Well, that's nice that you dismiss him right off as a "Microsoft apologist", as if Microsoft was some sort of Nazi cult, but unless we read different articles, he DID address whether or not the feature is "unacceptable". He explained quite clearly (again, we may have somehow read different articles) that it IS a desired behavior. So, it looks like the MS basher has egg on his face this time, huh? Try reading the article next time!
Really? So then, you guys are Sun's last customers? I could've sworn that they had more than one. Or is it that you're such a large customer, that by losing your company Sun will be forced to fold? Enquiring minds want to know!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... you're right. The word you might be looking for is value. MS knows how to offer a good *value*. That's why Linux hasn't taken off. There's very little value to a software package that's nearly impossible to use, even if the cost is $0. Value is a combination of usefulness AND price. Macs are very useful, but at a high price. Linux has the best possible price, but isn't very useful to most people. MS, on the other hand offers a good value. It's not as expensive as a Mac (especially when hardware is considered), and it's useful enough to usually get the job done. They've found the sweet spot, and that's why they're so incredibly successful.
See, that's what's so great about the US. You can do whatever you want with your money, regardless of what assholes like you spout that people *should* do with their money. He earned it. He does whatever in the hell he wants with it. On that note, all of your money should be used to fund my DVD collection. Hand it over.
No, for Linux to work, it's gonna take, well, what made MS successful. Make an EASY to use, CONSISTENT user experience. That's more than a GUI. That's making everything to work together seamlessly. Right now, even the newest distributions are thousands of pieces all kludged together in an ugly, unmangeable mess that anyone who has a life just doesn't want to deal with.
Free software will be around as long as there are gullible, bored, wealthy college kids to do the work. But to say they're losing ground is ridiculous. There's still nothing on the market other than possible OSX that compares to Win 2K/XP for value. Nothing is even close.
I'm not talking about skimping... one can get a a few RAID 5 boxes on a VERY fat pipe (OCx) with generator backup in a high security site with 24/7 monitoring for cheap these days. It's just not that expensive. I re-research costs & products every 6 months or so, and it's ridiculously cheap to get 24/7 availability with a fat pipe due to the massive supply glut these days. But hey, what do I know?
BS. A decent amount of cagespace, with redundant 10mbit burstable lines, at a facility like C&W will set you back 8-14k depending on floor space usage.
There's no way that a simple site like theirs requires that much bandwidth. Hell, I'm betting that my site garners more pageviews than what they get, and it doesn't cost $1000. I don't know what kind of webserver you're talking about, but IIS can handle well over 200K+ pageviews a day on a PII 750, all database created. There's no way they're getting more than 1m pageviews a day, and that's only a handful of boxes. Apache doesn't handle dynamic pages *quite* as fast as the latest IIS, but still, there's not a big difference. Redundancy? RAID 5 is pretty standard on co-los. If they're spending more than $1K on bandwidth + server, they're getting ripped off in a big way.
Re:SUBSCRIBE TO SALON. DO IT.
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For all you out there bitching about "how can a website spend 80 million dollars?" that's how. They spend that much by funding the production of original, quality content.
OK, let's look at this... Big picture stuff... Server co-location, $1000/month, tops. The rest should go to content production. For $80 million, you could pay 80 writers $100,000 each for 10 years. Now, Salon hasn't been around for nearly 10 years, and they don't have 80 writers (more like 10?). And $100K/year is a nice salary, *especially* for a journalist. So, I'm still asking, where the fuck did their money go to?
Well, then, if most of the costs are pushed onto the musicians, then why don't the musicians promote, market and hadle everything themselves? I don't get it.
Artists are always being taken advantage of and there are some great examples in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone. "Why do hungry young artists keep signing these one-sided deals? Because they're too young and too green to have any idea how deep they can slide into debt. Because they don't consider the long-term complications of signing their lives away to a lard-assed corporation that will be perfectly happy to write them off as a bad debt at tax time.
So, I don't get it... am I supposed to feel sorry for these same short-sighted, stupid artists? Also, is there a way that record companies can recoup their costs from the artists if the records don't sell, or if the artists end up producing shit? From my point of view, the record companies havea lot more riding on a contract (namely, lots and lots of cash). "I didn't know" isn't a legal defense. That's what lawyers are for.
So what if the record company takes a fortune? The band AGREES to this. They sign a CONTRACT. So, unless the band is made up of all illiterate people who also can't afford a lawyer to read it for them, who cares? That's what a contract is. It's an agreement. If they don't like it, they shouldn't sign it. I've never heard of a band being forced to sign a contract under duress, and if they do, the contract is null and void.
Apple has $4.2 billion (4,200,000,000 = 10 digits) in cash and cash instruments. They have about $400M in obligatio
Again with the fake numbers. Why does everybody do this? You're flat wrong. Apple has $2.6 bil in cash, and $1.6 bil in obligations. Jesus, what's so hard about checking one of a million financial websites out there to get your facts straight? I mean shit, I'm on dialup, and it took a whopping 30 seconds.
And so when their market share gets down to less than 1%, in order to maintain their fixed costs, what kind of profit margin are they going to have to make on each box? Yes, market share IS important, especially when you have significant fixed costs, such as manufacturing facilities, development needs, etc. You can't sell one Mac a year for $10,000,000,000. It doesn't work that way. Profitability will fall as they're forced to raise prices to compensate for the lack of volume. It's a snowball effect.
Jesus, things like this make me wish I was an academic. Must be nice to be cushioned from the real world. A bunch of wealthy people and/or wealthy, wasteful academic departments using Macs. Must be nice. Now if you'll excuse me, those of us in the real world have to go find an IDE cable so that we can see if this 1 Gig drive works, because we're out of space.
At the end of last quarter, Apple only had $2,612,000,000 in cash. That's nowhere near $9 billion. Did you really just make up "$9 billion" off the top of your head?
You don't understand... Mozilla is all about "standards"... arbitrary rules established by the W3C that have no bearing whatsoever on modern society. So, of course, they have to show off how well they're adhering to these nonexistent "standards". Very impressive. I've recently established a standard in which everyone in the US drives on the left side of the road. I'll be implementing it today.
Re:Do these cars strike anybody else as...
on
10 Techno-Cool Cars
·
· Score: 1
"Weld the hood shut"... exactly. I had a '97 Vette for a while. While it was *very* fast, and could corner like nothing else I've ever been in, not being able to do *anything* to the engine without a computer really turned me off. It was a great car, but I other than drive it, there was very little that I could do to it. I unplugged the gas guzzer tax avoider thingy (something that forced low RPM shifting in 1 & 2 that was used to get around the "gas guzzler" tax, but other than that, there wasn't much I could do. I sold it, and I'm on the lookout for a '68 GTO hardtop 400 right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's nice that you dismiss him right off as a "Microsoft apologist", as if Microsoft was some sort of Nazi cult, but unless we read different articles, he DID address whether or not the feature is "unacceptable". He explained quite clearly (again, we may have somehow read different articles) that it IS a desired behavior. So, it looks like the MS basher has egg on his face this time, huh? Try reading the article next time!
Someone please mod this up higher. Jesus, Slashdot is really getting to be a big source of really bad FUD.
You know, there *are* such things as application specific OS patches for various poorly-written applications that MS provides.
Law is not needed. You can buy either company's software without a license.
Really? So then, you guys are Sun's last customers? I could've sworn that they had more than one. Or is it that you're such a large customer, that by losing your company Sun will be forced to fold? Enquiring minds want to know!
... or maybe you should be out looking for a job, or developing actually marketable skills?
Most of what you're asking can be changed just by reading the instructions.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... you're right. The word you might be looking for is value. MS knows how to offer a good *value*. That's why Linux hasn't taken off. There's very little value to a software package that's nearly impossible to use, even if the cost is $0. Value is a combination of usefulness AND price. Macs are very useful, but at a high price. Linux has the best possible price, but isn't very useful to most people. MS, on the other hand offers a good value. It's not as expensive as a Mac (especially when hardware is considered), and it's useful enough to usually get the job done. They've found the sweet spot, and that's why they're so incredibly successful.
See, that's what's so great about the US. You can do whatever you want with your money, regardless of what assholes like you spout that people *should* do with their money. He earned it. He does whatever in the hell he wants with it. On that note, all of your money should be used to fund my DVD collection. Hand it over.
No, for Linux to work, it's gonna take, well, what made MS successful. Make an EASY to use, CONSISTENT user experience. That's more than a GUI. That's making everything to work together seamlessly. Right now, even the newest distributions are thousands of pieces all kludged together in an ugly, unmangeable mess that anyone who has a life just doesn't want to deal with.
Free software will be around as long as there are gullible, bored, wealthy college kids to do the work. But to say they're losing ground is ridiculous. There's still nothing on the market other than possible OSX that compares to Win 2K/XP for value. Nothing is even close.
I'm not talking about skimping... one can get a a few RAID 5 boxes on a VERY fat pipe (OCx) with generator backup in a high security site with 24/7 monitoring for cheap these days. It's just not that expensive. I re-research costs & products every 6 months or so, and it's ridiculously cheap to get 24/7 availability with a fat pipe due to the massive supply glut these days. But hey, what do I know?
BS. A decent amount of cagespace, with redundant 10mbit burstable lines, at a facility like C&W will set you back 8-14k depending on floor space usage.
There's no way that a simple site like theirs requires that much bandwidth. Hell, I'm betting that my site garners more pageviews than what they get, and it doesn't cost $1000. I don't know what kind of webserver you're talking about, but IIS can handle well over 200K+ pageviews a day on a PII 750, all database created. There's no way they're getting more than 1m pageviews a day, and that's only a handful of boxes. Apache doesn't handle dynamic pages *quite* as fast as the latest IIS, but still, there's not a big difference. Redundancy? RAID 5 is pretty standard on co-los. If they're spending more than $1K on bandwidth + server, they're getting ripped off in a big way.
For all you out there bitching about "how can a website spend 80 million dollars?" that's how. They spend that much by funding the production of original, quality content.
OK, let's look at this... Big picture stuff... Server co-location, $1000/month, tops. The rest should go to content production. For $80 million, you could pay 80 writers $100,000 each for 10 years. Now, Salon hasn't been around for nearly 10 years, and they don't have 80 writers (more like 10?). And $100K/year is a nice salary, *especially* for a journalist. So, I'm still asking, where the fuck did their money go to?
Well, then, if most of the costs are pushed onto the musicians, then why don't the musicians promote, market and hadle everything themselves? I don't get it.
What percentage the artists (or you) make of the gross is completely irrelevant unless they or you signed a contract based on gross sales.
Artists are always being taken advantage of and there are some great examples in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone. "Why do hungry young artists keep signing these one-sided deals? Because they're too young and too green to have any idea how deep they can slide into debt. Because they don't consider the long-term complications of signing their lives away to a lard-assed corporation that will be perfectly happy to write them off as a bad debt at tax time.
So, I don't get it... am I supposed to feel sorry for these same short-sighted, stupid artists? Also, is there a way that record companies can recoup their costs from the artists if the records don't sell, or if the artists end up producing shit? From my point of view, the record companies havea lot more riding on a contract (namely, lots and lots of cash). "I didn't know" isn't a legal defense. That's what lawyers are for.
So what if the record company takes a fortune? The band AGREES to this. They sign a CONTRACT. So, unless the band is made up of all illiterate people who also can't afford a lawyer to read it for them, who cares? That's what a contract is. It's an agreement. If they don't like it, they shouldn't sign it. I've never heard of a band being forced to sign a contract under duress, and if they do, the contract is null and void.
Apple has $4.2 billion (4,200,000,000 = 10 digits) in cash and cash instruments. They have about $400M in obligatio
Again with the fake numbers. Why does everybody do this? You're flat wrong. Apple has $2.6 bil in cash, and $1.6 bil in obligations. Jesus, what's so hard about checking one of a million financial websites out there to get your facts straight? I mean shit, I'm on dialup, and it took a whopping 30 seconds.
And so when their market share gets down to less than 1%, in order to maintain their fixed costs, what kind of profit margin are they going to have to make on each box? Yes, market share IS important, especially when you have significant fixed costs, such as manufacturing facilities, development needs, etc. You can't sell one Mac a year for $10,000,000,000. It doesn't work that way. Profitability will fall as they're forced to raise prices to compensate for the lack of volume. It's a snowball effect.
Jesus, things like this make me wish I was an academic. Must be nice to be cushioned from the real world. A bunch of wealthy people and/or wealthy, wasteful academic departments using Macs. Must be nice. Now if you'll excuse me, those of us in the real world have to go find an IDE cable so that we can see if this 1 Gig drive works, because we're out of space.
No, one person can't have a representative experience. I know zero people using *nix, and one using a Mac. What does that prove? Nothing.
At the end of last quarter, Apple only had $2,612,000,000 in cash. That's nowhere near $9 billion. Did you really just make up "$9 billion" off the top of your head?
You don't understand... Mozilla is all about "standards"... arbitrary rules established by the W3C that have no bearing whatsoever on modern society. So, of course, they have to show off how well they're adhering to these nonexistent "standards". Very impressive. I've recently established a standard in which everyone in the US drives on the left side of the road. I'll be implementing it today.
"Weld the hood shut"... exactly. I had a '97 Vette for a while. While it was *very* fast, and could corner like nothing else I've ever been in, not being able to do *anything* to the engine without a computer really turned me off. It was a great car, but I other than drive it, there was very little that I could do to it. I unplugged the gas guzzer tax avoider thingy (something that forced low RPM shifting in 1 & 2 that was used to get around the "gas guzzler" tax, but other than that, there wasn't much I could do. I sold it, and I'm on the lookout for a '68 GTO hardtop 400 right now.