It was definitely offline as of last night, but today I notice I can trace to my default route (24.2.176.1) from my office (which is connected via UUnet). Not sure yet if this means it's up; know for sure in a few hours.
Now that @Home is gone, this is a good time to suggest the introduction of a little more honesty in the business. How about telling us which cities are capped and what the limits are. How about a list of the addresses, ports, and newsgroups that are being blocked, instead of having the customers reverse-engineer the knowledge for themselves? It's not like we don't know this is happening!!! They can either "face the music" from the customer community or just let them bad-mouth the service in private to people who are thinking about signing up. Pick one.
I'd like to see them use and RBL-like service on e-mail, and it would be nice if they could get the packet loss under 5%, but for now I would be happy to just get basic connectivity back while I consider my options long-term.
Not only do they not want you sharing bandwidth with your neighbors, they don't want you sharing it with yourself! I know of many people who have >1 computer, as a matter of convenience.
You're right about "changing the rules". In my area, they have already degraded the service by capping the uplink at 128K. I still have a static IP, but I know of people nearby who got converted to DHCP. Add in the chronic packet loss, piss-poor e-mail reliability and news retention, along with downlink speeds that are nowhere near what they advertise, and you end up with some disgruntled customers who are not about to tolerate cable company meddling with our internal networks.
This service was originally sold as flat rate, unlimited access, 2.5MB (sort of) up and down, with a single static IP. It was a good deal. As time goes by, it costs more and more while it delivers less and less.
"At the very least, cable MSOs involved in CableHome want a counting mechanism, with parameters set by them, that specifies a maximum number of connected devices. Until then, all indicators point to DOCSIS 1.1, which includes methods to monitor bandwidth consumption (how much is used per customer) and speed (who's bursting at what rates)."
They want to protect the revenue stream from additional IP addresses. This will fail, because...
It will cost money
A fair percentage of the installed base will walk, especially if this means no Linux
Any software that runs on the client is open to all sorts of hacking fun. Perhaps the cable geniuses will get their software written by the MPAA masterminds who created CSS for DVD players.
The hardware manufacturers will not be pleased.
There are easier ways to make money
As soon as they have the ability to easily track bandwidth utilization, they will use that to drive the billing. Far better to charge per megabyte than to waste time trying to figure out how many toys the customer has and how many of them are really using the Internet. Besides, bandwidth measurements are [almost] fraud-proof, whereas this address counting stuff is a losing battle for them. They will use metered service to drive home the mother of all rate hikes, so that [among other things] AT&T can pay for @Home's sins.
Of course, metered service brings up the spam problem. Instead of the benign tolerance that most ISPs have, they will need a massive crackdown on spam unless they want all kinds of billing disputes regarding unsolicited bandwidth consumption. It's not just spam, there is also the issue of unsolicited pinging, port-scanning, and unauthorized telnet/ftp logins. If they want to measure my consumption, I intend to pick and choose which packets I pay for.
For the record, I set up my NAT-based LAN in the old days, when the cable company had no intentions of selling additional IP addresses. My continued use of this arragement is non-negotiable. I'll pull the plug before tolerating any of this CAT crap.
I wonder what these cable geniuses plan to do when they over-sell their IP allocations and need to take back the addresses. The whole concept of selling additional addresses is really wasteful. The government should have some kind of whopping tax (like 500%) on secondary residential IP addresses, so as to make the problem go away. The cable companies have never been great thinkers, they obviously need the governement to think for them.
From now on, each grammar school graduate will receive the following:
Coupon for $25 off an Xbox and...
Windows XP home edition from Microsoft
4 Wilderness AT tires from Firestone
Coupon for $25 off a cell phone from Verizon
Free installation CD and one month's service from AOL
50,000 frequent flier miles from American Airlines
Free carton of cigarettes (from a random assortment of the leading tobacco companies)
The value of my proposal is hidden in the details. You see, all of these class action suits could be settled without giving anything to the plaintiffs. According to me, this entitles their lawyers to 40% of what the plaintiffs receive, which is NOTHING. Of course this means no meaningful relief to the plaintiffs and no punishment for the defendants, but that's a small price to pay if it means pulling the plug on litigation, which seldom provides anything other than a paycheck for the lawyers.
The bottom line is that this "settle by charitable contribution" trend will eliminate anyone's motivation to pursue a class action suit. Since there are only so many political patronage jobs to go around, putting the lawyers out of work would force them to pursue meaningful employment elsewhere, thus resulting in a benefit to the economy. Without the threat of those pesky class action suits, just imagine how many jobs these benevolent corporations would create! This could stop the recession!
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment only; not to be taken seriously. I am not a lawyer. This not an offer to settle anything. Any copyrights/trademarks belong to their respective owners. The companies mentioned here may or may not be involved in a current or past class action suit. Use as directed. Your actual mileage may vary.
If M$ sues anyone for licensing infringment, perhaps the defendants could offer to simply take their old clothes and make a tax-deductible donation to a charity (in lieu of paying M$ anything at all). Considering the scope of the civil damages allegedly caused by M$, the proposed settlement is hardly any different.
Rhetorical question: How can a case like this be settled against M$ without any meaningful relief for the plaintiffs?
"I'm sure by this time next year a geforce 3 will be about $22 also (well, maybe two years)."
Everything will be cheaper next year -- the video cards as well as the Xbox. An honest comparison would be this year's commodity hardware vs. this year's Xbox.
BTW, the bargain-basement PC costs far more than $323 if assembly labor is factored in. I could be wrong on this, but hacking an Xbox is probably quicker than building a PC. The last time I tried to build a cheapie PC for someone, I discovered the ribbon cable on the front-panel switches and LEDs was too short to reach the motherboard (it was a hefty-sized case). I had to cut the cable and manufacture a sleazy "extension cord" out of cat.5 cable. Thirty-two stripped wires and sixteen solder connections later, it worked, but what a pain! Anyone who has built PCs knows the typical hazards: DOA parts, ill-fitting cases or cards, short-cable syndrome. These things don't happen every time, but unless you are running a PC factory where you repeatedly assemble the same configuration over and over again, you have to factor in at least a few hours to build the PC.
For the anti-M$ crowd, the concept of rogue Linux Xboxes is its own reward, but there are real world reasons for others to take an interest in this "research"...
The Xbox is still cheaper than even the cheapest PC. This makes a difference at the low end of the market.
Unless you buy a bunch of parts, it's not all that easy to buy a PC without M$ getting paid for a pre-loaded OS.
Let's think about the state of the world, 6 months from now. The Xbox is completely hacked, and loading Linux takes about an hour per box. If I'm running a business that needs low-cost desktops (or even low-cost servers), I might be tempted to deploy Linux Xboxes.
I'm not saying this is the universal answer for everyone, but we are looking at the latest attempt at subsidized hardware in pursuit of a captive software market. I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of subsidized hardware if I can escape from software captivity. If M$ doesn't like it, then they can price the console at a level that reflects its cost.
IMHO: Of all the companies that might attempt to market unhackable devices, M$ would be dead last in their ability to pull it off. The only time-tested method of making unhackable devices requires the use of non-standard (expensive) components. This drives up the per unit cost, which is unacceptable in a subsidized hardware environment.
Although the effect on spambots would be interesting, this idea will never fly...
The fraud possibilities are endless. Given the creativity of spammers, I can barely imagine how many creative rip-off schemes would be hatched.
Short of fraud, we have the dilution of content issue. At last! Web pages that really fit on a cell phone browser! I can imagine websites that are modelled after the M$ registry editor -- countless drill-downs before you see anything useful (or so I'm told).
If we had the technology to do this, imagine the tax implications. How many government entities would be looking to collect taxes? Do they collect tax where the pages were created, where they were served, where they were viewed, or the states whose lines carried the traffic? Why not all of the above? Where would it end?
How long would it remain at 1 cent? What prevents "consolidation/escalation syndrome"? (check your cable TV bill for a demonstration).
What differentiates between useful content and crap? Why should both be compensated the same way? Even though the useful pages would win out over time, there would be a tremendous incentive to create [even more] junk content.
The average web page is 10 to 30 percent advertising; these ads have no place in a "pay per click" environment.
What happens where we have public web access (schools, libraries, etc.)? Who pays then? Do the rest of us have to pay some kind of idiotic "universal service charge" to subsidize the people who can't pay?
Much of what you see on the web is provided for free, by people who created it for free (you are reading this message, right?) Once the concept of payment is involved, everyone all has to get paid. Just how much money can be collected for other people's thoughts, without those "other people" wanting their share?
In my opinion, this proposal takes the worst concepts of telecommunications & entertainment services and attempts to apply them to the web.
I agree with your statement on commodity hardware, although I think Bill was trying to portray OSS as an imitation of Microsoft. As you say, it's a bizarre statement.
As most people would agree, it was the Internet that commoditized network service protocols, and OSS that built on that base to offer true cross-platform compatibility. Bill's products discourage the use of non-Intel processors, whereas OSS works on just about anything.
Of course, Bill neglects to mention that Microsoft was slow to adopt the Internet, at a time when OSS was already there. Who is imitating who?
When I hear Bill take credit for industry standardization it's like having Osama bin Laden take credit for world peace or Al Gore inventing the Internet.
The logos are on the screen so that any recorded copies that pop up will have a logo on them. It's probably some kind of legal trick so that the networks can scream about copyright infringment, theft of service, or their "campaign du jour" to outlaw fair use.
One possible problem in search of this solution would be low-budget independent stations taping re-runs from other channels and replaying them. Then again, I wonder if there are any independents left.
Having a built-in Gnutella client would be waving the red flag in front of the RIAA bull. I would rather see them include an embedded file or FTP server. Then you could run whatever P2P program you want on another PC, and deposit all the juicy MP3s on the HP audio gizmo. How about an HTTP "management interface" with a back door that lets you browse and upload/download the MP3 content?
Even more subtle would be to use IIS as the embedded webserver. Then HP could blame M$ for all of the hacking and piracy, while selling thousands upon thousands of these little boxes!
Although Congress will surely talk about things like this, it will not happen for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, there will always be an overwhelming tendency for employers (who rarely understand IT) to cut corners and save money by hiring "uncertified/unlicensed/unofficial" people. If they have to give these people unconventional titles, no problem. "Joe is not a programmer, he's a binary-cyber-document-specialist!"
In ancient times, there were hiring freezes directed specifically at IT departments. As a workaround, the non-IT departments would build their own "renegade" IT capability, using non-IT job titles to keep everything under the radar. The concept of using stealth techniques to avoid corporate policy can be applied to hardware, networks, software, and people. Some of these same techniques would be used to work around whatever dumb laws we might be stuck with.
IT is a very cyclical industry. When the job market is lousy, employers can require a Master's degree for an entry-level programmer and make it stick. When the job market is hot, the same employers will pay premium salaries and resort to door-to-door begging in pursuit of college dropouts.
We treat IT people diffently from architects, engineers (or even electricians), because when engineers make mistakes, people die. When IT people make mistakes, they call it Microsoft.
Any attempt to regulate the software development industry will fail because of...
Non-US people who will be unaffected. Linus will go back to Finland, laughing all the way.
European or Asian countries who will capitialize on the opportunity we hand them (instead of protecting the people who bought the Disney Congress)
The implications of supply and demand on a hot IT job market or the demand for "the latest" software innovation. Right now, the market is lousy for both, but it won't stay that way forever.
The "without warranty" nature of the software industry (fear of product liability). If companies won't warranty the code, who is going to warranty the imperfect people who make the code? The logical conclusion of a "regulated" IT industry is "accountability". Does that mean malpractice insurance for programmers and/or their employers? They need a sign in Congress that says "Don't feed the lawyers".
Added cost. If employers are willing to import H1B workers, do you think they might be interested in downloading low-cost "uncertified" software from overseas? You bet.
They could try certifying the products instead of the people, but that will fail also. What would they do about the billions of lines of "uncertified" code already out there? Grandfather it? How does anyone know the difference between that code and new, uncertified code?
When Congress talks about regulating the industry, employers who fear higher costs will scream loudly and defeat the legislation. Any initiative that threatens to reduce the supply of cheap programmers or raise the cost of software development will never see the light of day. Not even Sen. Hollings would try a stunt like this.
Even if they replaced your Inspiron with a new one, it would probably have the same hinge design, therefore the same problem, right?
The Dell Inspirons always looked a little flimsy to me. Great hi-res displays, but flimsy. I had a Lattitude CP for quite a while; it worked long enough to be not worth fixing when it finally died.
Some of my colleagues had Sony Vaios that could not be upgraded to Win2K because of something in BIOS or hardware drivers. That's the worst support nightmare I have seen in a while.
Given the current threat of recession, I can imagine how Congress would feel about adopting something like SSSCA if there was a credible threat to boycott SSSCA-compatible products. Many in Congress remember the "Luxury Tax", and how it nearly bankrupted the recreational boating and civil aviation manufacturers. That was not a boycott per se, but the effect was the same.
In this case, a boycott would surely impact the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft. Even without SSSCA, Q4 2001 is not going to be all that good for these companies.
Businesses will continue to buy computers and software, but the Dells and Gateways of the world will scream loudly if Congress makes a mess of the home market.
As time goes by, the Supreme Court has steadily eroded the meaning of the Bill of Rights. So too with the latest issues, regarding the proposals for comprehensive wiretaps to follow the mobile terrorists. We will no doubt have some kind of monitoring that is not really compatible with a literal interpretation of the 4th ammendment, just as we have gun control that isn't really compatible with the 2nd ammendment, and DMCA which is not really compatible with the 1st ammendment. I merely suggest that we put some spin on the erosion process, so as to maintain some useful rights while we still have some.
I believe you would have to copyright those communications in order to make use of DMCA. You could do that, but suing under DMCA would be a small consolation if your communications are intercepted/decrypted. I always assume that I am being monitored. None of us can assume otherwise. It was foolish for anyone to think this wasn't always happening.
I am a user of both open & closed source products. As I see it, the only downside to open source is that you have to be prepared to fix bugs yourself if you develop a dependency on a product is not actively maintained.
There is also the issue of "hand-holding" support from a vendor's 1-800 line that you certainly don't get with open source. This is no longer such a big deal with most products, since the solution to your problem is probably on somebody's website, and it's tough to get a knowledgable person on the phone when you call for support. For the most part, you will be dealing with a clerk who is reading from the same FAQ that you can get online.
The concept of being "orphaned" applies to closed source products as much as it does open source. This happens when the vendor goes out of business. Sometimes the vendor sells the product to a competitor who simply forces the users to convert to the competitor's product. Whever a software product is sold from Company X to Company Y, you can assume that support and future development will be thoroughly slashed. Anyone who as been in the IT business for a few years has interesting stories to tell about customers being abandoned by software vendors.
Common sense tells us that unencrypted data is not secure, and encrypted data will attract attention and possibly unauthorized decryption.
What we need to do is establish firm limits as what the gov't can do with the intercepted data. I don't know how such limitations would work, but the events of Sept. 11 make it necessary to accept more government involvement in the Internet than any of us would like. Since 99.999% of us are not terrorists, we need to establish reasonable policies on network monitoring so that the authorities can go after the bad guys without having the FBI turn into the RIAA's counterinsurgency division.
I agree that the people who create viruses can/should be held accountable, but we have problems with viruses primarily because Microsoft gave the virus writers such a fertile playground. Notice how Microsoft works around the clock to give away features like web browsers and media players, while the ONE REALLY USEFUL THING THEY PUT IN THE OS IS ANTI-VIRUS PROTECTION!!!
If Microsoft ran airports, anyone could skip the security checkpoint by clicking "Cancel" or "Next". Most of the people writing viruses aren't even old enough to work as airport baggage checkers! I wonder just how much enforcement there will be when Mr. Ashcroft discovers that most of the offenders are juveniles.
I believe that the free market should be allowed to do its job. When people get tired of inferior products with excessive vulnerabilities, they will create a market for superior products that are not hackable by a 10-year-old. Those who don't know the difference between the two types of products will create a market for consultants who do. There is nothing happening here that the free market can't fix all by itself.
You're right, in the short run. As you say, adding Star Office to the mix really hurt WP. Then again Star Office didn't do anything to WP that M$ wasn't going to do anyway.
Having the choice of closed source MSO vs. closed source WP wasn't much of a choice. In the long run, WP (and Lotus) will go away. Star Office will compete mostly with MSO and will offer a real open source vs. closed source choice.
Until XP came along, I would have agreed that the MS Office users would never abandon the product. Given the XP cost and upgrade hassles, many Office users may discover that their management has made the decision for them. In my organization, If I planned and budgeted for an Office XP upgrade and simultaneously offered Star Office as an alternative, I could abandon MSO today with full CEO and CFO support. My actual plan is to ignore XP for the time being. Either the licensing will change, or I will be planning a gradual phase-out of MSO. Every day I can postpone this, I improve my odds of getting a better deal from M$ or a better product from Star Office. I see nothing to be gained by upgrading now.
Without a viable alternative to M$ products, we're all condemned to run like a bunch of rodents on the M$ hamster wheel.
Forget "winning"; Linux plays a vital role anyway
on
Why Linux is About to Lose
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Without Linux & OSS, just imagine how restricive M$ would be with their products and business practices. Some people think M$ can't get much worse, but I think it can. M$ would make XP a mandatory immediate upgrade AND enforce product registration COMBINED WITH the rentware provisions of "Software Assurance" were it not for the threat of Linux desktops.
MS Office at $2000 per seat? Aside from Star Office and other OSS projects, what stops M$ from doing this?
I think Linux/open source can dictate features that M$ must include to keep pace. In effect, Linux can prevent M$ from breaking out each "feature" into a distinct product and revenue stream. Example: If Linux was not already doing IP masquerade, you would not see "connection sharing" thrown in as a freebie with Windows.
Linux & OSS do not have to "win" the game, they simply have to maintain pressure on M$.
The article states that M$ has won the desktop battle. I see plenty of weakness in M$'s position. Consider their diminishing upgrade rate with each new product release. The XP licensing practices border on desperation to lock people into the upgrade treadmill. As I see it, XP is the beginning of the end for M$.
Winning the battle and holding onto victory are two different concepts.
Having a gizmo that sends the SIT tone is probably effective, but it might discourage legitimate callers. I suggest the following alternatives:
Set your answering machine to pick up on the first ring, and change your message to "Hello [4 second pause] We can't pick up the phone right now..." This will convince their auto-dialer to stay on the line and engage a telemarketer, who will be stuck talking to your machine. They will probably DNC your number, since it's a time-waster for them.
Another idea is to START your outgoing message with a few seconds of dead air. The teletrash auto-dialer may think it has called a fax machine.
If your state has a "Do not call list", get yourself on it.
Consider abandoning your land-line and using a cell phone exclusively. Telemarketing to cell phones is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
It was definitely offline as of last night, but today I notice I can trace to my default route (24.2.176.1) from my office (which is connected via UUnet). Not sure yet if this means it's up; know for sure in a few hours.
Now that @Home is gone, this is a good time to suggest the introduction of a little more honesty in the business. How about telling us which cities are capped and what the limits are. How about a list of the addresses, ports, and newsgroups that are being blocked, instead of having the customers reverse-engineer the knowledge for themselves? It's not like we don't know this is happening!!! They can either "face the music" from the customer community or just let them bad-mouth the service in private to people who are thinking about signing up. Pick one.
I'd like to see them use and RBL-like service on e-mail, and it would be nice if they could get the packet loss under 5%, but for now I would be happy to just get basic connectivity back while I consider my options long-term.
Not only do they not want you sharing bandwidth with your neighbors, they don't want you sharing it with yourself! I know of many people who have >1 computer, as a matter of convenience.
You're right about "changing the rules". In my area, they have already degraded the service by capping the uplink at 128K. I still have a static IP, but I know of people nearby who got converted to DHCP. Add in the chronic packet loss, piss-poor e-mail reliability and news retention, along with downlink speeds that are nowhere near what they advertise, and you end up with some disgruntled customers who are not about to tolerate cable company meddling with our internal networks.
This service was originally sold as flat rate, unlimited access, 2.5MB (sort of) up and down, with a single static IP. It was a good deal. As time goes by, it costs more and more while it delivers less and less.
They want to protect the revenue stream from additional IP addresses. This will fail, because...
As soon as they have the ability to easily track bandwidth utilization, they will use that to drive the billing. Far better to charge per megabyte than to waste time trying to figure out how many toys the customer has and how many of them are really using the Internet. Besides, bandwidth measurements are [almost] fraud-proof, whereas this address counting stuff is a losing battle for them. They will use metered service to drive home the mother of all rate hikes, so that [among other things] AT&T can pay for @Home's sins.
Of course, metered service brings up the spam problem. Instead of the benign tolerance that most ISPs have, they will need a massive crackdown on spam unless they want all kinds of billing disputes regarding unsolicited bandwidth consumption. It's not just spam, there is also the issue of unsolicited pinging, port-scanning, and unauthorized telnet/ftp logins. If they want to measure my consumption, I intend to pick and choose which packets I pay for.
For the record, I set up my NAT-based LAN in the old days, when the cable company had no intentions of selling additional IP addresses. My continued use of this arragement is non-negotiable. I'll pull the plug before tolerating any of this CAT crap.
I wonder what these cable geniuses plan to do when they over-sell their IP allocations and need to take back the addresses. The whole concept of selling additional addresses is really wasteful. The government should have some kind of whopping tax (like 500%) on secondary residential IP addresses, so as to make the problem go away. The cable companies have never been great thinkers, they obviously need the governement to think for them.
The value of my proposal is hidden in the details. You see, all of these class action suits could be settled without giving anything to the plaintiffs. According to me, this entitles their lawyers to 40% of what the plaintiffs receive, which is NOTHING. Of course this means no meaningful relief to the plaintiffs and no punishment for the defendants, but that's a small price to pay if it means pulling the plug on litigation, which seldom provides anything other than a paycheck for the lawyers.
The bottom line is that this "settle by charitable contribution" trend will eliminate anyone's motivation to pursue a class action suit. Since there are only so many political patronage jobs to go around, putting the lawyers out of work would force them to pursue meaningful employment elsewhere, thus resulting in a benefit to the economy. Without the threat of those pesky class action suits, just imagine how many jobs these benevolent corporations would create! This could stop the recession!
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment only; not to be taken seriously. I am not a lawyer. This not an offer to settle anything. Any copyrights/trademarks belong to their respective owners. The companies mentioned here may or may not be involved in a current or past class action suit. Use as directed. Your actual mileage may vary.
Rhetorical question: How can a case like this be settled against M$ without any meaningful relief for the plaintiffs?
Does this mean you assemble PCs for $5? Do you take MC and Visa?
Everything will be cheaper next year -- the video cards as well as the Xbox. An honest comparison would be this year's commodity hardware vs. this year's Xbox.
BTW, the bargain-basement PC costs far more than $323 if assembly labor is factored in. I could be wrong on this, but hacking an Xbox is probably quicker than building a PC. The last time I tried to build a cheapie PC for someone, I discovered the ribbon cable on the front-panel switches and LEDs was too short to reach the motherboard (it was a hefty-sized case). I had to cut the cable and manufacture a sleazy "extension cord" out of cat.5 cable. Thirty-two stripped wires and sixteen solder connections later, it worked, but what a pain! Anyone who has built PCs knows the typical hazards: DOA parts, ill-fitting cases or cards, short-cable syndrome. These things don't happen every time, but unless you are running a PC factory where you repeatedly assemble the same configuration over and over again, you have to factor in at least a few hours to build the PC.
- The Xbox is still cheaper than even the cheapest PC. This makes a difference at the low end of the market.
- Unless you buy a bunch of parts, it's not all that easy to buy a PC without M$ getting paid for a pre-loaded OS.
Let's think about the state of the world, 6 months from now. The Xbox is completely hacked, and loading Linux takes about an hour per box. If I'm running a business that needs low-cost desktops (or even low-cost servers), I might be tempted to deploy Linux Xboxes.I'm not saying this is the universal answer for everyone, but we are looking at the latest attempt at subsidized hardware in pursuit of a captive software market. I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of subsidized hardware if I can escape from software captivity. If M$ doesn't like it, then they can price the console at a level that reflects its cost.
IMHO: Of all the companies that might attempt to market unhackable devices, M$ would be dead last in their ability to pull it off. The only time-tested method of making unhackable devices requires the use of non-standard (expensive) components. This drives up the per unit cost, which is unacceptable in a subsidized hardware environment.
AOL, M$, what's the difference?
- The fraud possibilities are endless. Given the creativity of spammers, I can barely imagine how many creative rip-off schemes would be hatched.
- Short of fraud, we have the dilution of content issue. At last! Web pages that really fit on a cell phone browser! I can imagine websites that are modelled after the M$ registry editor -- countless drill-downs before you see anything useful (or so I'm told).
- If we had the technology to do this, imagine the tax implications. How many government entities would be looking to collect taxes? Do they collect tax where the pages were created, where they were served, where they were viewed, or the states whose lines carried the traffic? Why not all of the above? Where would it end?
- How long would it remain at 1 cent? What prevents "consolidation/escalation syndrome"? (check your cable TV bill for a demonstration).
- What differentiates between useful content and crap? Why should both be compensated the same way? Even though the useful pages would win out over time, there would be a tremendous incentive to create [even more] junk content.
- The average web page is 10 to 30 percent advertising; these ads have no place in a "pay per click" environment.
- What happens where we have public web access (schools, libraries, etc.)? Who pays then? Do the rest of us have to pay some kind of idiotic "universal service charge" to subsidize the people who can't pay?
- Much of what you see on the web is provided for free, by people who created it for free (you are reading this message, right?) Once the concept of payment is involved, everyone all has to get paid. Just how much money can be collected for other people's thoughts, without those "other people" wanting their share?
In my opinion, this proposal takes the worst concepts of telecommunications & entertainment services and attempts to apply them to the web.I agree with your statement on commodity hardware, although I think Bill was trying to portray OSS as an imitation of Microsoft. As you say, it's a bizarre statement.
As most people would agree, it was the Internet that commoditized network service protocols, and OSS that built on that base to offer true cross-platform compatibility. Bill's products discourage the use of non-Intel processors, whereas OSS works on just about anything.
Of course, Bill neglects to mention that Microsoft was slow to adopt the Internet, at a time when OSS was already there. Who is imitating who?
When I hear Bill take credit for industry standardization it's like having Osama bin Laden take credit for world peace or Al Gore inventing the Internet.
The logos are on the screen so that any recorded copies that pop up will have a logo on them. It's probably some kind of legal trick so that the networks can scream about copyright infringment, theft of service, or their "campaign du jour" to outlaw fair use.
One possible problem in search of this solution would be low-budget independent stations taping re-runs from other channels and replaying them. Then again, I wonder if there are any independents left.
Even more subtle would be to use IIS as the embedded webserver. Then HP could blame M$ for all of the hacking and piracy, while selling thousands upon thousands of these little boxes!
In ancient times, there were hiring freezes directed specifically at IT departments. As a workaround, the non-IT departments would build their own "renegade" IT capability, using non-IT job titles to keep everything under the radar. The concept of using stealth techniques to avoid corporate policy can be applied to hardware, networks, software, and people. Some of these same techniques would be used to work around whatever dumb laws we might be stuck with.
IT is a very cyclical industry. When the job market is lousy, employers can require a Master's degree for an entry-level programmer and make it stick. When the job market is hot, the same employers will pay premium salaries and resort to door-to-door begging in pursuit of college dropouts.
We treat IT people diffently from architects, engineers (or even electricians), because when engineers make mistakes, people die. When IT people make mistakes, they call it Microsoft.
Any attempt to regulate the software development industry will fail because of...
They could try certifying the products instead of the people, but that will fail also. What would they do about the billions of lines of "uncertified" code already out there? Grandfather it? How does anyone know the difference between that code and new, uncertified code?
When Congress talks about regulating the industry, employers who fear higher costs will scream loudly and defeat the legislation. Any initiative that threatens to reduce the supply of cheap programmers or raise the cost of software development will never see the light of day. Not even Sen. Hollings would try a stunt like this.
Even if they replaced your Inspiron with a new one, it would probably have the same hinge design, therefore the same problem, right?
The Dell Inspirons always looked a little flimsy to me. Great hi-res displays, but flimsy. I had a Lattitude CP for quite a while; it worked long enough to be not worth fixing when it finally died.
Some of my colleagues had Sony Vaios that could not be upgraded to Win2K because of something in BIOS or hardware drivers. That's the worst support nightmare I have seen in a while.
I like the IBM Thinkpad "T" series.
Given the current threat of recession, I can imagine how Congress would feel about adopting something like SSSCA if there was a credible threat to boycott SSSCA-compatible products. Many in Congress remember the "Luxury Tax", and how it nearly bankrupted the recreational boating and civil aviation manufacturers. That was not a boycott per se, but the effect was the same.
In this case, a boycott would surely impact the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft. Even without SSSCA, Q4 2001 is not going to be all that good for these companies.
Businesses will continue to buy computers and software, but the Dells and Gateways of the world will scream loudly if Congress makes a mess of the home market.
Whew, I feel better already.
As time goes by, the Supreme Court has steadily eroded the meaning of the Bill of Rights. So too with the latest issues, regarding the proposals for comprehensive wiretaps to follow the mobile terrorists. We will no doubt have some kind of monitoring that is not really compatible with a literal interpretation of the 4th ammendment, just as we have gun control that isn't really compatible with the 2nd ammendment, and DMCA which is not really compatible with the 1st ammendment. I merely suggest that we put some spin on the erosion process, so as to maintain some useful rights while we still have some.
I believe you would have to copyright those communications in order to make use of DMCA. You could do that, but suing under DMCA would be a small consolation if your communications are intercepted/decrypted. I always assume that I am being monitored. None of us can assume otherwise. It was foolish for anyone to think this wasn't always happening.
He's a VP at M$, who is opposed to open source. Check out the article at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-0 3sharedsource.asp for his arguments against open source. If you want good arguments against open source, you make have to look elsewhere.
I am a user of both open & closed source products. As I see it, the only downside to open source is that you have to be prepared to fix bugs yourself if you develop a dependency on a product is not actively maintained.
There is also the issue of "hand-holding" support from a vendor's 1-800 line that you certainly don't get with open source. This is no longer such a big deal with most products, since the solution to your problem is probably on somebody's website, and it's tough to get a knowledgable person on the phone when you call for support. For the most part, you will be dealing with a clerk who is reading from the same FAQ that you can get online.
The concept of being "orphaned" applies to closed source products as much as it does open source. This happens when the vendor goes out of business. Sometimes the vendor sells the product to a competitor who simply forces the users to convert to the competitor's product. Whever a software product is sold from Company X to Company Y, you can assume that support and future development will be thoroughly slashed. Anyone who as been in the IT business for a few years has interesting stories to tell about customers being abandoned by software vendors.
Common sense tells us that unencrypted data is not secure, and encrypted data will attract attention and possibly unauthorized decryption.
What we need to do is establish firm limits as what the gov't can do with the intercepted data. I don't know how such limitations would work, but the events of Sept. 11 make it necessary to accept more government involvement in the Internet than any of us would like. Since 99.999% of us are not terrorists, we need to establish reasonable policies on network monitoring so that the authorities can go after the bad guys without having the FBI turn into the RIAA's counterinsurgency division.
I agree that the people who create viruses can/should be held accountable, but we have problems with viruses primarily because Microsoft gave the virus writers such a fertile playground. Notice how Microsoft works around the clock to give away features like web browsers and media players, while the ONE REALLY USEFUL THING THEY PUT IN THE OS IS ANTI-VIRUS PROTECTION!!!
If Microsoft ran airports, anyone could skip the security checkpoint by clicking "Cancel" or "Next". Most of the people writing viruses aren't even old enough to work as airport baggage checkers! I wonder just how much enforcement there will be when Mr. Ashcroft discovers that most of the offenders are juveniles.
I believe that the free market should be allowed to do its job. When people get tired of inferior products with excessive vulnerabilities, they will create a market for superior products that are not hackable by a 10-year-old. Those who don't know the difference between the two types of products will create a market for consultants who do. There is nothing happening here that the free market can't fix all by itself.
You're right, in the short run. As you say, adding Star Office to the mix really hurt WP. Then again Star Office didn't do anything to WP that M$ wasn't going to do anyway.
Having the choice of closed source MSO vs. closed source WP wasn't much of a choice. In the long run, WP (and Lotus) will go away. Star Office will compete mostly with MSO and will offer a real open source vs. closed source choice.
Until XP came along, I would have agreed that the MS Office users would never abandon the product. Given the XP cost and upgrade hassles, many Office users may discover that their management has made the decision for them. In my organization, If I planned and budgeted for an Office XP upgrade and simultaneously offered Star Office as an alternative, I could abandon MSO today with full CEO and CFO support. My actual plan is to ignore XP for the time being. Either the licensing will change, or I will be planning a gradual phase-out of MSO. Every day I can postpone this, I improve my odds of getting a better deal from M$ or a better product from Star Office. I see nothing to be gained by upgrading now.
Without a viable alternative to M$ products, we're all condemned to run like a bunch of rodents on the M$ hamster wheel.
Without Linux & OSS, just imagine how restricive M$ would be with their products and business practices. Some people think M$ can't get much worse, but I think it can. M$ would make XP a mandatory immediate upgrade AND enforce product registration COMBINED WITH the rentware provisions of "Software Assurance" were it not for the threat of Linux desktops.
MS Office at $2000 per seat? Aside from Star Office and other OSS projects, what stops M$ from doing this?
I think Linux/open source can dictate features that M$ must include to keep pace. In effect, Linux can prevent M$ from breaking out each "feature" into a distinct product and revenue stream. Example: If Linux was not already doing IP masquerade, you would not see "connection sharing" thrown in as a freebie with Windows.
Linux & OSS do not have to "win" the game, they simply have to maintain pressure on M$.
The article states that M$ has won the desktop battle. I see plenty of weakness in M$'s position. Consider their diminishing upgrade rate with each new product release. The XP licensing practices border on desperation to lock people into the upgrade treadmill. As I see it, XP is the beginning of the end for M$.
Winning the battle and holding onto victory are two different concepts.
I suggest the following alternatives: