There is a dramatic difference between creating and recording your own music, and copying that created by others. Halting piracy does not have any bearing on your ability to create music of your own.
What I want to understand is why morons such as yourself don't understand this distinction? Or do you understand and you just use bloody stupid analogies to distort the issue?
"I really don't understand why the Canadians have it in for us."
Maybe because we keep insulting them?
"We "dragged our heels" on WWI and WWII because they weren't our wars."
Is Iraq our war? They didn't attack us, they attacked Iran, and Kuwait and so forth. Shouldn't we just let those countries fight their own battles?
The point being such arguments have little value.
"Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe."
The memory of our soldiers was tarnished when their sacrifice was rubbed in the noses of the Europeans.
It's amazing how quickly you can lose allies when you start treating them arrogantly.
Activewin.com is a labor of love site. It's basically a half dozen guys in the free time, they haven't sold out to some larger dotcom company or anything like that.
I've spoken with the site operators, and they have a fairly steep colocation bill each month, and they have to run the ads to offset that.
They're certainly looking for alternatives, if you have any to offer. Maybe they should run a cyberbegging article on slashdot?
"I'm not saying they're going to go chapter 11 or anything, but I do believe that they might become startlingly irrelevant in a very short amount of time like IBM did in the 80's-90's."
LOL!
I think it's funny that just because you aren't aware of what a company is doing you suddenly think they are irrelevant.
Let's use another example. General Motors. Used to have 50% of the automobile marketshare, now they have around 20%. Are they irrelevant? They are the 2nd largest employer in the US(Wal-Mart is first but those are mostly part-time), and you can't go one day to the next without at some point using a service or product that they're behind in some way. But because you aren't aware of every thing they touch, they are invisible to you? Much like IBM today.
"Ironically, for IBM, it was an inability to see the OS as the real market; for MS, it'll be an inability to see that the OS is no longer the real market..."
There was much more to it than that. IBM certainly suffered from the innovators dilemna. But they got themselves into a situation where they were afraid to lose. They didn't commit the full resources to OS/2 that it needed to succeed. They weren't willing to admit quickly that they were wrong with Microchannel architecture, and so forth.
If MS didn't understand that the OS isn't the real market, they wouldn't be moving in so many directions at once. From online web services, to XBox, to applications, to development technologies and so on and so forth. Sure some of these are failures, but many aren't. But Thomas Watson who made IBM the great power that it was understood the secret to success is to risk failure. When IBM became risk adverse, they went on the decline.
That is what is so interesting about their push for Linux now... it's a tremendous risk. Maybe it works for them, maybe it doesn't... but it's different from their past strategies.
I'm afraid you suffer from wishful thinking, my friend. Don't worry, it is a common trait on/. people forcasting the future using tea leaves instead of common sense.
"A well spoken liberal thesis is interesting to read, but a lot of the crap they were slinging was along the lines of "conservatives are so stupid", something I'm not willing to pay for."
"to me rebuilding libX throws another wrench into the fire."
Exactly!
If rebuilding libX is going to cause you problems, then you want to know about that NOW and fix it. I don't see any benefit to waiting to address build issues. Do you seriously think you're going to improve your productivity?
In a large company with many thousands of computers, it is not inconceivable that someone might bring a laptop in, infected from outside the company and bring it out of hibernation mode within the boundaries of your firewall.
Or, I've seen this as well... laptops used to dial out to AOL accounts and then when the modem connection is dropped, they're now back on your LAN.
A firewall is one form of protection, but it's not impervious.
"Because Microsoft is losing the server war to Linux"
Since when? Linux has about a 17% marketshare on servers, using the most optimistic of measurements. Microsoft is in the 50-60%, with the remaining 25% or so being commercial Unix, Novell and such.
If what you mean by losing is that Microsoft is not making signifigant strides to gain additional marketshare, then ok. But if you mean they're losing marketshare to Linux, then you are incorrect. The only entity losing the server market to Linux is Sun/HP/IBM commercial Unix solutions.
I realize you probably didn't mean to intentionally lie. I'm sure you truly believe that Microsoft is losing marketshare to Linux. But you'd do yourself a favor by looking up the facts, and then deriving conclusions based upon those.
I think the letter is somewhat interesting, but I also disagree. Customers do want networkable solutions, however they still want them as shrinkwrapped solutions that they can run on their own networks. The problem stems from the internet still being unreliable. As that improves, then there will be more acceptance for the networked paradigm.
One just needs look at the ASP model and how it has succeeded and failed. Yes, it's working, but nowhere near as widespread as it's proponents claimed it would be.
"What could be wrong about handicapping what gov't can do to us by restricting the amount of money they take from us?"
In what way does it handicap government spending?
They're just borrowing the money instead.
It's Fiscal irresponsibility plain and simple. No Bank would allow me to have a Debt/Income ratio of over 3 times, yet that is what our Federal Govt presently has, and the Bush administration intends to kick it up to 4.
To be fair, the US payments to Afghanistan started under Clinton, I believe in around '98 or '99. The idea was to foster some sort of agricultural besides poppy growing.
In retrospect that was a colossal disaster.
As to Moore. He tends to hyperbole and exagerration, but I've not seen him out and out lie. Certainly not to the degree our Republican friends have done as documented by David Brock and others.
If you have a Salon article that says otherwise, I'm sure we would all appreciate a link to it.
Exactly! Just like how the vast sales of the Super Nintendo helped the Nintendo 64 stave off the Playstation!
Uhh, oops... crap. Guess that argument fails.
Actually the PS2 being able to play old PS1 games was a smart marketing move and contributed greatly to it's success. I expect you'll see this trend continue. PS3 will be backwards compatible as will XBox2.
"Netcraft says Apache is 2:1 over IIS. To get a 1:1 you would have to count unused default installations."
http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000 we bservers/
Apache is in use by less than 20% of fortune 1000.
"Last figures I saw from AMR gave Oracle 54% of the database market and Microsoft 21%."
On desktops?
"The two numbers I quoted I consider to be accepted facts. I didn't realise there was any dispute of these until you questioned them. Your turn now to put some substance on your argument."
"The comment I suggested needed modding up pointed out that Apache is 2x more popular than IIS and Oracle is the more popular DB yet doesn't suffer the same problems - therefore that argument is false."
Except that neither of those two claims are at all accurate. Apache is on par with IIS in terms of server installations, and Oracle is only more popular than SQL Server/MSDE in data centers.
It's out in the real world... laptops, desktops behind broadband connections and so forth that worms spread.
"It is not whether its pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft."
I find that hard to believe. You certainly didn't put any thought into your argument, you simply started with the anti-MS stance and tried to justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a dramatic difference between creating and recording your own music, and copying that created by others. Halting piracy does not have any bearing on your ability to create music of your own.
What I want to understand is why morons such as yourself don't understand this distinction? Or do you understand and you just use bloody stupid analogies to distort the issue?
"I really don't understand why the Canadians have it in for us."
Maybe because we keep insulting them?
"We "dragged our heels" on WWI and WWII because they weren't our wars."
Is Iraq our war? They didn't attack us, they attacked Iran, and Kuwait and so forth. Shouldn't we just let those countries fight their own battles?
The point being such arguments have little value.
"Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe."
The memory of our soldiers was tarnished when their sacrifice was rubbed in the noses of the Europeans.
It's amazing how quickly you can lose allies when you start treating them arrogantly.
"why don't you offer a suggestion for a better business model."
They should Open Source the magazine, obviously.
Then, well... uhh... they'll profit?
BEcause this is /.... News for Nerds. Not News for Linux dorks.
Actually it's a very reasonable and unbiased article.
The only problem you have with it is that the truth turns out to not favor your anti-Microsoft hatred.
How is this Tim Mullen's problem?
"Tim Mullen is probably the most notorious apologist for Microsoft in the security community."
In other words...
"Since his comments are not anti-Microsoft enough you shouldn't listen to him, because it's more important to blame Microsoft than be right."
This is why I post to slashdot, to correct morons like this, and for that I am called an astro-turfer.
Activewin.com is a labor of love site. It's basically a half dozen guys in the free time, they haven't sold out to some larger dotcom company or anything like that.
I've spoken with the site operators, and they have a fairly steep colocation bill each month, and they have to run the ads to offset that.
They're certainly looking for alternatives, if you have any to offer. Maybe they should run a cyberbegging article on slashdot?
I've been speaking pro-Microsoft comments since 1997.
2322... 4 digit ID, and nobody pays me to do it. I just got tired of all the FUD spread by the Linux zealots.
"I'm not saying they're going to go chapter 11 or anything, but I do believe that they might become startlingly irrelevant in a very short amount of time like IBM did in the 80's-90's."
/. people forcasting the future using tea leaves instead of common sense.
LOL!
I think it's funny that just because you aren't aware of what a company is doing you suddenly think they are irrelevant.
Let's use another example. General Motors. Used to have 50% of the automobile marketshare, now they have around 20%. Are they irrelevant? They are the 2nd largest employer in the US(Wal-Mart is first but those are mostly part-time), and you can't go one day to the next without at some point using a service or product that they're behind in some way. But because you aren't aware of every thing they touch, they are invisible to you? Much like IBM today.
"Ironically, for IBM, it was an inability to see the OS as the real market; for MS, it'll be an inability to see that the OS is no longer the real market..."
There was much more to it than that. IBM certainly suffered from the innovators dilemna. But they got themselves into a situation where they were afraid to lose. They didn't commit the full resources to OS/2 that it needed to succeed. They weren't willing to admit quickly that they were wrong with Microchannel architecture, and so forth.
If MS didn't understand that the OS isn't the real market, they wouldn't be moving in so many directions at once. From online web services, to XBox, to applications, to development technologies and so on and so forth. Sure some of these are failures, but many aren't. But Thomas Watson who made IBM the great power that it was understood the secret to success is to risk failure. When IBM became risk adverse, they went on the decline.
That is what is so interesting about their push for Linux now... it's a tremendous risk. Maybe it works for them, maybe it doesn't... but it's different from their past strategies.
I'm afraid you suffer from wishful thinking, my friend. Don't worry, it is a common trait on
"A well spoken liberal thesis is interesting to read, but a lot of the crap they were slinging was along the lines of "conservatives are so stupid", something I'm not willing to pay for."
Yes, you're right... Only Conservatives are willing to pay for mindless crap such as calling all liberals stupid.
For the same reason you are supposed to get all weepy when Linux distributions business plans fail.
/.
Yeah, I don't know why either, but this is
I guess I'm puzzled by the attitude displayed here on /.
On the one hand I'm told as a software developer it's not about the money. I should code just for the love of it!
On the other hand I'm supposed to be outraged because a rock star only makes $40k off a record deal?
And the rock star get's groupies, whereas the programmer just has pr0n.
"large Sun, IBM, and HP boxes can run 64 CPUs without a problem and hundreds of server processes for 7/24/365.25."
Not without failover clustering they can't, and HP/IBM/Sun will be the first to tell you that.
I've never understood why Linux zealots with two desktops at home suddenly think they are experts on enterprise class systems.
"to me rebuilding libX throws another wrench into the fire."
Exactly!
If rebuilding libX is going to cause you problems, then you want to know about that NOW and fix it. I don't see any benefit to waiting to address build issues. Do you seriously think you're going to improve your productivity?
In a large company with many thousands of computers, it is not inconceivable that someone might bring a laptop in, infected from outside the company and bring it out of hibernation mode within the boundaries of your firewall.
Or, I've seen this as well... laptops used to dial out to AOL accounts and then when the modem connection is dropped, they're now back on your LAN.
A firewall is one form of protection, but it's not impervious.
"That's evidence that the system has broken down. It costs more to buy a product WITHOUT the monopoly OS than with it."
Next time you are out car shopping demand that you be allowed to purchase a car without a stereo.
You used to be able to do this, back 20+ years ago. Try it, go ahead... I'm curious to see how far you get.
Or better yet... Demand to buy the car without tires! Say you have your own tires that you want to put on.
"For Microsoft, that is a big loss."
Ok, if you want to think so.
"Because Microsoft is losing the server war to Linux"
Since when? Linux has about a 17% marketshare on servers, using the most optimistic of measurements. Microsoft is in the 50-60%, with the remaining 25% or so being commercial Unix, Novell and such.
If what you mean by losing is that Microsoft is not making signifigant strides to gain additional marketshare, then ok. But if you mean they're losing marketshare to Linux, then you are incorrect. The only entity losing the server market to Linux is Sun/HP/IBM commercial Unix solutions.
I realize you probably didn't mean to intentionally lie. I'm sure you truly believe that Microsoft is losing marketshare to Linux. But you'd do yourself a favor by looking up the facts, and then deriving conclusions based upon those.
I think the letter is somewhat interesting, but I also disagree. Customers do want networkable solutions, however they still want them as shrinkwrapped solutions that they can run on their own networks. The problem stems from the internet still being unreliable. As that improves, then there will be more acceptance for the networked paradigm.
One just needs look at the ASP model and how it has succeeded and failed. Yes, it's working, but nowhere near as widespread as it's proponents claimed it would be.
Why didn't you test older Opera versions, Netscape versions, etc?
" the herd of Windows users out there from considering Macs."
Herd? Since when is 2 people considered a herd?
"What could be wrong about handicapping what gov't can do to us by restricting the amount of money they take from us?"
In what way does it handicap government spending?
They're just borrowing the money instead.
It's Fiscal irresponsibility plain and simple. No Bank would allow me to have a Debt/Income ratio of over 3 times, yet that is what our Federal Govt presently has, and the Bush administration intends to kick it up to 4.
To be fair, the US payments to Afghanistan started under Clinton, I believe in around '98 or '99. The idea was to foster some sort of agricultural besides poppy growing.
In retrospect that was a colossal disaster.
As to Moore. He tends to hyperbole and exagerration, but I've not seen him out and out lie. Certainly not to the degree our Republican friends have done as documented by David Brock and others.
If you have a Salon article that says otherwise, I'm sure we would all appreciate a link to it.
Exactly! Just like how the vast sales of the Super Nintendo helped the Nintendo 64 stave off the Playstation!
Uhh, oops... crap. Guess that argument fails.
Actually the PS2 being able to play old PS1 games was a smart marketing move and contributed greatly to it's success. I expect you'll see this trend continue. PS3 will be backwards compatible as will XBox2.
"Netcraft says Apache is 2:1 over IIS. To get a 1:1 you would have to count unused default installations."
0 we bservers/
http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top100
Apache is in use by less than 20% of fortune 1000.
"Last figures I saw from AMR gave Oracle 54% of the database market and Microsoft 21%."
On desktops?
"The two numbers I quoted I consider to be accepted facts. I didn't realise there was any dispute of these until you questioned them. Your turn now to put some substance on your argument."
Preconceived notions are easily open for dispute.
"The comment I suggested needed modding up pointed out that Apache is 2x more popular than IIS and Oracle is the more popular DB yet doesn't suffer the same problems - therefore that argument is false."
Except that neither of those two claims are at all accurate. Apache is on par with IIS in terms of server installations, and Oracle is only more popular than SQL Server/MSDE in data centers.
It's out in the real world... laptops, desktops behind broadband connections and so forth that worms spread.
"It is not whether its pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft."
I find that hard to believe. You certainly didn't put any thought into your argument, you simply started with the anti-MS stance and tried to justify it.