"If it was any other product or vendor they would have been dissolved by act of congress by now. That they haven't been shows the wonder of modern legislative and judicial bribery, stupidity and laziness, with a healthy dose of greed and arrogance thrown in for seasoning."
You've got it backward. Political "bribery" in the form of campaign contributions on the part of MS's competitors was exactly why MS ended up in court in the first place. MS initially thought they could run their business without paying protection money to politicians, now they know better. You don't really believe the investigation into MS was based entirely on concern for the little guy, do you?
The fact that embedded Linux and non-embedded Linux are derived from the same source code pool doesn't say much about functionality. The issue is what actually ends up in the binary. Depending on how limited the resources are on the embedded target, the resulting kernel may be quite limited compared to what you would typically expect.
In any case, no device is going to useful with only a kernel, so the real issue is overall functionality of the product.
"The Unix CLI (as well as Emacs and Vi for that matter) was designed to maximize productivity for experts. It was not designed to make things easy for newbies or casual users."
At the time Unix was created there was no such thing as a casual user and GUI's were not practical (The Xerox Alto was still 4 years in the future). So the Unix CLI wasn't designed for experts or casual users; if anything it was designed to be efficient on the slow teletype machines that were commonly in use.
"What astounds me is the inability of the commercial world and economists in particular to recognise that there are ways of creating disruptive technologies without being limited by the need to make a profit."
What astounds me is your implicit assumption that the commerical world would care about creating disruptive technologies for their own sake. Commercial companies are interested in making a profit. They don't care if the technology is disruptive, non-disruptive, or non-existent, as long as they can make money.
The commerical sector won't deride unprofitable things on the grounds that it won't spread, but (obviously) on the grounds that it won't make them money.
I attended a seminar on Venture Capital funding a couple of years ago by a local business group (this was well after the Internet Bubble "exploded"). A VC company made a presentation and explained that the VC's are only interested in high-risk, high return investments.
So the idea that incremental changes are a bad way to attract investors (at least the VC kind) has been established for many years. It's not an idea originating at MIT.
"I think cool new features is a very accurate statement. Thanks to Google, now every significant webmail provider has increased storage. Thanks to Google, instant messaging is starting to become more open."
I don't think either of these examples could be considered features, new or otherwise.
"Google proved that Yahoo, MSN, etc. could do many of the advancements (since now virtually every Google feature is copied)..".
Let's be fair. Google has copied more features from other companies then others have copied from Google. That's to be expected, of course. They were late to the game and they're only one company. I think it's misleading to suggest that Google has been more creative than other companies, however. They've just been at the top of their game the last couple of years and have been getting nothing but positive press until recently.
"My point was, admittedly, rather remote from the context of the conversation; I simply get annoyed when people flippantly say things like "depend on reason alone; eschew faith" or somesuch.."
I think that's your problem. You chose to be annoyed by taking my statement out of the context of the conversion and thus giving it a broader meaning than it actually had.
My statement: "Don't trust anything on faith, use reasoning" in the context of the discussion, doesn't preclude the idea of common ground or an assumed framework for discussion. These concepts are orthogonal.
My point was that an argument must stand on its own. If you don't have the knowledge or ability to judge a particular argument on its own merits how qualified will you be to judge the individuals making the arguments?
I didn't make any comment on how "real" the DRM threat is. I merely stated that you can judge the ability of someone to predict the effects of a future that hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps they can just layoff their IT staff altogether if there's nothing for them to do.
The purpose of an IT department is to support the company's users so they can do their jobs better and consequently make the company more profitable. In those companies that have lightweight office suite needs, a browser-based application may be fine. For those that require a more sophisticated application, it won't do.
In either case, the needs of the money-generating employees should be the deciding factor, not the workload of the IT staff.
Axiomatic statements are assumed to be true by definition, it has nothing to do with faith. Using them in the context of trusting or not trusting individuals or organizations is simply an attempt to cloak a poor argument in scientific clothes.
"My calculus textbook is online, because the professor is still in the process of writing it; the book isn't just cheaper than a published book - the published book doesn't exist yet.:
God knows that with so few calculus texts available, it's vital that your professor's incomplete online version be used. Where would students be without a computer?!
I have no idea how many developers are assigned to the same task at MS, the granularity of a 'task' as you define it, or how you would know whether this is a general problem at MS.
In any case, many of these supposedly hyper-talented individuals have also been responsible for assigning tasks, so they can bring those "skills" to Apple and Google as well.
I love how on the one hand many Slashdotters have been saying that MS is just a marketing company and has always had crappy software, but then say that MS is in trouble because all those talented developers who used to come to MS to write the crappy code are now going to Apple and Google (to write crappy code there, one can only conclude).
MS might actually learn something that most of the industry already knows and Google hasn't discovered yet: that gauntlet-running interviews, billboard puzzles and other goofy gimmicks won't guarantee that your programming staff is better than average.
Slashdot Mirror
"Google is a private company."
No, Google is a public company. You see there's this obscure institution called the "stock market"...
"If it was any other product or vendor they would have been dissolved by act of congress by now. That they haven't been shows the wonder of modern legislative and judicial bribery, stupidity and laziness, with a healthy dose of greed and arrogance thrown in for seasoning."
You've got it backward. Political "bribery" in the form of campaign contributions on the part of MS's competitors was exactly why MS ended up in court in the first place. MS initially thought they could run their business without paying protection money to politicians, now they know better. You don't really believe the investigation into MS was based entirely on concern for the little guy, do you?
The fact that embedded Linux and non-embedded Linux are derived from the same source code pool doesn't say much about functionality. The issue is what actually ends up in the binary. Depending on how limited the resources are on the embedded target, the resulting kernel may be quite limited compared to what you would typically expect.
In any case, no device is going to useful with only a kernel, so the real issue is overall functionality of the product.
Of course classic video games also made more money than movies did in the early eighties. Until they stopped .. making any money at all.
"The Unix CLI (as well as Emacs and Vi for that matter) was designed to maximize productivity for experts. It was not designed to make things easy for newbies or casual users."
At the time Unix was created there was no such thing as a casual user and GUI's were not practical (The Xerox Alto was still 4 years in the future). So the Unix CLI wasn't designed for experts or casual users; if anything it was designed to be efficient on the slow teletype machines that were commonly in use.
"everything is a file"
Yes, it's the original "leaky abstraction". We're talking buckets of water here.
Yes when limited to economists your argument makes more sense.
"What astounds me is the inability of the commercial world and economists in particular to recognise that there are ways of creating disruptive technologies without being limited by the need to make a profit."
What astounds me is your implicit assumption that the commerical world would care about creating disruptive technologies for their own sake. Commercial companies are interested in making a profit. They don't care if the technology is disruptive, non-disruptive, or non-existent, as long as they can make money.
The commerical sector won't deride unprofitable things on the grounds that it won't spread, but (obviously) on the grounds that it won't make them money.
I attended a seminar on Venture Capital funding a couple of years ago by a local business group (this was well after the Internet Bubble "exploded"). A VC company made a presentation and explained that the VC's are only interested in high-risk, high return investments.
So the idea that incremental changes are a bad way to attract investors (at least the VC kind) has been established for many years. It's not an idea originating at MIT.
The Media lab had nothing to do with MIDI. MIDI was created by the Synthesizer industry.
I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to my post. Perhaps you intended to reply to someone else.
"I think cool new features is a very accurate statement. Thanks to Google, now every significant webmail provider has increased storage. Thanks to Google, instant messaging is starting to become more open."
I don't think either of these examples could be considered features, new or otherwise.
"Google proved that Yahoo, MSN, etc. could do many of the advancements (since now virtually every Google feature is copied)..".
Let's be fair. Google has copied more features from other companies then others have copied from Google. That's to be expected, of course. They were late to the game and they're only one company. I think it's misleading to suggest that Google has been more creative than other companies, however. They've just been at the top of their game the last couple of years and have been getting nothing but positive press until recently.
"My point was, admittedly, rather remote from the context of the conversation; I simply get annoyed when people flippantly say things like "depend on reason alone; eschew faith" or somesuch.."
I think that's your problem. You chose to be annoyed by taking my statement out of the context of the conversion and thus giving it a broader meaning than it actually had.
My statement: "Don't trust anything on faith, use reasoning" in the context of the discussion, doesn't preclude the idea of common ground or an assumed framework for discussion. These concepts are orthogonal.
My point was that an argument must stand on its own. If you don't have the knowledge or ability to judge a particular argument on its own merits how qualified will you be to judge the individuals making the arguments?
I didn't make any comment on how "real" the DRM threat is. I merely stated that you can judge the ability of someone to predict the effects of a future that hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps they can just layoff their IT staff altogether if there's nothing for them to do.
The purpose of an IT department is to support the company's users so they can do their jobs better and consequently make the company more profitable. In those companies that have lightweight office suite needs, a browser-based application may be fine. For those that require a more sophisticated application, it won't do.
In either case, the needs of the money-generating employees should be the deciding factor, not the workload of the IT staff.
Axiomatic statements are assumed to be true by definition, it has nothing to do with faith. Using them in the context of trusting or not trusting individuals or organizations is simply an attempt to cloak a poor argument in scientific clothes.
Don't trust anything on faith, use reasoning.
Given the fact that DRM hasn't been widely implemented yet, it's premature to crown RMS as the oracle who got it right.
"The problem is that the 80% market share distro will be pushed towards the lowest common denominator."
Isn't the command line the lowest common denominator?
"It's not the way a democratic republic works, and it's not the way that free software works."
But it is the way business works. Let's face it: the free software community has nothing that Dell needs.
Lack of moderation is a good thing. It reduces Slashdot group-think.
"My calculus textbook is online, because the professor is still in the process of writing it; the book isn't just cheaper than a published book - the published book doesn't exist yet.:
God knows that with so few calculus texts available, it's vital that your professor's incomplete online version be used. Where would students be without a computer?!
Gee, and I thought Fred worked at IBM not MS.
I have no idea how many developers are assigned to the same task at MS, the granularity of a 'task' as you define it, or how you would know whether this is a general problem at MS.
In any case, many of these supposedly hyper-talented individuals have also been responsible for assigning tasks, so they can bring those "skills" to Apple and Google as well.
I love how on the one hand many Slashdotters have been saying that MS is just a marketing company and has always had crappy software, but then say that MS is in trouble because all those talented developers who used to come to MS to write the crappy code are now going to Apple and Google (to write crappy code there, one can only conclude).
MS might actually learn something that most of the industry already knows and Google hasn't discovered yet: that gauntlet-running interviews, billboard puzzles and other goofy gimmicks won't guarantee that your programming staff is better than average.
"Academic institutions are the places where freedom SHOULD be pushed."
Your statement that "freedom should be pushed" pretty much captures the essense of "free" software's idealistic double-speak.