I hope for the world's sake they do a terrible job and most people realize it. If their software remains marginally good enough in most people's minds, as it is now, it'll continue to be used. Their walking a thin line right now. If their software is seen as more expensive, buggier, or more insecure than it is now, even by just a little, they'll hurt. Anything that keeps them above that line keeps them in business. I'd much rather see them fail so there's a much quicker transition to FOSS.
I'm always looking for examples to present to my boss to switch to OSS. My company is mostly in the US. Unfortunately even the recommendation of a country's president isn't enough to persuade them to even look at OSS. While I see lots of news of other countries actively switching to Microsoft's alternatives, the change is still extremely slow in the US. I think even when the rest of the world is mostly on OSS the US will be the most stubborn in letting it become the majority. But it'll take world pressure (the global market) to get a truely major shift to OSS in the US.
Now if President Bush recommended OSS in a speech in the US it would only solidify Microsoft's dominance.
You're confusing sales with service, the misconception that the factory model of software development is the same as the service model. At least 85 to 90% of developers do not work for companies that sell software for profit (factory model). They work for companies that need software written for their own purposes or to service others (developers in a service model). Removing all software companies will not remove much money from the equation. Most developers are paid for their service, not for their output, i.e. they're paid to get software written, not to sell bits. People pay to get software which gets the job done either by buying bits from companies with patents, which is the exception, or by buying services, which is the rule. Patents only work for the few selling bits such as Microsoft. Patents don't help most of the industry working as a service.
In theory, if it's published by the standards org, no one can then patent it anyway. It should be denied by the patent office... ideally anyway, since we know that doesn't happen. But even if accepted by the USPTO the defence against any patent would be the date the standard is published. I'd rather see the system fixed than use it as a strategy against abuses.
It's really a shame that they have to allow patents at all. If they didn't they'd alienate most commercial contributors who'd then go to another standards body, or none at all. Since they do allow patents, though, it continues to promote the rediculous patenting of software processes.
What you're seeing is many people here who usually complain about the "evil gubmint" saying they finally got something right. This is a rare moment when the gubmint didn't jump in and write tons of outragious legislation. What us "slashdotters" (I hate that word) are saying is "Yeah, you guys usually screw up, but by sending just an informative letter you've finally done something right. Let's hope you keep up the good work." Intelligent people make up their minds on a case-by-case basis. Yes, many here think the government is often bad, but at least many also recognize when something's done right.
# Microsoft® Exchange 2000 will not run on Microsoft Windows(TM) Server 2003 # Internet Information Services 5.0 will not run on Windows Server 2003 # SQL Server 2000 will only run on Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 3 installed
Also consider that every MS server application comes with a GUI. Therefore if a new version of Windows breaks backwards compatibility for its GUI it breaks its server applications. See their plans for the future.
From an article I wrote on MS Versus: Microsoft plans to release the next major upgrade to Windows in 2005. An anonymous source from a third-party vendor has informed journalists that Longhorn will not be backwards compatible... completely dropping compatibility with current software and requiring all software to migrate to.NET and the new Avalon GUI API.
The graphics system has changed at least slightly with each version of Windows, causing problems for front-end developers such as myself. Even if these changes are small, soon there will be zero backwards compatibility.
Mandrakes Update app can't be any easier. Enter the root password, confirm you want all updates, and that's it. It downloads and installs everything, no more questions asked. I don't have to worry it'll change the features of my system. With Windows Update you need to read every non-critical choice because you may need it or you may not want what'll change. Mandrake is far easier.
With Windows, every version retains legacy compatability for almost all applications written for a previous version.
When Rob Short, the vice-president of Windows Core Technology, was asked, "How many applications will transfer over from [Windows] NT4 or 2000 [to Windows Server 2003]?" he answered: "I'm not sure what the exact number is for taking an NT4 application and running it -- it's in the high 60 percent. It's not 90... Most of the time, if the application is following the [security] rules then it will run. But I must admit the rules haven't been well publicised."
I believe in the long run (the very long run) Microsoft will be forced to become purely a services company. Software will eventually only have "use value" and no longer fake "sale value" as Eric S. Raymond puts it. As a services company they may survive, but not without strong competition from even the little guys. They know that if they can no longer convince people to buy their software they will have to sell themselves out for services, which they know will bring a far lower revenue stream and inability to become a monopoly.
As an employee at an investment firm I can say analysts weren't running wild with the idea that there would be a huge market niche for potty PCs and that everyone should dump their money into MSFT to get in on the Next Big Thing. Although maybe they should patent the design so no one else will make it.
If that is the case, aren't there regulations against such things?
In the US there are regulations against false advertising, but AFAIK press releases don't count. Press releases are released to the press (for those who couldn't figure that out) and not published by purchasing ad space. So it's my understanding a company can announce whatever they want and the press can report it. What they can't do is buy a billboard and post a picture of the iLoo on it saying "Contact your local plumber!"
I think "true" properties are a big mistake for a language. I'd much rather have the explicit "get" in front of the property's name to make it a method than the possible ambiguity of using only the property name to mean two things. Also I think the way of writing properties in C# is very ugly. But at the same time I couldn't think of a much better way to do it. All together I'd rather have functions.
While eclipse is great, Netbeans has more features. I prefer eclipse because it uses a native interface and has refactoring. The most feature-rich IDE I've used for Java, however, is netbeans. If you don't mind a slow user interface it's a great tool to look at.
1) Microsoft has stated their release cycle is 3 years - they've determined that's the optimal time to garner maximum purchases of new releases of their software (i.e. marketing leading "technology") 2) Windows Server 2003 came out in... 2003, and is considered part of the same Windows product line.
Krusty: We're going to stop selling Rib-wiches. The animal we exploited to make them has now become extinct. Ottoman: Cow? Homer: Pig? Krusty: You're waaay off. Think smaller. Think MUCH smaller.
Many of the functions that will be built into hardware were emulated by software because the chips are not yet built.
Wasn't the main argument by Microsoft that security would have to be implemented at the hardware level to be truely secure? The only reason this is such a big deal is because his plan is to more tightly integrate his software with hardware for security purposes. If so much of this could be implemented as only software, doesn't that already prove the point that this isn't a necessary technology (at least not the way they are portraying it)? I personally don't believe this tight coupling of secure software with secure hardware will be the panacea Bill's talking about, but this demo helps prove this hardware push is more about integration and control than security.
We're looking longer term to see what can be done, looking at the layers and what's available at each layer and how do we make it much closer to the thing the Linux guys have -- having only the pieces you want running. That's something Linux has that's ahead of us, but we're looking at it. We will have a command line-only version, but whether it'll have all the features in is another matter... It's a very tangled subsystem.
<plug style="shameless"> As I also explain at MS Versus, Bill Gates has testified in federal court that Microsoft® can't modularize their operating system or document all of its APIs because it's written by groups of developers haphazardly binding software together without any clear overall design. </plug>
Exactly correct. Read Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar for a thorough explanation of why the factory model of software companies is flawed. Software development works best as a service, such as in business IT departments and consulting firms. Corporations who currently make money primarily by selling software (as opposed to services) will eventually die, but will barely harm developers, if at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope for the world's sake they do a terrible job and most people realize it. If their software remains marginally good enough in most people's minds, as it is now, it'll continue to be used. Their walking a thin line right now. If their software is seen as more expensive, buggier, or more insecure than it is now, even by just a little, they'll hurt. Anything that keeps them above that line keeps them in business. I'd much rather see them fail so there's a much quicker transition to FOSS.
I'm always looking for examples to present to my boss to switch to OSS. My company is mostly in the US. Unfortunately even the recommendation of a country's president isn't enough to persuade them to even look at OSS. While I see lots of news of other countries actively switching to Microsoft's alternatives, the change is still extremely slow in the US. I think even when the rest of the world is mostly on OSS the US will be the most stubborn in letting it become the majority. But it'll take world pressure (the global market) to get a truely major shift to OSS in the US.
Now if President Bush recommended OSS in a speech in the US it would only solidify Microsoft's dominance.
Riiiiiiiiiight
You're confusing sales with service, the misconception that the factory model of software development is the same as the service model. At least 85 to 90% of developers do not work for companies that sell software for profit (factory model). They work for companies that need software written for their own purposes or to service others (developers in a service model). Removing all software companies will not remove much money from the equation. Most developers are paid for their service, not for their output, i.e. they're paid to get software written, not to sell bits. People pay to get software which gets the job done either by buying bits from companies with patents, which is the exception, or by buying services, which is the rule. Patents only work for the few selling bits such as Microsoft. Patents don't help most of the industry working as a service.
In theory, if it's published by the standards org, no one can then patent it anyway. It should be denied by the patent office... ideally anyway, since we know that doesn't happen. But even if accepted by the USPTO the defence against any patent would be the date the standard is published. I'd rather see the system fixed than use it as a strategy against abuses.
It's really a shame that they have to allow patents at all. If they didn't they'd alienate most commercial contributors who'd then go to another standards body, or none at all. Since they do allow patents, though, it continues to promote the rediculous patenting of software processes.
A new insult: "You're the other kind of homo."
(sorry, couldn't resist)
What you're seeing is many people here who usually complain about the "evil gubmint" saying they finally got something right. This is a rare moment when the gubmint didn't jump in and write tons of outragious legislation. What us "slashdotters" (I hate that word) are saying is "Yeah, you guys usually screw up, but by sending just an informative letter you've finally done something right. Let's hope you keep up the good work." Intelligent people make up their minds on a case-by-case basis. Yes, many here think the government is often bad, but at least many also recognize when something's done right.
# Microsoft® Exchange 2000 will not run on Microsoft Windows(TM) Server 2003
# Internet Information Services 5.0 will not run on Windows Server 2003
# SQL Server 2000 will only run on Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 3 installed
See this article for details.
Also consider that every MS server application comes with a GUI. Therefore if a new version of Windows breaks backwards compatibility for its GUI it breaks its server applications. See their plans for the future.
From an article I wrote on MS Versus: .NET and the new Avalon GUI API.
Microsoft plans to release the next major upgrade to Windows in 2005. An anonymous source from a third-party vendor has informed journalists that Longhorn will not be backwards compatible... completely dropping compatibility with current software and requiring all software to migrate to
The graphics system has changed at least slightly with each version of Windows, causing problems for front-end developers such as myself. Even if these changes are small, soon there will be zero backwards compatibility.
Mandrakes Update app can't be any easier. Enter the root password, confirm you want all updates, and that's it. It downloads and installs everything, no more questions asked. I don't have to worry it'll change the features of my system. With Windows Update you need to read every non-critical choice because you may need it or you may not want what'll change. Mandrake is far easier.
With Windows, every version retains legacy compatability for almost all applications written for a previous version.
When Rob Short, the vice-president of Windows Core Technology, was asked, "How many applications will transfer over from [Windows] NT4 or 2000 [to Windows Server 2003]?" he answered: "I'm not sure what the exact number is for taking an NT4 application and running it -- it's in the high 60 percent. It's not 90... Most of the time, if the application is following the [security] rules then it will run. But I must admit the rules haven't been well publicised."
Full Windows backward compatibility is a myth.
I believe in the long run (the very long run) Microsoft will be forced to become purely a services company. Software will eventually only have "use value" and no longer fake "sale value" as Eric S. Raymond puts it. As a services company they may survive, but not without strong competition from even the little guys. They know that if they can no longer convince people to buy their software they will have to sell themselves out for services, which they know will bring a far lower revenue stream and inability to become a monopoly.
As an employee at an investment firm I can say analysts weren't running wild with the idea that there would be a huge market niche for potty PCs and that everyone should dump their money into MSFT to get in on the Next Big Thing. Although maybe they should patent the design so no one else will make it.
If that is the case, aren't there regulations against such things?
In the US there are regulations against false advertising, but AFAIK press releases don't count. Press releases are released to the press (for those who couldn't figure that out) and not published by purchasing ad space. So it's my understanding a company can announce whatever they want and the press can report it. What they can't do is buy a billboard and post a picture of the iLoo on it saying "Contact your local plumber!"
I think "true" properties are a big mistake for a language. I'd much rather have the explicit "get" in front of the property's name to make it a method than the possible ambiguity of using only the property name to mean two things. Also I think the way of writing properties in C# is very ugly. But at the same time I couldn't think of a much better way to do it. All together I'd rather have functions.
While eclipse is great, Netbeans has more features. I prefer eclipse because it uses a native interface and has refactoring. The most feature-rich IDE I've used for Java, however, is netbeans. If you don't mind a slow user interface it's a great tool to look at.
Microsoft user = victim
1) Microsoft has stated their release cycle is 3 years - they've determined that's the optimal time to garner maximum purchases of new releases of their software (i.e. marketing leading "technology")
2) Windows Server 2003 came out in... 2003, and is considered part of the same Windows product line.
I should have elaborated...
Krusty: We're going to stop selling Rib-wiches. The animal we exploited to make them has now become extinct.
Ottoman: Cow?
Homer: Pig?
Krusty: You're waaay off. Think smaller. Think MUCH smaller.
Digitally Restrictive Monopoly
He wants us to pick between Krusty's deadly Rib-wich made of animal-like products and starvation.
Many of the functions that will be built into hardware were emulated by software because the chips are not yet built.
Wasn't the main argument by Microsoft that security would have to be implemented at the hardware level to be truely secure? The only reason this is such a big deal is because his plan is to more tightly integrate his software with hardware for security purposes. If so much of this could be implemented as only software, doesn't that already prove the point that this isn't a necessary technology (at least not the way they are portraying it)? I personally don't believe this tight coupling of secure software with secure hardware will be the panacea Bill's talking about, but this demo helps prove this hardware push is more about integration and control than security.
the headline is sensational and the document itself has limited content from which to draw conclusions
/.
hence it being considered news on
;) *ducking*
<plug style="shameless">
As I also explain at MS Versus, Bill Gates has testified in federal court that Microsoft® can't modularize their operating system or document all of its APIs because it's written by groups of developers haphazardly binding software together without any clear overall design.
</plug>
Exactly correct. Read Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar for a thorough explanation of why the factory model of software companies is flawed. Software development works best as a service, such as in business IT departments and consulting firms. Corporations who currently make money primarily by selling software (as opposed to services) will eventually die, but will barely harm developers, if at all.