and evil were more clearcut, but that's hardly revolutionary.
As for the Hobbits returning to the Shire to take on leadership roles, Sam, the former gardner was elected Mayor, but who wouldn't want Sam for a Mayor? That's Meritocracy if I have ever seen it. Sam rocks. Someone has to be Mayor, and instead of electing someone rich, the Hobbits elected a former gardner.
Aragorn shirking his duties is another reason why Brin is all wet. Aragorn might have been descended from kings, but that had been generations ago. The fact of the matter was that Aragorn was a nomad with a broken sword. Boromir certainly didn't treat Aragorn like his sovereign, and I have no doubt that had he not shown up with the riders of Rohan in tow he would have been completely ignored by the folks in Gondor, and the only reason he still had an army at his back when he arrived in Gondor was because Merry and Pippin got the Ents to save their butts at the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Brin's arguments about Star Wars are spot on, that story is chuck full of uber-men who live above the rest of mortality. The LOTR, on the other hand, is all about mostly normal folks that pitched in and made a difference when it counted. It's also about Gimli and Legolas seeing past their prejudices, and Frodo seeing the good that still existed in Gollum.
Actually the Hobbit starts out by saying that the Tooks were richer than the Bagginses, and that Bilbo's father built Bag End with his wife's (a Took) money. The Bagginses were more respectable, but the Tooks were far more wealthy. The fact that outsiders to the Shire valued Bilbo's Mithril coat more than the rest of the Shire has very little to do with anything. Bilbo didn't know that the the coat was so valuable, and neither he nor Frodo were likely to sell it. Had it not been for the fact that Bilbo picked up the even more amazingly valuable "One Ring" the Mithril coat would have spent an eternity as a minor exhibit in a backwater Hobbit museum. Saying that Bilbo's coat made him the richest man in the Shire is like saying that the Bedouins of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula that were alive at 400 B.C. were rich because they were sitting on massive oil reserves.
Bilbo was certainly wealthy enough that he was able to live off his investments, but so is every retired person that you have ever met. Plenty of folks are able to retire early. And the book suggests that Bilbo actually spent most of his treasure before turning Bag End over to Frodo. Remember, some of the younger Hobbits even went so far as to dig for treasure in Bag End, but Bilbo had already spent it.
And that isn't even taking into consideration the fact that in many ways it is actually Sam that is responsible for the destruction of the One Ring, and you can't tell me that Sam was some sort of a high roller. He was a gardener!
This is where Brin's criticism of LOTR breaks down. Frodo might have been well-to-do, but he didn't have any idea that his armor was worth that much. Nor did he, or Bilbo, for that matter, realize that they had the "One Ring" on their mantelpiece. Sure, Frodo was comfortable, but he wasn't some sort of political power, even in the Shire.
As much as Brin wants to concentrate on Elrond, Galadriel, and the rest of the High Elves the story was really about a 4 foot tall hero from the middle of nowhere, and a pile of his diminuitive friends. Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are the folks that really make the difference, and I could probably throw any one of them across the room. Comparing those folks with "kings" is absolutely ridiculous. Especially since when their adventure was done they went back to the Shire as if nothing had happened.
Brin also misses the point that TLOTR is about the end of an era. The new era is ruled not by elves, but by the son of a woodsman. Aragorn may have been descended from "noble" blood, but his people spent generations as woodsmen protecting a people that mistrusted them. Aragorn starts the story as a nomad with a broken sword. He can hardly be considered a king. In fact, of the original fellowship only Boromir can really be considered as nobility, and look what happened to him.
The rest of the fellowship just happened to be the best that could be assembled at the time. Gandalf wasn't the chief of the wizards (Saruman was), but he was the best that was to be had. Legolas wasn't a High Elf, but he was willing to go, and Gimli went to represent the dwarves.
Speaking of Gimli and Legolas, Brin makes a big deal out of the fact that JRRT is some sort of a closet racist because he allows for the total destruction of the Orcs, but he forgets to mention the very important subplot where Gimli and Legolas face their racial prejudices and become friends.
In short, Brin is stretching. He has an axe to grind and he is trying to get the story to fit his preconceived notions.
Microsoft's recent studies done by IDG put Linux at a lower cost platform for webserving over a five year period despite the fact that they pegged Linux administration costs at 30% higher than Windows administration costs. The other workloads put Windows slightly ahead, but once again they charged a third more for Linux administrators, and they didn't add in any Windows upgrade costs for a five year period.
In other words it was a fairy tale scenario.
The reason that Linux is growing like crazy on the server side of the equation is that companies are realizing that Linux is pretty much a drop in replacement for both their Windows and commercial Unix servers at a far lower price.
The corporate desktop is next.
This port isn't being marketed to gamers. PC Gamers run Windows.
That was the problem with Loki. They went for the AAA+ games, paid huge money for the porting rights, and then released the Linux version 6 months behind the Windows version. To add insult to injury they mostly ported games that required high end graphics cards that were barely supported under Linux. That meant higher support costs than the Windows version.
These guys strike me as being far more realistic. They are porting an interesting, but not very popular Windows game, and they waited to port until it was pretty clear that the game was a dud on Windows. Now they port it to Linux, advertise using inexpensive means (like /.'s front page :), and make a modest profit from guys like me whose other gaming alternative is NetHack.
I am not interested in running Windows just so that I can run a game. I don't have the time to deal with the added aggravation of running Windows, but I still like games.
Exactly right. This game sounds pretty interesting, and they almost certainly can get the rights to the port for a song. Even better, instead of competing against the mulititude of good Windows games the Linux port of Disciples 2 will basically be competing against NetHack. The desktop Linux market might be small, but it is large enough to support an effort like this as long as they keep it conservative.
The money to develop this game has already been spent, if the Linux port isn't too terribly difficult (perhaps they used SDL in the original) then a port certainly can't hurt.
The Linux market is a lot smaller than the Windows market, but there is also quite a bit less competition in this market. I know that I certainly am interested. As much as I like NetHack I am ready for something slightly more graphical.
LOL, Bravo!
If these people dislike logging so much why don't they simply wait until the fire season and start playing with matches.
Long story short. The Tablet PC completely replaced his sketchbook and pencil, but he still preferred to do the finish work on his normal PC (with a bigger monitor). Gabe liked the Tablet PC better than a laptop and a Wacom tablet. Here's a quote:
Something tells me that most artists aren't going to be interested in a $2000 replacement for a sketchpad, pencils, and a scanner. Perhaps when these things become somewhat reasonably priced things will be different.
PCs have a lot of inertia. IT managers know how they work, and they have a handle on how much they cost. Microsoft has been a safe choice for years, and the newer versions of Windows and Office work well enough that there is little reason to rock the boat.
However, with Microsoft's new licensing scheme, and a down economy there are plenty of places that are looking at lowering the cost of their IT installations. People complained when organizations switched away from Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect too, but organizations still did it.
More to the point what is the cost of maintaining a building full of Windows PCs? X terminals have no moving parts and when they break you send a monkey to replace the defective unit in the trash and replace it with a new X terminal. Instead of sending a computer technician (with years of experience mucking around in the registry) to fix a broken PC you send a janitor. Want to upgrade to a new version of your Office suite. Instead of spending a month walking around with CDs in hand you simply pop your CD in the server and 25 minutes later you are done.
With thin clients you end up with precisely one machine to administer. The Crossover client allows you to have a single server that serves up both Linux applications, but also critical Windows applications like MS Word. Such a beast would be perfect for organizations looking at switching over to Linux-based thin clients over the long term, as it would allow their users to access both Linux and Windows applications easily.