PC-DOS in 1981 was what you bought when you got a new computer.
The only other alternative was CP/M-86 which sold for $175. Is that what you wish to compare Windows 2000 pricing with?
Or would you rather compare pricing to Microsoft Xenix? I couldn't find data on Xenix, except that a Tandy computer using a MC68000 running Xenix around that time period was $5,000. I imagine the OS was probably $500 or so, considering later pricing by SCO for similar product.
The real threat isn't nearly as spectacular, but is simply that one of these new breeds of crop will contain a defective gene which will cause it to be susceptible to some problem.
May not happen right away, but say perhaps in 40 years, something happens and all corn in the US is hit by some problem which wipes it out because of this genetic weakness.
There are groups in the USDA, in Universities, etc. who work specifically to keep seed samples of the original species so that they are not lost.
"If names like ESR, Linus, RMS, and Parens can all agree on something to say, then Microsoft's plan to split the community just might back fire on them."
Does anybody have links to rebuttals from the likes of Theo da Raadt or Jordan Hubbard?
I went to their websites and didn't see anything. Did they rebut Mundie, or just not think it's important?
When you say Microsoft has an intention of splitting the community. Which community are you talking about?
They certainly never intended to split the GPL community. But they did attack the Open or Free Software community, which has always had a large chasm between GPL and BSD licenses.
Seeing a number of GPL supporting noteworthies agreeing that the GPL license is good does not surprise me. On the other hand, seeing BSD camp members saying Microsoft's attack on the GPL was wrong would be news.
Actually the typical manager will look at the price tag first, realize that the Linux solution costs 4 times as much for only a 50% gain in performance...
He will then buy the Microsoft solution which offers more than enough performance for a signifigantly smaller hit to the pocketbook.
Oh blather. You attribute to malice what is obviously explainable through incompetence. It would be pathetically illogical to believe there was a Microsoft conspiracy to introduce back doors to all their software.
The problem with conspiracies is they fall apart the larger the group is who knows about it. Why just this week before Congress they are talking about Ted Olson's involvement in the vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit President Clinton.
Everybody pretty much even knew that existed, but couldn't pin down who was involved. Well now the evidence is leaking out because of one disgruntled former magazine editor.
And that was a conspiracy involving only a couple of dozen people.
Microsoft has thousands of developers, on the other hand...
I disagree. Open Source Peer Review relies on a voluntary effort. Throw the source up on FTP site, and hope someone reads it.
Commercial software on the other hand frequently has frequent code reviews done internally. Other staff looking at code to fix it, or sometimes group code review sessions.
Well, to be honest... Microsoft does provide many different mechanism to check for updates.
However you have valid criticism in that you have to check man different locations to find those updates.
There is the standard windowsupdate web site.
Then there is the hotfix check tool for IIS.
Then there is officeupdate web site.
Oh, and the occasional security hotfix which isn't specific for IIS.
Yes, it'd be very nice if every patch was on windows udpate all in one place.
Of course then the anti-Microsoft crowd would complain because Microsoft would be integrating new "Auto-Update" functionality and stifling competition with Apple.
This is the world that the Microsoft detractors want to go back to.
It will never happen, but it sure doesn't stop them from whining.
In the meantime the/. Linux crowd whines, not because they use Windows, but because they bundle all these features themselves into Linux distributions. If they can somehow make Microsoft go back to the old days of having to buy third party products for networking, etc... suddenly Linux becomes a whole lot more attractive.
Yes, most college students can't afford $800 for a product such as Mathcad professional.
They should price it at like 1/6th that cost, like maybe $130!
Then maybe students could afford it. They'd learn to use it and when they graduated they might be inclined to suggest the company they work for buy it.
Oh wait, these companies already offer educational pricing...
But it's still a good argument for why they do it!
You could do some simple functions in MSBASIC, it supported a function definition which was really more of an inline macro.
Other than that, yeah it pretty much sucked for trying to do anything structured.
That all changed towards the mid 80's. There were a lot of more advanced BASIC compilers available for the Amiga, ST, PC, etc. that supported functions, subroutines, etc. without line numbers.:)
Oh give me a break, the GPL is the very embodiment of Software Communism. It has nothing to do with brainwashing, it's a simple question of critical thinking.
But you know what? I really don't care. If you want to use the GPL, then do so.
But don't expect the rest of the world to conform!
That's actually what makes the GPL so alike to the Soviet Union. Can't convince people to freely be part of the Community, so the only other option is to force them to be. Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whatever. I don't want any of it.
I thought the point of doing Free Software was to give it away for free so that all others could benefit?
Now your saying that, no, in fact you are a greedy selfish bastard who wants to tie strings to your gift.
Besides can't you just do a BSD license and add a 'But if you use this for a commercial purpose get my permission first?'
When I was a young twerp in college I had an attitude such as yours, but I've long come to realize that isn't why I was giving my software away. Nearly everything I've written has been under a BSD license, even stuff I patch.
Was it the competitors job to configure the server?
In many companies web applications are developed and deployed to an application server which is configured by the operational staff.
That is the way our environment works. As developers we do not concern ourselves with the security of the server itself, but rather of the applications architecture.
We have system administrators who follow up on patches and ensure they are applied.
Amazing thing is, Linux also has a horrible track record with regards to security problems. A new one is released at least once a week.
Personally I'm just alarmed at how much FUD you are trying to blow.
You should always keep up to date with the latest security patches and make sure they are applied. Part of developing a web site solution for a client could involve ongoing maintenance to help insure they are kept up to date.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is illogical.
PC-DOS in 1981 was what you bought when you got a new computer.
The only other alternative was CP/M-86 which sold for $175. Is that what you wish to compare Windows 2000 pricing with?
Or would you rather compare pricing to Microsoft Xenix? I couldn't find data on Xenix, except that a Tandy computer using a MC68000 running Xenix around that time period was $5,000. I imagine the OS was probably $500 or so, considering later pricing by SCO for similar product.
The real threat isn't nearly as spectacular, but is simply that one of these new breeds of crop will contain a defective gene which will cause it to be susceptible to some problem.
May not happen right away, but say perhaps in 40 years, something happens and all corn in the US is hit by some problem which wipes it out because of this genetic weakness.
There are groups in the USDA, in Universities, etc. who work specifically to keep seed samples of the original species so that they are not lost.
Well actually given in 1981 PC-DOS cost $60 when purchased with an IBM PC, and today Windows 2000 costs around $125 when purchased with a PC...
The prices are basically equivalent when factoring in inflation.
I don't want a blueprint. I want a pre-built truck.
Oracle sells a GPL'ed database?
IBM sells a GPL'ed database?
Electronic Arts and Loki sell GPL'ed games?
I don't think so.
Go back under your bridge, troll.
Let me know when these companies top bleeding cash and start becoming profitable.
If you want to give me free Chevy trucks, I guarantee you I can make money off them!
"If names like ESR, Linus, RMS, and Parens can all agree on something to say, then Microsoft's plan to split the community just might back fire on them."
Does anybody have links to rebuttals from the likes of Theo da Raadt or Jordan Hubbard?
I went to their websites and didn't see anything. Did they rebut Mundie, or just not think it's important?
When you say Microsoft has an intention of splitting the community. Which community are you talking about?
They certainly never intended to split the GPL community. But they did attack the Open or Free Software community, which has always had a large chasm between GPL and BSD licenses.
Seeing a number of GPL supporting noteworthies agreeing that the GPL license is good does not surprise me. On the other hand, seeing BSD camp members saying Microsoft's attack on the GPL was wrong would be news.
You should do a search on google.com for Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie.
I think you need a replacement.
Actually the typical manager will look at the price tag first, realize that the Linux solution costs 4 times as much for only a 50% gain in performance...
He will then buy the Microsoft solution which offers more than enough performance for a signifigantly smaller hit to the pocketbook.
Oh blather. You attribute to malice what is obviously explainable through incompetence. It would be pathetically illogical to believe there was a Microsoft conspiracy to introduce back doors to all their software.
The problem with conspiracies is they fall apart the larger the group is who knows about it. Why just this week before Congress they are talking about Ted Olson's involvement in the vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit President Clinton.
Everybody pretty much even knew that existed, but couldn't pin down who was involved. Well now the evidence is leaking out because of one disgruntled former magazine editor.
And that was a conspiracy involving only a couple of dozen people.
Microsoft has thousands of developers, on the other hand...
"Get your head out of the sand, please."
Wow, I think maybe your tin foil hat needs some adjustment today.
I disagree. Open Source Peer Review relies on a voluntary effort. Throw the source up on FTP site, and hope someone reads it.
Commercial software on the other hand frequently has frequent code reviews done internally. Other staff looking at code to fix it, or sometimes group code review sessions.
Orrin Hatch has been attacking the Music and Movie industry for one reason and one reason only...
They predominantly give money to the Democrats.
Hatch could care less about Napster, or any of the ideals or philosophy of copyright.
He is only concerned with hurting funding sources for his competition.
That's it. If the MPAA and RIAA was giving him millions for his campaign, he'd be doing his best to protect the interests of that funding.
He's like most all politicians... completely transparent.
Well, to be honest... Microsoft does provide many different mechanism to check for updates.
However you have valid criticism in that you have to check man different locations to find those updates.
There is the standard windowsupdate web site.
Then there is the hotfix check tool for IIS.
Then there is officeupdate web site.
Oh, and the occasional security hotfix which isn't specific for IIS.
Yes, it'd be very nice if every patch was on windows udpate all in one place.
Of course then the anti-Microsoft crowd would complain because Microsoft would be integrating new "Auto-Update" functionality and stifling competition with Apple.
What is unfair?
How much did Sun Microsystems sink into StarOffice?
Yet they are giving it away for free as a loss leader to sell more hardware.
Isn't that unfair?
I agree, life isn't fair. The aggressive nature of this market has most certainly benefited consumers.
Nobody should ever need more than a 33Mhz processor.
This is the world that the Microsoft detractors want to go back to.
/. Linux crowd whines, not because they use Windows, but because they bundle all these features themselves into Linux distributions. If they can somehow make Microsoft go back to the old days of having to buy third party products for networking, etc... suddenly Linux becomes a whole lot more attractive.
It will never happen, but it sure doesn't stop them from whining.
In the meantime the
Yes, most college students can't afford $800 for a product such as Mathcad professional.
They should price it at like 1/6th that cost, like maybe $130!
Then maybe students could afford it. They'd learn to use it and when they graduated they might be inclined to suggest the company they work for buy it.
Oh wait, these companies already offer educational pricing...
But it's still a good argument for why they do it!
I and most other geeks I know cut our teeth on BASIC back in 1982. Microsoft BASIC, Applesoft, Atari, Commodore, etc.
:)
10 print "stuff"
20 gosub 50
30 goto 10
50 print "more stuff"
60 return
You could do some simple functions in MSBASIC, it supported a function definition which was really more of an inline macro.
Other than that, yeah it pretty much sucked for trying to do anything structured.
That all changed towards the mid 80's. There were a lot of more advanced BASIC compilers available for the Amiga, ST, PC, etc. that supported functions, subroutines, etc. without line numbers.
VB supports interface inheritance which is a feature of COM.
As one example virtually every MTS component you write implements Objectcontrol methods Activate, Deactivate and CanBePooled
We also usually write our external component interfaces using IDL and then implementing them in VB code.
It's pretty standard. I honestly use inheritance all the time in VB.
Oh give me a break, the GPL is the very embodiment of Software Communism. It has nothing to do with brainwashing, it's a simple question of critical thinking.
But you know what? I really don't care. If you want to use the GPL, then do so.
But don't expect the rest of the world to conform!
That's actually what makes the GPL so alike to the Soviet Union. Can't convince people to freely be part of the Community, so the only other option is to force them to be. Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whatever. I don't want any of it.
I thought the point of doing Free Software was to give it away for free so that all others could benefit?
Now your saying that, no, in fact you are a greedy selfish bastard who wants to tie strings to your gift.
Besides can't you just do a BSD license and add a 'But if you use this for a commercial purpose get my permission first?'
When I was a young twerp in college I had an attitude such as yours, but I've long come to realize that isn't why I was giving my software away. Nearly everything I've written has been under a BSD license, even stuff I patch.
Was it the competitors job to configure the server?
In many companies web applications are developed and deployed to an application server which is configured by the operational staff.
That is the way our environment works. As developers we do not concern ourselves with the security of the server itself, but rather of the applications architecture.
We have system administrators who follow up on patches and ensure they are applied.
Amazing thing is, Linux also has a horrible track record with regards to security problems. A new one is released at least once a week.
Personally I'm just alarmed at how much FUD you are trying to blow.
You should always keep up to date with the latest security patches and make sure they are applied. Part of developing a web site solution for a client could involve ongoing maintenance to help insure they are kept up to date.
But notice how both the Soviet Union and the GPL proponents think they should lead us towards the great wonderful Community of Communism.
They both wish to force everybody to conform, if you don't accept we'll beat it out of you.
That more than anything else is why Communism failed.