What many people don't realize is that Moore didn't just say the one famous sentence. He wrote a short paper explaining his predictions and they were far more complicated than simply doubling power while maintaining cost. He qualified it by explaining it would only be possible if certain things happen. He was well aware of certain limits which we've now passed with unexpected technologies.
So while many here will complain his prediction was flawed because he didn't consider so many other things, remember he actually had a lot more in mind than just regularly doubling speed.
Microsoft controls the workings of the majority of computers
The majority of computer chips in the world are running I-TRON, a tiny OS for embedded systems. Most servers run a flavor of Unix. Only on desktops, a large fraction of the majority of computers, does Microsoft hold a monopoly. Just because desktops are the most visible computers, and most of those are running Windows, it does not follow that "Microsoft controls the workings of the majority of computers."
Comparing the two companies is like comparing apples to... rocks. AT&T had the monopoly of providing a service into people's homes and businesses. They owned the wire that got themselves into the buildings and it was impossible for a competitor to build a competing network. Also, owning both ends of every communications channel meant it was easy to artificially keep prices high for both sides and not allow connections to any other provider.
Microsoft also has a monopoly, only on the desktop. But they can be replaced by a competitor. They have a lot of leverage but do not own the end-to-end of every computer network. Breaking the company up to make competition out of itself would not be equivalent at all to letting each baby Bell control different area codes. Among other things one of the baby Microsofts could rise to monopoly status again.
They do release some other source code publicly. But they've been trying to create a sourceforge-like community on gotdotnet.com with little success. Most of the free code uploaded by developers is "Here's how to save a text file" level stuff. This may be an attempt to get the community more motivated to work directly with them. If this code isn't.Net (which I haven't checked) then they have no other site of their own to share it with the community - other than a zip download from MSDN, which would do little for 2-way communication.
Over here in the States I hear numbers like around 2/3 of stolen cars are eventually recovered
Wow, I've never heard that stat. Here in NYC if they don't find your car within a day or two it's in pieces and never recovered. It's an entire industry here.
Yeah, never mind that Windows gave computers some much needed unity.
Windows is the only OS which can be installed on more than one computer? Take any OS, install it on a variety of hardware, and you have what you may call unity. No OS has ever been installed on a wider variety of hardware than Unix (in all its flavors).
Never mind that computer ownership skyrocketed after Windows 95 came out.
First, that's only personal computer ownership. There are many more computers around than just those found in homes. Second, how does quantity of computer ownership relate to "pushing computing foward"? I define pushing computing forward as advances in technology (i.e. capabilities). How many people have the technology only relates to sales and motivation. Quantity is not the same as advances.
Anybody remember the Commodore days? Having a computer was like driving a moped.
My Commodore ran more stable than my DOS computer and had much more software available for a long time. I also didn't have to install and constantly tweak memory managers for my programs to work. If the Commodore was a moped, Windows is a tractor. I can do more with it, but I'm much bigger and slower.
He said why it's set to boom, not why it's set to mimick Microsoft. Beating a giant doesn't come from copying the giant.
Anyway, integrated APIs are not the way to go. It's one of Microsoft's weaknesses. (Traditional) Unix is based on the idea of loosely coupled parts. Deep integration is anti-Unix and would therefore contradict the very basis of what makes GNU/Linux great.
The Bush Justice Dept., already burned over the Antitrust Settlement...
Burned by who? The general public barely cared. Big business told the DOJ breaking MS up would be a terrible idea. The administration doesn't care about what the EU thought of it. In my view the actions of the administration were horrible regarding the antitrust action. But overall I don't see how they got burned.
They weren't an ISP to begin with. They were an online service and did not provide internet access. It was similar in concept to Compuserve, but with a custom client app. It was years later, after they had grown, that they added web access. Their initial business model was based on the belief that they could provide better all-around content than a dispersed web. They only became an ISP after much pressure from customers who wanted more options.
How many times have we heard this prophecy in the past? They said exactly the same during the boom of the industrial age. These visions always ignore some very important fundamental facts that we take for granted. For example, the manufacturing piece of the consumer economy has always had the rich taking advantage of the poor (as in owners getting rich while paying workers as little as possible). When the rich find they can't take as much advantage of their local population they go abroad.
How will not having a job not mean starving? Even if the "3D printer" could create food it's not out of thin air. There is a limited commons from which to take resources. That requires bartering. We don't (yet) live in a pure communist or socialist society where everyone gets at least the bare minimum to survive.
I don't know if your vision is just wishful thinking or missing some basic facts of current society. Either way, it won't happen any time soon. Since we never simply drop history and think from a blank slate it would take centuries for your vision to take shape.
What a great way to stimulate people into writing....
This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the IP debate. Look at most great classics and you will find poor authors (and artists, if you consider creative works in general). It's only in modern times, with material demands far beyond survival needs, that we see artists expecting high compensation. Art is traditionally something done for oneself and to contribute to society. It's recently been morphed into a profit machine in the US.
Windows user can happily go about doing whatever he wants to do.
I've never known one Windows user who agrees with this. All I hear from everyone is complaints that things stop working for no reason. I work in an all-Microsoft development department and no one "happily goes about doing whatever they want to do." They all run into lots of problems. One person couldn't even copy and paste an image today. Her windows didn't maximize properly yesterday.
Linux may take more work to set up. But once it's up and configured well I waste no time in being productive.
"Ease of hardware integration" is not Windows. That's the vendors. If anything the hardware vendors have a harder time creating new versions of drivers for each release of Windows than each major release of Linux.
As for ease of use, that's arguable. I've used Windows since 3.0 and find the continually changing and inconsistant user interface frustrating. I find Linux much much easier to use on a regular basis.
Articles like this on/. and LinuxInsider are great. But they're preaching to the choir. Great articles like The Myths of Open Source being in CIO Magazine (yes, a great article about OSS in CIO magazine), are far more influential.
I would guess at least 90% of the readers of/. and LinuxInsider already know the many things which differentiate Linux from Windows. What's needed is for good articles on these topics to appear in places of primarily proprietary software users (MSDN?;). They're finally appearing regularly in business publications. But I know far too many technical people who read Microsoft-only magazines amd web sites. We could blame them for not being inquisitive enough, but if they saw these articles in the right places it could be very influential.
But if Shakespeare were a blogger he'd put everyone else to shame. Few of his time were able to express things with as much passion. Almost no bloggers stand out to such an extent.
Did I just write "But if Shakespeare were a blogger..."? Wow, that's a first...
One reason is that good bloggers who don't have many original thoughts are good aggregators. They may or may not state the ideas in a clearer fashion. But they know what people are interested in and bring it together. That's one reason/. is popular. It's a collection of information you'd have to go to hundreds of other places to find yourself.
I agree it's improper to currently prefix these things with "Microsoft", but 1) An SSL vulnerability did exist in software bundled into their OS, whether they wrote it or not. 2) Microsoft is trying to gain control in the recording industry by being sole provider of formats, DRM, software, and distribution channels. How much longer before they own the content, too? 3) Microsoft lobbied in favor of the DMCA and other legislation. Their lobbying is quite effective, so you can claim some laws only exist because companies such as Microsoft backed them.
My point is you're right, we shouldn't label everything "Microsoft" right now. But we're almost at the point where we can.
If code is instruction for a computer, why not send instruction over the network? As opposed to pure data ("Here's a packet of info"), it makes sense to send "I'm here and I'm a device of type X. When Y happens, send me Z." If the code is limited in its abilities, and isn't just run arbitrarily, the network itself can contain much logic. Devices could then use the network is much more logical and efficient ways.
Now that I finally found the license I see you're right. It's a Sun license. So what's the difference between Blackdown and the JVM and libraries on Sun's site for linux? Sun already provides their Java stuff for linux, so what's the point of the port if it's the same code licensed from Sun?
Could someone please explain why this is not already accomplished with the Blackdown project? I realize blackdown is specifically a linux implementation, but it's fully open source and their about page states, "The Blackdown project is based entirely on Java product source bases that have been licensed from Sun Microsystems." They're very up-do-date with the JDK and IIRC the project was initiated by IBM.
So is the argument that Sun should open up their JVM and libraries? Because from what I've heard and seen other JVMs like Blackdown perform quite well.
Windows users are less likely to run a webserver, simply because they're not as eager to play with their system as Linux users.
And also because the home versions of Windows do not come with a web server. Also because Microsoft's web development tools (beyond notepad) cost money. And also because the Microsoft recommended web development platform is a big download.
And securing Microsoft or Linux takes a skilled professional, not your secretary's son...
Only someone with paid experience can secure a system? I realize you're bitter, but just because the CFO's son can't do it doesn't mean other smart unpaid people can't. There are lots of kids playing around with their computers at home who can lock down a machine as well as most skilled professionals. Passion creates more skills than pay.
Red Hat != Linux. You probably know that, but my point is look at other distros. From the few I've tried it doesn't seem to get any easier than Mandrake. The GUI for updating packages launches with "Get security updates" checked, so just press OK and it takes care of itself. It can also be set to run automatically. It's easier and quicker than Windows and never requires a reboot (kernel updates must be done in a special way and with a reboot, but are extremely rare).
Slashdot Mirror
What many people don't realize is that Moore didn't just say the one famous sentence. He wrote a short paper explaining his predictions and they were far more complicated than simply doubling power while maintaining cost. He qualified it by explaining it would only be possible if certain things happen. He was well aware of certain limits which we've now passed with unexpected technologies.
So while many here will complain his prediction was flawed because he didn't consider so many other things, remember he actually had a lot more in mind than just regularly doubling speed.
Microsoft controls the workings of the majority of computers
The majority of computer chips in the world are running I-TRON, a tiny OS for embedded systems. Most servers run a flavor of Unix. Only on desktops, a large fraction of the majority of computers, does Microsoft hold a monopoly. Just because desktops are the most visible computers, and most of those are running Windows, it does not follow that "Microsoft controls the workings of the majority of computers."
Comparing the two companies is like comparing apples to... rocks. AT&T had the monopoly of providing a service into people's homes and businesses. They owned the wire that got themselves into the buildings and it was impossible for a competitor to build a competing network. Also, owning both ends of every communications channel meant it was easy to artificially keep prices high for both sides and not allow connections to any other provider.
Microsoft also has a monopoly, only on the desktop. But they can be replaced by a competitor. They have a lot of leverage but do not own the end-to-end of every computer network. Breaking the company up to make competition out of itself would not be equivalent at all to letting each baby Bell control different area codes. Among other things one of the baby Microsofts could rise to monopoly status again.
They do release some other source code publicly. But they've been trying to create a sourceforge-like community on gotdotnet.com with little success. Most of the free code uploaded by developers is "Here's how to save a text file" level stuff. This may be an attempt to get the community more motivated to work directly with them. If this code isn't .Net (which I haven't checked) then they have no other site of their own to share it with the community - other than a zip download from MSDN, which would do little for 2-way communication.
Over here in the States I hear numbers like around 2/3 of stolen cars are eventually recovered
Wow, I've never heard that stat. Here in NYC if they don't find your car within a day or two it's in pieces and never recovered. It's an entire industry here.
Yeah, never mind that Windows gave computers some much needed unity.
Windows is the only OS which can be installed on more than one computer? Take any OS, install it on a variety of hardware, and you have what you may call unity. No OS has ever been installed on a wider variety of hardware than Unix (in all its flavors).
Never mind that computer ownership skyrocketed after Windows 95 came out.
First, that's only personal computer ownership. There are many more computers around than just those found in homes. Second, how does quantity of computer ownership relate to "pushing computing foward"? I define pushing computing forward as advances in technology (i.e. capabilities). How many people have the technology only relates to sales and motivation. Quantity is not the same as advances.
Anybody remember the Commodore days? Having a computer was like driving a moped.
My Commodore ran more stable than my DOS computer and had much more software available for a long time. I also didn't have to install and constantly tweak memory managers for my programs to work. If the Commodore was a moped, Windows is a tractor. I can do more with it, but I'm much bigger and slower.
I would just like to add there's not always only one right methodology for a project, either. Sometimes 2 or 3 methods might work equally well.
He said why it's set to boom, not why it's set to mimick Microsoft. Beating a giant doesn't come from copying the giant.
Anyway, integrated APIs are not the way to go. It's one of Microsoft's weaknesses. (Traditional) Unix is based on the idea of loosely coupled parts. Deep integration is anti-Unix and would therefore contradict the very basis of what makes GNU/Linux great.
The Bush Justice Dept., already burned over the Antitrust Settlement...
Burned by who? The general public barely cared. Big business told the DOJ breaking MS up would be a terrible idea. The administration doesn't care about what the EU thought of it. In my view the actions of the administration were horrible regarding the antitrust action. But overall I don't see how they got burned.
AOL's not really just an ISP anymore.
They weren't an ISP to begin with. They were an online service and did not provide internet access. It was similar in concept to Compuserve, but with a custom client app. It was years later, after they had grown, that they added web access. Their initial business model was based on the belief that they could provide better all-around content than a dispersed web. They only became an ISP after much pressure from customers who wanted more options.
How many times have we heard this prophecy in the past? They said exactly the same during the boom of the industrial age. These visions always ignore some very important fundamental facts that we take for granted. For example, the manufacturing piece of the consumer economy has always had the rich taking advantage of the poor (as in owners getting rich while paying workers as little as possible). When the rich find they can't take as much advantage of their local population they go abroad.
How will not having a job not mean starving? Even if the "3D printer" could create food it's not out of thin air. There is a limited commons from which to take resources. That requires bartering. We don't (yet) live in a pure communist or socialist society where everyone gets at least the bare minimum to survive.
I don't know if your vision is just wishful thinking or missing some basic facts of current society. Either way, it won't happen any time soon. Since we never simply drop history and think from a blank slate it would take centuries for your vision to take shape.
What a great way to stimulate people into writing....
This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the IP debate. Look at most great classics and you will find poor authors (and artists, if you consider creative works in general). It's only in modern times, with material demands far beyond survival needs, that we see artists expecting high compensation. Art is traditionally something done for oneself and to contribute to society. It's recently been morphed into a profit machine in the US.
Windows user can happily go about doing whatever he wants to do.
I've never known one Windows user who agrees with this. All I hear from everyone is complaints that things stop working for no reason. I work in an all-Microsoft development department and no one "happily goes about doing whatever they want to do." They all run into lots of problems. One person couldn't even copy and paste an image today. Her windows didn't maximize properly yesterday.
Linux may take more work to set up. But once it's up and configured well I waste no time in being productive.
"Ease of hardware integration" is not Windows. That's the vendors. If anything the hardware vendors have a harder time creating new versions of drivers for each release of Windows than each major release of Linux.
As for ease of use, that's arguable. I've used Windows since 3.0 and find the continually changing and inconsistant user interface frustrating. I find Linux much much easier to use on a regular basis.
Articles like this on /. and LinuxInsider are great. But they're preaching to the choir. Great articles like The Myths of Open Source being in CIO Magazine (yes, a great article about OSS in CIO magazine), are far more influential.
/. and LinuxInsider already know the many things which differentiate Linux from Windows. What's needed is for good articles on these topics to appear in places of primarily proprietary software users (MSDN? ;). They're finally appearing regularly in business publications. But I know far too many technical people who read Microsoft-only magazines amd web sites. We could blame them for not being inquisitive enough, but if they saw these articles in the right places it could be very influential.
I would guess at least 90% of the readers of
But if Shakespeare were a blogger he'd put everyone else to shame. Few of his time were able to express things with as much passion. Almost no bloggers stand out to such an extent.
Did I just write "But if Shakespeare were a blogger..."? Wow, that's a first...
One reason is that good bloggers who don't have many original thoughts are good aggregators. They may or may not state the ideas in a clearer fashion. But they know what people are interested in and bring it together. That's one reason /. is popular. It's a collection of information you'd have to go to hundreds of other places to find yourself.
I agree it's improper to currently prefix these things with "Microsoft", but
1) An SSL vulnerability did exist in software bundled into their OS, whether they wrote it or not.
2) Microsoft is trying to gain control in the recording industry by being sole provider of formats, DRM, software, and distribution channels. How much longer before they own the content, too?
3) Microsoft lobbied in favor of the DMCA and other legislation. Their lobbying is quite effective, so you can claim some laws only exist because companies such as Microsoft backed them.
My point is you're right, we shouldn't label everything "Microsoft" right now. But we're almost at the point where we can.
If code is instruction for a computer, why not send instruction over the network? As opposed to pure data ("Here's a packet of info"), it makes sense to send "I'm here and I'm a device of type X. When Y happens, send me Z." If the code is limited in its abilities, and isn't just run arbitrarily, the network itself can contain much logic. Devices could then use the network is much more logical and efficient ways.
Wow, that's a whole new level of geekiness. You've intelligently brought up base 36 in a thread. You have earned your low /. ID. ;)
Now that I finally found the license I see you're right. It's a Sun license. So what's the difference between Blackdown and the JVM and libraries on Sun's site for linux? Sun already provides their Java stuff for linux, so what's the point of the port if it's the same code licensed from Sun?
Could someone please explain why this is not already accomplished with the Blackdown project? I realize blackdown is specifically a linux implementation, but it's fully open source and their about page states, "The Blackdown project is based entirely on Java product source bases that have been licensed from Sun Microsystems." They're very up-do-date with the JDK and IIRC the project was initiated by IBM.
So is the argument that Sun should open up their JVM and libraries? Because from what I've heard and seen other JVMs like Blackdown perform quite well.
Windows users are less likely to run a webserver, simply because they're not as eager to play with their system as Linux users.
And also because the home versions of Windows do not come with a web server. Also because Microsoft's web development tools (beyond notepad) cost money. And also because the Microsoft recommended web development platform is a big download.
And securing Microsoft or Linux takes a skilled professional, not your secretary's son...
Only someone with paid experience can secure a system? I realize you're bitter, but just because the CFO's son can't do it doesn't mean other smart unpaid people can't. There are lots of kids playing around with their computers at home who can lock down a machine as well as most skilled professionals. Passion creates more skills than pay.
Mandrake from GUI:
Run rpmdrake.
Click ok.
Red Hat != Linux. You probably know that, but my point is look at other distros. From the few I've tried it doesn't seem to get any easier than Mandrake. The GUI for updating packages launches with "Get security updates" checked, so just press OK and it takes care of itself. It can also be set to run automatically. It's easier and quicker than Windows and never requires a reboot (kernel updates must be done in a special way and with a reboot, but are extremely rare).