They would be to be able to run existing programs. And since none of their programs run with open standards nobody has OSS replacements.
I hear that a lot, but I just don't buy it. Little Apple Computer did it. OS X is a completely different beast than the "Classic" Mac OS, but I can still run my old Mac software -even software written for a completely different CPU family (Motorola 680x0).
Ironically, I can even run legacy PC apps on a Mac.
Why can't a giant like MS, with orders of magnitude more resources and clout, do the same?
For example, MS still has a long ways to go to get to the top of the game console market.
So, yes in the Office and OS "mountains" MS has nowhere to go but down, but there are a lot of mountains out there, and MS has their sites set on a lot of them.
IOW every time you start your computer, click a link in IE, or check your emai with Entourage, you get a message saying, "Microsoft has determined you are running Windows "Longhorn", therefore you may have malware installed."
Much as the RIAA P2P user suits. its all a bunch of hot air to get one to settle. Once it gets to court, all the air wil be let out.
I wish I could find the link to the transcript of a presentation Eben Moglen (FSA lawyer) gave. In it he states the GPL has been repeatedly tested, though as you say its never gone to court. The reason is that it is bulletproof. Either a defendent argues they have no right to copy at all, or they argue the GPL in invalid, in which case they have to right to copy at all.
Once that is pointed out to the infringer, they've all settled out of court, with the FSF always getting what it asked for : compliance with the GPL (not monetary damages).
Anybody know where that transcript went? IIRC it was from about a year ago.
It's equally possible that the reporter in question is just lazy about notetaking or maintaining contact information.
Or its possible that, when going through a list of 700 contacts (if there's only one/story) compiled over 5 years, that 24 people moved or changed a phone number or otherwise couldn't be contacted.
I'm really at a loss as to how this is even newsworthy.
Wired News will now require freelance reporters to submit contact information for all named sources. Also, anonymous sources will be used only with appropriate justification.
I think its more important to do what Wired says it will do now, and any real news publication should already be doing : don't use anonymous sources without "appropriate justification". IMO only in rare instances where someones livilihood or welfare is at risk, should an anonymous source be used. You can't name the people who "don't care all that much about spyware"? Why not?
Of course if journalists were required to name sources we'd soon find that 90% of their quotes from "experts" really come from their friends and neighbors.
It does look like censorship "Big Brother" style (ala 1984).
If I'm reading correctly, they're purging all references to one Maureen O'Gara. It will be as if she never existed, never wrote those articles.
Is that what we really want? I know a lot of "historian types" are worried about the fluid nature of the 'net and how an article or reference can be there one day, and completely vanish the next. Seems like there should be a better way to handle it. Maybe a big scarlet letter added as a background image for the "tainted" articles.
Was just discussing the general decline of tech support last week. Isn't it interesting how many companies will now refer users to a forum/discussion group to get their tech support questions answered? If you actually want them to help, you better be ready to pay.
So the difference in support between commercial/non-commercial software is nothing in many cases. Your best bet/first line is the user community.
the fact that if some browser weren't included things would be worse
Yes, its too bad MS killed the ability of box makers to install whatever web browser (or other software they wanted) on the computer and have it easy to find by say, putting an icon on the desktop.
I remember when Netscape couldn't even pay OEMs to put Netscape on the computer because the OEMs didn't want to lose their "preferred" status with MS. Supposedly, with the "end" of the anti-trust suit, OEMs could pre-install Firefox on their boxes. Are any of them doing this for a competitive advantage, like they would in the old days?
Reminds me a little of some of the discussions about CoreImage in OS X. There was some thought that this could make it easy for someone to write the fabled Photoshop killer.
The replies I thought most interesting centered on the thought that Photoshop isn't about the filters etc. that CoreImage can do. Its about a very refined set of editing tools, and even more important, the way Photoshop has been integrated into the workflow for print and eleectronic publication.
Possible another pc compatible device that apple wants to release, but requires this?
After reading that I had to go check, but it looks like AirPort Express and AirTunes already work for a Windows PC. Maybe a future iPod model fits into the works.
And one of the big differences that may be important for many here (from above link), is that Zeroconf is, " a patent-free (unlike UPnP) and completely open specification".
I bought Word 3.0. It was a pretty good program. I recomended it to everyone I knew at the time.
Now I'm thinking, "What have I done? I should have bought WordPerfect like my wife told me!"
Re:Never write off Microsoft...
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
IMO it was all over with the release of version 3 for both camps. By then, IE was "good enough" and Netscape had had its revenue stream destroyed by a free browser. While MS could poor big $$ into a money-losing venture (short term), Netscape couldn't. Their resources dried up, which killed their ability to keep Netscape improving at the necessary pace -new versions in months, not years. By the next release, MS had the better browser. Game over.
And then how many years between IE 5 and 6? Maybe that's because the browser had matured. Maybe its because there was no competion.
Funny that MS couldn't come up with things like tabbed browsing on their own. It took the spectre of competition to get them moving again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not unrealized, lots of projects have forked before.
And more often than not, seems to lead to one group feeling betrayed.
legacy...
They would be to be able to run existing programs. And since none of their programs run with open standards nobody has OSS replacements.
I hear that a lot, but I just don't buy it. Little Apple Computer did it. OS X is a completely different beast than the "Classic" Mac OS, but I can still run my old Mac software -even software written for a completely different CPU family (Motorola 680x0).
Ironically, I can even run legacy PC apps on a Mac.
Why can't a giant like MS, with orders of magnitude more resources and clout, do the same?
I mean, they have no where to go but down.
That's when you start expanding your lineup.
For example, MS still has a long ways to go to get to the top of the game console market.
So, yes in the Office and OS "mountains" MS has nowhere to go but down, but there are a lot of mountains out there, and MS has their sites set on a lot of them.
IOW every time you start your computer, click a link in IE, or check your emai with Entourage, you get a message saying, "Microsoft has determined you are running Windows "Longhorn", therefore you may have malware installed."
Much as the RIAA P2P user suits. its all a bunch of hot air to get one to settle. Once it gets to court, all the air wil be let out.
I wish I could find the link to the transcript of a presentation Eben Moglen (FSA lawyer) gave. In it he states the GPL has been repeatedly tested, though as you say its never gone to court. The reason is that it is bulletproof. Either a defendent argues they have no right to copy at all, or they argue the GPL in invalid, in which case they have to right to copy at all.
Once that is pointed out to the infringer, they've all settled out of court, with the FSF always getting what it asked for : compliance with the GPL (not monetary damages).
Anybody know where that transcript went? IIRC it was from about a year ago.
It's equally possible that the reporter in question is just lazy about notetaking or maintaining contact information.
Or its possible that, when going through a list of 700 contacts (if there's only one/story) compiled over 5 years, that 24 people moved or changed a phone number or otherwise couldn't be contacted.
I'm really at a loss as to how this is even newsworthy.
GodDAMN, I'm in a snarky mood today!
Can I quote you on that, Mr. MoralHazard?
Anonymously, of course!
hey were just all "unconfirmed".
only 24 out of 170 ain't bad for trying to get people to remember if they said something.
That's what I thought. Given the state of journalism these days, would any journalist do better?
Wired News will now require freelance reporters to submit contact information for all named sources. Also, anonymous sources will be used only with appropriate justification.
I think its more important to do what Wired says it will do now, and any real news publication should already be doing : don't use anonymous sources without "appropriate justification". IMO only in rare instances where someones livilihood or welfare is at risk, should an anonymous source be used. You can't name the people who "don't care all that much about spyware"? Why not?
Of course if journalists were required to name sources we'd soon find that 90% of their quotes from "experts" really come from their friends and neighbors.
It does look like censorship "Big Brother" style (ala 1984).
If I'm reading correctly, they're purging all references to one Maureen O'Gara. It will be as if she never existed, never wrote those articles.
Is that what we really want? I know a lot of "historian types" are worried about the fluid nature of the 'net and how an article or reference can be there one day, and completely vanish the next. Seems like there should be a better way to handle it. Maybe a big scarlet letter added as a background image for the "tainted" articles.
Was just discussing the general decline of tech support last week. Isn't it interesting how many companies will now refer users to a forum/discussion group to get their tech support questions answered? If you actually want them to help, you better be ready to pay.
So the difference in support between commercial/non-commercial software is nothing in many cases. Your best bet/first line is the user community.
There was a time when IE did have nice features in comparison to other browsers.
You mean back when there was something called "competition" in the browser market?
Then came the monopoly with its years of stagnation.
Now there's a breath of competition, and MS is once again forced to actually improve its software.
And some people don't know why monopolies are bad.
So what's the greatest new feature that can be found in Word or Exel in the last 5 years?
the fact that if some browser weren't included things would be worse
Yes, its too bad MS killed the ability of box makers to install whatever web browser (or other software they wanted) on the computer and have it easy to find by say, putting an icon on the desktop.
I remember when Netscape couldn't even pay OEMs to put Netscape on the computer because the OEMs didn't want to lose their "preferred" status with MS. Supposedly, with the "end" of the anti-trust suit, OEMs could pre-install Firefox on their boxes. Are any of them doing this for a competitive advantage, like they would in the old days?
Just curious, but is it really fair to compare to IE? I know you say "any other browser", but IE is the primary "other browser".
How much of IE's RAM footprint is hidden in Windows system processes that are running? Just curious, I really have no idea.
Reminds me a little of some of the discussions about CoreImage in OS X. There was some thought that this could make it easy for someone to write the fabled Photoshop killer.
The replies I thought most interesting centered on the thought that Photoshop isn't about the filters etc. that CoreImage can do. Its about a very refined set of editing tools, and even more important, the way Photoshop has been integrated into the workflow for print and eleectronic publication.
Possible another pc compatible device that apple wants to release, but requires this?
After reading that I had to go check, but it looks like AirPort Express and AirTunes already work for a Windows PC. Maybe a future iPod model fits into the works.
Anyone suddenly have Princess Bride flashbacks?
"But you know that. And I know that you know that I know that.... so therefor the poison must be in this cup!"
Bonjour is light weight, uses smaller packets, and does not define any device types
You also forgot that its a patent free, open specification. UPnP is not.
And one of the big differences that may be important for many here (from above link), is that Zeroconf is, " a patent-free (unlike UPnP) and completely open specification".
"Bonjour" is what you say when you're in a Rendezvous.
I though it was, "Let's get nekked!"
It has nothing to do with them being French -- consider the trademark on "Windows", for instance.
Word!
I bought Word 3.0. It was a pretty good program. I recomended it to everyone I knew at the time.
Now I'm thinking, "What have I done? I should have bought WordPerfect like my wife told me!"
IMO it was all over with the release of version 3 for both camps. By then, IE was "good enough" and Netscape had had its revenue stream destroyed by a free browser. While MS could poor big $$ into a money-losing venture (short term), Netscape couldn't. Their resources dried up, which killed their ability to keep Netscape improving at the necessary pace -new versions in months, not years. By the next release, MS had the better browser. Game over.
And then how many years between IE 5 and 6? Maybe that's because the browser had matured. Maybe its because there was no competion.
Funny that MS couldn't come up with things like tabbed browsing on their own. It took the spectre of competition to get them moving again.
All just MO.
Well it is a hyperlink to wikipedia.org!
Or maybe Gates thinks making cars that don't crash would be easier than doing the same for Windows. If so, he could be right.