I love it how lots of/. folks keep referring to 98Lite. This is essentially a program that (from what I can see) removes the icons from the desktop. And it only works on the Win9x products... and they charge you $25 for it.
Unrealistic. By your logic, all the smart people here at/. should be blaming their OEM vendor or aftermarket-garbage video card vendor for all the myriad "BSOD" they claim to get in Windows.
I don't see that happening. It's always Microsoft blamed when anything goes wrong.... MS has a serious stake in managing as much of the user experience as they can, regardless of whether an OEM will take the front-line tech-support call or not!
Google provides the ability to bounce searches off of their search application over the Internet using an API.
Microsoft writes ".NET" to allow folks to utilize application services over the Internet using an API.
They seem pretty similar in concept. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't what Google is doing essentially the same thing as what a.Net service would allow them to provide?
Shoot, I wonder if they won't just set it up as a.Net service once.Net is available for Linux (wouldn't this allow them to do authentication and billing?)...
Problem is, your analogy fails you. Disneyland would *NOT* lower their prices if they started charging extra for the rides. This is America.
Even if you throw a few Paramount parks into the equation to "compete" on price, normal folks expect to pay a certain price for the things we use. This is, remember, one of the big conceptual stumbling blocks hurting OSS; perceived worth of software is largely dependent on how much it costs.
It's also worth noting that with the exception of more-and-better free software, software on-the-whole has remained fairly price-steady over the years. It's not just Microsoft charging consistent prices. I'd guess this is because the costs of developing new software have not significantly decreased, while the costs of developing new hardware have...
Show me how to run Photoshop and Groupwise in a Linux enviroment
Perhaps if you paid Adobe and/or Novell a truckload of money you'd see this happen. Shoot, if you could even just convince them that they'd recoup their costs + a reasonable bit of profit on a Linux port, I suspect they'd be all-over-it in a heartbeat.
Problem is, we all know neither of these companies would make a dime if they spent the time and $$ to port the apps over... Sorry.
The real solution is to require Microsoft to bundle only bare-bones applications with Windows, and sell their high-end applications on store shelves.
Please remind me again what is the direct consumer benefit in nickel-and-dime'ing us for the "high-end modules" we currently take for granted?
Remember: The competing software vendors (the only group who might actually benefit from this change) are only "consumers" in the sense that they likely do their development in a licensed Windows environment.:)
But what is "normal" in China can be altered under duress. When Chinese authorities ordered Microsoft to surrender its software's underlying source codes--the keys to encryption--as the price of doing business there, Microsoft chose to fight, spearheading an unprecedented Beijing-based coalition of American, Japanese, and European Chambers of Commerce. Faced with being left behind technologically, the Chinese authorities dropped their demands. Theoretically, China's desire to be part of the Internet should have given the capitalists who wired it similar leverage. Instead, the leverage all seems to have remained with the government, as Western companies fell all over themselves bidding for its favor. AOL, Netscape Communications, and Sun Microsystems all helped disseminate government propaganda by backing the China Internet Corporation, an arm of the state-run Xinhua news agency.
So, let me get this straight: Microsoft leveraged their power for "good", while the others all fell down and capitulated to the Chinese government to get the easy money... what is that telling us...
Re:Why I won't be developing with .NET: $$$
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
> Anyone who wants to develop for.NET needs to shell out at least $1,079 for Visual Studio
Or... you can go out to MSDN and download the.Net Framework Software Development Kit for free (*connection charges apply) at this link
From the description:
The Microsoft®.NET Framework Software Development Kit (SDK) includes the.NET Framework, as well as everything you need to write, build, test, and deploy.NET Framework applications--documentation, samples, and command-line tools and compilers.
What is the "advertised max load" anyways? Is that the set of numbers you came up with in your pilot test lab <sarcasm>that you surely ran the software through before deploying into production</sarcasm>?
Nobody guarantees specific performance numbers on unknown hardware in an unknown environment!
Well, it seems to me that it's just an account. If you can figure out how to social-engineer your way into getting it enabled, should you be surprised that it works?
Misinformation. This account is used by the "Remote Assistance" feature that lets you grant someone access to remotely troubleshoot your machine. It is only available once you've generated a request for remote assistance and can easily be completely disabled in control panel.
Needless to say, if you live 5 states away and have ever tried to talk your parents or friends through support over the phone: "No.. don't click that one... click on the ADVANCED button... now what do you see...?" -- this is much better.
For all the talk of MS being like the Borg, I think it's important to point out that even if MS is declared a monopoly, it is hardly a monolith. There is no single collective-mind at MS, and employees are given an absolutely enormous amount of freedom to think for themselves.
That is to say that "Microsoft" didn't suggest (or require) to go vote on this and "Microsoft" didn't go actually cast the votes on this. It was probably just a handful of MS folks who thought it'd be fun to win the poll....
Tell that to Oracle. They're big on monolithic database objects. They seem to think putting their entire enterprise mail organization in one cluster (and in essentially one huge database file) is a good idea.
Of course, they'll spread it across a number of physical and logical databases to ensure recovery SLAs, but then again... you can do that in Exchange 2000 too.
As I understand it, 4.x (1995ish) was the first and last "sybase" derived SQL Server. 6.5 (1996ish) was largely rewritten based on roughly the same specs. 7.0 (1998ish?) was a huge update that added lots of enterprise features. 2000 (Mid-2000) is so far from "sybase" it makes my head spin.
But I'm sure you'll correct me if this analysis is wrong.
ME: E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't
YOU: The next version is always the one that works with MSFT stuff, isn't it?
Perhaps you define "next" differently than I do... It's here. It's been here. Since August of 2000. It's not the "next" version. It's a total rearchitecture of most components, so your various problems with 5.5 simply don't apply on E2k.
> However, sendmail will not send a single message 30 separate times
Not the time savings I was talking about. I mean the time it takes to update 1200 separate mail-files with 1200 separate 1mb files. Exchange writes it to disk once (and fast into the database) for all 1200 users.
Slashdot Mirror
A monopoly, you say!? That damn Microsoft! I smell a big payoff from M$ to OSDN to get all this daily news coverage -- Filthy bastards.
Seems they'd have even more claim to the ".pro" space than the doctors, etc...
I love it how lots of /. folks keep referring to 98Lite. This is essentially a program that (from what I can see) removes the icons from the desktop. And it only works on the Win9x products... and they charge you $25 for it.
What a deal!
Unrealistic. By your logic, all the smart people here at /. should be blaming their OEM vendor or aftermarket-garbage video card vendor for all the myriad "BSOD" they claim to get in Windows.
I don't see that happening. It's always Microsoft blamed when anything goes wrong.... MS has a serious stake in managing as much of the user experience as they can, regardless of whether an OEM will take the front-line tech-support call or not!
So let me get this straight:
.Net service would allow them to provide?
.Net service once .Net is available for Linux (wouldn't this allow them to do authentication and billing?)...
Google provides the ability to bounce searches off of their search application over the Internet using an API.
Microsoft writes ".NET" to allow folks to utilize application services over the Internet using an API.
They seem pretty similar in concept. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't what Google is doing essentially the same thing as what a
Shoot, I wonder if they won't just set it up as a
Doesn't Darius actually live in Columbia?
Analogy: All the rides at Disneyland are free...
Problem is, your analogy fails you. Disneyland would *NOT* lower their prices if they started charging extra for the rides. This is America.
Even if you throw a few Paramount parks into the equation to "compete" on price, normal folks expect to pay a certain price for the things we use. This is, remember, one of the big conceptual stumbling blocks hurting OSS; perceived worth of software is largely dependent on how much it costs.
It's also worth noting that with the exception of more-and-better free software, software on-the-whole has remained fairly price-steady over the years. It's not just Microsoft charging consistent prices. I'd guess this is because the costs of developing new software have not significantly decreased, while the costs of developing new hardware have...
Show me how to run Photoshop and Groupwise in a Linux enviroment
Perhaps if you paid Adobe and/or Novell a truckload of money you'd see this happen. Shoot, if you could even just convince them that they'd recoup their costs + a reasonable bit of profit on a Linux port, I suspect they'd be all-over-it in a heartbeat.
Problem is, we all know neither of these companies would make a dime if they spent the time and $$ to port the apps over... Sorry.
2 of which make better software (Wuicktime and Real Player)
You have got to be kidding me... Have you ever actually *USED* Real Player??
The real solution is to require Microsoft to bundle only bare-bones applications with Windows, and sell their high-end applications on store shelves.
:)
Please remind me again what is the direct consumer benefit in nickel-and-dime'ing us for the "high-end modules" we currently take for granted?
Remember: The competing software vendors (the only group who might actually benefit from this change) are only "consumers" in the sense that they likely do their development in a licensed Windows environment.
> Can I run a client on my Palm?
Probably not, but you can definitely run a TS client from your pocket PC. Remember, a Palm is just a fancy electronic day-timer.
and that intern always creates more problems and security issues.
That damned intern! Didn't they fire him yet!?
My favorite paragraph from the article:
But what is "normal" in China can be altered under duress. When Chinese authorities ordered Microsoft to surrender its software's underlying source codes--the keys to encryption--as the price of doing business there, Microsoft chose to fight, spearheading an unprecedented Beijing-based coalition of American, Japanese, and European Chambers of Commerce. Faced with being left behind technologically, the Chinese authorities dropped their demands. Theoretically, China's desire to be part of the Internet should have given the capitalists who wired it similar leverage. Instead, the leverage all seems to have remained with the government, as Western companies fell all over themselves bidding for its favor. AOL, Netscape Communications, and Sun Microsystems all helped disseminate government propaganda by backing the China Internet Corporation, an arm of the state-run Xinhua news agency.
So, let me get this straight: Microsoft leveraged their power for "good", while the others all fell down and capitulated to the Chinese government to get the easy money... what is that telling us...
> Anyone who wants to develop for .NET needs to shell out at least $1,079 for Visual Studio
.Net Framework Software Development Kit for free (*connection charges apply) at this link
.NET Framework Software Development Kit (SDK) includes the .NET Framework, as well as everything you need to write, build, test, and deploy .NET Framework applications--documentation, samples, and command-line tools and compilers.
Or... you can go out to MSDN and download the
From the description:
The Microsoft®
What is the "advertised max load" anyways?
Is that the set of numbers you came up with in your pilot test lab <sarcasm>that you surely ran the software through before deploying into production</sarcasm>?
Nobody guarantees specific performance numbers on unknown hardware in an unknown environment!
Well, it seems to me that it's just an account. If you can figure out how to social-engineer your way into getting it enabled, should you be surprised that it works?
> Yes, the page is convincing, but if this is the case why is the account hidden?
It's not hidden on my system.
MS Support Link on this
Needless to say, if you live 5 states away and have ever tried to talk your parents or friends through support over the phone: "No.. don't click that one... click on the ADVANCED button... now what do you see...?" -- this is much better.
For all the talk of MS being like the Borg, I think it's important to point out that even if MS is declared a monopoly, it is hardly a monolith. There is no single collective-mind at MS, and employees are given an absolutely enormous amount of freedom to think for themselves.
That is to say that "Microsoft" didn't suggest (or require) to go vote on this and "Microsoft" didn't go actually cast the votes on this. It was probably just a handful of MS folks who thought it'd be fun to win the poll....
Ssshhhh. Let 'em be. He's a *nix fanboy, and as such, has no real sense of history.
Maybe it's a compatibility layer...?
Tell that to Oracle. They're big on monolithic database objects. They seem to think putting their entire enterprise mail organization in one cluster (and in essentially one huge database file) is a good idea.
Of course, they'll spread it across a number of physical and logical databases to ensure recovery SLAs, but then again... you can do that in Exchange 2000 too.
But I'm sure you'll correct me if this analysis is wrong.
YOU: The next version is always the one that works with MSFT stuff, isn't it?
Perhaps you define "next" differently than I do... It's here. It's been here. Since August of 2000. It's not the "next" version. It's a total rearchitecture of most components, so your various problems with 5.5 simply don't apply on E2k.
> However, sendmail will not send a single message 30 separate times
Not the time savings I was talking about. I mean the time it takes to update 1200 separate mail-files with 1200 separate 1mb files. Exchange writes it to disk once (and fast into the database) for all 1200 users.
And then totally rewrote it, like, 5 years ago.