Does anyone remember this naming conflict between Apple and Dr. Carl Sagan? Apple used "Sagan" as an internal project code name, and the good doctor objected. Apple, being Apple, promptly changed the project name from "Sagan" to "Butthead Astronomer".
Consider the advice, then consider the source. An IT recruiting publication is advocating turnover! Who would have believed it? "Interview new programmers" (you'll pay our fee if you hire one) and "just fire em!" (we'll really rake it in when your competitor hires them). PHBs: why don't you give their advice a try?
Here's an idea for why this article focuses on programmers. The shortage of good programming talent is more severe than ever. The programmers who are good enough to deliver consistently know they are good, but they don't always know their real market value. Corporate executives who desperately need the products of programmers are terrified that good programmers will realize how valuable they really are and demand to be compensated fairly. Articles like this are intended to help keep market values for good programmers lower. Reread it with this in mind and see what you think.
Actually, I thought to write in an exception for engineers, who were the foremost professional users of Unix at the time. This "clarification" would have obscured the point I was trying to make, so I assumed that any engineer would be smart enough to read "most Unix advocates" and realize that they were the exceptions that prevented me from writing "all Unix advocates". Clearly, that assumption was incorrect.
Microsoft's work with schools is another reflexive relationship. Most parents and teachers want kids to spend their time learning only Windows because it's mostly what they will see and use when the leave school for the business world. Reflexively, the business world more and more uses only Windows because it's the only platform with which most people entering the business world are familiar. Were it not for the universities, Unix variants would have no traction at all; indeed they probably would never have even existed.
I'm going to start throwing out some wild guesses at this point. I'm going to guess that most Unix advocates in business world today were exposed to Unix while they were in college. Before that (high school, grade school, etc.) their PCs ran DOS or early Windows. Those weren't very compelling systems, so there really wasn't a deep mental rut for the PC user to fall into. Today, kids get started with Windows as soon as they start grade school. After a decade of wallowing in Windows, not many of these college-freshmen-to-be will have an interest in breaking from Microsoft's benign circle. As many have pointed out in this forum, Microsoft cannot destroy free software by direct attack (outmarketing, underpricing, etc.) Over time however, Microsoft can do the one thing that will destroy free software: starve it of talent by strangling interest in it. By "charitably" donating software to schools, Microsoft fuels the benign circle that keeps kids from ever straying from the Windows fold.
I'm going to break here and ask for you to comment on the strategic implications of reflexive relationships and how those impact the Microsoft hegemony and the free software rebellion. I believe that unless the circles are systematically identified and reversed, there soon will not be enough talented individuals with sufficient interest in free software to warrant consideration of alternatives. Does anyone have a general theory for identifing and reversing the benign circles that Micrsoft is deliberately cultivating?
I followed the links from here to the BSA piracy study. I was impressed by their estimate of piracy costs last year - almost US$12 billion. This is an interesting number because it's based on wholesale prices set by commercial software publishers. These prices are already padded to offset piracy losses. There is a reflexive relationship between wholesale prices and piracy losses. If the BSA reports higher dollar losses due to piracy then wholesale prices will rise to offset the increased loss. Reflexively, these higher wholesale prices result in higher dollar losses due to piracy. A vicious circle for consumers, a benign circle for publishers of popular consumer software.
How about another even more outrageous reflexive relationship? If the BSA is successful at international enforcement of U.S.-based licenses, they will be able to extract rather large amounts of capital from rather poor countries. The trade balance will swing in favor of the U.S. and result in a stronger US$ (currency strength always follows the balance of trade). A stronger US$ in turn requires these countries to pay out even more for software licenses and swing the trade balance even further in favor of US commercial software publishers.
Soros's reflexivity theory explains boom and bust market cycles. It also explains why booms build slowly, reach a frenzied climax, and then bust violently (like the dot-comedy). Usually, some new factor (a disruptive technology) enters the picture and reverses the direction of the circle, changing beneficiaries into victims and vice-versa. It's no wonder Microsoft abhors free software alternatives. There are many such vicious circles in the software industry that are fueled by the current commercial software model. Microsoft's entire business model depends on these circles remaining intact. And as you know, free software is the only realistic way that these circles can be reversed.
The state of computing has changed somewhat since Ellison and McNealy first started touting the NC. That was about 5 years ago, and if you believe Moore's Law then computers are about 10 times faster today than they were in 1996. That means today you can really use a VM (like JVM) to run programs. In 1996 computers really were just too slow, even with the elusive JIT compilers. Bandwidth to the Internet was different too. Most people had somewhere between 14.4K and 56K. That just wasn't fast enough to realize the NC vision. Today, DSL and Cable are providing 10x to 100x the bandwidth for roughly the same price.
So, we've had a 10x jump in computing power and a 10x jump in bandwidth. I hate to see Microsoft monopolize just as much as the next geek, but timing is everything and their timing is much better. They've kept their powder dry until it was pragmatically feasible and now they're unleashing Hell.
Don't get mad, get even. Or...
Don't worry, I'm sure ESR will see the importance of sourceforge to the open source community and deign to share with it some of his $41 million, er... $31 million, no wait... $400,000. Um, never mind. Don't call us Eric, we'll call you.
Ok, let me start by saying that I didn't buy this article, but perhaps Balmer paid for it.
Now, some facts. First, I use Win2K, Office2K, and Debian. I know, blasphemy yada yada. But Win2K does not crash often. It doesn't crash at all. Typically, I'm running Outlook, Excel, a few instances of IE5, a few instances of PuTTY connected to the Debian box, DevStudio 6, and some custom real-time stock market stuff I wrote. Win2K never crashes. IE5 never crashes. Outlook never crashes. Excel crashes about once a week. DevStudio crashes frequently (I really should use emacs & cygwin gcc). I run perl5 and postgresql on debian, and they never crash either. I push them all pretty hard. I have an average CPU load of about 40% on a dual P3-600 going for about 9 hours straight every day. I reboot the system every Friday afternoon before I leave. Other than that, everything keeps running (except DevStudio) and never gives me any trouble.
The point here is not to sing the praises of Microsoft. The point is to help you realize that Microsoft's software might not be as bad you think, or hope, or wish. The average Office user uses Office because it's fast, solid, and consistent. That means it doesn't interrupt their train of thought as much, and they can get some work done. Linux desktop apps are a nightmare for trying to stay focused on real work, instead of on the software. Can you imagine better software for Linux? Of course, but does it really exist? 50 million Office users will disagree with you if you say yes. Do you think they give a damn about which OS they use? No, they don't even *like* computers. They just want to get their work done without looking stupid and then go home.
Think about it. Does spreading Windows FUD help Linux? Not really. But how about some kickass new software; would that help Linux? You bet. You're young - you're smart - go write something.
This is a paper written by Charles Simonyi at Microsoft Research. Salient quote: "The best representation for a complex structure is a program. So the complex program that we need should be expressed as a program that generates it."
Lisp is good at tackling AI problems because the distinction between code and data is very weak. Learning and reasoning algorithms can be quite complex. A complex program can be represented as a simpler program that bootstraps itself to a higher level of complexity. It writes a more complex program by manipulating itself as a data structure, and then leaps the code/data boundry by executing its new, more complex self.
Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft's director of business development,... said Microsoft has no plans to mine, sell, target or publish user data stored in HailStorm.
"Has no plans" is not the same as "will not". Microsoft will never stop angling for exploitive control over weak minds. Exploiting the weak is the soul of free market economics and Bill Gates is the Bugs Bunny of capitalism.
I am researching what happened to the.coms. Clearly, advertisers are no longer funding Internet companies with their banner ad budgets. Apparently most advertiser changed their minds simultaneously. This hints at a single or small number of market research firm providing "advertising effectiveness statistics" to the many advertisers. Can anyone tell me if there is one such firm or small group of firms? If so, did they publish an official report citing poor return on advertising dollars? If so, does anyone have links?
Thanks
Yes, I'm sure people do not want to be dominated. That doesn't mean they don't unknowingly let it happen. Today, all marketing, like warfare, is based on deception.
Are you sure that people are afraid and short-sighted, or are they just kept in the dark because they are surrounded by elitists who are too afraid to lose their priestly status and show people the truth? Like you, most tech. snobs write off the public good and show nothing but contempt for those who have not had the same opportunity to learn about proprietary technology and freedom. Instead of looking at the long-term benefit of helping more people understand, you act like a baby and settle for the quick cheap thrill of snubbing those who know less than you. Microsoft is counting on people like you to do nothing. I'm sure they would be quite pleased with your non-efforts.
Microsoft is a consistent dealer of half-truths. They rarely tell outright lies in their product descriptions. The trouble is always in what they conspicuously omit. For example, Bob was by definition "ahead of it's time" if it's time is "never". The real danger for Microsoft is this increasing need to rely on "security through obscurity" to maintain marketshare. Most people still don't know the right questions to ask in order to find out how bad Microsoft's products really are.
Most of us thought the Internet would be the end of Microsoft in 1994-95 because they weren't integrating it into their products. Clearly, this was not the Internet's biggest threat. The real threat is that people can come now together and share their opinions and experiences in forums like this one. When the habit of comparing notes online becomes fully formed, no hype engine in the world will have the power to obscure the truth, not even Microsoft's.
Consumers love convenience and they love toys. But they also love freedom. Consumers do not want to be dominated. When they've been burned by enough half-truths, they'll start asking questions. When they've asked enough questions to realize that convenience of Micrsoft's toys comes at the expense of their freedom (and a bunch of money), then they'll be ready for an alternative. We have to remember that Open Source isn't just about getting free stuff. It's about making technology and society better. We have to remember that our obligation to those who gave us their software is to in turn give our time and expertise to help others - even the confused and ignorant people who keep Microsoft in business.
"Don't blame the media, become the media!"
- J.Biafra
It's not so unusual for Microsoft to change the name of one of their products, especially an unreleased product. They have the marketing engine to call anything whatever they want. They even have the audacity to rename Java to.NET.
Slashdot Mirror
Engineer indeed.
I'm going to start throwing out some wild guesses at this point. I'm going to guess that most Unix advocates in business world today were exposed to Unix while they were in college. Before that (high school, grade school, etc.) their PCs ran DOS or early Windows. Those weren't very compelling systems, so there really wasn't a deep mental rut for the PC user to fall into. Today, kids get started with Windows as soon as they start grade school. After a decade of wallowing in Windows, not many of these college-freshmen-to-be will have an interest in breaking from Microsoft's benign circle. As many have pointed out in this forum, Microsoft cannot destroy free software by direct attack (outmarketing, underpricing, etc.) Over time however, Microsoft can do the one thing that will destroy free software: starve it of talent by strangling interest in it. By "charitably" donating software to schools, Microsoft fuels the benign circle that keeps kids from ever straying from the Windows fold.
I'm going to break here and ask for you to comment on the strategic implications of reflexive relationships and how those impact the Microsoft hegemony and the free software rebellion. I believe that unless the circles are systematically identified and reversed, there soon will not be enough talented individuals with sufficient interest in free software to warrant consideration of alternatives. Does anyone have a general theory for identifing and reversing the benign circles that Micrsoft is deliberately cultivating?
How about another even more outrageous reflexive relationship? If the BSA is successful at international enforcement of U.S.-based licenses, they will be able to extract rather large amounts of capital from rather poor countries. The trade balance will swing in favor of the U.S. and result in a stronger US$ (currency strength always follows the balance of trade). A stronger US$ in turn requires these countries to pay out even more for software licenses and swing the trade balance even further in favor of US commercial software publishers.
Soros's reflexivity theory explains boom and bust market cycles. It also explains why booms build slowly, reach a frenzied climax, and then bust violently (like the dot-comedy). Usually, some new factor (a disruptive technology) enters the picture and reverses the direction of the circle, changing beneficiaries into victims and vice-versa. It's no wonder Microsoft abhors free software alternatives. There are many such vicious circles in the software industry that are fueled by the current commercial software model. Microsoft's entire business model depends on these circles remaining intact. And as you know, free software is the only realistic way that these circles can be reversed.
Boom? Boom what? Someone target-markets to you? Sheesh.
So you need very good control over your cookies.
True, cookie control is important. You don't want to lose your cookies over just anything.
VA Linux's losses grow fourfold May 22, 2001
VA Linux issues third earnings warning April 27, 2001
VA Linux: Caught by the IPO jinx? February 21, 2001
VA Linux cuts 25 percent of workers, delays profitability February 20, 2001
VA Linux tumbles on profit warning January 17, 2001
Suit accuses VA Linux of deceiving investors January 11, 2001
VA Linux seeks profits on programmer site December 5, 2000
and of course.. LNUX
Modding me down won't change a thing.
The state of computing has changed somewhat since Ellison and McNealy first started touting the NC. That was about 5 years ago, and if you believe Moore's Law then computers are about 10 times faster today than they were in 1996. That means today you can really use a VM (like JVM) to run programs. In 1996 computers really were just too slow, even with the elusive JIT compilers. Bandwidth to the Internet was different too. Most people had somewhere between 14.4K and 56K. That just wasn't fast enough to realize the NC vision. Today, DSL and Cable are providing 10x to 100x the bandwidth for roughly the same price. So, we've had a 10x jump in computing power and a 10x jump in bandwidth. I hate to see Microsoft monopolize just as much as the next geek, but timing is everything and their timing is much better. They've kept their powder dry until it was pragmatically feasible and now they're unleashing Hell. Don't get mad, get even. Or...
Don't worry, I'm sure ESR will see the importance of sourceforge to the open source community and deign to share with it some of his $41 million, er... $31 million, no wait... $400,000. Um, never mind. Don't call us Eric, we'll call you.
... is because Bill Gates fears that his nickname in this community would forever be "Free Willy".
Now, some facts. First, I use Win2K, Office2K, and Debian. I know, blasphemy yada yada. But Win2K does not crash often. It doesn't crash at all. Typically, I'm running Outlook, Excel, a few instances of IE5, a few instances of PuTTY connected to the Debian box, DevStudio 6, and some custom real-time stock market stuff I wrote. Win2K never crashes. IE5 never crashes. Outlook never crashes. Excel crashes about once a week. DevStudio crashes frequently (I really should use emacs & cygwin gcc). I run perl5 and postgresql on debian, and they never crash either. I push them all pretty hard. I have an average CPU load of about 40% on a dual P3-600 going for about 9 hours straight every day. I reboot the system every Friday afternoon before I leave. Other than that, everything keeps running (except DevStudio) and never gives me any trouble.
The point here is not to sing the praises of Microsoft. The point is to help you realize that Microsoft's software might not be as bad you think, or hope, or wish. The average Office user uses Office because it's fast, solid, and consistent. That means it doesn't interrupt their train of thought as much, and they can get some work done. Linux desktop apps are a nightmare for trying to stay focused on real work, instead of on the software. Can you imagine better software for Linux? Of course, but does it really exist? 50 million Office users will disagree with you if you say yes. Do you think they give a damn about which OS they use? No, they don't even *like* computers. They just want to get their work done without looking stupid and then go home.
Think about it. Does spreading Windows FUD help Linux? Not really. But how about some kickass new software; would that help Linux? You bet. You're young - you're smart - go write something.
Please send flames to
"select * from files
where file_type = DEV
and file_name = NULL"
No, this way Balmer can say "uh, we meant to do that."
http://research.microsoft.com/ip/May99/Disrupt.htm
This is a paper written by Charles Simonyi at Microsoft Research. Salient quote: "The best representation for a complex structure is a program. So the complex program that we need should be expressed as a program that generates it." Lisp is good at tackling AI problems because the distinction between code and data is very weak. Learning and reasoning algorithms can be quite complex. A complex program can be represented as a simpler program that bootstraps itself to a higher level of complexity. It writes a more complex program by manipulating itself as a data structure, and then leaps the code/data boundry by executing its new, more complex self.
"Has no plans" is not the same as "will not". Microsoft will never stop angling for exploitive control over weak minds. Exploiting the weak is the soul of free market economics and Bill Gates is the Bugs Bunny of capitalism.
You kill for IE under Linux, but would you pay for it? And would you use it without the access to the source?
I am researching what happened to the .coms. Clearly, advertisers are no longer funding Internet companies with their banner ad budgets. Apparently most advertiser changed their minds simultaneously. This hints at a single or small number of market research firm providing "advertising effectiveness statistics" to the many advertisers. Can anyone tell me if there is one such firm or small group of firms? If so, did they publish an official report citing poor return on advertising dollars? If so, does anyone have links?
Thanks
Are you sure that people are afraid and short-sighted, or are they just kept in the dark because they are surrounded by elitists who are too afraid to lose their priestly status and show people the truth? Like you, most tech. snobs write off the public good and show nothing but contempt for those who have not had the same opportunity to learn about proprietary technology and freedom. Instead of looking at the long-term benefit of helping more people understand, you act like a baby and settle for the quick cheap thrill of snubbing those who know less than you. Microsoft is counting on people like you to do nothing. I'm sure they would be quite pleased with your non-efforts.
Most of us thought the Internet would be the end of Microsoft in 1994-95 because they weren't integrating it into their products. Clearly, this was not the Internet's biggest threat. The real threat is that people can come now together and share their opinions and experiences in forums like this one. When the habit of comparing notes online becomes fully formed, no hype engine in the world will have the power to obscure the truth, not even Microsoft's.
Consumers love convenience and they love toys. But they also love freedom. Consumers do not want to be dominated. When they've been burned by enough half-truths, they'll start asking questions. When they've asked enough questions to realize that convenience of Micrsoft's toys comes at the expense of their freedom (and a bunch of money), then they'll be ready for an alternative. We have to remember that Open Source isn't just about getting free stuff. It's about making technology and society better. We have to remember that our obligation to those who gave us their software is to in turn give our time and expertise to help others - even the confused and ignorant people who keep Microsoft in business.
"Don't blame the media, become the media!"
- J.Biafra
It's not so unusual for Microsoft to change the name of one of their products, especially an unreleased product. They have the marketing engine to call anything whatever they want. They even have the audacity to rename Java to .NET.