IP isn't meant to protect innovation. IP is meant to protect those members of the 50+ demographic who are scared of innovation. Welcome to the genuine Age of Aquarius, kids...where as anyone else here who knows anything about astrology will know, a war between the old (Saturn...think Agent Smith, metaphorically speaking) and the new (Uranus...think Neo) is the name of the game.
This reminds me of when Richard Garriott left Ultima Online...As I recall there was some controversy as to how voluntary his departure in that situation was, as well. I think it's completely safe to say also that UO was never the same afterwards...although from memory Garriott's involvement had only been sporadic for about a year before he finally left. UO has been going down hill for a long time, though...it's why the freeshard scene is as big as it is. Really pissed me off when I read EA's TOS for the Sims Online, specifically prohibiting freeshards. Makes me wish I could write to the company and say to them that if they weren't such utterly mindless, incompetent, creatively-devoid, cash-fixated drones, they might have been able to run UO's official shards in a half-intelligent manner...which would have meant that people wouldn't have had any REASON to start their own shards. Running an MMORPG is no small feat...I'm sure many of the people running indie shards now would glady have not bothered if EA's shards were still worth playing. Of course now that I think about it...it most likely isn't the live team's fault...they've most probably got marketing idiots tying their hands about what they can and can't do. To me, associating marketing people with the live team of an MMORPG is like what Sun Tzu said about needing to keep a king away from a general during a war. The king might have authority, but in many cases was utterly clueless about warfare in particular.
(Now back to the topic;)) Contrary to an earlier post on this topic, I believe that given an individual in question being sufficiently creative/instrumental, the loss of a single person *can* be a big deal to a project. People have a tendency to develop their own logical frameworks, which others can have a very difficult time understanding. You take away the frame of mind and emotion that was responsible for the inception of a project, and there are going to be ramifications, even if said project continues.
It will be interesting to see how much of a course change results in Chris Stone's having left Novell. If it's true that SUSE are starting to take over the company, I can't see that as being a good thing...I will admit I don't know all that much about SUSE as a company, but virtually all of what I have read about their attitude I haven't liked...especially the debacle about YaST before Novell decided to open it.
IMHO the only people who are likely to seriously believe we need any form of online government would be those wonderful types who already think offline world federalism would be a great idea. Interesting that the idea is coming up in a UN world summit...Kofi and friends seem to want jurisdiction over how many bowel movements a person can have per 24 hour period.
In an ideal world anywayz, governments exist primarily to co-ordinate resources, (and historically, utilities) and to smack anyone caught abusing said resources. ("Gee Bill, what are we going to do tomorrow night?" "The same thing we do every night, Steve...")
The only real area where resource scarcity is an online issue is with DNS AFAIK, and I had thought that name allocation was the primary reason for ICANN's existence. Then of course there's the IETF, but the reason why they can't really be called a government is because they're actually useful.;)
So to me the bottom line is...in the areas where we need people co-ordinating traffic and resources, we seem to pretty much already have them. I don't really see how allowing the Conspiracy<tm> to gets its grubby paws on the net would really help anyone.
...And I'll say it again. For all the work Novell and the rest might be doing in evangelising Linux to corporate drones, they're still selling a stock product. A lot of people who've bought an assembly-line produced hamburger (and no, I'm not naming any specific vendors here, so nobody needs to get up in arms) will surely know that in terms of freshness, price, flavor, and nutritional value, you can't do much better than buying the actual ingredients and making it yourself. Certainly, the mass-produced burger is *convenient*...but using your own initiative has all of the advantages listed above.
To my mind, exactly the same principle applies with Linux. For my residential system, I downloaded Linux From Scratch and built it exactly the way I wanted it from the ground up, following on with the expansion volume from that site as well. Although I haven't had to do a commercial deployment myself before, from the reading I've done I know I'd still get LFS, work on adapting a version of the ports system for it (which I'm currently doing) and then use the information at infrastructures.org as well in order to build a rock solid system in exactly the configuration asked for.
From everything I've seen, self-determination is largely a prerequisite for UNIX use. Predigested package deals might work for Windows...but I think the Open Group's UNIX slogan of Live Free or Die definitely applies...and those sorts of terms do not imply to me that hand-holding is an option.
A desire to refrain as much as possible from exercising either intelligence or responsibility genuinely seems to be the bedrock of the corporate ethos in most cases...I think until that changes, companies like Microsoft are going to continue to hold sway. Corporations seem to want a software company which will do virtually everything for them...and because it only increases their level of control, Microsoft have been only too happy to oblige.
This is truly an illustration of exactly the kind of human being (and I use that phrase exceptionally loosely, here) that Bush and the people who re-elected him were. Someone expresses their misery and desperation over
1) Very likely having their child drafted to be killed or maimed in a foreign war 2) The US most likely becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the planet 3) The loss of life that will result in continuing terrorist acts in response to Bush's activities,
and not only does this most quintessential of Bush advocates continue trumpeting the usual rhetoric, but has the gall to cuss the parent author out for expressing their pain. I am gasping...I honestly can't believe this. And I know it's only going to get worse.
This mystifies me. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I really genuinely do not understand how anyone could advocate George W. If someone can explain this to me, please do...because I honestly *want* to understand.
I haven't read all that much about de Raadt...a few interviews mostly, I'll confess. What I have read though I've felt pretty positive about, myself. Yes, he's rather prickly/sensitive, and deeply strange, but those are two characteristics that are commonly associated with people who are abnormally intelligent.
It's true from most of what I've read that the BSD dev crew *do* seem to see themselves as one of the last holdouts of human intelligence. The thing is though, the evidence would tend to suggest that they're almost certainly correct in thinking that.;-)
Have a look through bsd.ports.mk and its associated files (as one example) at some point if you don't believe me...I found myself being reminded of Wayne and Garth's reaction to Steven Tyler when I did. ("We're not worthy, we're not worthy!" etc)
It's made me think that the old crack about LSD and BSD is true...though not from the point of view of the BSD developers taking it themselves, but from the point of view of them being sufficiently intelligent that the rest of us would need to consume LSD in order to keep up with them.;-)
I've been asking myself why I've been so preoccupied with reading about this election over the last two weeks or so. The reason why I couldn't initially understand it was because I'm not actually American.
Although I normally have a fairly high degree of interest in international politics, the more I think about it, the more I'm able to figure out why this election in particular holds so much importance for me. My country's current prime minister, John Howard, has tried to collaborate with the Bush administration as closely as possible over the last few years...Not only with Iraq, but also with a number of economic agreements, about which the unnoficial word is that they have generally benefitted the Americans far more than they have us.
It's not just about Iraq to me, though. I read somewhere that in the case of some countries, at least, whatever sociological/criminal trends America experiences, other countries tend to experience 5-10 years later. If that's true in this case, then I fear for Australia...and for the stability of the area in which I live.
What I mean by this is that as much as I've tried to read about the election lately, I've been reading other material as well. Material which really does not cast an appealing light on either Bush or Kerry. In Bush's case, there have been a *lot* of reports about how domestically in the US he is apparently trying to convert the country into a full-blown dictatorship, as well as an equal amount of dark speculation about the idea that this election could be portrayed publically as a stalemate even when it isn't, so that the results can then be manipulated in the courts.
The stuff I've been reading about Kerry though make me think that whoever would try and do that, won't need to in this case. The picture I've developed of Kerry tells me that he isn't really any opposition to Bush at all, in any sense, and that he most likely wouldn't do a thing differently if he got into power. I know most people here would probably wipe off the stuff about Kerry and Bush both having been members of Skull and Bones as just more deranged conspiracy theories...but to me, it honestly is scary.
Here's my overall conspiracy theory about this election though...laugh at it and call me a nutcase if you like, but I think it fits:-
Neither Kerry nor Bush either are or will end up being the genuine rulers of the country. There is a third entity (who, I don't know) who is able to choose the candidates in such a way that no matter who gets elected, the third (ruling) entity are able to continue persuing their interests unhindered. (I'm reminded of Palpatine's maneuvers in Attack of the Clones when I think about this, actually)
I think the reason why the 2000 election happened the way it did was because the Democratic candidate in that race was not one of the ruling entity's people, so they had to use whatever means necessary to make sure he didn't get into power.
But I think in this scenario there genuinely *is* a Palpatine wannabe around somewhere, or possibly a group of them. I think people in the US are going to need to find this individual/group, whoever they are, and get rid of them before they're going to be able to have genuinely free elections. To me, only being able to choose between a couple of people who've been approved by the proverbial man behind the curtain is not the definition of a genuine democracy...it also isn't likely to guarantee a change in policy with a new administration...because even if the old puppet (Bush) gets voted out, the new one still has the same master at the strings.
Remember also...Just because I might be paranoid, doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. There was a lot of weird stuff about 9/11...things that just didn't fit together and add up if you looked closely at the official story...and I'm not alone in thinking that, either.
I'm possibly going to get replied to by Americans here who will say that I have no business caring about what happens with their election...to which I say th
I suppose it isn't. But if so, I find myself wondering how a truly secure library setup (as an example) could be possible...if you're always going to be able to do things like this?
As a demonstration of NT/XP's "security," here's a bit of homework for you. Grab a copy of an NT/XP app called Erd Commander. (I'll leave it up to your good judgement as to how to obtain it)
Installing it takes a bit of doing in the scenario that you use, shall we say, the "online" way of obtaining software, so it's a chance to show off your leet `//areZ d00d credentials there as well.
Then, once you've got Erd Commander burnt onto a CD, change your NT/XP password, and forget what the new password is. Then insert the Erd Commander CD, reboot the computer, look for Erd Commander's "locksmith" tool, and laugh diabolically/cynically when you discover that it is possible to reset/change XP's password there to whatever you want.
An operating system that's capable of having its passwords compromised this easily is not secure, according to my definition. If hypothetically someone really wanted to cause some mischief, they could take the aforementioned CD into any library or educational institution running XP/NT, and they'd have completely unhindered access to the entire network...not to mention LAN cafes/PC baangs etc. I'm sure there are also an infinite number of other ways that NT/XP can be compromised just as easily as in this example. It's the proverbial monkey cage made out of peanuts...in fact now that I think about it, that's probably the best metaphor for XP that I think I've ever heard.;)
If any (and I do mean ANY...I don't care if you're a janitor) of Microsoft's staff read this, then please immediately do the following:-
1. Go to the highest person in the Microsoft heirarchy that you have access to, and persuade them to download a copy of the latest stable version of FreeBSD. I don't care HOW you persuade them, either. Use offers of drugs/various family members/their souls etc as needed. Be creative. This is important.
2. Explain to Jim Allchin and the various other hardcore Windows advocates (or get someone else to, if you don't have access to him) that by making a FreeBSD-derivative core with a Windows shell, he'll actually get to have his cake and eat it too:- The security/stability everyone wants, plus Windows' strengths in the user interface dept.
3. Round up MS's gaggle of programmers and make it happen. Don't get hung up on dumb, overly complex features that nobody needs (like WinFS) at this point. Keep the MS emphasis on user interface, (which we know Microsoft are good at) and backwards compatibility with other Windows versions (Which is half done for you - Go download Wine) and let the BSD peeps handle the nuts and bolts stuff. (which they're scarily good at) Wine is under the GPL, so you'll need to behave yourselves there, but you're in the clear with the BSD license, since without the advertising clause now you can basically do whatever you want with it. For PR bonus points, you MIGHT want to release source of at least some of your modifications as did Apple with OSX...and given Microsoft's image over the last couple of years, it's an idea to meditate on. Do NOT, under any circumstances, remove/attempt to hide bash access, either. Make it so the newbs don't have to use it, sure...but leave it there for those of us who want it.
4. Profit. Which you will, presumably to an insane degree...because while people who need lots of user-friendliness can still have it, the rest of us poor souls who have to help such people in the face of Microsoft's currently non-existent security model will have our burden considerably lightened. (and thus be far more effective at our jobs) So while the first group will continue to give you money, there's a good chance that the second group might start to enthusiastically do so as well.
Dump the current licensing model, and profit from volume, support, and upgrades. (In terms of the number of people needing to install MS upgrades, you'd probably be a lot smarter charging for those rather than using ugly licenses and then making the upgrades freebies...the current licenses are a PR killer, if nothing else. This'd do wonders for the TCO argument, as well)
5. Due to 4, the company will notice that although its revenue level might initially decrease somewhat, it then stands a much more certain chance of stabilising afterwards. (Linux is causing you to start to lose money now anywayz, and the bleeding is only going to get more rapid if you stay the current course)
Because of this, eventually a realisation might be reached that it is truly unnecessary to continue to try to discredit/outlaw/otherwise neutralise those of us who just happen to like using Linux (which is hell on Microsoft's own image anywayz) especially seeing as there'd be a fair chance that this plan would convert a sizable number of them to the new product anyway. We could call off the entire Linux/MS war...Joe Sixpack would be happy, the CLI/blackbox geeks would be happy, MS would still make lots of money, and the world would keep turning.
Think about it. For the sake of everyone, including yourselves. Please.
>If MS could shoot down the GPL, it would not >hesitate to sell an MS shell over a linux core, >if it can justify dumping the NT asset.
Yes, they would hesitate. If they wanted to do this, they already could have with their own distro of FreeBSD, a la Apple. They don't want to because Jim Allchin (among other peeps in the company) is slavishly determined to stick to Windows as it currently exists, NO MATTER WHAT. Even if it becomes insecure to the point of falling to pieces. Even if everyone else on the planet urged him/them to go with a BSD/Linux core.
If Microsoft *were* willing to consider entering the OSS market, they might have some sort of chance. But because they won't, they don't.
>have no opinion of MS I will bet you dollars to >peanuts that a few 100 million of PR can make any >crimminal into a loved figure
In America possibly, yes. The other thing about people like Rockefeller (and Gates) is that despite their possible level of evil in other respects, to the American psyche they are seen as a validation of the capitalist system. In my own mind, Gates is probably a better example of *abuse* of capitalism rather than the system working in any healthy and positive way...but that's just me. And before I become the target of any McCarthyist flames, I am actually NOT a Communist. What I am however is someone who is able to see that even the most well-intentioned and best designed economic systems can still be open to manipulation and abuse by a sufficiently unscrupulous individual.
However, that is America. Even assuming Microsoft *were* able to repair their domestic image (and even that is a very tall order, from what I've seen) they're not going to be able to have any chance of redeeming themselves in any other part of the world...Europe especially. The bottom line is that people are growing extremely tired of tyranny, in whatever form. The Americans might still be willing to put up with it on a domestic basis, but there's a fair amount of evidence online recently that even they are growing weary of their government's and Microsoft's excesses.
People want genuinely free environments, both online and off, in which their rights of self-expression and self-determination are respected. If Gates and Bush are not willing to respect this desire in people, then despite the amount of damage they can do in the short term, in the longer term they will not survive...it's basically that simple. Tyranny is not conducive of or supportive to any form of life or the preservation of environments...and the greater portion of humanity are beginning I think to understand that, even if these few short-sighted individuals do not.
1. AFAIK, XP is the primary version of Windows being sold by MS atm. There might be others for corporate peeps...Server 2003, etc...but I'm talking in terms of home users. ME is still *supported* AFAIK, but from what I read 95 isn't and I don't know about 98...but even if it is, it's not still generating MS money. So from what I can see, XP alone is pretty much where it's at in terms of current home user OS revenue for them.
2. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that XP is currently being pirated to an insane degree. We know about MS bringing out Starter Ed in Asia to try and combat piracy there, and they had the serial number top 10 etc etc.
3. Although it's true that it is now at that stage of the game where from MS' point of view, pirate XP on someone's machine is still more desirable than legit Linux, (because of mindshare retention) they have been starting to feel (at least compared to what they're used to) a rather nasty profit pinch over the last year or two. Because of this, it's understandable that given where they are now, they're probably more interested in stopping piracy at the moment than they ever have been before...however, they're not likely to be successful IMHO because
4. They've destroyed/damaged consumer trust/credibility to the point where they're not going to be getting it back. Ever. For anyone who's been paying attention, Microsoft's list of crimes is a mile long, including violation of the Sherman Act, raping/destroying various other software companies and acquiring their software through dubious means, and more relevant to this particular topic, suspicion of engaging in various forms of surveillance of Windows users. I'm guessing Gates could quite literally donate his entire fortune to charity at this point and it wouldn't substantially improve most people's opinion of him. The PR crisis is actually Microsoft's biggest problem...Bigger than Linux...bigger than anything else currently challenging it. The plain and simple fact is that people passionately hate the company, in large numbers...or at the very least seriously distrust it...and it is utterly impossible to continue to successfully do business when the majority feel that way towards you. Gates would do very well at this point to acquaint himself with what Machiavelli wrote about a leader who allows himself to become hated.
Because of this, however, I'm assuming that only the most gullible of casual users for the most part are going to go along with allowing Microsoft to check their copies of Windows...And I also have a feeling Microsoft know that. The line about improving reliability is one of their usual transparent-as-glass lies.
>user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a >very big and impressive release to the average >user.
Please define "average user". This to me is a rather vague and ambiguous term, and could cause me to make certain assumptions about the type of user you're talking about, which you may not have intended.
>that there are no weak links.That means that >X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit >into each other's design very well and as tightly >as Windows and MacOS X.
No...The different elements of Linux were initially designed as components...seperate pieces...and this decision was made for a number of reasons that developed over quite a long period of time...X Windows in particular predates Linux. This document may be of relevance if you are interested in learning about the rationale behind modular design, and why monolithic design (the philosophy Microsoft have traditionally used) is normally not as effective.
Microsoft's direction is set, broadly speaking, by people whose skillset is oriented a lot more along the lines of economics and marketing than programming as such. The company exists for two reasons that I have been able to discern:-
(a) To make money via appealing to the largest possible demographic of the computer using population. Technical excellence, despite claims to the contrary, has been repeatedly shown as not being one of Microsoft's priorities. I can also cite numerous pieces of evidence in support of that assertion if you are interested.
(b) To maintain control primarily of the software industry, but also potentially of others...for reasons largely unknown, but presumably a continued desire for generation of massive revenue is a factor. This is a more difficult assertion to support, but Bill Gates has on a few occasions outlined visions of a particular future scenario in which Microsoft has a high degree of control of the areas of both computer software and entertainment/journalistic media.
It also would not be accurate to say that Microsoft have any real advantage over Linux, technical or otherwise...and they are well aware of this, and have mentioned it in profit statements. This document, as well as a collection of documents here outline in high detail the specific challenges Microsoft face in dealing with Linux, and the corporation's long term prognosis cannot be honestly described as positive. I believe that the company's best case scenario within the next decade or so is gradual marginalisation and a decreasing degree of market relevance. Worst case scenario (for them) is bankruptcy, probably ten years or so out at the earliest. This is an unlikely scenario, but given the amount of litigation the company has faced in the last few years, its tremendous losses in the court of public opinion, and the degree to which Windows sales have slowed, (not to mention the most devastating element, which is the lack of a genuinely concrete roadmap after Windows NT 4) it is becoming increasingly possible. The other thing that causes this to be more possible now is the fact that while Microsoft are not developing any substantially new products, (despite the claim at the beginning of your comment, most of the changes to Windows XP were cosmetic at best) the insecurity of Windows XP and the associated necessity to release massive and constant amounts of patches for it means that Microsoft can no longer afford to support older versions of its operating system, despite the fact that many people still use them.
I believe I observed the beginning of Microsoft's downfall in around September/October 1997. Although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer, the company is now losing blood...a combination of Linux, its own mistakes/misdeeds, and a recent comparitive lack of direction have left it mortally wounded. I also do not believe, no
If the RIAA had even a microscopic degree of intelligence, rather than simply being a cabal of cash-fixated boomers, they might have been able to predict this.
I remember going to DCC warez channels a few years back on IRC, and seeing constant ads/notifies there about bedroom FTPs set up via dyndns and so on...not to mention the "leet" (private) IRC servers you'd hear about. (although I heard about those a lot less often)
If the RIAA had been realists, they would have realised a couple of important things straight off the bat:-
1) The Internet was designed to be able to withstand a nuclear exchange, and P2P in particular probably operates more purely via decentralised mesh topology principles than just about any other net application in existence. (As opposed to say IRC, which typically uses branch topology...which is why a single netsplit on the wrong server can lobotomise the entire network) In other words, they have less than no chance of EVER being able to stop it, or even tracing the origin node of a given file in most cases.
2) Given the fact as stated above that they'd have more chance of moving the rock of Gibraltar than shutting down P2P, the truly clueful thing for them to do would have been to try and figure out a way to use it as a source of revenue for themselves. On a network where anything is available, the neatest trick is isolating/finding what you want...so they could have had "featured" lists stacked with their own artists and used a subscription model for their search service, OR run their own private show AKA Kazaa and again used the subscription model for that. For another thing...in an environment of files, just about everything is a generic copy of a copy of a copy. With the "mashy" thing a bit back, David Bowie's fans demonstrated that what they really wanted was personalisation...something that an individual could feel was uniquely theirs, and not just an identical copy of what everyone else had. This would be more difficult to make money from, to be sure, but in different ways I'm betting it could be done.
Yet *another* way they could have made major cash for themselves would be by mining the online indy scene. They encourage the proverbial bedroom DJs, who then not only produce more fodder for the subscription model, but could even in some ways go towards satisfying the "individual" demand mentioned above via exclusive/semi-exclusive concert type recordings, individualised remixes, etc. The possibilities are endless.
3) The very LAST thing they should have wanted to do was push this underground, because once they've do that, they lose the ability to a) monitor/police it AT ALL, and b) profit from it because they either don't know where it is, or because they've already destroyed user goodwill by previously attempting to destroy it.
The problem with too many corporate bodies these days is the desire to make money via scorched earth techniques...but what they never think of is that by destroying the host environment today, (whether online or off) they lose the ability to make money from it tomorrow...whereas if they were smart, they could capitalise on these things indefinitely.
>All I can see is a lot of dudes in ties and >dudettes in power suits, grinning from ear to ear >beacuse they're winning, collaborating and just >being successful because of the magic pixie dust >this app gives them.
You're missing the point. I didn't mean that MindManager actually IS wiki software...Except possibly to suggest the idea that Wikis are possibly in a *multi-user* or collaborative sense what MindManager is in a single-user sense...but I'm talking conceptually, anywayz...or in terms of what MindManager actually *does*.
I took a while figuring out the whole Wiki thing, too...They are a difficult concept. Installing TikiWiki and poking it with a stick was educational for me...you may find it to be as well. This bit of software will help tremendously as well.
Basically, the easiest way I've found to think of a Wiki is as a collaborative mind map, if such a thing is possible. I believe they are an attempt to store information in an even more context-specific way than the conventional Web, and in a manner which as closely as possible resembles that of an actual brain.
The other thing about Wikis is that they're lightning fast to write. Although HTML/XHTML aren't what you'd call rocket science, they're still sufficiently complex that it can be a pain to have to write out all the tags. With a Wiki, (http://www.yahoo.com|Yahoo!) will put a basic link in a page, but without an alt tag of course.
The main audience I've seen using them myself are FPS game mod programmers, although I know a lot of other people of course do as well. But the reason why they're a boon to the UT or Quake mod crowd in particular is because it basically allows them to write pages in two parts.
a) Textbook definition of class XYZ, what it does etc. (The theory)
b) Another section lower down where people can put war stories about experiences they've had actually coding with said class, examples of how to do it, or corrections/clarifications of elements of the definition. (The practice)
In this example, it's actually fairly similar to what php.net has for its documentation, except a wiki is probably a bit more specifically designed for that from the ground up. Hope this helps...
In terms of talking about the operating system itself, Microsoft's statements come across as the same FUD we'd expect. However there is one thing I noticed in this letter which caused me to think a bit...
"All of the major Linux vendors...have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
What this means I think is that Microsoft can't compete with the *operating system itself* on technical merit, and they know this. However, what it sounds like they're realising that they *can* do is exploit corporate ambivalence about Linux based on the major distributor companies' pricing structures.
I understand that in order to make money with Linux, it's always been about the services. What I've also heard talked about several times recently though is how greedy people think Red Hat in particular are becoming. If this is true, RH and the other companies IMHO need to be careful.
Microsoft as I said know they cannot compete with Linux based purely on technical merit. But if Red Hat and the other companies introduce overinflated pricing structures with regards to the services, this will largely erradicate the "free as in beer" element of Linux, at least as far as the corporate mind is concerned. If it gets to the point where Microsoft can compete based on *initial price*, (and no, I'm not talking about ongoing license fees here...I'm talking about the price of the *initial* contract/box/whatever) then they could even afford to cease caring about people knowing that Linux is a technically stronger solution than Windows. All they need to do is sell someone on the idea that an *entry* price is cheaper than the initial price one of the Linux companies is charging. Based on what I've heard about Microsoft's contracts, I'm guessing they could very easily do this.
1) Offer a corporation an initial deal comparable to the Linux vendors in terms of unit volume/amount of support, but at a marginally lower price, and of course with Windows rather than Linux.
2) Fill said corp's heads with usual BS about "independent" (wink, wink) surveys/studies and so on to grease the deal.
3) Include a fixed term no-vendor-transfer clause in the contract...basically specifying that they can't migrate for a certain time period. 5 years, 10 if they can get away with it.
4) Once the time period for the Linux "clone contract" runs out, then we're in purely Microsoft time, and can then commence MS fun and profit. Jack up the price for additional support, service packs, bug fixes or whatever, and justify this on the basis that these weren't mentioned in the original contract, or that these are "optional extras." (Even if they are actually mandatory to keep the corp's machines functioning) Use extra context-specific BS as necessary.
Any client company unfortunate enough to fall into this trap would basically be screwed for the duration of the contract.
>Second, this rips back open the possibility of >our faerie tales being more true than most of us >would have expected.
That's only a big deal though for those of us who were sufficiently narrow minded that we weren't able to concede that possibility to begin with.
I buried myself in cryptozoology as a kid. As an example, after having read for a few years about Bigfoot, we learnt in Year 7 history at school that there was at one time a hominid species called Gigantopithecus walking around that was supposedly nine or ten feet tall. To me the idea that some individuals of this species may have survived in isolated areas wasn't really all that outrageous at all. I will admit that in Bigfoot's case the fact that no carcasses have been found doesn't lend a lot of weight to the idea that the creature definitely exists, but to me *if* it does, Gigantopithecus is as good an explanation of what it is as any. Also, if they were able to extract DNA samples from the Gigantopithecus remains they've dug up and compare them with a sample from say, Andre the Giant or Matthew McGrory, I think they'd probably find at least some resemblance.
I myself have a form of autism, and while I'm not a geneticist, I'd be willing to bet money that in in 5-10 years a reference to "Homo sapiens aspergius" or something similar is going to show up on Wikipedia, because they're going to find out that a person with autism is not genetically *identical* to mainstream homo sapiens.
They're saying that this rewrites everything we know about human evolution. Personally, I don't think it does anything of the kind. We already know about (as two examples) the difference between the tiger and the domestic housecat, or say a wolf and a miniature schnauzer, even though they are known to be genetically related to each other.
What we're dealing with is exactly the same thing here. Andre, Matthew, Kenny Baker, John Merrick and me are all members of the human family tree...we're just not all exactly on the same branch...in the same way that a miniature poodle isn't identical to a rottweiler.
I acknowledge that it was a rather pathetic post for me to make...the sort of thing where you're focussed primarily on airing the contents of your intestines at the time, but then regret it aftwards.
I really am not normally that small minded or judgemental...the condition of a lot of things in the world at the moment cause me a fair amount of emotional pain, as I'm sure they do many other people.
I do however, all judgement aside, believe that the actions and philosophy of the current Bush administration is the direct cause of most of that pain and suffering, and that if it were possible (hypothetically speaking, since I have very little faith that it will actually happen) to put someone in Bush's position who had a very different philosophy and was interested in taking some very different actions, that most of said pain and suffering (if not all) would ease.
Our own moral judgements about a person, whether they be praise or condemnation, carry absolutely no weight, and are ultimately irrelevant. Although I am in the process of trying to move towards a different perspective, I was a fundamentalist Christian myself for several years, and unfortunately when I am upset, vestigial elements of that belief system can at times express themselves.
It occurs in the case of very few people (if any) that they actually have an intention to cause misery and suffering from the outset, since a desire to do this would actually conflict with their own desire for self-preservation. Because of this, if we have problems with a certain individual's actions, when I am in a less purely emotive state I recognise that rather than criticising or condemning a person directly, it is probably a lot more appropriate to ask them to review their own conscience and ask themselves whether or not they have attained a positive or negative outcome as a result of their actions...and whether that outcome is consistent with the aspirations that they initially had in childhood or adolescence...at the beginning of their careers.
This tells me that George Bush is so morally confident of himself, what he's doing, and his chances for re-election, that he doesn't want his actions observed by the rest of the world.
We all know why George doesn't want the rest of the planet to be able to see what he does...it's the same reason why he doesn't want ANYBODY anywhere to be able to see it. He doesn't want to be accountable to anyone...and think about it...if a person is *really* confident that they're doing the right thing, you would think that they wouldn't have a problem with explaining/justifying it to anybody who asked, because they'd know that they'd be able to. The only real reason that I can think of for a person wanting to keep themselves and their activities secret is because deep down they know they're doing something wrong.
I normally refrain from starkly dualistic labelling, but George W Bush meets my own personal definition of an evil man...and I believe that deep down, in the quietness of his own mind, *he* knows he is, too.
I continually find myself wondering why idiotic comments such as this get modded 5, Funny. Maybe someone needs to explain to a few of the moderators that stupid does not necessarily = funny.
>Few users at the start of their careers will have >the skills to actually evaluate the guts of the >packages they download.
You're right. I'll admit quite openly that I don't have the skills to code audit at all, for the most part. However, what I *can* do is use such measures as MD5/GPG signature verification. MD5 in particular isn't perfect...I remember an article on here a bit back about its foibles...but that possibly *in conjunction* with something stronger like PGP or GPG can go a long way towards verifying that I've got what I meant to get, from the person/group I was meaning to get it from.
Nothing can take the place of being proactive. If I go directly to the CVS/FTP server of a given project and get the stable branch from there, I at least know I'm getting the project's code from the actual authors of the project...even if one of said coders turns evil and inserts malicious code into it.;-)
Certainty is a very difficult thing to attain no matter what you do, to a degree...It's even more so because of that reason that what I'm advocating here is that people don't take the passive consumer approach and simply expect to be spoon fed patches. Yes, I am a newbie, comparitively speaking...but I intend to be one for as short a time as possible...and the only way I can ensure that is to be responsible for my own learning.
Slashdot Mirror
IP isn't meant to protect innovation. IP is meant to protect those members of the 50+ demographic who are scared of innovation. Welcome to the genuine Age of Aquarius, kids...where as anyone else here who knows anything about astrology will know, a war between the old (Saturn...think Agent Smith, metaphorically speaking) and the new (Uranus...think Neo) is the name of the game.
This reminds me of when Richard Garriott left Ultima Online...As I recall there was some controversy as to how voluntary his departure in that situation was, as well. I think it's completely safe to say also that UO was never the same afterwards...although from memory Garriott's involvement had only been sporadic for about a year before he finally left. UO has been going down hill for a long time, though...it's why the freeshard scene is as big as it is. Really pissed me off when I read EA's TOS for the Sims Online, specifically prohibiting freeshards. Makes me wish I could write to the company and say to them that if they weren't such utterly mindless, incompetent, creatively-devoid, cash-fixated drones, they might have been able to run UO's official shards in a half-intelligent manner...which would have meant that people wouldn't have had any REASON to start their own shards. Running an MMORPG is no small feat...I'm sure many of the people running indie shards now would glady have not bothered if EA's shards were still worth playing. Of course now that I think about it...it most likely isn't the live team's fault...they've most probably got marketing idiots tying their hands about what they can and can't do. To me, associating marketing people with the live team of an MMORPG is like what Sun Tzu said about needing to keep a king away from a general during a war. The king might have authority, but in many cases was utterly clueless about warfare in particular.
;)) Contrary to an earlier post on this topic, I believe that given an individual in question being sufficiently creative/instrumental, the loss of a single person *can* be a big deal to a project. People have a tendency to develop their own logical frameworks, which others can have a very difficult time understanding. You take away the frame of mind and emotion that was responsible for the inception of a project, and there are going to be ramifications, even if said project continues.
(Now back to the topic
It will be interesting to see how much of a course change results in Chris Stone's having left Novell. If it's true that SUSE are starting to take over the company, I can't see that as being a good thing...I will admit I don't know all that much about SUSE as a company, but virtually all of what I have read about their attitude I haven't liked...especially the debacle about YaST before Novell decided to open it.
IMHO the only people who are likely to seriously believe we need any form of online government would be those wonderful types who already think offline world federalism would be a great idea. Interesting that the idea is coming up in a UN world summit...Kofi and friends seem to want jurisdiction over how many bowel movements a person can have per 24 hour period.
;)
In an ideal world anywayz, governments exist primarily to co-ordinate resources, (and historically, utilities) and to smack anyone caught abusing said resources. ("Gee Bill, what are we going to do tomorrow night?" "The same thing we do every night, Steve...")
The only real area where resource scarcity is an online issue is with DNS AFAIK, and I had thought that name allocation was the primary reason for ICANN's existence. Then of course there's the IETF, but the reason why they can't really be called a government is because they're actually useful.
So to me the bottom line is...in the areas where we need people co-ordinating traffic and resources, we seem to pretty much already have them. I don't really see how allowing the Conspiracy<tm> to gets its grubby paws on the net would really help anyone.
...And I'll say it again. For all the work Novell and the rest might be doing in evangelising Linux to corporate drones, they're still selling a stock product. A lot of people who've bought an assembly-line produced hamburger (and no, I'm not naming any specific vendors here, so nobody needs to get up in arms) will surely know that in terms of freshness, price, flavor, and nutritional value, you can't do much better than buying the actual ingredients and making it yourself. Certainly, the mass-produced burger is *convenient*...but using your own initiative has all of the advantages listed above.
To my mind, exactly the same principle applies with Linux. For my residential system, I downloaded Linux From Scratch and built it exactly the way I wanted it from the ground up, following on with the expansion volume from that site as well. Although I haven't had to do a commercial deployment myself before, from the reading I've done I know I'd still get LFS, work on adapting a version of the ports system for it (which I'm currently doing) and then use the information at infrastructures.org as well in order to build a rock solid system in exactly the configuration asked for.
From everything I've seen, self-determination is largely a prerequisite for UNIX use. Predigested package deals might work for Windows...but I think the Open Group's UNIX slogan of Live Free or Die definitely applies...and those sorts of terms do not imply to me that hand-holding is an option.
A desire to refrain as much as possible from exercising either intelligence or responsibility genuinely seems to be the bedrock of the corporate ethos in most cases...I think until that changes, companies like Microsoft are going to continue to hold sway. Corporations seem to want a software company which will do virtually everything for them...and because it only increases their level of control, Microsoft have been only too happy to oblige.
1) Was it Howard or Richard Alston who paid these two to do it, and ;-)
2) How much were they paid?
This is truly an illustration of exactly the kind of human being (and I use that phrase exceptionally loosely, here) that Bush and the people who re-elected him were. Someone expresses their misery and desperation over
1) Very likely having their child drafted to be killed or maimed in a foreign war
2) The US most likely becoming more and more alienated from the rest of the planet
3) The loss of life that will result in continuing terrorist acts in response to Bush's activities,
and not only does this most quintessential of Bush advocates continue trumpeting the usual rhetoric, but has the gall to cuss the parent author out for expressing their pain. I am gasping...I honestly can't believe this. And I know it's only going to get worse.
This mystifies me.
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I really genuinely do not understand how anyone could advocate George W.
If someone can explain this to me, please do...because I honestly *want* to understand.
I haven't read all that much about de Raadt...a few interviews mostly, I'll confess. What I have read though I've felt pretty positive about, myself. Yes, he's rather prickly/sensitive, and deeply strange, but those are two characteristics that are commonly associated with people who are abnormally intelligent.
;-)
;-)
It's true from most of what I've read that the BSD dev crew *do* seem to see themselves as one of the last holdouts of human intelligence. The thing is though, the evidence would tend to suggest that they're almost certainly correct in thinking that.
Have a look through bsd.ports.mk and its associated files (as one example) at some point if you don't believe me...I found myself being reminded of Wayne and Garth's reaction to Steven Tyler when I did. ("We're not worthy, we're not worthy!" etc)
It's made me think that the old crack about LSD and BSD is true...though not from the point of view of the BSD developers taking it themselves, but from the point of view of them being sufficiently intelligent that the rest of us would need to consume LSD in order to keep up with them.
I've been asking myself why I've been so preoccupied with reading about this election over the last two weeks or so. The reason why I couldn't initially understand it was because I'm not actually American.
Although I normally have a fairly high degree of interest in international politics, the more I think about it, the more I'm able to figure out why this election in particular holds so much importance for me. My country's current prime minister, John Howard, has tried to collaborate with the Bush administration as closely as possible over the last few years...Not only with Iraq, but also with a number of economic agreements, about which the unnoficial word is that they have generally benefitted the Americans far more than they have us.
It's not just about Iraq to me, though. I read somewhere that in the case of some countries, at least, whatever sociological/criminal trends America experiences, other countries tend to experience 5-10 years later. If that's true in this case, then I fear for Australia...and for the stability of the area in which I live.
What I mean by this is that as much as I've tried to read about the election lately, I've been reading other material as well. Material which really does not cast an appealing light on either Bush or Kerry. In Bush's case, there have been a *lot* of reports about how domestically in the US he is apparently trying to convert the country into a full-blown dictatorship, as well as an equal amount of dark speculation about the idea that this election could be portrayed publically as a stalemate even when it isn't, so that the results can then be manipulated in the courts.
The stuff I've been reading about Kerry though make me think that whoever would try and do that, won't need to in this case. The picture I've developed of Kerry tells me that he isn't really any opposition to Bush at all, in any sense, and that he most likely wouldn't do a thing differently if he got into power. I know most people here would probably wipe off the stuff about Kerry and Bush both having been members of Skull and Bones as just more deranged conspiracy theories...but to me, it honestly is scary.
Here's my overall conspiracy theory about this election though...laugh at it and call me a nutcase if you like, but I think it fits:-
Neither Kerry nor Bush either are or will end up being the genuine rulers of the country. There is a third entity (who, I don't know) who is able to choose the candidates in such a way that no matter who gets elected, the third (ruling) entity are able to continue persuing their interests unhindered. (I'm reminded of Palpatine's maneuvers in Attack of the Clones when I think about this, actually)
I think the reason why the 2000 election happened the way it did was because the Democratic candidate in that race was not one of the ruling entity's people, so they had to use whatever means necessary to make sure he didn't get into power.
But I think in this scenario there genuinely *is* a Palpatine wannabe around somewhere, or possibly a group of them. I think people in the US are going to need to find this individual/group, whoever they are, and get rid of them before they're going to be able to have genuinely free elections.
To me, only being able to choose between a couple of people who've been approved by the proverbial man behind the curtain is not the definition of a genuine democracy...it also isn't likely to guarantee a change in policy with a new administration...because even if the old puppet (Bush) gets voted out, the new one still has the same master at the strings.
Remember also...Just because I might be paranoid, doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. There was a lot of weird stuff about 9/11...things that just didn't fit together and add up if you looked closely at the official story...and I'm not alone in thinking that, either.
I'm possibly going to get replied to by Americans here who will say that I have no business caring about what happens with their election...to which I say th
I suppose it isn't. But if so, I find myself wondering how a truly secure library setup (as an example) could be possible...if you're always going to be able to do things like this?
>The core of NT is stable & secure already
;)
As a demonstration of NT/XP's "security," here's a bit of homework for you. Grab a copy of an NT/XP app called Erd Commander. (I'll leave it up to your good judgement as to how to obtain it)
Installing it takes a bit of doing in the scenario that you use, shall we say, the "online" way of obtaining software, so it's a chance to show off your leet `//areZ d00d credentials there as well.
Then, once you've got Erd Commander burnt onto a CD, change your NT/XP password, and forget what the new password is. Then insert the Erd Commander CD, reboot the computer, look for Erd Commander's "locksmith" tool, and laugh diabolically/cynically when you discover that it is possible to reset/change XP's password there to whatever you want.
An operating system that's capable of having its passwords compromised this easily is not secure, according to my definition. If hypothetically someone really wanted to cause some mischief, they could take the aforementioned CD into any library or educational institution running XP/NT, and they'd have completely unhindered access to the entire network...not to mention LAN cafes/PC baangs etc. I'm sure there are also an infinite number of other ways that NT/XP can be compromised just as easily as in this example. It's the proverbial monkey cage made out of peanuts...in fact now that I think about it, that's probably the best metaphor for XP that I think I've ever heard.
If any (and I do mean ANY...I don't care if you're a janitor) of Microsoft's staff read this, then please immediately do the following:-
1. Go to the highest person in the Microsoft heirarchy that you have access to, and persuade them to download a copy of the latest stable version of FreeBSD. I don't care HOW you persuade them, either. Use offers of drugs/various family members/their souls etc as needed. Be creative. This is important.
2. Explain to Jim Allchin and the various other hardcore Windows advocates (or get someone else to, if you don't have access to him) that by making a FreeBSD-derivative core with a Windows shell, he'll actually get to have his cake and eat it too:- The security/stability everyone wants, plus Windows' strengths in the user interface dept.
3. Round up MS's gaggle of programmers and make it happen. Don't get hung up on dumb, overly complex features that nobody needs (like WinFS) at this point. Keep the MS emphasis on user interface, (which we know Microsoft are good at) and backwards compatibility with other Windows versions (Which is half done for you - Go download Wine) and let the BSD peeps handle the nuts and bolts stuff. (which they're scarily good at) Wine is under the GPL, so you'll need to behave yourselves there, but you're in the clear with the BSD license, since without the advertising clause now you can basically do whatever you want with it. For PR bonus points, you MIGHT want to release source of at least some of your modifications as did Apple with OSX...and given Microsoft's image over the last couple of years, it's an idea to meditate on.
Do NOT, under any circumstances, remove/attempt to hide bash access, either. Make it so the newbs don't have to use it, sure...but leave it there for those of us who want it.
4. Profit. Which you will, presumably to an insane degree...because while people who need lots of user-friendliness can still have it, the rest of us poor souls who have to help such people in the face of Microsoft's currently non-existent security model will have our burden considerably lightened. (and thus be far more effective at our jobs) So while the first group will continue to give you money, there's a good chance that the second group might start to enthusiastically do so as well.
Dump the current licensing model, and profit from volume, support, and upgrades. (In terms of the number of people needing to install MS upgrades, you'd probably be a lot smarter charging for those rather than using ugly licenses and then making the upgrades freebies...the current licenses are a PR killer, if nothing else. This'd do wonders for the TCO argument, as well)
5. Due to 4, the company will notice that although its revenue level might initially decrease somewhat, it then stands a much more certain chance of stabilising afterwards. (Linux is causing you to start to lose money now anywayz, and the bleeding is only going to get more rapid if you stay the current course)
Because of this, eventually a realisation might be reached that it is truly unnecessary to continue to try to discredit/outlaw/otherwise neutralise those of us who just happen to like using Linux (which is hell on Microsoft's own image anywayz) especially seeing as there'd be a fair chance that this plan would convert a sizable number of them to the new product anyway. We could call off the entire Linux/MS war...Joe Sixpack would be happy, the CLI/blackbox geeks would be happy, MS would still make lots of money, and the world would keep turning.
Think about it. For the sake of everyone, including yourselves. Please.
>If MS could shoot down the GPL, it would not
>hesitate to sell an MS shell over a linux core,
>if it can justify dumping the NT asset.
Yes, they would hesitate. If they wanted to do this, they already could have with their own distro of FreeBSD, a la Apple. They don't want to because Jim Allchin (among other peeps in the company) is slavishly determined to stick to Windows as it currently exists, NO MATTER WHAT. Even if it becomes insecure to the point of falling to pieces. Even if everyone else on the planet urged him/them to go with a BSD/Linux core.
If Microsoft *were* willing to consider entering the OSS market, they might have some sort of chance. But because they won't, they don't.
>have no opinion of MS I will bet you dollars to
>peanuts that a few 100 million of PR can make any
>crimminal into a loved figure
In America possibly, yes. The other thing about people like Rockefeller (and Gates) is that despite their possible level of evil in other respects, to the American psyche they are seen as a validation of the capitalist system. In my own mind, Gates is probably a better example of *abuse* of capitalism rather than the system working in any healthy and positive way...but that's just me. And before I become the target of any McCarthyist flames, I am actually NOT a Communist. What I am however is someone who is able to see that even the most well-intentioned and best designed economic systems can still be open to manipulation and abuse by a sufficiently unscrupulous individual.
However, that is America. Even assuming Microsoft *were* able to repair their domestic image (and even that is a very tall order, from what I've seen) they're not going to be able to have any chance of redeeming themselves in any other part of the world...Europe especially. The bottom line is that people are growing extremely tired of tyranny, in whatever form. The Americans might still be willing to put up with it on a domestic basis, but there's a fair amount of evidence online recently that even they are growing weary of their government's and Microsoft's excesses.
People want genuinely free environments, both online and off, in which their rights of self-expression and self-determination are respected. If Gates and Bush are not willing to respect this desire in people, then despite the amount of damage they can do in the short term, in the longer term they will not survive...it's basically that simple. Tyranny is not conducive of or supportive to any form of life or the preservation of environments...and the greater portion of humanity are beginning I think to understand that, even if these few short-sighted individuals do not.
Let's look at a few fun factoids, shall we?
1. AFAIK, XP is the primary version of Windows being sold by MS atm. There might be others for corporate peeps...Server 2003, etc...but I'm talking in terms of home users. ME is still *supported* AFAIK, but from what I read 95 isn't and I don't know about 98...but even if it is, it's not still generating MS money. So from what I can see, XP alone is pretty much where it's at in terms of current home user OS revenue for them.
2. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that XP is currently being pirated to an insane degree. We know about MS bringing out Starter Ed in Asia to try and combat piracy there, and they had the serial number top 10 etc etc.
3. Although it's true that it is now at that stage of the game where from MS' point of view, pirate XP on someone's machine is still more desirable than legit Linux, (because of mindshare retention) they have been starting to feel (at least compared to what they're used to) a rather nasty profit pinch over the last year or two. Because of this, it's understandable that given where they are now, they're probably more interested in stopping piracy at the moment than they ever have been before...however, they're not likely to be successful IMHO because
4. They've destroyed/damaged consumer trust/credibility to the point where they're not going to be getting it back. Ever. For anyone who's been paying attention, Microsoft's list of crimes is a mile long, including violation of the Sherman Act, raping/destroying various other software companies and acquiring their software through dubious means, and more relevant to this particular topic, suspicion of engaging in various forms of surveillance of Windows users. I'm guessing Gates could quite literally donate his entire fortune to charity at this point and it wouldn't substantially improve most people's opinion of him. The PR crisis is actually Microsoft's biggest problem...Bigger than Linux...bigger than anything else currently challenging it. The plain and simple fact is that people passionately hate the company, in large numbers...or at the very least seriously distrust it...and it is utterly impossible to continue to successfully do business when the majority feel that way towards you.
Gates would do very well at this point to acquaint himself with what Machiavelli wrote about a leader who allows himself to become hated.
Because of this, however, I'm assuming that only the most gullible of casual users for the most part are going to go along with allowing Microsoft to check their copies of Windows...And I also have a feeling Microsoft know that. The line about improving reliability is one of their usual transparent-as-glass lies.
>user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a
>very big and impressive release to the average
>user.
Please define "average user". This to me is a rather vague and ambiguous term, and could cause me to make certain assumptions about the type of user you're talking about, which you may not have intended.
>that there are no weak links.That means that >X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit
>into each other's design very well and as tightly
>as Windows and MacOS X.
No...The different elements of Linux were initially designed as components...seperate pieces...and this decision was made for a number of reasons that developed over quite a long period of time...X Windows in particular predates Linux. This document may be of relevance if you are interested in learning about the rationale behind modular design, and why monolithic design (the philosophy Microsoft have traditionally used) is normally not as effective.
Microsoft's direction is set, broadly speaking, by people whose skillset is oriented a lot more along the lines of economics and marketing than programming as such. The company exists for two reasons that I have been able to discern:-
(a) To make money via appealing to the largest possible demographic of the computer using population. Technical excellence, despite claims to the contrary, has been repeatedly shown as not being one of Microsoft's priorities. I can also cite numerous pieces of evidence in support of that assertion if you are interested.
(b) To maintain control primarily of the software industry, but also potentially of others...for reasons largely unknown, but presumably a continued desire for generation of massive revenue is a factor. This is a more difficult assertion to support, but Bill Gates has on a few occasions outlined visions of a particular future scenario in which Microsoft has a high degree of control of the areas of both computer software and entertainment/journalistic media.
It also would not be accurate to say that Microsoft have any real advantage over Linux, technical or otherwise...and they are well aware of this, and have mentioned it in profit statements. This document, as well as a collection of documents here outline in high detail the specific challenges Microsoft face in dealing with Linux, and the corporation's long term prognosis cannot be honestly described as positive. I believe that the company's best case scenario within the next decade or so is gradual marginalisation and a decreasing degree of market relevance. Worst case scenario (for them) is bankruptcy, probably ten years or so out at the earliest. This is an unlikely scenario, but given the amount of litigation the company has faced in the last few years, its tremendous losses in the court of public opinion, and the degree to which Windows sales have slowed, (not to mention the most devastating element, which is the lack of a genuinely concrete roadmap after Windows NT 4) it is becoming increasingly possible. The other thing that causes this to be more possible now is the fact that while Microsoft are not developing any substantially new products, (despite the claim at the beginning of your comment, most of the changes to Windows XP were cosmetic at best) the insecurity of Windows XP and the associated necessity to release massive and constant amounts of patches for it means that Microsoft can no longer afford to support older versions of its operating system, despite the fact that many people still use them.
I believe I observed the beginning of Microsoft's downfall in around September/October 1997. Although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer, the company is now losing blood...a combination of Linux, its own mistakes/misdeeds, and a recent comparitive lack of direction have left it mortally wounded. I also do not believe, no
If the RIAA had even a microscopic degree of intelligence, rather than simply being a cabal of cash-fixated boomers, they might have been able to predict this.
I remember going to DCC warez channels a few years back on IRC, and seeing constant ads/notifies there about bedroom FTPs set up via dyndns and so on...not to mention the "leet" (private) IRC servers you'd hear about. (although I heard about those a lot less often)
If the RIAA had been realists, they would have realised a couple of important things straight off the bat:-
1) The Internet was designed to be able to withstand a nuclear exchange, and P2P in particular probably operates more purely via decentralised mesh topology principles than just about any other net application in existence. (As opposed to say IRC, which typically uses branch topology...which is why a single netsplit on the wrong server can lobotomise the entire network) In other words, they have less than no chance of EVER being able to stop it, or even tracing the origin node of a given file in most cases.
2) Given the fact as stated above that they'd have more chance of moving the rock of Gibraltar than shutting down P2P, the truly clueful thing for them to do would have been to try and figure out a way to use it as a source of revenue for themselves. On a network where anything is available, the neatest trick is isolating/finding what you want...so they could have had "featured" lists stacked with their own artists and used a subscription model for their search service, OR run their own private show AKA Kazaa and again used the subscription model for that. For another thing...in an environment of files, just about everything is a generic copy of a copy of a copy. With the "mashy" thing a bit back, David Bowie's fans demonstrated that what they really wanted was personalisation...something that an individual could feel was uniquely theirs, and not just an identical copy of what everyone else had. This would be more difficult to make money from, to be sure, but in different ways I'm betting it could be done.
Yet *another* way they could have made major cash for themselves would be by mining the online indy scene. They encourage the proverbial bedroom DJs, who then not only produce more fodder for the subscription model, but could even in some ways go towards satisfying the "individual" demand mentioned above via exclusive/semi-exclusive concert type recordings, individualised remixes, etc. The possibilities are endless.
3) The very LAST thing they should have wanted to do was push this underground, because once they've do that, they lose the ability to a) monitor/police it AT ALL, and b) profit from it because they either don't know where it is, or because they've already destroyed user goodwill by previously attempting to destroy it.
The problem with too many corporate bodies these days is the desire to make money via scorched earth techniques...but what they never think of is that by destroying the host environment today, (whether online or off) they lose the ability to make money from it tomorrow...whereas if they were smart, they could capitalise on these things indefinitely.
>All I can see is a lot of dudes in ties and
>dudettes in power suits, grinning from ear to ear
>beacuse they're winning, collaborating and just
>being successful because of the magic pixie dust
>this app gives them.
You're missing the point. I didn't mean that MindManager actually IS wiki software...Except possibly to suggest the idea that Wikis are possibly in a *multi-user* or collaborative sense what MindManager is in a single-user sense...but I'm talking conceptually, anywayz...or in terms of what MindManager actually *does*.
I took a while figuring out the whole Wiki thing, too...They are a difficult concept.
Installing TikiWiki and poking it with a stick was educational for me...you may find it to be as well. This bit of software will help tremendously as well.
Basically, the easiest way I've found to think of a Wiki is as a collaborative mind map, if such a thing is possible. I believe they are an attempt to store information in an even more context-specific way than the conventional Web, and in a manner which as closely as possible resembles that of an actual brain.
The other thing about Wikis is that they're lightning fast to write. Although HTML/XHTML aren't what you'd call rocket science, they're still sufficiently complex that it can be a pain to have to write out all the tags. With a Wiki, (http://www.yahoo.com|Yahoo!) will put a basic link in a page, but without an alt tag of course.
The main audience I've seen using them myself are FPS game mod programmers, although I know a lot of other people of course do as well. But the reason why they're a boon to the UT or Quake mod crowd in particular is because it basically allows them to write pages in two parts.
a) Textbook definition of class XYZ, what it does etc. (The theory)
b) Another section lower down where people can put war stories about experiences they've had actually coding with said class, examples of how to do it, or corrections/clarifications of elements of the definition. (The practice)
In this example, it's actually fairly similar to what php.net has for its documentation, except a wiki is probably a bit more specifically designed for that from the ground up.
Hope this helps...
In terms of talking about the operating system itself, Microsoft's statements come across as the same FUD we'd expect. However there is one thing I noticed in this letter which caused me to think a bit...
"All of the major Linux vendors...have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
What this means I think is that Microsoft can't compete with the *operating system itself* on technical merit, and they know this. However, what it sounds like they're realising that they *can* do is exploit corporate ambivalence about Linux based on the major distributor companies' pricing structures.
I understand that in order to make money with Linux, it's always been about the services. What I've also heard talked about several times recently though is how greedy people think Red Hat in particular are becoming. If this is true, RH and the other companies IMHO need to be careful.
Microsoft as I said know they cannot compete with Linux based purely on technical merit. But if Red Hat and the other companies introduce overinflated pricing structures with regards to the services, this will largely erradicate the "free as in beer" element of Linux, at least as far as the corporate mind is concerned. If it gets to the point where Microsoft can compete based on *initial price*, (and no, I'm not talking about ongoing license fees here...I'm talking about the price of the *initial* contract/box/whatever) then they could even afford to cease caring about people knowing that Linux is a technically stronger solution than Windows. All they need to do is sell someone on the idea that an *entry* price is cheaper than the initial price one of the Linux companies is charging. Based on what I've heard about Microsoft's contracts, I'm guessing they could very easily do this.
1) Offer a corporation an initial deal comparable to the Linux vendors in terms of unit volume/amount of support, but at a marginally lower price, and of course with Windows rather than Linux.
2) Fill said corp's heads with usual BS about "independent" (wink, wink) surveys/studies and so on to grease the deal.
3) Include a fixed term no-vendor-transfer clause in the contract...basically specifying that they can't migrate for a certain time period. 5 years, 10 if they can get away with it.
4) Once the time period for the Linux "clone contract" runs out, then we're in purely Microsoft time, and can then commence MS fun and profit. Jack up the price for additional support, service packs, bug fixes or whatever, and justify this on the basis that these weren't mentioned in the original contract, or that these are "optional extras." (Even if they are actually mandatory to keep the corp's machines functioning) Use extra context-specific BS as necessary.
Any client company unfortunate enough to fall into this trap would basically be screwed for the duration of the contract.
>Second, this rips back open the possibility of >our faerie tales being more true than most of us >would have expected.
That's only a big deal though for those of us who were sufficiently narrow minded that we weren't able to concede that possibility to begin with.
I buried myself in cryptozoology as a kid. As an example, after having read for a few years about Bigfoot, we learnt in Year 7 history at school that there was at one time a hominid species called Gigantopithecus walking around that was supposedly nine or ten feet tall. To me the idea that some individuals of this species may have survived in isolated areas wasn't really all that outrageous at all. I will admit that in Bigfoot's case the fact that no carcasses have been found doesn't lend a lot of weight to the idea that the creature definitely exists, but to me *if* it does, Gigantopithecus is as good an explanation of what it is as any. Also, if they were able to extract DNA samples from the Gigantopithecus remains they've dug up and compare them with a sample from say, Andre the Giant or Matthew McGrory, I think they'd probably find at least some resemblance.
I myself have a form of autism, and while I'm not a geneticist, I'd be willing to bet money that in in 5-10 years a reference to "Homo sapiens aspergius" or something similar is going to show up on Wikipedia, because they're going to find out that a person with autism is not genetically *identical* to mainstream homo sapiens.
They're saying that this rewrites everything we know about human evolution. Personally, I don't think it does anything of the kind. We already know about (as two examples) the difference between the tiger and the domestic housecat, or say a wolf and a miniature schnauzer, even though they are known to be genetically related to each other.
What we're dealing with is exactly the same thing here. Andre, Matthew, Kenny Baker, John Merrick and me are all members of the human family tree...we're just not all exactly on the same branch...in the same way that a miniature poodle isn't identical to a rottweiler.
I acknowledge that it was a rather pathetic post for me to make...the sort of thing where you're focussed primarily on airing the contents of your intestines at the time, but then regret it aftwards.
I really am not normally that small minded or judgemental...the condition of a lot of things in the world at the moment cause me a fair amount of emotional pain, as I'm sure they do many other people.
I do however, all judgement aside, believe that the actions and philosophy of the current Bush administration is the direct cause of most of that pain and suffering, and that if it were possible (hypothetically speaking, since I have very little faith that it will actually happen) to put someone in Bush's position who had a very different philosophy and was interested in taking some very different actions, that most of said pain and suffering (if not all) would ease.
Our own moral judgements about a person, whether they be praise or condemnation, carry absolutely no weight, and are ultimately irrelevant. Although I am in the process of trying to move towards a different perspective, I was a fundamentalist Christian myself for several years, and unfortunately when I am upset, vestigial elements of that belief system can at times express themselves.
It occurs in the case of very few people (if any) that they actually have an intention to cause misery and suffering from the outset, since a desire to do this would actually conflict with their own desire for self-preservation. Because of this, if we have problems with a certain individual's actions, when I am in a less purely emotive state I recognise that rather than criticising or condemning a person directly, it is probably a lot more appropriate to ask them to review their own conscience and ask themselves whether or not they have attained a positive or negative outcome as a result of their actions...and whether that outcome is consistent with the aspirations that they initially had in childhood or adolescence...at the beginning of their careers.
This tells me that George Bush is so morally confident of himself, what he's doing, and his chances for re-election, that he doesn't want his actions observed by the rest of the world.
We all know why George doesn't want the rest of the planet to be able to see what he does...it's the same reason why he doesn't want ANYBODY anywhere to be able to see it. He doesn't want to be accountable to anyone...and think about it...if a person is *really* confident that they're doing the right thing, you would think that they wouldn't have a problem with explaining/justifying it to anybody who asked, because they'd know that they'd be able to. The only real reason that I can think of for a person wanting to keep themselves and their activities secret is because deep down they know they're doing something wrong.
I normally refrain from starkly dualistic labelling, but George W Bush meets my own personal definition of an evil man...and I believe that deep down, in the quietness of his own mind, *he* knows he is, too.
I continually find myself wondering why idiotic comments such as this get modded 5, Funny. Maybe someone needs to explain to a few of the moderators that stupid does not necessarily = funny.
>Few users at the start of their careers will have >the skills to actually evaluate the guts of the >packages they download.
;-)
You're right. I'll admit quite openly that I don't have the skills to code audit at all, for the most part. However, what I *can* do is use such measures as MD5/GPG signature verification. MD5 in particular isn't perfect...I remember an article on here a bit back about its foibles...but that possibly *in conjunction* with something stronger like PGP or GPG can go a long way towards verifying that I've got what I meant to get, from the person/group I was meaning to get it from.
Nothing can take the place of being proactive. If I go directly to the CVS/FTP server of a given project and get the stable branch from there, I at least know I'm getting the project's code from the actual authors of the project...even if one of said coders turns evil and inserts malicious code into it.
Certainty is a very difficult thing to attain no matter what you do, to a degree...It's even more so because of that reason that what I'm advocating here is that people don't take the passive consumer approach and simply expect to be spoon fed patches. Yes, I am a newbie, comparitively speaking...but I intend to be one for as short a time as possible...and the only way I can ensure that is to be responsible for my own learning.