It boggles my mind that content companies are spending time and $$$ trying to "copyproof" their material. If someone wants to pirate something, it will get pirated; it's about that simple.
...I would find a way to disrput GPS services over the battlefield. Bombs using the GPS guidance packages are the B-2's main conventional weapon, and will soon be in widespread use throughout the USAF.
Any bad guy that manages to take out the GPS satellite constellation in some will take away a capability that our armed forces put to very good use.
...of the combination of media/law/politics that is such a bad influence on our country these days. It's actually kind of fun to watch, but I can't imagine what people who don't know how to think for themselves are beginning to believe about all of this.
Give the current price of pre-recorded DVDs, the vast majority of people will find it much simpler to buy a legitimate copy of their DVDs, rather than try to obtain a pirate copy.
If the DVD makers decide to be dumb and raise the prices of their movies, well...
IMHO, the attraction of the "best and brightest" to the internet/technology sector is nothing but capitalism at work, and that's a good thing.
A case could be made that because of advancements in technology, the need for top-level people in some industries and government has waned.
For example, the automobile business has been around for a long time. The state of automobile technology is such that the cars being produced by companies such as honda and toyota are pretty clean and fuel efficient, so much so that the need for a revolutionary improvement in those areas is not nearly as great as the need for revolutionary improvement in certain technology products.
The answer is that the typical computer user is ignorant. Being productive with a PC is not easy; it takes practice and training, just like any other tool humans have created. IS departments roll out PCs to the typical user and either: 1. don't train them, or 2. train them very poorly. Speaking as someone who it working on a PC implementation project for a governmental client, I've become a big supporter of a dumb client/NC solution for certain tasks.
Could it be that all of the anti-MS forces are trying a new strategy? Instead of the old strategy of, "compete with MS by trying to sell more competing products," the new strategy might be, "compete with MS by giving products away that are equivalents to MS's most profitable products."
The question now becomes, "if the strategy is to merely damage MS's sales and profits by giving stuff away (similiar to what MS did to Netscape), does that allow its competitors (Sun, AOL, Linux) to win?" To win=to make big profits. How will they make big profits if the market becomes used to getting stuff for free?
I don't know the answers, but I'd like to hear opinions.
The rationale behind web based applications is so that users need not shell out $$$ for a full blown PC, only a cheaper "WebTV-like" gizmo. With PCs becoming so cheap, why should anyone put up with the hassle of working with a distributed application, especially for word processing and spreadsheets.
Even if PCs don't get much cheaper, most people will be willing to spend the extra $200-400 to get a real PC and avoid the hassle of running their office suite over an internet connection. Word process over a 56K modem line (or even a DSL/cable modem)? I don't think so.
It's funny that no one in the media seems to have figured out that hotmail runs on non-MS platforms (Sun?). Usually the software and hardware vendors are quickly blamed (eg. the ebay outages).
It's a neat little situation MS is in. On one hand, it's a perfect situation to poke at a competitor, on the other hand, MS sure doesn't want to admit too openly that it's not using its back office products.
Before the flamethrowers come out, let me state that I: 1. like linux 2. wish RHAT all the best 3. am happy to see the linux community enjoying success
Now on to some critical commentary.
It's a safe assumption that Linux is good. It brings a lot of value to those who use it, and is definitely benefiting from a lot of investments and attention these days. I still have yet to see, however, how a dedicated linux company (eg. Red Hat) can become the "next Microsoft/Dell/Cisco."
Let's define "next Microsoft/Dell/Cisco." I'm talking about a very succesful public company, with rapid sales growth, a extremely bright current and future prospects.
For a company to be a successful, it must grow its sales, and figure out a way to make decent profits. How does a company grow sales? Sell something. What does Red Hat plan to sell? $99-200 Linux distros, and Linux services. It's difficult for me to see massive year-to-year revenue growth selling something that I can dowload for free, or buy from another vendor for $5.00. That leaves services/consulting.
I work for a consulting firm, so believe me when I say that selling services is hard. There are reasons why public companies that sell consulting services aren't valued as richly as companies that sell software or hardware, for example: 1. Selling consulting services often depends on personal relationships with your client(s). 2. The growth and viability of your consulting practice is directly tied to your employees. If someone from Dell or Microsoft quits, the company is affected in an indirect way. If one of my coworkers quits, that creates an immediate revenue hole of $200,000 (2000 hours*$100/hour). I've seen small consulting/services companies literally die over the course of a few months, as their revenue streams literally disappear in the form of massive employee turnover.
Despite the difficulties of running a consulting/services business, many companies do try, and succeed at it. The whole "ecommerce" thing is creating massive opportunities for the industry, that is only going to get bigger as this whole Y2K thing passes away. It's a good time for a small company to be in the consulting gig; there's not a whole lot of recognized expertise in ecommerce consulting, and a small practice can slip under the radar of the big guys, and grow fairly quickly.
Red Hat, however, is not going to slip under anybody's radar; they have too public of a profile. This assists them with recruiting, but will hurt them if they start making inroads against larger competitors. IBM, for example, is kicking all kinds of booty with its Global Services outfit. I personally don't like competing against them. I have little doubt that the companies that are supporting Red Hat in various ways today will not hesitate to start pulling plugs should Red Hat successes start affecting their meal tickets.
The popularization of Linux can hurt Microsoft, but hurting Microsoft does not automatically create an investment opportunity.
If MS provides detailed info about successful attacks, and uses the info to improve Win2K. Of course, can we trust the info that comes from their corporate mouthpieces?
Slashdot Mirror
It boggles my mind that content companies are spending time and $$$ trying to "copyproof" their material. If someone wants to pirate something, it will get pirated; it's about that simple.
There's a saying that goes something like, "People usually deserve the government they have."
Do we deserve actions like this?
Do people care about attacks on our civil liberties?
...I would find a way to disrput GPS services over the battlefield. Bombs using the GPS guidance packages are the B-2's main conventional weapon, and will soon be in widespread use throughout the USAF.
Any bad guy that manages to take out the GPS satellite constellation in some will take away a capability that our armed forces put to very good use.
...of the combination of media/law/politics that is such a bad influence on our country these days. It's actually kind of fun to watch, but I can't imagine what people who don't know how to think for themselves are beginning to believe about all of this.
...is really awful. Let's see what's passing for breaking news on CNN:
Big News Item: Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop OS's...duh!
...we'll get the chance to vote this administration out of federal office next year.
Give the current price of pre-recorded DVDs, the vast majority of people will find it much simpler to buy a legitimate copy of their DVDs, rather than try to obtain a pirate copy.
If the DVD makers decide to be dumb and raise the prices of their movies, well...
IMHO, the attraction of the "best and brightest" to the internet/technology sector is nothing but capitalism at work, and that's a good thing.
A case could be made that because of advancements in technology, the need for top-level people in some industries and government has waned.
For example, the automobile business has been around for a long time. The state of automobile technology is such that the cars being produced by companies such as honda and toyota are pretty clean and fuel efficient, so much so that the need for a revolutionary improvement in those areas is not nearly as great as the need for revolutionary improvement in certain technology products.
The answer is that the typical computer user is ignorant. Being productive with a PC is not easy; it takes practice and training, just like any other tool humans have created. IS departments roll out PCs to the typical user and either: 1. don't train them, or 2. train them very poorly. Speaking as someone who it working on a PC implementation project for a governmental client, I've become a big supporter of a dumb client/NC solution for certain tasks.
Could it be that all of the anti-MS forces are trying a new strategy? Instead of the old strategy of, "compete with MS by trying to sell more competing products," the new strategy might be, "compete with MS by giving products away that are equivalents to MS's most profitable products."
The question now becomes, "if the strategy is to merely damage MS's sales and profits by giving stuff away (similiar to what MS did to Netscape), does that allow its competitors (Sun, AOL, Linux) to win?" To win=to make big profits. How will they make big profits if the market becomes used to getting stuff for free?
I don't know the answers, but I'd like to hear opinions.
The rationale behind web based applications is so that users need not shell out $$$ for a full blown PC, only a cheaper "WebTV-like" gizmo. With PCs becoming so cheap, why should anyone put up with the hassle of working with a distributed application, especially for word processing and spreadsheets.
Even if PCs don't get much cheaper, most people will be willing to spend the extra $200-400 to get a real PC and avoid the hassle of running their office suite over an internet connection. Word process over a 56K modem line (or even a DSL/cable modem)? I don't think so.
It's funny that no one in the media seems to have figured out that hotmail runs on non-MS platforms (Sun?). Usually the software and hardware vendors are quickly blamed (eg. the ebay outages).
It's a neat little situation MS is in. On one hand, it's a perfect situation to poke at a competitor, on the other hand, MS sure doesn't want to admit too openly that it's not using its back office products.
Before the flamethrowers come out, let me state that I:
1. like linux
2. wish RHAT all the best
3. am happy to see the linux community enjoying success
Now on to some critical commentary.
It's a safe assumption that Linux is good. It brings a lot of value to those who use it, and is definitely benefiting from a lot of investments and attention these days. I still have yet to see, however, how a dedicated linux company (eg. Red Hat) can become the "next Microsoft/Dell/Cisco."
Let's define "next Microsoft/Dell/Cisco." I'm talking about a very succesful public company, with rapid sales growth, a extremely bright current and future prospects.
For a company to be a successful, it must grow its sales, and figure out a way to make decent profits. How does a company grow sales? Sell something. What does Red Hat plan to sell? $99-200 Linux distros, and Linux services. It's difficult for me to see massive year-to-year revenue growth selling something that I can dowload for free, or buy from another vendor for $5.00. That leaves services/consulting.
I work for a consulting firm, so believe me when I say that selling services is hard. There are reasons why public companies that sell consulting services aren't valued as richly as companies that sell software or hardware, for example:
1. Selling consulting services often depends on personal relationships with your client(s).
2. The growth and viability of your consulting practice is directly tied to your employees. If someone from Dell or Microsoft quits, the company is affected in an indirect way. If one of my coworkers quits, that creates an immediate revenue hole of $200,000 (2000 hours*$100/hour). I've seen small consulting/services companies literally die over the course of a few months, as their revenue streams literally disappear in the form of massive employee turnover.
Despite the difficulties of running a consulting/services business, many companies do try, and succeed at it. The whole "ecommerce" thing is creating massive opportunities for the industry, that is only going to get bigger as this whole Y2K thing passes away. It's a good time for a small company to be in the consulting gig; there's not a whole lot of recognized expertise in ecommerce consulting, and a small practice can slip under the radar of the big guys, and grow fairly quickly.
Red Hat, however, is not going to slip under anybody's radar; they have too public of a profile. This assists them with recruiting, but will hurt them if they start making inroads against larger competitors. IBM, for example, is kicking all kinds of booty with its Global Services outfit. I personally don't like competing against them. I have little doubt that the companies that are supporting Red Hat in various ways today will not hesitate to start pulling plugs should Red Hat successes start affecting their meal tickets.
The popularization of Linux can hurt Microsoft, but hurting Microsoft does not automatically create an investment opportunity.
If MS provides detailed info about successful attacks, and uses the info to improve Win2K. Of course, can we trust the info that comes from their corporate mouthpieces?
The last time I checked, Cisco was sucessful, partly because they do a good job of meeting the needs of their customers.
I plan to direct my anger at the people who choose to use these features, not the people that build the tools.