...there's a simple solution that's clear, clean, and wrong. Solow's paradox can't be answered that way. Consider: about half of offices use Unix in some way now. Has their productivity improved? Or another problem with the analysis: Would a person without a computer today be able to keep up with the office work? Or even do it? Probably not; they'd go the way of John Henry vs. the Steamshovel. With or without Windows. With or without Linux. The problem is this: advertising agency #1 hires 100 more people. Their competitors (#2) then hired 1000 more people. Firm #3 hires 10,000 more people. Which is the most efficient firm? Are these new people adding "productivity"? All you do with computers is generate more information. More papers, more thoughts, more documents, more programs. This in and of itself adds nothing to the assembly line, but the more you know, the more that in general you can focus the assembly line's production correctly. -Ben
I'm sure many people reading this have taken the Myers-Briggs more than once, with the effect of being both an INTP and a ENTJ (as I was) or something equally damning. It depends on things like mood- and really says nothing about the person taking it other than what subjective whims they were feeling at the time. It's perfectly obvious anyone taking this test will be Princess Leiah one day and Yoda the next. You make a good point, if I understand it correctly.
Basically it's "These tests truly are stupid, but amusing. It would be dangerous, however, for someone to take these seriously!"
It is, in fact, very dangerous. Here's proof; I took this test to get assigned roomates at college. I was hitched up with two druggies who hated me. I got out of that place, and found computer scientists, even if they were more "introverted" than me, to be more to my liking!
But if the article was about Bo2K,then it would not mention Linux or Apache. Why did the author feel the need to compare these two secure, useful programs with one that was, at best, created to take advantage of computer system's vulnerabilities? Perhaps, pervertedly, the author is claiming that Back Orifice, just like its open source brothers, is a treat to Microsoft. If linux must share the spotlight with hacking of this caliber, then linux should lead the charge to eliminate this bad omen.
Microsoft has been in the habit of claiming that the next version (windows 2000) will cure all ills. As any computer scientist knows, all OS systems need to make trade-offs though. They have, for example, traded security and openness for quick financial gain. Back Orifice is the least productive way to cause Microsoft harm, as it does nothing but make Microsoft look like a helpless victim against sneak attacks. It won't take all two of the reporters brain cells firing to compare that to the "attack" from linux.
I'm not as sure how correct I am, I was just postulating and guessing, mostly.
> The "feature" of not being bloated doesn't sell > because it has much less "features" compared to
Could it be that the world has gone crazy? Why won't people use the ordinary $20 screwdriver that 's made out of solid stainless steel by a respected company instead of the multi-faceted piece of junk from wallmart costing $30? I can't answer to that. Perhaps this is why there is natural selection, and the windows users, in a short few millenias, will fall by the wayside to more rational thinkers.
No, if rational thinking was a desirable trait, humans would have developed it already. Back to my NT workstation (which I use to telnet to a Unix.)
It is true - the bigger, newer, more bloated programs which run only on the high end computers of tomorrow... this is where the money is in software today. As they follow the money so religiously, Microsoft has, in its own way, won.
There have been efforts like the "good software group", or Linux or BeOS's streamlined systems, or even GNU to an extent. I mean to be skeptical. What is "better"? Do we mean our smaller, more manageable systems which have less features and don't crash? I argue that anyone can make a small program which doesn't crash... it's adding features that mucks things up. Microsoft has always pushed the envelope for features, at the expense of backward compatability, robustness, and even good taste (remember the Word Paper clip?) But isn't that what their consumers wanted?
This is how they won. Now they are the biggest company in the world because everyone else just didn't get it... push the envelope on features and market those features . BeOS, Linux, and every other system has to play catch-up on the stupid features, now, if they want the Windows marketshare.
But better designed, streamlined, and fully functional unix stations seem better to us. That's because we aren't Microsoft customers, never really were, and never will be. We want something else, all we really wanted is the *choice* of which features we get. And the coolest new features, not the most. Does this mean Microsoft is wrong and we're right? In a way, no. They have more money. But we have our OS, now.
Well, Microworkz, as a result of this trial, has appeared on the low end market selling competitors to Microsoft, and Microsoft can't do much of anything to stop it. The reasons are the same that IBM faced when it lost it's computer monopoly. Soon, it won't just be the wealthy who can put together enough money for a computer, we will be seeing them sold for $300 and $200 dollars.
Bullocks, you say. No bullocks. Since Microsoft can no longer enforce its monopoly through dirty tactics, as that would cause it too much grief at the trial, new competitors, like Linux, BeOS, and the hardware manufacturers who sell them have all benefitted. It's surprising Apple hasn't regained more market share than what it did with the imac.
What makes this possible? Well, the simple answer is the two biggest bullies, the Government and Microsoft, are duelling, and doing it on the Governements terf. I'm not predicting a first round knock-out, in fact, no knock-out at all. But while Microsoft's legal (bully) department is locked up in the trial, that's less time to make mayhem for the competitors. That they bribed Richard Shmaleese with $200,000 and forged tapes, and even continued some "questionable" tactics while the trial was going on, all hurt the case. Microsoft doesn't want to lose the case, but it also can't win it unless they stop bullying people around, thus losing market share. The biggest effect of the trial, in America's messed-up justice system, is the fear of losing everything t o sustain the trial itself.
Also, since Microsoft's pathetic Operating Systems took up WAYYY too much CPU for what it did (which was always Window's biggest disadvantage) better OS systems like Linux and BeOS can easily make affordable boxes for the rest of us. And without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
In the article it says that faint traces of water in the soil are assumed. Isn't that most of the problem? That mars is a dry planet? Also, there is some oxygen in the atmosphere of Mars. It seems unlikely that, given previous evidence of amino acids (but not DNA or RNA) in meterorites, there could be a form of life on Earth which wouldn't need substantial changes in its system to survive on Mars.
Not only is your comment correct, it is indeed my view. I dual boot to Linux (red hat 6.0) but also need Starcraft and the extra speed for Quake. My question is that isn't this the FUD SuSe is doing? The person who wrote the article worked for SuSe (read the replies on Linux World), or at least is said to have. It seems that FUD and corporate tactics are making their way into the Linux community itself. Cheers to Red Hat for surviving such invective, boos to those who think their distro is "more Open Source" than other good citizens.
You are right, of course. Microsoft would need no help deconstructing linux, in any case. And the people who work there are coders just like me, and most likely smarter.
But you gotta admit, I've a good point. There IS a pattern.
First, microsoft comes in, and, yes, Gates is a genius and all. He starts charging for the operating system, which was really really quickly put together. I don't believe that until NT, microsoft EVER had the time to go back and fix these things! Then, they start by taking the word processors, and clumsily cloning them, bundling them with the OS. You may remember Word 1.0, which made notepad look soooo good. They soon after clone spreadsheets and soon databases. Later Powerbuilder.
I even remember the hype from excel when it first came out. I have to admit- excel is right now a great product. But there are other great products.
But since the office suite came out, Microsoft has never let up. They praise, they liscense, then they clone, they take, and finally they choke the market for incomming competitors one way or another. Linux, although a fine OS in its own right, is simply the meeting of a million programmers who can't stand it and are revolting the only possible way - by starting a seperate OS, and adding all the features. I think it's wierd.
It's as if, after Rockerfeller started the oil business and monopolized it, making it impossible for others to compete, a group of volunteers each mined oil from their backyards and refined it themselves, giving the final product to each other.
Sorry, but to every product, every movement, and every idea there is a counter idea. To microsoft's vision of a single OS, the Be developers of the world just say "Blow."
I just ask one thing: Fix Visual C++ to be a standard compliant C++ compiler so I can get my Unix programs working on NT easier. Pretty Please? And I mean those annoying std:: namespace stuff. Why are cstdio not in the namespace? I could send a long list of freaking wierd errors I had porting code which were all non-compliant to the standard.
-Ben, who thanks you for speaking your mind in the face of these religious zealots.
And you will come through a thousand battles unscathed. -Sun Tzu
The job post seems harmless enough, but it is, alas, the middle steps in their embrace and extend policy for shutting Linux out of the operating system market.
In a business environment where reading Sun Tzu is required, this shows how deeply the warrior philosophy is engrained. They are seeking knowlege of the strengths and weaknesses of Linux. They wish to find these so they can integrate the strengths into the next version of NT, while using the weaknesses to destroy Linux vendors. They are not afraid of lengthenning the NT code base to get what they want - if there are features in Linux that aren't in NT, then they will publicly praise these features. If there are weaknesses in Linux that aren't in NT, then they will publicly praise NT. They do not praise Linux, or Apache (as Ballmer was accused of doing) but instead the features.
My friends, features can be stolen. They have all the money in the world to steal features with.
They will tell the poor sap who takes this job that they are trying to improve NT by adding Linux-like features. They will tell themselves that. But their vision of a single OS for everything is more important than the methods used to achieve it.
This person they wish to hire is the middle step in the chain to deflating the Linux user base. They will use this person to take all the features in Linux that can be taken and put them into NT. And then they will use this person to say "Look, Linux is now not as good as this thing me and Bill Gates have made: Windows 2002; Linux + Windows" This is exactly how they attacked Java, OS/2, Macintosh, and others.
Allright. Many many here have responded with great fanfare and great hoopla. It may be justified to an extent. The prevaling thought is that since Microsoft has taken up arms against this community, you will surely sail to easy victory, since you outnumber them in developers. Well...
This could be *BAD* for linux. Here's how:
1) 16% of servers are installed with Linux, or thereabouts now. If they instead were installed NT, they could be turned into about $5 billion in revenue. In other words, for each server NT can win back from Linux, they will have about $10,000 to continue the fight against Linux with. For each server we convert, OTOH, Red Hat has $20 profit and a "convert" or two. The message is clear, don't give them any ground, if possible.
2) They've won before. OS/2, Macintosh, other unixes... Linux has two things: a large developer population, and a medium sized user population (intersecting; as with any OS.) We don't outnumber the M$ heads, NOT BY ANY ACCOUNT. The number of people who not just tolerate M$ but like it (or even LOVE it) is larger than Linux-lovers. M$ software sucks, but it gets better, too. And there are more developers on the dark side.
3) It is rumorred that FUD can be fought in court, that the ongoing anti-trust trial will break Microsoft in two, and vanquish it. Well, maybe, maybe not. Truth is, the recent boom in Linux has been fuelled by the obvious degradation of the Windows platform that comes from Microsoft being in court with it's product's future at stake. The linux community may have played into M$'s hands... Judge Jackson may have been to Office Depot recently, and he may have noticed a competitor on the shelves. If the gov't can no longer prove there is a single monopoly, M$ wins the trial. And when the trial ends, you can bet M$ won't reform itself!
4) Legal action against the GPL. If M$ were to underhandedly (and when hasn't it?) use GPL'd code in its product, and legally defends its actions, two things happen: a)Whether the GPL holds or not, M$ loses no money. b)The GPL may not hold, undercutting Linux's basic protection. And doing it "legally".
Let's face it: In a war, there are casualties. In a war, there is suffering. In a war, both sides lose something they may never replace.
It's a war, and I don't know what you are so happy about.
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would
The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture.
Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code.
This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine.
NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant.
-Ben (who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture. Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code. This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine. NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant. -Ben (who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
Folks, I'd like to remind you this is Steve Balmer we are talking about. He's not a coder, not even like Bill Gates is. Gates has been silent on the issue, because he doesn't want to be involved. Balmer doesn't know code, he doesn't know software, he only knows two things: marketting and money.
Let's get inside his head, people. He "knows" that:
1) Open Source is a buzzword. Like JAVA (come on, here people, this is a trend), it is open and yet strangely helps another company more than them, and other big companies like IBM are embracing it. Just like java. Hmmm...
2) Linux is a rival operating system, it runs on Intel hardware. It's just like OS/2. Pay it lip service about what it doesn't do yet, while they are light years ahead. Don't give it any more apps.
3) GNU is a bunch of kooks who think software should be free. Cast them as ranting lunatics who have an idea (Open Source) that is now theirs (yoink). Then spread FUD about 'em. (Do you want these hippies making YOUR software? Or someone you know has your best interests in mind because you've given us all your money??)
4) Call your broker and congradulate your stock owners. Enjoy a short vacation somewhere tropical and come back in time to destroy BeOS while praising it. "This would have been a great operating system, but as you can clearly see they do nothing useful, while our system does everything and for less money. We recomend you keep giving us your money and ignore these guys."
This article isn't very well thought out, but I thought one part was interesting - where he said congress is EXTENDING COPYRIGHT to a century after the authors death for the sake of establised publishing companies.
The author has hit on one half of the IP dilema.
Let's look at Microsoft:
I would love it if DOS were copywritten or patented for 5 years. No problems at all with that! The problem arises when the patent lasts for an arbitrary amount of time, yet the product (like DOS lasted 10 years in the market) lasts far far shorter. This allows an unfair advantage to the people who patent short term products - the old ideas aren't recycled in time. If Apple Computer came out with a clone implementing a Win 32 API, wouldn't you love to buy it? Think - it would run all the old software and then some, plus it wouldn't suck. What keeps me and you from buying a competitive product made with the Win 32 API? What keeps you and me from enjoying the games and applications that were made for the PC architecture on the platform of our choice? What keeps businesses buying Windows NT when Unix is superior in every way but applications? Only the Win 32 API, which has a patent to expire long after Microsoft comes out with its next API version.
But, if Microsoft respected OTHER PEOPLE'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, like Dr. Dos, Logitech Mouse, Apple & Xerox's work on their guis and numerous other lisencing/stealing/declaring rights on other's work... Well, they couldn't get away with having such bad programs, could they? The flaw, therefore, is in America's piss-poor implementation of an otherwise solid foundation of intellectual property law.
Microsoft, very simply put, subverts and steals other people's IP, while zealously protecting and fostering its own.
So why bother using it? Maybe a boycott isn't such a bad idea, and a switch to Linux for an OS is justified on more than one ground.
With all the hoopla in the press about Open Source, people outside of Slashdot are beginning to take notice. This includes the opportunists. Even Al Gore is joining in without first considerring the consequences.
First off, there is nothing inherently good about Open Source unless it is practiced correctly, just like democracy. Haphazardly claiming every project should be open source without basic redesigns is as dangerous as throwing out an incumbant government in favor of a new democracy. Without proper treatment, such a farce could lead to anarchy, or worse. Such is the fate of projects (like mozilla) and companies who would attempt to go to open source without changing their business model.
But, just like China, Russia, and even Nazi Germany claimed they were "democracies" , bad people and misguided people will claim the Open Source movement for their own purposes. Make no mistake about it- these opportunists have come to slay Open Source, not to join in and change themselves.
Now, enter Microsoft, which has built an empire on "proprietary information", meaning patenting their software, and "licensing agreements" meaning lawyers and legal tactics. How much can we doubt their intentions? Did they help shareware or freeware by making IE free (as they claimed)? Did they help the industry in ergonomics by adding that? Do they wish to help anyone but themselves by stealing and deprecating the hard-earned work of others?? No.
They will seek to destroy Open Source by weakenning the definition. They see Apple and Al Gore (stupid blunderrers in the path of a giant) as test subjects for the subjugation of Open Source, and indeed, of proprietary software with a universal tax to Microsoft.
Is this for real? Is it even possible? Yes, and yes. This is exactly the business model Bill Gates has laborred to set up. We may even see more of it in our lifetimes, if the government doesn't step in. Truth is, only the government can stop Bill Gates.
Slashdot Mirror
...there's a simple solution that's clear, clean, and wrong. Solow's paradox can't be answered that way. Consider: about half of offices use Unix in some way now. Has their productivity improved? Or another problem with the analysis: Would a person without a computer today be able to keep up with the office work? Or even do it? Probably not; they'd go the way of John Henry vs. the Steamshovel. With or without Windows. With or without Linux. The problem is this: advertising agency #1 hires 100 more people. Their competitors (#2) then hired 1000 more people. Firm #3 hires 10,000 more people. Which is the most efficient firm? Are these new people adding "productivity"? All you do with computers is generate more information. More papers, more thoughts, more documents, more programs. This in and of itself adds nothing to the assembly line, but the more you know, the more that in general you can focus the assembly line's production correctly. -Ben
It *has* to be subjective.
I'm sure many people reading this have taken the Myers-Briggs more than once, with the effect of being both an INTP and a ENTJ (as I was) or something equally damning. It depends on things like mood- and really says nothing about the person taking it other than what subjective whims they were feeling at the time. It's perfectly obvious anyone taking this test will be Princess Leiah one day and Yoda the next. You make a good point, if I understand it correctly.
Basically it's "These tests truly are stupid, but amusing. It would be dangerous, however, for someone to take these seriously!"
It is, in fact, very dangerous. Here's proof; I took this test to get assigned roomates at college. I was hitched up with two druggies who hated me. I got out of that place, and found computer scientists, even if they were more "introverted" than me, to be more to my liking!
-Ben
I think you hit the nail on the head.
But if the article was about Bo2K,then it would not mention Linux or Apache. Why did the author feel the need to compare these two secure, useful programs with one that was, at best, created to take advantage of computer system's vulnerabilities? Perhaps, pervertedly, the author is claiming that Back Orifice, just like its open source brothers, is a treat to Microsoft. If linux must share the spotlight with hacking of this caliber, then linux should lead the charge to eliminate this bad omen.
Microsoft has been in the habit of claiming that the next version (windows 2000) will cure all ills. As any computer scientist knows, all OS systems need to make trade-offs though. They have, for example, traded security and openness for quick financial gain. Back Orifice is the least productive way to cause Microsoft harm, as it does nothing but make Microsoft look like a helpless victim against sneak attacks. It won't take all two of the reporters brain cells firing to compare that to the "attack" from linux.
-Ben
I'm not as sure how correct I am, I was just postulating and guessing, mostly.
> The "feature" of not being bloated doesn't sell
> because it has much less "features" compared to
Could it be that the world has gone crazy? Why won't people use the ordinary $20 screwdriver that 's made out of solid stainless steel by a respected company instead of the multi-faceted piece of junk from wallmart costing $30? I can't answer to that. Perhaps this is why there is natural selection, and the windows users, in a short few millenias, will fall by the wayside to more rational thinkers.
No, if rational thinking was a desirable trait, humans would have developed it already. Back to my NT workstation (which I use to telnet to a Unix.)
-Ben
There have been efforts like the "good software group", or Linux or BeOS's streamlined systems, or even GNU to an extent. I mean to be skeptical. What is "better"? Do we mean our smaller, more manageable systems which have less features and don't crash? I argue that anyone can make a small program which doesn't crash... it's adding features that mucks things up. Microsoft has always pushed the envelope for features, at the expense of backward compatability, robustness, and even good taste (remember the Word Paper clip?) But isn't that what their consumers wanted?
This is how they won. Now they are the biggest company in the world because everyone else just didn't get it... push the envelope on features and market those features . BeOS, Linux, and every other system has to play catch-up on the stupid features, now, if they want the Windows marketshare.
But better designed, streamlined, and fully functional unix stations seem better to us. That's because we aren't Microsoft customers, never really were, and never will be. We want something else, all we really wanted is the *choice* of which features we get. And the coolest new features, not the most. Does this mean Microsoft is wrong and we're right? In a way, no. They have more money. But we have our OS, now.
-Ben
Well, Microworkz, as a result of this trial, has appeared on the low end market selling competitors to Microsoft, and Microsoft can't do much of anything to stop it. The reasons are the same that IBM faced when it lost it's computer monopoly. Soon, it won't just be the wealthy who can put together enough money for a computer, we will be seeing them sold for $300 and $200 dollars.
Bullocks, you say. No bullocks. Since Microsoft can no longer enforce its monopoly through dirty tactics, as that would cause it too much grief at the trial, new competitors, like Linux, BeOS, and the hardware manufacturers who sell them have all benefitted. It's surprising Apple hasn't regained more market share than what it did with the imac.
What makes this possible? Well, the simple answer is the two biggest bullies, the Government and Microsoft, are duelling, and doing it on the Governements terf. I'm not predicting a first round knock-out, in fact, no knock-out at all. But while Microsoft's legal (bully) department is locked up in the trial, that's less time to make mayhem for the competitors. That they bribed Richard Shmaleese with $200,000 and forged tapes, and even continued some "questionable" tactics while the trial was going on, all hurt the case. Microsoft doesn't want to lose the case, but it also can't win it unless they stop bullying people around, thus losing market share. The biggest effect of the trial, in America's messed-up justice system, is the fear of losing everything t o sustain the trial itself.
Also, since Microsoft's pathetic Operating Systems took up WAYYY too much CPU for what it did (which was always Window's biggest disadvantage) better OS systems like Linux and BeOS can easily make affordable boxes for the rest of us. And without having to pay an arm and a leg to get it.
-Ben
Scientific American has some information on this.
-Ben Shniper
Not only is your comment correct, it is indeed my view. I dual boot to Linux (red hat 6.0) but also need Starcraft and the extra speed for Quake. My question is that isn't this the FUD SuSe is doing? The person who wrote the article worked for SuSe (read the replies on Linux World), or at least is said to have. It seems that FUD and corporate tactics are making their way into the Linux community itself. Cheers to Red Hat for surviving such invective, boos to those who think their distro is "more Open Source" than other good citizens.
-Ben Shniper
You are right, of course. Microsoft would need no help deconstructing linux, in any case. And the people who work there are coders just like me, and most likely smarter.
But you gotta admit, I've a good point. There IS a pattern.
First, microsoft comes in, and, yes, Gates is a genius and all. He starts charging for the operating system, which was really really quickly put together. I don't believe that until NT, microsoft EVER had the time to go back and fix these things! Then, they start by taking the word processors, and clumsily cloning them, bundling them with the OS. You may remember Word 1.0, which made notepad look soooo good. They soon after clone spreadsheets and soon databases. Later Powerbuilder.
I even remember the hype from excel when it first came out. I have to admit- excel is right now a great product. But there are other great products.
But since the office suite came out, Microsoft has never let up. They praise, they liscense, then they clone, they take, and finally they choke the market for incomming competitors one way or another. Linux, although a fine OS in its own right, is simply the meeting of a million programmers who can't stand it and are revolting the only possible way - by starting a seperate OS, and adding all the features. I think it's wierd.
It's as if, after Rockerfeller started the oil business and monopolized it, making it impossible for others to compete, a group of volunteers each mined oil from their backyards and refined it themselves, giving the final product to each other.
Sorry, but to every product, every movement, and every idea there is a counter idea. To microsoft's vision of a single OS, the Be developers of the world just say "Blow."
I just ask one thing: Fix Visual C++ to be a standard compliant C++ compiler so I can get my Unix programs working on NT easier. Pretty Please?
And I mean those annoying std:: namespace stuff. Why are cstdio not in the namespace? I could send a long list of freaking wierd errors I had porting code which were all non-compliant to the standard.
-Ben, who thanks you for speaking your mind in the face of these religious zealots.
And you will come through a thousand battles unscathed. -Sun Tzu
The job post seems harmless enough, but it is, alas, the middle steps in their embrace and extend policy for shutting Linux out of the operating system market.
In a business environment where reading Sun Tzu is required, this shows how deeply the warrior philosophy is engrained. They are seeking knowlege of the strengths and weaknesses of Linux. They wish to find these so they can integrate the strengths into the next version of NT, while using the weaknesses to destroy Linux vendors. They are not afraid of lengthenning the NT code base to get what they want - if there are features in Linux that aren't in NT, then they will publicly praise these features. If there are weaknesses in Linux that aren't in NT, then they will publicly praise
NT. They do not praise Linux, or Apache (as Ballmer was accused of doing) but instead the features.
My friends, features can be stolen. They have all the money in the world to steal features with.
They will tell the poor sap who takes this job that they are trying to improve NT by adding Linux-like features. They will tell themselves that. But their vision of a single OS for everything is more important than the methods used to achieve it.
This person they wish to hire is the middle step in the chain to deflating the Linux user base. They will use this person to take all the features in Linux that can be taken and put them into NT. And then they will use this person to say "Look, Linux is now not as good as this thing me and Bill Gates have made: Windows 2002; Linux + Windows" This is exactly how they attacked Java, OS/2, Macintosh, and others.
-Ben Shniper
Allright. Many many here have responded with great fanfare and great hoopla. It may be justified to an extent. The prevaling thought is that since Microsoft has taken up arms against this community, you will surely sail to easy victory, since you outnumber them in developers. Well...
This could be *BAD* for linux. Here's how:
1) 16% of servers are installed with Linux, or thereabouts now. If they instead were installed NT, they could be turned into about $5 billion in revenue. In other words, for each server NT can win back from Linux, they will have about $10,000 to continue the fight against Linux with. For each server we convert, OTOH, Red Hat has $20 profit and a "convert" or two. The message is clear, don't give them any ground, if possible.
2) They've won before. OS/2, Macintosh, other unixes... Linux has two things: a large developer population, and a medium sized user population (intersecting; as with any OS.) We don't outnumber the M$ heads, NOT BY ANY ACCOUNT. The number of people who not just tolerate M$ but like it (or even LOVE it) is larger than Linux-lovers. M$ software sucks, but it gets better, too. And there are more developers on the dark side.
3) It is rumorred that FUD can be fought in court, that the ongoing anti-trust trial will break Microsoft in two, and vanquish it. Well, maybe, maybe not. Truth is, the recent boom in Linux has been fuelled by the obvious degradation of the Windows platform that comes from Microsoft being in court with it's product's future at stake. The linux community may have played into M$'s hands... Judge Jackson may have been to Office Depot recently, and he may have noticed a competitor on the shelves. If the gov't can no longer prove there is a single monopoly, M$ wins the trial. And when the trial ends, you can bet M$ won't reform itself!
4) Legal action against the GPL. If M$ were to underhandedly (and when hasn't it?) use GPL'd code in its product, and legally defends its actions, two things happen:
a)Whether the GPL holds or not, M$ loses no money.
b)The GPL may not hold, undercutting Linux's basic
protection. And doing it "legally".
Let's face it: In a war, there are casualties. In a war, there is suffering. In a war, both sides
lose something they may never replace.
It's a war, and I don't know what you are so happy about.
-Ben
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would
The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture.
Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code.
This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine.
NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant.
-Ben
(who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
> Were those comments on Java in your mind or the mind you are getting into? Whoever it is, I would The technological advances of Java can also be found in the newer versions of C++, Python, and Inferno. But to say J++ wasn't an affront to humanity is doing more than just disagreeing with the Java architecture. Java was made to keep the OS irrelavant, like it clearly should be. Especially for us coders. C++ and C do an okay job of this, as well, but J++ was made to bring back the old (and clearly wrong) thought that the OS does matter, and therefore for some mysterious reason you must pay good money to get it, just to run someone's J++ code. This is wrong, people. As linux advocates (or BSD or nerds in general), surely you see my point! Ballmer helped create the J++/Visual Basic/Sucky C++ compilers we have today. He did this not because he is a coder, but in order to force coders to chose to use Microsoft or Unix exclusively. Linux Zealots here chose Unix, and have voted with their feet by giving away code for free... just to counter Microsoft's powerful FUD machine. NOT ONE OF YOU WOULD WRITE CODE TO GET NO MONEY FOR IF YOU HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. But, because microsoft is so powerful, the sad truth is there isn't much money in Linux! There's not too much money in coding for Windows, though, because most of the good programs are in turn stolen by Microsoft, so don't feel bad about your choice. But I stick with my choice: The OS is irrelavant; and someday all programs that run on only one OS will be irrelavant. -Ben (who codes C++ and Java. Corba too, sometimes.)
Folks, I'd like to remind you this is Steve Balmer we are talking about. He's not a coder, not even like Bill Gates is. Gates has been silent on the issue, because he doesn't want to be involved. Balmer doesn't know code, he doesn't know software, he only knows two things: marketting and money.
Let's get inside his head, people. He "knows" that:
1) Open Source is a buzzword. Like JAVA (come on, here people, this is a trend), it is open and yet strangely helps another company more than them, and other big companies like IBM are embracing it. Just like java. Hmmm...
2) Linux is a rival operating system, it runs on Intel hardware. It's just like OS/2. Pay it lip service about what it doesn't do yet, while they are light years ahead. Don't give it any more apps.
3) GNU is a bunch of kooks who think software should be free. Cast them as ranting lunatics who have an idea (Open Source) that is now theirs (yoink). Then spread FUD about 'em. (Do you want these hippies making YOUR software? Or someone you know has your best interests in mind because you've given us all your money??)
4) Call your broker and congradulate your stock owners. Enjoy a short vacation somewhere tropical and come back in time to destroy BeOS while praising it. "This would have been a great operating system, but as you can clearly see they do nothing useful, while our system does everything and for less money. We recomend you keep giving us your money and ignore these guys."
-Ben
This article isn't very well thought out, but I thought one part was interesting - where he said congress is EXTENDING COPYRIGHT to a century after the authors death for the sake of establised publishing companies.
The author has hit on one half of the IP dilema.
Let's look at Microsoft:
I would love it if DOS were copywritten or patented for 5 years. No problems at all with that! The problem arises when the patent lasts for an arbitrary amount of time, yet the product (like DOS lasted 10 years in the market) lasts far far shorter. This allows an unfair advantage to the people who patent short term products - the old ideas aren't recycled in time. If Apple Computer came out with a clone implementing a Win 32 API, wouldn't you love to buy it? Think - it would run all the old software and then some, plus it wouldn't suck. What keeps me and you from buying a competitive product made with the Win 32 API? What keeps you and me from enjoying the games and applications that were made for the PC architecture on the platform of our choice? What keeps businesses buying Windows NT when Unix is superior in every way but applications? Only the Win 32 API, which has a patent to expire long after Microsoft comes out with its next API version.
But, if Microsoft respected OTHER PEOPLE'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, like Dr. Dos, Logitech Mouse, Apple & Xerox's work on their guis and numerous other lisencing/stealing/declaring rights on other's work... Well, they couldn't get away with having such bad programs, could they? The flaw, therefore, is in America's piss-poor implementation of an otherwise solid foundation of intellectual property law.
Microsoft, very simply put, subverts and steals other people's IP, while zealously protecting and fostering its own.
So why bother using it? Maybe a boycott isn't such a bad idea, and a switch to Linux for an OS is justified on more than one ground.
-Ben
With all the hoopla in the press about Open Source, people outside of Slashdot are beginning to take notice. This includes the opportunists. Even Al Gore is joining in without first considerring the consequences.
First off, there is nothing inherently good about Open Source unless it is practiced correctly, just like democracy. Haphazardly claiming every project should be open source without basic redesigns is as dangerous as throwing out an incumbant government in favor of a new democracy.
Without proper treatment, such a farce could lead to anarchy, or worse. Such is the fate of projects (like mozilla) and companies who would attempt to go to open source without changing their business model.
But, just like China, Russia, and even Nazi Germany claimed they were "democracies" , bad people and misguided people will claim the Open Source movement for their own purposes. Make no mistake about it- these opportunists have come to slay Open Source, not to join in and change themselves.
Now, enter Microsoft, which has built an empire on "proprietary information", meaning patenting their software, and "licensing agreements" meaning lawyers and legal tactics. How much can we doubt their intentions? Did they help shareware or freeware by making IE free (as they claimed)?
Did they help the industry in ergonomics by adding that? Do they wish to help anyone but themselves by stealing and deprecating the hard-earned work of others?? No.
They will seek to destroy Open Source by weakenning the definition. They see Apple and Al Gore (stupid blunderrers in the path of a giant) as test subjects for the subjugation of Open Source, and indeed, of proprietary software with a universal tax to Microsoft.
Is this for real? Is it even possible? Yes, and yes. This is exactly the business model Bill Gates has laborred to set up. We may even see more of it in our lifetimes, if the government doesn't step in. Truth is, only the government can stop Bill Gates.
-Ben