I keep an eye on the court/DOJ/MS interaction for my web site (yes, shameless plug). The federal court requests a periodic (usually quarterly) update on Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. It covers a variety of ground, but usually no specific products. For example, it explains how many more customers (yeah! one!) have signed up for licensing their newly "open" protocols. Basically, the court checks on stuff covered directly (explicitly) in the settlement.
So it's not unusual to see them checking in and meeting with Microsoft. The real problem is the leniency and broad interpretation of the settlement itself. I'm not too surprised to see Longhorn getting a better look, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft's plans are forced to change much.
It sounds plausible, but investors would never allow this. A company, especially one like Microsoft with no debt and over 20 years old, must return a profit for investors to consider the stock of value. Even when a company returns no profit, investors buy stock in the belief that it will generate profit later. If Microsoft drops Windows and Office prices very far and loses its profit margin and starts living off of savings, investors will be very unhappy. It sounds like a strategic win for the company, but a public company will only survive if many stock holders are happy.
Of course the prices could be dropped to $30 and Microsoft would still make a tiny profit, but a company with such a huge market cap making almost no profit will not survive long operating that way.
This money is a war chest to be able to fend off sudden changes in the industry, invest quickly in new opportunities, and to be sure they won't have a cash problem any time soon.
There have been sudden changes in the industry and they didn't use much of their war chest to fend them off.
They have invested quickly in new opportunities and they didn't use much of their war chest to do it.
They haven't had any cash problems in recent history. And there won't be a $50 billion cash problem unless it's so bad they go bankrupt. They have zero debt, so it's very unlikely they'll ever have a cash problem.
Again, there's no need for a $50 billion war chest. It's owed to investors. That's why Ralph Nader has been pushing for an investigation for years. If every company did this then the flow of the economy would be very negatively affected and investors would be getting much less value from their stocks.
I completely agree. But there's a bigger reason why they're missing the boat this time. Unlike other technologies, products, and services they've missed (or came late to) in the past, this one's a whole different business model. They're very slowly moving to become somewhat of a service company, but they still believe their core business should be the sale of software. Jumping onto the open source boat would mean abandoning their entire business model and dropping most of their profit machine.
They are missing the boat completely this time. It's partly from fear of becoming another IBM and partly from fear of abandoning what's worked so well for them for the past 20 years.
Their current dividends are basically meaningless. They're "token" dividends meant to keep investors complacent. The unofficial rule is that a publicly traded company is to retain profits for the purpose of increasing corporate growth in the near future (e.g. new hires, purchases, etc.) and as a security reserve (e.g. to cover lawsuits). Any money which is saved just for the sake of saving is supposed to be given to investors as dividends. That's the purpose of dividends: to share profit. Microsoft witheld profits for over a decade and their dividends today barely touch the $50 billion they have saved up.
What are those savings for? To buy a small nation? To buy all the companies left in the software industry? To buy another industry? To buy favor with government officials? They're not spending it, so it's owed to investors.
I have to say that in principle I agree with you on this one. If you've got nothing to hide then why worry?
Because those with the power are human beings with opinions and desires. The government's not some entity that can think objectively. There will always be people who want power or have a personal agenda. Giving the government too many rights into private life is almost asking for abuse of those rights. There are very good reasons why the individual citizen is protected with certain rights. Giving rights to the largest organization in the world is totally different.
What's sad to me, as an American citizen, is that you are smarter and more genuinely compassionate than the millions of people who will vote Republican. Plus according to Republicans (and many Democrats) what you think doesn't count since you're not a voter.
If Bush gets re-elected I know one American who plans on moving to Canada. It's really sad that Canada, whose government bans many books, is now more of a free society than the US. Maybe I'll join my friend.
My sentiments exactly. Prove probable cause to a judge and have everyone sign it, which is the way it's been for many years. When my friends investigate my disappearance they can see who was looking for me and what they thought they'd find. When we go to trial the government can show that my civil rights were or were not violated.
Since when are we supposed to not hold the government accountable for their actions?
I didn't see anyone mention that the BSA is controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft created it. Microsoft runs it. They have an office in D.C. to lobby in Microsoft's (and allies') favor. They don't even operate in the general interest of the software industry. Some of their recommended policies go against the policies suggested by much larger and older industry groups. So the numbers may or may not be rediculous, but consider the source.
BTW, if you're going to complain I don't have enough proof, take a deep look into some of these 123,000 pages.
I was considering the UMS firmware also, but there are 2 things I don't like: once it's used I can no longer easily use the Linux driver to update the firmware again (I think some special command may be available on the device to get around it), but the bigger problem is that it won't play OGG files with that firmware last time I checked. I'm glad they at least provide the option for UMS.
It doesn't seem to support "external" playlists (i.e. I don't see any way to upload one), but the player itself has a playlist feature. Aside from using playlists you can break out the songs into directories and the player has options for playing only that directory. Also, if you don't set it on shuffle it'll play the songs in exactly the order uploaded, if that helps any. So I don't think it has the playlist support you're looking for, but I haven't come across any flash player that does.
iRiver players have the FM tuner and armband. The one thing I'd add to your list is a simple clock. When I'm jogging it would be nice to have the time handy since I never wear a watch.
All that said, having to "load up" with music from my PC still annoys me.
Agreed, that is the part I like the least. I use the ifp-driver, so I think the best way, if you want to switch up music often, is to write a simple script to take off every file and upload a random set from a hard disk directory. That way you just plug it in and run one script. Of course having it all on the player would be most convenient, but a script might not be so bad.
I own an iRiver flash MP3 player because it's tiny and light. I use it while jogging, so I wanted the lightest and least cumbersome player I could find. It also plays OGG, has an FM tuner, and is linux-friendly (thanks to the ifp-driver project). I think flash MP3 players are still a significant niche.
Don't forget to read the EULA. In it you'll find out you aren't allowed to install an IMAP server, SMTP server, or apache server for non-local connections. It's right there on page 1.
From a news article: "Massachusetts was the only state to hold out against the DoJ settlement. And it is still talking a good fight. According to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, the judgment shows that antitrust laws are not working. 'Our high-tech economy will not reach its full potential unless regulators and the courts are willing to deal with Microsoft and its predatory practices,' he said, Reuters reports."
This is either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid. It sounds like one of those business arrangements that in hindsight everyone says was brilliant or should never be mentioned again.
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
No, because a privacy policy dictates customer expectations while an EULA dictates vendor expectations. A person is expected to abide by a contract they agree to whether they read it or not. Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
Agreed, but bankruptcy will take a very long time. They have some money, partly due to their inflated stock price since they started these lawsuits. A purchase will likely make the execs rich, but I'd rather they get some money and go away than linger around for years causing everyone problems.
The only long-term solution is the end of SCO, either by bankruptcy or takeover. SCO will disappear eventually because no public company can survive solely on licensing "old" software without developing any new offerings. (Yes, Microsoft exists because of licensing, but they continually sell new software. SCO doesn't.) The problem is this process will take a long time due to the influx of money they've gotten indirectly from Microsoft.
I think IBM or Sun (if they have the money) should purchase SCO, with a hostile takeover if necessary. It's a relatively quick solution, gets them out of litigation, and probably saves them millions of dollars in the long run. Otherwise this stuff will just drag on for years.
Thinkpads using Intel chips can run either Windows or Linux. Thinkpads using PowerPC chips would only be able to use Linux. It's not at all cost effective because demand is so low for Linux laptops. IBM hasn't completely dumped Windows for clients. If an IBM client demands Windows, they get it. IBM's much more pushy on the server side anyway.
IBM is committed to Linux because it makes good business sense to them. Offering products that will lose them money, like PowerPC laptops, is not a good business plan.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep an eye on the court/DOJ/MS interaction for my web site (yes, shameless plug). The federal court requests a periodic (usually quarterly) update on Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. It covers a variety of ground, but usually no specific products. For example, it explains how many more customers (yeah! one!) have signed up for licensing their newly "open" protocols. Basically, the court checks on stuff covered directly (explicitly) in the settlement.
So it's not unusual to see them checking in and meeting with Microsoft. The real problem is the leniency and broad interpretation of the settlement itself. I'm not too surprised to see Longhorn getting a better look, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft's plans are forced to change much.
It sounds plausible, but investors would never allow this. A company, especially one like Microsoft with no debt and over 20 years old, must return a profit for investors to consider the stock of value. Even when a company returns no profit, investors buy stock in the belief that it will generate profit later. If Microsoft drops Windows and Office prices very far and loses its profit margin and starts living off of savings, investors will be very unhappy. It sounds like a strategic win for the company, but a public company will only survive if many stock holders are happy.
Of course the prices could be dropped to $30 and Microsoft would still make a tiny profit, but a company with such a huge market cap making almost no profit will not survive long operating that way.
This money is a war chest to be able to fend off sudden changes in the industry, invest quickly in new opportunities, and to be sure they won't have a cash problem any time soon.
There have been sudden changes in the industry and they didn't use much of their war chest to fend them off.
They have invested quickly in new opportunities and they didn't use much of their war chest to do it.
They haven't had any cash problems in recent history. And there won't be a $50 billion cash problem unless it's so bad they go bankrupt. They have zero debt, so it's very unlikely they'll ever have a cash problem.
Again, there's no need for a $50 billion war chest. It's owed to investors. That's why Ralph Nader has been pushing for an investigation for years. If every company did this then the flow of the economy would be very negatively affected and investors would be getting much less value from their stocks.
I completely agree. But there's a bigger reason why they're missing the boat this time. Unlike other technologies, products, and services they've missed (or came late to) in the past, this one's a whole different business model. They're very slowly moving to become somewhat of a service company, but they still believe their core business should be the sale of software. Jumping onto the open source boat would mean abandoning their entire business model and dropping most of their profit machine.
They are missing the boat completely this time. It's partly from fear of becoming another IBM and partly from fear of abandoning what's worked so well for them for the past 20 years.
Their current dividends are basically meaningless. They're "token" dividends meant to keep investors complacent. The unofficial rule is that a publicly traded company is to retain profits for the purpose of increasing corporate growth in the near future (e.g. new hires, purchases, etc.) and as a security reserve (e.g. to cover lawsuits). Any money which is saved just for the sake of saving is supposed to be given to investors as dividends. That's the purpose of dividends: to share profit. Microsoft witheld profits for over a decade and their dividends today barely touch the $50 billion they have saved up.
What are those savings for? To buy a small nation? To buy all the companies left in the software industry? To buy another industry? To buy favor with government officials? They're not spending it, so it's owed to investors.
I have to say that in principle I agree with you on this one. If you've got nothing to hide then why worry?
Because those with the power are human beings with opinions and desires. The government's not some entity that can think objectively. There will always be people who want power or have a personal agenda. Giving the government too many rights into private life is almost asking for abuse of those rights. There are very good reasons why the individual citizen is protected with certain rights. Giving rights to the largest organization in the world is totally different.
What's sad to me, as an American citizen, is that you are smarter and more genuinely compassionate than the millions of people who will vote Republican. Plus according to Republicans (and many Democrats) what you think doesn't count since you're not a voter.
If Bush gets re-elected I know one American who plans on moving to Canada. It's really sad that Canada, whose government bans many books, is now more of a free society than the US. Maybe I'll join my friend.
My sentiments exactly. Prove probable cause to a judge and have everyone sign it, which is the way it's been for many years. When my friends investigate my disappearance they can see who was looking for me and what they thought they'd find. When we go to trial the government can show that my civil rights were or were not violated.
Since when are we supposed to not hold the government accountable for their actions?
During wartime? I thought the wars were over last year. That's what the President told me, and I believe everything he says...
I didn't see anyone mention that the BSA is controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft created it. Microsoft runs it. They have an office in D.C. to lobby in Microsoft's (and allies') favor. They don't even operate in the general interest of the software industry. Some of their recommended policies go against the policies suggested by much larger and older industry groups. So the numbers may or may not be rediculous, but consider the source.
BTW, if you're going to complain I don't have enough proof, take a deep look into some of these 123,000 pages.
I was considering the UMS firmware also, but there are 2 things I don't like: once it's used I can no longer easily use the Linux driver to update the firmware again (I think some special command may be available on the device to get around it), but the bigger problem is that it won't play OGG files with that firmware last time I checked. I'm glad they at least provide the option for UMS.
It doesn't seem to support "external" playlists (i.e. I don't see any way to upload one), but the player itself has a playlist feature. Aside from using playlists you can break out the songs into directories and the player has options for playing only that directory. Also, if you don't set it on shuffle it'll play the songs in exactly the order uploaded, if that helps any. So I don't think it has the playlist support you're looking for, but I haven't come across any flash player that does.
iRiver players have the FM tuner and armband. The one thing I'd add to your list is a simple clock. When I'm jogging it would be nice to have the time handy since I never wear a watch.
All that said, having to "load up" with music from my PC still annoys me.
Agreed, that is the part I like the least. I use the ifp-driver, so I think the best way, if you want to switch up music often, is to write a simple script to take off every file and upload a random set from a hard disk directory. That way you just plug it in and run one script. Of course having it all on the player would be most convenient, but a script might not be so bad.
I own an iRiver flash MP3 player because it's tiny and light. I use it while jogging, so I wanted the lightest and least cumbersome player I could find. It also plays OGG, has an FM tuner, and is linux-friendly (thanks to the ifp-driver project). I think flash MP3 players are still a significant niche.
Don't forget to read the EULA. In it you'll find out you aren't allowed to install an IMAP server, SMTP server, or apache server for non-local connections. It's right there on page 1.
Er, that was supposed to be "Nice try, but not true." D'oh! :)
Nice try, but true.
From a news article: "Massachusetts was the only state to hold out against the DoJ settlement. And it is still talking a good fight. According to Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, the judgment shows that antitrust laws are not working. 'Our high-tech economy will not reach its full potential unless regulators and the courts are willing to deal with Microsoft and its predatory practices,' he said, Reuters reports."
This is either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid. It sounds like one of those business arrangements that in hindsight everyone says was brilliant or should never be mentioned again.
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
No, because a privacy policy dictates customer expectations while an EULA dictates vendor expectations. A person is expected to abide by a contract they agree to whether they read it or not. Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
It may be related to this morning's Akamai DNS problems. Many large sites aren't easily accessible at the moment.
...but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong...
;)
Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh!
Agreed, but bankruptcy will take a very long time. They have some money, partly due to their inflated stock price since they started these lawsuits. A purchase will likely make the execs rich, but I'd rather they get some money and go away than linger around for years causing everyone problems.
The only long-term solution is the end of SCO, either by bankruptcy or takeover. SCO will disappear eventually because no public company can survive solely on licensing "old" software without developing any new offerings. (Yes, Microsoft exists because of licensing, but they continually sell new software. SCO doesn't.) The problem is this process will take a long time due to the influx of money they've gotten indirectly from Microsoft.
I think IBM or Sun (if they have the money) should purchase SCO, with a hostile takeover if necessary. It's a relatively quick solution, gets them out of litigation, and probably saves them millions of dollars in the long run. Otherwise this stuff will just drag on for years.
Thinkpads using Intel chips can run either Windows or Linux. Thinkpads using PowerPC chips would only be able to use Linux. It's not at all cost effective because demand is so low for Linux laptops. IBM hasn't completely dumped Windows for clients. If an IBM client demands Windows, they get it. IBM's much more pushy on the server side anyway.
IBM is committed to Linux because it makes good business sense to them. Offering products that will lose them money, like PowerPC laptops, is not a good business plan.