There's a lot more to.Net than just the common language runtime engine.
A good chunk of the core is the interoperability present with web services. Which has nothing at all to do with Java.
As far as I've seen, Sun only recently discovered this was a great idea and jumped on board. That was shortly after Microsoft, IBM and the others announced the idea.
Giving Java credit for something Java didn't do seems odd.
Especially with Napster, the whole process of spying on users seems rather simple.
Napster provides a index mechanism which makes it very easy for some entity to watch what users make available for download.
On top of that, by making downloads available yourself, you could easily monitor what people actually download.
I don't see how you can realistically get around this, at least not with Napster. Your either offering stuff for download, or you are downloading information yourself.
I suppose if you know who the trojan sites are offering Napster content, you can avoid downloading from them... But how could anyone know?
Somehow you installed this software. It may have been attached to something else you installed, such as a free preview copy of some program.
But software doesn't just automatically install on Windows desktops. Even with ActiveX controls you have to specifically authorize the download, and even then they are limited in where the files can be installed to. (hint: C:\Program Files is not one such location)
Steve Gibson at grc.com has warned about this in the past, along with others.
If you think you feel out of touch with Windows by a move from Win95 to Win98...
Your going to be in for a culture shock when Windows XP comes out. NT turned a lot of Win95 assumptions for a loop, and it's taken several years for most developers and admins to really get a grasp of that.
I think it's rather assinine to fail to attribute to President Clinton the success of the economics market during his second term in office.
Granted, part of the reason for the boom was the military decline started by the first Bush administration, which pushed companies into R&D on consumer goods instead of government goods. This was a good thing, and I find it disappointing that the new Baby Bush appears to want to go back to the cold war economy that led to foreign countries out competing us in industries we used to be leaders(automobile, television, radio, etc).
But a large reason for the boom was simply the Clinton administration hands-off policy with regards to the economy. Actually this is the prime difference between Clinton and say Reagan. Reagan had a in-your-face style of government, whereas the Clinton government just didn't interrupt peoples daily lives much at all. It gave people time and opportunity to concern themselves with other more important issues.
The only real example of the Clinton administration mucking where they shouldn't have is with the Microsoft lawsuit. There was a recent Forbes article which attributes much of the malaise in the tech market to the Microsoft lawsuit. Essentially pointing out that the tech companies were really just riding on the coattails of Microsoft.
There was another article, I believe in either Salon or Slate, which I read which pointed out another factor of politics and the market. The Baby Bush administration favors the old Republican standby companies... Big Oil, Big Manufacturing, Defense, etc. But not technology, etc.
What that article pointed to is that the market is now shifting with the political winds. Tech is gone, the new administration isn't gonig to promote it. But the other industries stocks are doing quite well.
For instance, go check out the stock charts on Raytheon, an old Bush family defense company. It hit it's 52-week peak in early February, while the tech market was still blundering into oblivion. Even though it's down in the past month, it's still considerably above it's 52-week low from last April.
Face it. The Clinton administration was good for Technology. Look at just a handful of the positive things he did as President for our market:
- Eliminated the GPS satellite encryption
- Raised limits on super computer exports
- Nearly eliminated limits on encryption export
- Provided funding and an atmosphere of regulations which encouraged internet expansion
and so on.
Under the Bush administration you won't see this type of cooperation. They have already began talk about again restricting computer exports. I fully suspect even the encryption export restrctions will once again be "reviewed" and then later reverted back to their old form.
Where's the focus been just in the past 100 days? Oil and Energy companies.
The writing is on the wall, it just takes some intelligence to read it.
When you reward one type of behavior through tax credits, you do so at the expense of another type of behavior.
Money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from taxes. If you give a tax credit to one person, that just means some other person has to pay that much more in taxes.
The Government should not be in the role of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
If Open Source really provided value, it would be a viable alternative in the marketplace without having to be subsidised by my tax dollars.
I am refer to the subtitle of this article that suggests that our government should provide tax credits to companies engaged in Open Source development.
In light of the recent relevations that many of these Open Source companies are not now, nor appear to ever, be profitable. It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
Is it really the goal of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the market place?
That's ok, I lost interest in our nations capital when it was decided that when you lose an election, it's ok to trump up charges against the President one right after another to try to overturn the will of the people.
I think the obvious intent RedHat had was to allow a home user who purchased a RedHat boxed set free access to the updates service.
But it's certainly a value add to a company, and RedHat does have to make money off services to be profitable. So I rather suspect they would prefer it if you paid a subscription fee per desktop.
A boxed set sells for only like $40, obviously RedHat would prefer the $20/month stream of income over single boxed sets.
In a sense, this new RedHat service/upgrade model of business is the software leasing plan Microsoft(and others) have been talking about over the past year.
Unfortunately, for Redhat, I don't see this business model making that much money either. It is rather expensive, and I would be more inclined to investigate providing the same service internal to my company if I were actually using RedHat Linux on desktops.
On the server side, the last thing I would want was some service automatically updating software. I would prefer to apply these changes by hand anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing C# with .Net.
.Net than just the common language runtime engine.
There's a lot more to
A good chunk of the core is the interoperability present with web services. Which has nothing at all to do with Java.
As far as I've seen, Sun only recently discovered this was a great idea and jumped on board. That was shortly after Microsoft, IBM and the others announced the idea.
Giving Java credit for something Java didn't do seems odd.
What kind of Microsoft shill are you?
Seriously, this is the first time I've ever seen someone at slashdot actually verify something before posting it.
Way to go!
"It is still an interesting question as to why they originally released it "
It's really only an interesting question if you have a corncob shoved up your rear end.
Honestly, I can't think of any reason why one would continually berate a company for something they did a year ago that was subsequently fixed.
Bah, wish I could mod this up. CowbertPrime is right.
You'll have to forgive the ./ zealots today... they have their tinfoil hats on a bit skewed.
Well it seems like they'd be able to distribute their music by granting Napster permission to do so.
i.e. the point of the opt-in list.
Well true, if I were listening to the Backstreet Boys I obviously don't care about quality and thus wouldn't care what it sounded like.
But not all of us listen to crap music.
Especially with Napster, the whole process of spying on users seems rather simple.
Napster provides a index mechanism which makes it very easy for some entity to watch what users make available for download.
On top of that, by making downloads available yourself, you could easily monitor what people actually download.
I don't see how you can realistically get around this, at least not with Napster. Your either offering stuff for download, or you are downloading information yourself.
I suppose if you know who the trojan sites are offering Napster content, you can avoid downloading from them... But how could anyone know?
Somehow you installed this software. It may have been attached to something else you installed, such as a free preview copy of some program.
But software doesn't just automatically install on Windows desktops. Even with ActiveX controls you have to specifically authorize the download, and even then they are limited in where the files can be installed to. (hint: C:\Program Files is not one such location)
Steve Gibson at grc.com has warned about this in the past, along with others.
Why do people keep confusing Free Software with Free Speech?
The two aren't at all the same.
So I go pay them $15, and turn around and place the exact same download on my own server, but only charge $5.
Perfectly legal, right?
Thank you for the informative post.
/. :(
It's so rare to see real information on
If you think you feel out of touch with Windows by a move from Win95 to Win98...
Your going to be in for a culture shock when Windows XP comes out. NT turned a lot of Win95 assumptions for a loop, and it's taken several years for most developers and admins to really get a grasp of that.
Yeah damnit! 640K ought to be enough memory for anybody!
Well... You should be running Anti-Virus software.
:-)
I think it's rather assinine to fail to attribute to President Clinton the success of the economics market during his second term in office.
Granted, part of the reason for the boom was the military decline started by the first Bush administration, which pushed companies into R&D on consumer goods instead of government goods. This was a good thing, and I find it disappointing that the new Baby Bush appears to want to go back to the cold war economy that led to foreign countries out competing us in industries we used to be leaders(automobile, television, radio, etc).
But a large reason for the boom was simply the Clinton administration hands-off policy with regards to the economy. Actually this is the prime difference between Clinton and say Reagan. Reagan had a in-your-face style of government, whereas the Clinton government just didn't interrupt peoples daily lives much at all. It gave people time and opportunity to concern themselves with other more important issues.
The only real example of the Clinton administration mucking where they shouldn't have is with the Microsoft lawsuit. There was a recent Forbes article which attributes much of the malaise in the tech market to the Microsoft lawsuit. Essentially pointing out that the tech companies were really just riding on the coattails of Microsoft.
There was another article, I believe in either Salon or Slate, which I read which pointed out another factor of politics and the market. The Baby Bush administration favors the old Republican standby companies... Big Oil, Big Manufacturing, Defense, etc. But not technology, etc.
What that article pointed to is that the market is now shifting with the political winds. Tech is gone, the new administration isn't gonig to promote it. But the other industries stocks are doing quite well.
For instance, go check out the stock charts on Raytheon, an old Bush family defense company. It hit it's 52-week peak in early February, while the tech market was still blundering into oblivion. Even though it's down in the past month, it's still considerably above it's 52-week low from last April.
Face it. The Clinton administration was good for Technology. Look at just a handful of the positive things he did as President for our market:
- Eliminated the GPS satellite encryption
- Raised limits on super computer exports
- Nearly eliminated limits on encryption export
- Provided funding and an atmosphere of regulations which encouraged internet expansion
and so on.
Under the Bush administration you won't see this type of cooperation. They have already began talk about again restricting computer exports. I fully suspect even the encryption export restrctions will once again be "reviewed" and then later reverted back to their old form.
Where's the focus been just in the past 100 days? Oil and Energy companies.
The writing is on the wall, it just takes some intelligence to read it.
When you reward one type of behavior through tax credits, you do so at the expense of another type of behavior.
Money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from taxes. If you give a tax credit to one person, that just means some other person has to pay that much more in taxes.
The Government should not be in the role of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
If Open Source really provided value, it would be a viable alternative in the marketplace without having to be subsidised by my tax dollars.
I am refer to the subtitle of this article that suggests that our government should provide tax credits to companies engaged in Open Source development.
In light of the recent relevations that many of these Open Source companies are not now, nor appear to ever, be profitable. It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
Is it really the goal of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the market place?
That's ok, I lost interest in our nations capital when it was decided that when you lose an election, it's ok to trump up charges against the President one right after another to try to overturn the will of the people.
I guess that all depends on RedHat.
I think the obvious intent RedHat had was to allow a home user who purchased a RedHat boxed set free access to the updates service.
But it's certainly a value add to a company, and RedHat does have to make money off services to be profitable. So I rather suspect they would prefer it if you paid a subscription fee per desktop.
A boxed set sells for only like $40, obviously RedHat would prefer the $20/month stream of income over single boxed sets.
In a sense, this new RedHat service/upgrade model of business is the software leasing plan Microsoft(and others) have been talking about over the past year.
Unfortunately, for Redhat, I don't see this business model making that much money either. It is rather expensive, and I would be more inclined to investigate providing the same service internal to my company if I were actually using RedHat Linux on desktops.
On the server side, the last thing I would want was some service automatically updating software. I would prefer to apply these changes by hand anyway.
You don't consider $240/year to be exhorbitant?
Those prices you quote are one time charges, not recurring fees.
I think you are a bit confused.
It says you receive one free subscription per customer. It doesn't say one per boxed copy.
A big corporation is considered a single customer, not 4,000 customers.
I wasn't talking who won or lost, but rather how the war was fought.
I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess not.
http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_cha nges.html
:)
"Software Manager is a subscription offering priced at $19.95 per month for each system. "
"special introductory offer: every system subscribed before April 6 is only $9.95 per month until September 1. "
It's only $9.95 if you sign up now, and then that only lasts thru September.
Odd thing is, Windowsupdate.microsoft.com is still free.
Guess it's a case of pay me now, or pay me later. If Redhat can't make money off this subscription service, then what's left for them to try?
Fascinating.
But you clearly missed the point.