Just today we hear that Windows is the #1 server OS.
We heard no such thing. We heard that Microsoft has over 50% of server revenue, and that from a famously dodgy source (IDC reports whatever their paymasters tell them to). So, we are supposed to overlook the fact that the average Linux OS costs $0.00? That essentially all data centers in internet companies worthy of the name run Linux, with the exception of Microsoft, and look at how well their data center business is looking? That the entire financial industry runs on Linux, having recently booted Windows out of the LSE after Microsoft caused massive monetary damage with their shoddy software... sorry, I flipped the bit on your credibility to -1.
ARM is right to be worried; Intel's first production smartphone, despite being single core, was able to produce similar performance and battery life to comparable ARM phones.
Even if true, it's not enough. Intel also has to ship at a similar price, and given that ARM just takes a few cents per chip in royalties that could present a problem for Intel's margins. They could always try dumping of course but that would be a Sherman act violation.
it won't do photoshop, the midrange photo editing apps like lightroom, development and lots of other things...
With Gimp 2.8 there isn't really a reason to use Photoshop. Now Gimp can handle high precision color with GPU acceleration and has a much improved interface. If you are too lazy to learn something better or have orders from your boss or have so much money that you need to send some to Adobe then feel free, but you don't have to.
ARM based chips will never be real Intel competitor, in the same way that Intel chips never were a real competitor for IBM z-system class mainframes.
ORLY? So what's stopping me from using this dual core ARM tablet as a general purpose netbook, complete with bluetooth keyboard, mouse and GPU? Is it just that I can't run Libreoffice on it... yet?
The banks made the mistake of letting Zuckerberg price the stock, no doubt in fear that somebody else would grab the deal if they did not. So it went out the door at twice the price it should have. Result: unhappy (serves them right) bank insiders. And some very sad employees holding underwater options. And having to go the much more expensive earn out stock route for new employees because what fool would take Facebook options as of today? But Facebook isn't going to whither away, far from it. Facebook owns one of those precious golden geese: an established network effect. It's a mistake to think Facebook will lose the plot like Myspace. Remember what killed Myspace: Facebook. Oh, and Myspace also played a big roll in killing Myspace. For example by hiring a bunch of loser posers to build out their infrastructure. Netapps for storage at $30/GB, sheesh. How long would Google last if they were that stupid? I mean, Google is stupid too in many ways, but not that stupid. I could go on, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I for one would love to see Apple become a TV network so it can service its content consuming lockdown loving fan base as they deserve to be serviced, and just let its phone business quietly wither away.
If Facebook wants to invest some of its IPO billions competing with Google in the open source phone market then let it. Ideally, Facebook will compete by making its Linux phone development actually open instead of fake open, and thereby blow past Google in terms of fit and finish and usability, with the help of ten times the developer base and ten times less corporate drone UI design. I don't see any reason why one advertising based tech gorilla should make an open source phone and another not.
On the other hand, if Facebook intends to make a phone with an even more closed development model than Google, then Facebook can go to hell.
The knee jerk reaction about everything google does has gone from annoying, to numerous and now returning to annoying.
At one time those "knee jerks" were nearly all trash-talking Microsoft astrofurfers, then after Jobs declared jihad I suppose it changed to a mix of Microsoft and Apple astroturfers. But now there is a new class of Google critic... people like me who used to think Google could do no wrong. But I have witnessed just too many examples of Google arrogance getting in the way of what is best for the user. A few examples off the top of my head: 1) Obfuscated search lilnks that spy on me, are stupidly awkward to copy, and often add ridiculous amounts of lag resolving to Google servers instead of to where I actually want to go. 2) Google news. In spite of literally thousands of comments from users that they all hated the beta, and essentially no comments in favor, Google ignored the resounding consensus completely and deployed anyway, causing thousands more negative comments. Today in spite of some window dressing it is still worse than the classic. 3) Android. Open source, closed development. As a result it has a fraction of the developers it could have, progresses more slowly, and sucks more than necessary, especially in areas that Google does not monetize. 4) Changed the search page to look like Bing. Good grief. At least Google had the sense to pull that after a few hours. But why didn't they check to see if everybody would hate it first? Oh, probably they did, and ignored the feedback just like news, the only difference being that this time the negatives cut straight at the core business and somebody with a clue recognized the danger.
Now, the thing that makes it worse is, I still have a lot of respect for Google's corporate culture, unlilke Apple or Microsoft which seem to bent on outdoing each other sinking to new depths of corporate depravity. Google is not that far gone, far from it. That is why I personally tend to react more strongly to (possibly) stupid things that Google does. There is still hope that Google can be shamed into doing the right thing, unlike Microsoft or Apple.
In this case I doubt there is any issue. The point is, I am now conditioned to expect the worst whenever I see a new alarmist article, troll or not, because of the really bonehead moves I mentioned above and others, that are incontrovertible facts.
So, the object is to 1) make it somewhat inconvenient and highly nonobvious for the end user to turn off the boot lockdown and 2) to scare the user every time they run the machine in that state. How is this any different than the tactics Microsoft has used in the past to exercise its market power illegally, such as issuing scary warnings when their software found itself running on top of DR Dos, a crime for which they were found guilty and had to pay $billions?
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the exec meeting where they came up with the idea of turning Microsoft's monopoly desktop product into a cell phone.
Microsoft would have to be completely *insane* to give up that magic "See, we aren't a real monopoly after all because end users can theoretically install Linux!" get-out-of-jail-free card. Linux is USEFUL to them.
The fly in that ointment is, the free and open community has not been and never will be satisfied with playing a cameo role as a handy excuse for Microsoft to get away with murder. And I agree with you, there are other potential murderers we need to worry about, but that does not mean Microsoft's bad acting can be ignored. We've done more than enough scrutinizing to justify taking action.
I'm sure Microsoft's motives with UEFI aren't entirely pure & MUST be scrutinized constantly, but so far, they've played everything by the book.
That is not up to Microsoft to decide, that is up to the competition watchdogs to decide.
Do you really think that Microsoft is playing fair, as opposed to playing by the book? And do you really think Microsoft is actually playing by the book, considering its record?
Not really. Apple machines are a PITA with weird hardware for Linux users too. All it means is Linux users will go back to building their own PCs. Box shifters will simply do a parallel line for server sales.
You're right, this boneheaded move by Microsoft is the best help they could possibly give for Linux on the desktop. Of course, that just not let Microsoft off the hook for antitrust violations, specifically abusing its market power. I can smell a new EU action on the the way, at the very least.
Why bother with an invasion of privacy case when they can go for the bigger fish? They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Just a tip, exaggeration weakens your point.
Indeed, Australia should go after Google for "managing its tax affairs in the way most advantageous to itself". And they should go after Apple and Microsoft too. After all, these "tax optimization" techniques were all pioneered by Microsoft, the other fat techs just follow the leader in that regard. Not saying it's right.
How do we know it was rogues and not Googlers? Why could it not have been rogue Googlers?
100,000 site desecrations from a Google IP just does not sound like your garden variety rogue. It would require compelling evidence to make me think otherwise.
OK, I'd be willing to put in that effort, how do I let your Tomtom people know? And should I refrain from using the word "fuck"? If so, how do I describe the what they have done to Tomtom's karma?
The funny thing is, Google tried to sabotage Open Street maps (like the article notes):
TomTom is clearly referring to the case where OpenStreetMap caught Google contractors vandalising OSM.
What was offtopic about that? Looks like a Googler drove by with mod points. Remember Googlers: don't be evil. Your trust based business model depends on it. And know that some of you are indeed evil:
The report seems credible. If you want to kill your business model, just keep doing that. And to put the icing on the cake, just keep astromodding Slashdot.
Oh wait, it couldn't possibly be Googlers doing it, Googlers possess a moral spine as everybody knows. So it must be Microsoft just trying to discredit Google. Oh wait. It must be Apple. Never mind, you're all made of the same moral stuff it would seem.
The one thing that sticks in my mind about Tomtom: when they got sued by Microsoft, the open source community rallied round. But did they ever bother making the minimal effort to distribute a Linux client, perhaps to show appreciation if nothing else? Appreciation not just for the support they got against Microsoft but for giving them a free platform to build their business on? No. Too much to ask, apparently. As far as I am concerned, Tomtom can fuck themselves.
Oh, and when I lost my Tomtom I did not replace it, I bought a Garmin.
Slashdot Mirror
Just today we hear that Windows is the #1 server OS.
We heard no such thing. We heard that Microsoft has over 50% of server revenue, and that from a famously dodgy source (IDC reports whatever their paymasters tell them to). So, we are supposed to overlook the fact that the average Linux OS costs $0.00? That essentially all data centers in internet companies worthy of the name run Linux, with the exception of Microsoft, and look at how well their data center business is looking? That the entire financial industry runs on Linux, having recently booted Windows out of the LSE after Microsoft caused massive monetary damage with their shoddy software... sorry, I flipped the bit on your credibility to -1.
ARM is right to be worried; Intel's first production smartphone, despite being single core, was able to produce similar performance and battery life to comparable ARM phones.
Even if true, it's not enough. Intel also has to ship at a similar price, and given that ARM just takes a few cents per chip in royalties that could present a problem for Intel's margins. They could always try dumping of course but that would be a Sherman act violation.
Half node is the new full node.
it won't do photoshop, the midrange photo editing apps like lightroom, development and lots of other things...
With Gimp 2.8 there isn't really a reason to use Photoshop. Now Gimp can handle high precision color with GPU acceleration and has a much improved interface. If you are too lazy to learn something better or have orders from your boss or have so much money that you need to send some to Adobe then feel free, but you don't have to.
ARM based chips will never be real Intel competitor, in the same way that Intel chips never were a real competitor for IBM z-system class mainframes.
ORLY? So what's stopping me from using this dual core ARM tablet as a general purpose netbook, complete with bluetooth keyboard, mouse and GPU? Is it just that I can't run Libreoffice on it... yet?
Move lots of new Android code under the GPLv3 or equivalent in order to stop Google from benefiting in turn.
Hey, somebody who gets copyleft.
If you pull out a Windows based mobile phone you look like a dork and people laugh at you behind your back.
Even your dog laughs at you.
You totally don't get it. It's about being on the top of the advertising food chain.
The banks made the mistake of letting Zuckerberg price the stock, no doubt in fear that somebody else would grab the deal if they did not. So it went out the door at twice the price it should have. Result: unhappy (serves them right) bank insiders. And some very sad employees holding underwater options. And having to go the much more expensive earn out stock route for new employees because what fool would take Facebook options as of today? But Facebook isn't going to whither away, far from it. Facebook owns one of those precious golden geese: an established network effect. It's a mistake to think Facebook will lose the plot like Myspace. Remember what killed Myspace: Facebook. Oh, and Myspace also played a big roll in killing Myspace. For example by hiring a bunch of loser posers to build out their infrastructure. Netapps for storage at $30/GB, sheesh. How long would Google last if they were that stupid? I mean, Google is stupid too in many ways, but not that stupid. I could go on, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I for one would love to see Apple become a TV network so it can service its content consuming lockdown loving fan base as they deserve to be serviced, and just let its phone business quietly wither away.
If Facebook wants to invest some of its IPO billions competing with Google in the open source phone market then let it. Ideally, Facebook will compete by making its Linux phone development actually open instead of fake open, and thereby blow past Google in terms of fit and finish and usability, with the help of ten times the developer base and ten times less corporate drone UI design. I don't see any reason why one advertising based tech gorilla should make an open source phone and another not.
On the other hand, if Facebook intends to make a phone with an even more closed development model than Google, then Facebook can go to hell.
The knee jerk reaction about everything google does has gone from annoying, to numerous and now returning to annoying.
At one time those "knee jerks" were nearly all trash-talking Microsoft astrofurfers, then after Jobs declared jihad I suppose it changed to a mix of Microsoft and Apple astroturfers. But now there is a new class of Google critic... people like me who used to think Google could do no wrong. But I have witnessed just too many examples of Google arrogance getting in the way of what is best for the user. A few examples off the top of my head: 1) Obfuscated search lilnks that spy on me, are stupidly awkward to copy, and often add ridiculous amounts of lag resolving to Google servers instead of to where I actually want to go. 2) Google news. In spite of literally thousands of comments from users that they all hated the beta, and essentially no comments in favor, Google ignored the resounding consensus completely and deployed anyway, causing thousands more negative comments. Today in spite of some window dressing it is still worse than the classic. 3) Android. Open source, closed development. As a result it has a fraction of the developers it could have, progresses more slowly, and sucks more than necessary, especially in areas that Google does not monetize. 4) Changed the search page to look like Bing. Good grief. At least Google had the sense to pull that after a few hours. But why didn't they check to see if everybody would hate it first? Oh, probably they did, and ignored the feedback just like news, the only difference being that this time the negatives cut straight at the core business and somebody with a clue recognized the danger.
Now, the thing that makes it worse is, I still have a lot of respect for Google's corporate culture, unlilke Apple or Microsoft which seem to bent on outdoing each other sinking to new depths of corporate depravity. Google is not that far gone, far from it. That is why I personally tend to react more strongly to (possibly) stupid things that Google does. There is still hope that Google can be shamed into doing the right thing, unlike Microsoft or Apple.
In this case I doubt there is any issue. The point is, I am now conditioned to expect the worst whenever I see a new alarmist article, troll or not, because of the really bonehead moves I mentioned above and others, that are incontrovertible facts.
If you want your business to show up on google maps it has to pay up...
Isn't that why we have Open Street Maps?
So, the object is to 1) make it somewhat inconvenient and highly nonobvious for the end user to turn off the boot lockdown and 2) to scare the user every time they run the machine in that state. How is this any different than the tactics Microsoft has used in the past to exercise its market power illegally, such as issuing scary warnings when their software found itself running on top of DR Dos, a crime for which they were found guilty and had to pay $billions?
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the exec meeting where they came up with the idea of turning Microsoft's monopoly desktop product into a cell phone.
Microsoft would have to be completely *insane* to give up that magic "See, we aren't a real monopoly after all because end users can theoretically install Linux!" get-out-of-jail-free card. Linux is USEFUL to them.
The fly in that ointment is, the free and open community has not been and never will be satisfied with playing a cameo role as a handy excuse for Microsoft to get away with murder. And I agree with you, there are other potential murderers we need to worry about, but that does not mean Microsoft's bad acting can be ignored. We've done more than enough scrutinizing to justify taking action.
I'm sure Microsoft's motives with UEFI aren't entirely pure & MUST be scrutinized constantly, but so far, they've played everything by the book.
That is not up to Microsoft to decide, that is up to the competition watchdogs to decide.
Do you really think that Microsoft is playing fair, as opposed to playing by the book? And do you really think Microsoft is actually playing by the book, considering its record?
Not really. Apple machines are a PITA with weird hardware for Linux users too. All it means is Linux users will go back to building their own PCs. Box shifters will simply do a parallel line for server sales.
You're right, this boneheaded move by Microsoft is the best help they could possibly give for Linux on the desktop. Of course, that just not let Microsoft off the hook for antitrust violations, specifically abusing its market power. I can smell a new EU action on the the way, at the very least.
Why bother with an invasion of privacy case when they can go for the bigger fish? They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Just a tip, exaggeration weakens your point.
Indeed, Australia should go after Google for "managing its tax affairs in the way most advantageous to itself". And they should go after Apple and Microsoft too. After all, these "tax optimization" techniques were all pioneered by Microsoft, the other fat techs just follow the leader in that regard. Not saying it's right.
Ah, please excuse me, it was 100,000 hits from the Google IP including 12 desecrations. Not nearly as bad, but bad all the same.
How do we know it was rogues and not Googlers? Why could it not have been rogue Googlers?
100,000 site desecrations from a Google IP just does not sound like your garden variety rogue. It would require compelling evidence to make me think otherwise.
OK, I'd be willing to put in that effort, how do I let your Tomtom people know? And should I refrain from using the word "fuck"? If so, how do I describe the what they have done to Tomtom's karma?
The funny thing is, Google tried to sabotage Open Street maps (like the article notes):
TomTom is clearly referring to the case where OpenStreetMap caught Google contractors vandalising OSM.
What was offtopic about that? Looks like a Googler drove by with mod points. Remember Googlers: don't be evil. Your trust based business model depends on it. And know that some of you are indeed evil:
Two OpenStreetMap accounts have been vandalizing OSM in London, New York and elsewhere from Google’s IP address, the same address in India reported by Mocality. The most obvious vandalism started around last Thursday last week from these particular users however it may take us some time to do a full analysis. In fact over the last year we have had over 102 thousand hits on OSM using at least 17 accounts from this Google IP.
The report seems credible. If you want to kill your business model, just keep doing that. And to put the icing on the cake, just keep astromodding Slashdot.
Oh wait, it couldn't possibly be Googlers doing it, Googlers possess a moral spine as everybody knows. So it must be Microsoft just trying to discredit Google. Oh wait. It must be Apple. Never mind, you're all made of the same moral stuff it would seem.
The one thing that sticks in my mind about Tomtom: when they got sued by Microsoft, the open source community rallied round. But did they ever bother making the minimal effort to distribute a Linux client, perhaps to show appreciation if nothing else? Appreciation not just for the support they got against Microsoft but for giving them a free platform to build their business on? No. Too much to ask, apparently. As far as I am concerned, Tomtom can fuck themselves.
Oh, and when I lost my Tomtom I did not replace it, I bought a Garmin.
Old rich guy buys up a bunch of struggling newspapers at fire sale prices, claims free news doesn't work.