> Microsoft really needs to look beyond short term remedies to solve security problems. The company has to move away from its Windows roots in order to create a secure operating system environment. Microsoft has a huge research and development budget, and it just doesn't make sense why it cannot develop a security centered OS.
I wonder, have you looked at managed code?
Five years ago, Linux-heads made fun of the BSOD; now they make fun of Windows' security. Don't underestimate Microsoft. They will get security right.
'But the casual equation between "open source" and "zero revenue" suggests that on another level you don't really know what you're talking about. Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had a share price over triple Sun's when I just checked.'
ESR's casual equation between "share price" and "value" suggests that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Sun's market cap is 6 times Red Hat's!
> High-level languages are great, but learning them will never teach you about computers.
Who cares? Knowing about computers per se isn't important; knowing how to use computers to solve your problems is. For this, high-level languages are best.
> We all hate advertisements, but as with public TV, it's the reason we can get it for free . ..
No, public TV is not free. You incur the cost of watching ads every time you turn it on. Likewise you incur a cost when you have to look at inline ads and popups all over the Internet.
Ad blockers like Norton and TiVo are going to change how we pay for content on the Internet and TV. Instead of implicitly paying by enduring ads, we'll eventually pay explicity, with real money.
I much prefer this model -- it gives me the power to express how much value I attach to content.
This post is exactly right, but there's another reason why Microsoft only has a few profitable products: they give away what could otherwise be profitable products to increase demand for their platform. For example, IE could undoubtedly make money, but they give it away to increase demand for Windows; they could charge for the.NET Framework, but they give it away to promote sales of Visual Studio and the rest of the stuff surrounding.NET: Windows, SQL Server, etc. The result of this strategy is to concentrate profits in the platform divisions: Client and Server.
Why does this junk get posted on Slashdot? The writing is horrible, and the models are not much better. I'm not trying to troll here; this is ano honest question. Are "nerds" only interested in fantasy and sci fi (most of which is pretty bad, in my opinion), or do they ever read decent literature? Is there something about the stupid lego models that's attractive?
Amazon lets you select and rate albums you've bought, then recommends artists it thinks you'd like. I was pretty skeptical, but I find that I like about 1/4 of the recommendations, which is a lot better than, say, listening to the radio. Plus you can listen to tracks easily, see similar albums (based on sales), etc., etc.
... because it's exactly the kind of thing Bill Gates thinks open source can't do. I couldn't find the exact quote, but I remember him saying that things like Tablet PC, which require collaboration between hardware and software vendors (and a lot of other logistical stuff, I imagine) wouldn't appear in the open source world. Well, I guess not.
So, I find the comparison between our government and Nazi Germany offensive as well, but the point remains that the current administration has sacrificed liberty in favor of safety.
Instead of considering our system infallible and just saying "So?" all the time, we should be self-critical. Maybe detaining people (some of them citizens) for an indeterminate period of time is wrong. Maybe creating completely opaque governmental agencies is wrong. If you're too defensive, you'll never even consider these things.
No, there's no O(n) algorithm for integer factorization. The fastest known deterministic algorithm just to test for primality runs in (lg n)^(O(lg lg lg n)) time, which is superpolynomial. Only randomized algorithms (i.e., ones that may produce the wrong answer) can achieve polynomial time.
Business strategy, consumer benefit, and innovation aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that in the case of most companies, and tech companies like MS in particular, these goals go hand in hand.
If you use Windows and you haven't noticed any change in the platform since Win95, you haven't tried to run an FTP, mail, or web server, develop transactional, distributed, or component-based software, burn a CD, play a DVD, share an Internet connetion, secure your computer, or do any of a hundred other things Win2k allows you to do. But I guess if you're happy with Minesweeper, that's cool.
Java isn't an open standard. It's Sun's property, just like Win32 or the.NET libraries are Microsoft's. When you use the Java class libraries, your code may be able to run on diverse hardware, but you're writing to the Java platform, and you're beholden to Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to make spam unprofitable, don't prevent people from clicking on the links. Instead, make everyone do it.
> Microsoft really needs to look beyond short term remedies to solve security problems. The company has to move away from its Windows roots in order to create a secure operating system environment. Microsoft has a huge research and development budget, and it just doesn't make sense why it cannot develop a security centered OS.
I wonder, have you looked at managed code?
Five years ago, Linux-heads made fun of the BSOD; now they make fun of Windows' security. Don't underestimate Microsoft. They will get security right.
'But the casual equation between "open source" and "zero revenue" suggests that on another level you don't really know what you're talking about. Open source is hardly a zero-revenue model; ask Red Hat, which had a share price over triple Sun's when I just checked.'
ESR's casual equation between "share price" and "value" suggests that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Sun's market cap is 6 times Red Hat's!
But this is nitpicking. His larger point is good.
> High-level languages are great, but learning them will never teach you about computers.
Who cares? Knowing about computers per se isn't important; knowing how to use computers to solve your problems is. For this, high-level languages are best.
> We all hate advertisements, but as with public TV, it's the reason we can get it for free . . .
No, public TV is not free. You incur the cost of watching ads every time you turn it on. Likewise you incur a cost when you have to look at inline ads and popups all over the Internet.
Ad blockers like Norton and TiVo are going to change how we pay for content on the Internet and TV. Instead of implicitly paying by enduring ads, we'll eventually pay explicity, with real money.
I much prefer this model -- it gives me the power to express how much value I attach to content.
This post is exactly right, but there's another reason why Microsoft only has a few profitable products: they give away what could otherwise be profitable products to increase demand for their platform. For example, IE could undoubtedly make money, but they give it away to increase demand for Windows; they could charge for the .NET Framework, but they give it away to promote sales of Visual Studio and the rest of the stuff surrounding .NET: Windows, SQL Server, etc. The result of this strategy is to concentrate profits in the platform divisions: Client and Server.
Why does this junk get posted on Slashdot? The writing is horrible, and the models are not much better. I'm not trying to troll here; this is ano honest question. Are "nerds" only interested in fantasy and sci fi (most of which is pretty bad, in my opinion), or do they ever read decent literature? Is there something about the stupid lego models that's attractive?
Wrong, MS does lose money on every X-Box sale. The price is less than the manufacturing cost; they rely on revenue from games and accessories.
Amazon lets you select and rate albums you've bought, then recommends artists it thinks you'd like. I was pretty skeptical, but I find that I like about 1/4 of the recommendations, which is a lot better than, say, listening to the radio. Plus you can listen to tracks easily, see similar albums (based on sales), etc., etc.
... because it's exactly the kind of thing Bill Gates thinks open source can't do. I couldn't find the exact quote, but I remember him saying that things like Tablet PC, which require collaboration between hardware and software vendors (and a lot of other logistical stuff, I imagine) wouldn't appear in the open source world. Well, I guess not.
> So?
So, I find the comparison between our government and Nazi Germany offensive as well, but the point remains that the current administration has sacrificed liberty in favor of safety.
Instead of considering our system infallible and just saying "So?" all the time, we should be self-critical. Maybe detaining people (some of them citizens) for an indeterminate period of time is wrong. Maybe creating completely opaque governmental agencies is wrong. If you're too defensive, you'll never even consider these things.
No, there's no O(n) algorithm for integer factorization. The fastest known deterministic algorithm just to test for primality runs in (lg n)^(O(lg lg lg n)) time, which is superpolynomial. Only randomized algorithms (i.e., ones that may produce the wrong answer) can achieve polynomial time.
Business strategy, consumer benefit, and innovation aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that in the case of most companies, and tech companies like MS in particular, these goals go hand in hand.
Um, no. They encrypt the password, so without a lot of effort, nobody between your computer and their mainframe can see it.
If you use Windows and you haven't noticed any change in the platform since Win95, you haven't tried to run an FTP, mail, or web server, develop transactional, distributed, or component-based software, burn a CD, play a DVD, share an Internet connetion, secure your computer, or do any of a hundred other things Win2k allows you to do. But I guess if you're happy with Minesweeper, that's cool.
Java isn't an open standard. It's Sun's property, just like Win32 or the .NET libraries are Microsoft's. When you use the Java class libraries, your code may be able to run on diverse hardware, but you're writing to the Java platform, and you're beholden to Sun.