Depends. If competitors failed because they couldn't compete, then yeah, that's fine. Paint Shop Pro isn't exactly taking off next to Photoshop. But if the monopoly company break the law, then they should be sanctioned
Well, a fine point perhaps but couldn't we make this same argument WRT IE4 vs. NS? I mean, all things being equal, NSx was a piece of flaming crap compared to IE4 and subsequent versions. Now whether or not Microsoft went on to (stupidly) break the law by bundling and so on, that's another story. It always seemed to me that it wasn't necessary given the quality of their product. Then again, Mozilla could be giving them a run for their money right now, though they're a few years late.
It sounds like you're missing a fundamental point here. Monopolies are not illegal. They are not inherently evil. There are some activities that are illegal for a monopoly to carry out, and those activities are described in the antitrust laws. But simply gaining, or even maintaining, a monopoly is neither illegal nor wrong.
True. I had to read up a bit on antitrust law, but you're right.
The author of the article is confused. He almos defined the term architecture but he missed it by a hair.
Systems architecture (and to a certain extent application architecture) revolves around creating "environments" where other applications operate, (note emphasis). Architectures provide services to these applications, which in turn may provide different services to yet more applications (components, web-based solutions, etc.). Thus you can argue that by sitting down and designing and implementing a specific or generic purpose architecture, you're creating a "mini-OS". That much is true. But the OS is simply a lower-level architecture than, say, Java or COM or.NET. It's a more complicated and extensive one, but one nonetheless. The stuff you do with a programming language (or as they like to be called these days - platforms) is essentially a higher-level abstraction than the real OS happens to be.
So we can argue then that we're moving towards the platform concept where things are interconnected via well-defined interfaces and entry points (that's your APIs) where the OS itself is just another component.
I've read the CEP doubles when GPS is off/jammed. Which is still much better than a dumb iron bomb.
True, but still a problem. In Afghanistan if you miss you hit another mountain or a patch of desert. In Baghdad you miss and you hit a hospital, or a mosque or a "baby formula factory". Not that I'm particularly concerned about that, but the rest of the world probably is. And I'm sure civilians are as well.
I've seen a bunch of people point out that GPS is a transmit-only system (think of a foghorn blowing in a pattern of blasts) and doesn't take in any communications itself. I haven't seen anyone smack the original poster around for the "Profit" part.
I'd like you to point out where I said that the government was "buying" GPS or making a profit from GPS or otherwise whatever.
Go ahead and "smack" me. And then rent a-fuckin' sense of humor.
"Overloaded" - bad wording. I read an article somewhere about Iraq planning to jam GPS signals, especially around cities in the event of war. Supposedly it was cheap and simple to do that (as in, just a few hundred bucks per jamming device). The article went on to say that the AF might resort to laser-guided weapons if that was the case, which of course is problematic if there's smoke or clouds and so on.
Not that they would use the Iridium sats for GPS, but perhaps some other targeting system.
It seems they've filled in the '???' part - sell 'em to the DoD.
I couldn't help but think about the GPS system though. As the military shifts from laser guidance systems for bombs and cruise missiles to GPS-based ones, the GPS network becomes more and more critical and overloaded. Is the Iridium network being used only for simple voice/data communications or is there a dual-use capability (targeting, whatever) in the network as well?
What I'm saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware then they would, by definition, not be an evil monopoly. They would be a benevolent monopoly.
Even if they used their position as a monopoly to crush competition?
There are lots of benevolent monopolies. [...]Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.
There are no "good" monopolies =)
And besides, I could make that same argument over Windows 2000 and Visual Studio and Office 11 and a few other Microsoft products, while I really couldn't make it over Media Player or Front Page and a few other Microsoft products.
It's not in the eye of the beholder, it's in the antitrust laws. If Adobe has not been taken to court by the DOJ over their purchase of Aldus (and all those other companies) it's because didn't register with the industry as a monopolistic move in the desktop publishing/imaging market, although IMO it was precisely that.
C'mon Twirlip. What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?
Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.
All things being equal, I'd rather you guys just post the darn submission *as is* and refrain from commenting on it from the privileged position of the editorial soapbox (on the front page for absolutely everyone to read) and instead just post in the story like all of us poor sods. Especially since there's no way to moderate frontpage articles. But that horse has been beaten enough times already.
If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.
It wasn't a comment on you specifically (and I apologize if I came across that way) but on the practice itself. FWIW, I think Michael and Hemos are far worse at that sort of thing than you or Taco. Again, FWIW.
I'm not saying Apple is better than Microsoft, or more or less evil than Microsoft. That's not my point.
My point is, every time Apple does something corporation-ish that is Evil and Stupid (as we understand that sort of thing) everyone just sorta ignores it. It's like "yeah, they're starting to be like [insert corporation name here] BUT hey, they have Darwin and iPod rocks, yipeee!".
I think OS X is incredible although I haven't used it that much - but it's still a closed OS running most closed software produced by a company that is in the business of competing and being profitable.
Well, in fairness, this could happen even if [...]
I'd like to see this type of editorial byline in the next Borg article, please.
I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.
wrt SOVIET RUSSIA - i like it, it is the same kind of advertising/marketing for the ANTI-troll camp as "natalie portman hot grits" is for trolls themselves - it makes a point, its quick and effective...
who decided you would be allowed to frame the debate and outlaw nit-picking (as "SOVIET RUSSIA" I concede is...) - really, the communication straight *from* trolls is equally shallow and empty... whats good-for-the-goose...
While I would personally love to see some of the Windows code (I'd kill for a peek at the COM+ marshaling engine) I can't see how this is going to help anyone. it's not like you can find a bug and recompile the kernel, and I've always had a bit of reservation against providing Microsoft with solutions to problems in their own products. The MTS/IIS4 timeframe left me pretty much soured on that whole thing.
Still, if they're going to open up stuff I'd say let me look at IIS, MSMQ, WMI, COM+ and all that other middleware that I tend to hit a lot more... looking at the kernel would be an educational trip - but only that. Not really useful per se.
You have to understand you're arguing with someone whose understanding of reality is essentially flawed. A post like this one is classic Slashdot - it doesn't get any better than Mr. Twitter here. I mean, right down to the lame sig, right down to the unfettered use of the sad, tired 'M$' acronym and the arguing over a simplistic out of context point when called on their bullshit.
This could be a discussion about, oh, bio-engineered hamsters or the moons of Neptune, and you'd still get the pathetic Microsoft non-sequitur.
Why? Because someone with mod points will probably think it's funny.
Relevant results in ~99% of searches (in my experience). Consistently comes up with the most obscure stuff imaginable (and I've checked against other engines)
Ads look like ads and they're not masqueraded as results (and yeah, everyone's copying that now, whoopi)
Usenet archive. Heeelooooo!!!
News meta crawler. Haven't looked at another "portal" since Google News went live.
Privately held company. No Yahoo-style pressures for revenue.
The Amazing Browser Toolbar. Also copied by everyone now.
Excellent site design. Clean, uncluttered, just nice.
The Zeitgeist (sp?)
Cool company with a sense of humor.
Wake me up when everyone else (especially "wisenut", which I've never heard about before) gets there.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
...
[laugh, it's funny]
Well, a fine point perhaps but couldn't we make this same argument WRT IE4 vs. NS? I mean, all things being equal, NSx was a piece of flaming crap compared to IE4 and subsequent versions. Now whether or not Microsoft went on to (stupidly) break the law by bundling and so on, that's another story. It always seemed to me that it wasn't necessary given the quality of their product. Then again, Mozilla could be giving them a run for their money right now, though they're a few years late.
It sounds like you're missing a fundamental point here. Monopolies are not illegal. They are not inherently evil. There are some activities that are illegal for a monopoly to carry out, and those activities are described in the antitrust laws. But simply gaining, or even maintaining, a monopoly is neither illegal nor wrong.
True. I had to read up a bit on antitrust law, but you're right.
Systems architecture (and to a certain extent application architecture) revolves around creating "environments" where other applications operate, (note emphasis). Architectures provide services to these applications, which in turn may provide different services to yet more applications (components, web-based solutions, etc.). Thus you can argue that by sitting down and designing and implementing a specific or generic purpose architecture, you're creating a "mini-OS". That much is true. But the OS is simply a lower-level architecture than, say, Java or COM or .NET. It's a more complicated and extensive one, but one nonetheless. The stuff you do with a programming language (or as they like to be called these days - platforms) is essentially a higher-level abstraction than the real OS happens to be.
So we can argue then that we're moving towards the platform concept where things are interconnected via well-defined interfaces and entry points (that's your APIs) where the OS itself is just another component.
True, but still a problem. In Afghanistan if you miss you hit another mountain or a patch of desert. In Baghdad you miss and you hit a hospital, or a mosque or a "baby formula factory". Not that I'm particularly concerned about that, but the rest of the world probably is. And I'm sure civilians are as well.
BTW, thanks for those links. Interesting reading.
They're probably worried about EMP more than anything else. Those things are expected to work even after the shit hits the fan.
I'd like you to point out where I said that the government was "buying" GPS or making a profit from GPS or otherwise whatever.
Go ahead and "smack" me. And then rent a-fuckin' sense of humor.
Books will only go so far. Real-world experience is the only thing that counts.
Not that they would use the Iridium sats for GPS, but perhaps some other targeting system.
- Put satellites in orbit
- ???
- Profit!!
It seems they've filled in the '???' part - sell 'em to the DoD.I couldn't help but think about the GPS system though. As the military shifts from laser guidance systems for bombs and cruise missiles to GPS-based ones, the GPS network becomes more and more critical and overloaded. Is the Iridium network being used only for simple voice/data communications or is there a dual-use capability (targeting, whatever) in the network as well?
Even if they used their position as a monopoly to crush competition?
There are lots of benevolent monopolies. [...]Why are these monopolies not evil? Because their products are all really, really good.
There are no "good" monopolies =)
And besides, I could make that same argument over Windows 2000 and Visual Studio and Office 11 and a few other Microsoft products, while I really couldn't make it over Media Player or Front Page and a few other Microsoft products.
It's not in the eye of the beholder, it's in the antitrust laws. If Adobe has not been taken to court by the DOJ over their purchase of Aldus (and all those other companies) it's because didn't register with the industry as a monopolistic move in the desktop publishing/imaging market, although IMO it was precisely that.
I did, but they discontinued the Turd report *grin*
C'mon Twirlip. What you're saying is that if Microsoft made the best damn software in the world and sold excellent, elegant hardware and were *still* an evil monopoly, everyone would like them?
All things being equal, I'd rather you guys just post the darn submission *as is* and refrain from commenting on it from the privileged position of the editorial soapbox (on the front page for absolutely everyone to read) and instead just post in the story like all of us poor sods. Especially since there's no way to moderate frontpage articles. But that horse has been beaten enough times already.
If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.
It wasn't a comment on you specifically (and I apologize if I came across that way) but on the practice itself. FWIW, I think Michael and Hemos are far worse at that sort of thing than you or Taco. Again, FWIW.
My point is, every time Apple does something corporation-ish that is Evil and Stupid (as we understand that sort of thing) everyone just sorta ignores it. It's like "yeah, they're starting to be like [insert corporation name here] BUT hey, they have Darwin and iPod rocks, yipeee!".
I think OS X is incredible although I haven't used it that much - but it's still a closed OS running most closed software produced by a company that is in the business of competing and being profitable.
I'd like to see this type of editorial byline in the next Borg article, please.
I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.
PhD in human fluid processing?
Ewwwww... let's not confuse the two, pleeeez.
An architect (a real one) is light years ahead of what even the best analyst can do.
Say hi for me.
who decided you would be allowed to frame the debate and outlaw nit-picking (as "SOVIET RUSSIA" I concede is...) - really, the communication straight *from* trolls is equally shallow and empty... whats good-for-the-goose...
------------
Get it now?
StratOS
Oh, the humanity!!!
Still, if they're going to open up stuff I'd say let me look at IIS, MSMQ, WMI, COM+ and all that other middleware that I tend to hit a lot more... looking at the kernel would be an educational trip - but only that. Not really useful per se.
This could be a discussion about, oh, bio-engineered hamsters or the moons of Neptune, and you'd still get the pathetic Microsoft non-sequitur.
Why? Because someone with mod points will probably think it's funny.
BTW, welcome to Slashdot. Or something.
- Absolutely the fastest search, period.
- Relevant results in ~99% of searches (in my experience). Consistently comes up with the most obscure stuff imaginable (and I've checked against other engines)
- Ads look like ads and they're not masqueraded as results (and yeah, everyone's copying that now, whoopi)
- Usenet archive. Heeelooooo!!!
- News meta crawler. Haven't looked at another "portal" since Google News went live.
- Privately held company. No Yahoo-style pressures for revenue.
- The Amazing Browser Toolbar. Also copied by everyone now.
- Excellent site design. Clean, uncluttered, just nice.
- The Zeitgeist (sp?)
- Cool company with a sense of humor.
Wake me up when everyone else (especially "wisenut", which I've never heard about before) gets there.