If SCO is claiming that Novell's Linux aquisistion is competing against SCO, then what will SCO say when Novell point out that SCO was for quite a long time distributing it's own Linux distribution? Does that mean that SCO intends to sue itself?
SCO's poker game is incredibly high risk, and they really have shown an incredible ability to grasp at straws, but sooner or later there won't be any straws left, and SCO will be left either panting for funds from one of it's nebulous backers or dead in the water or both. I for one fully expect that MS will turn out to have been backing this show, even though I have no evidence.
I don't know whether the author is legally within his rights or not. Some claim he is, some claim he should have checked out his rights first.
I also don't know whether Apple is within it's rights or not, but I do know that Apple could have had the decency (or simple common sense in avoiding a PR scandal) to pay him for the software.
And that is what it boils down to really. Decency. I know all the yada yada yada Apple is in the business of making money yada yada and we're hard arsed bastards in this world yada yada, but decency goes a long way to ensuring good PR and employee loyalty and above all customer loyalty.
Whether Steve Jobs knew of this or not, I can only say the following to him: Be careful, Mr Jobs. Losing the loyalty of your employees can lose you the loyalty of your customers, and that it the one thing that Apple has always had above the rest. Don't fuck it up, because in the end, I don't care. I'll drop this Mac and run Linux or Windows if I see no difference between the business practices.
No, it's not some MS troll, but some thoughts after reading Paul Thurrot's blog and website, and all the points he makes (I mentioned some of this further down) and want to expand on it.
I don't think Paul Thurrot is a complete idiot. He really likes Windows, obviously, and seems to feel that MS has more to offer than Linux or Mac OSX. He does use both Linux and OSX and quite rightly points out some of the deficiencies that creep into OSX and Linux, albeit from the point of view of someone who has decided on which side of the fence he's sitting (Microsoft 4 ever).
He obviously, in light of his Windows bias, likes to point out problems, both existant and non existant in the two other OSes, such as the non-issue that Apple wasn't going to supply security fixes to Jaguar, and the initial problems with Panther Firewire and Filevault (there have been many of us on Mac forums that were really worried about this) and takes issue with Apple releasing a patch so quickly for those issues (would he have preferred waiting for a month?). He also points out general unhappiness with RH's Feodora (which Linux reviewers seem to agree with). He goes on to complain that the smallest iBook doesn't have the fastest processor as compared to the smallest Powerbook (why don't you just buy a 12" Powerbook then Paul?)
He also seems to see Longhorn as the next big thing in computing, and I for one agree that MS is probably going to have some pretty interesting features in it (the compositing, WinFS and multiple simultaneous users in the GUI for example) and it will probably be quite polished by the time it gets released.
Yet, he doesn't seem to see any problems with Microsoft's business practices, such as the fact that Longhorn Pro will only allow two simultaneous user sessions at once (Someone should tell him about Xwindows networking) and that the DRM features, while probably providing improved security will almost certainly cause havoc in companies that have a mix of older and newer software and will make lock-in even more odious than it is today as it will lock out any standards based mail or document system.
And this is what bothers me about so much of Microsoft's business: The OS (in Win2k and XP) has gotten to be reasonably stable and reliable and one cannot really argue the fact that so much software/games/hardware platforms etc are available, but Microsoft's decided lack of interest in real security (software vulnerability versus product activation i.e. Quality vs. Quantity) until the amount of derision in the press became overwhelming is a point in fact. Longhorn will be full of new features and will probably work well on then existing hardware, but one will by then almost certainly be tied into multiple DRM systems and I am willing to bet that MS will try it's subscription idea on home users again at some point.
It's a question of trust at the end of the day. Do I trust an OS that is completely open (Linux), mostly open (OSX), or mostly closed and locked up (Windows)?
I made my decision. I'm running OSX on my Powerbook.
The oldest and easiest way to track the IP address of where your mails are being read is to send an HTML coded e-mail with an image in it that is stored on a server where you have access to the logs. That might help a bit when they claim to be in Canada, Europe or where ever.
I've read a number of articles on Winsupersite, and come to the conclusion that Paul Thurrot really likes Windows. I read the bit where he takes four (4) laptops to the Microsoft PDC 2003 and then it hit me: He doesn't get it. He really doesn't get it. He's been to some of the OSX roll out events and claims that they're every bit as geeky as the Microsoft one's, yet I would be buggered to know why anyone takes 4 laptops (one of them an iBook) to a conference. I was under the impression that the purpose behind a laptop was to minimise one's burdens.
And that attitude strikes me as the main failing behind almost all Microsoft OSes: Add so many features and doodahs that you kill any attempt at good usability. Can someone explain to me what a sidebar that takes up fully one sixth of the screen is doing there? I appreciate the fact that one would have a calendar, IM and mail notifications and all sorts of other stuff readily available, but wouldn't an improved task tray have solved that problem?
Crazy.
The task oriented approach as started in XP works with utter newbies. Doing sys admin, I saw anti-tech types and neophytes get on well with the task oriented approach. As we all know, most normal Windows users will get rid of the task stuff as soon as they can as it is damningly slow to do anything but I think many geeks and developers wildly over estimate the clueless newbie (I saw at least three people never use Windows Explorer and do all their searching and document managment from the Windows open/save dialogs-They didn't even know Windows Explorer existed, let alone know what a network drive or other computer arcana are). For home users and newbies, this is a good idea, make no mistake.
Apple's approach is make the UI consistent and simple, and is a good middle of the road approach and a better longterm idea, but Windows task stuff also works for newbies.
The Aero GUI running on the Avalon engine will no doubt be very good, but here too, I have the feeling that MS is going to overdo it in terms of mindlessly long paths to do any task, insane effects and crazy animations (what the fuck is a puppy doing there when I want to find something-- and yes I know you can get rid of it, but how easily?)
The palladium stuff will also find it's market in that some companies will swear by it. There will be just as many others that will swear at it though. It might very well help in terms of Virus and spam stuff though, but it really remains to be seen if that approach works, since there will be a lot of legacy stuff floating around which is usually where the exploits happen. I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt that they can make the OS more secure by rewriting the whole thing in.Net, but I can see the costs invloved due the MS' hunger for money and control alienating many customers (Who the hell is going to trust MS not to lock them in? How many AV vendors are going to go out of business?)
I dunno. I think Longhorn will probably be ok in terms of previous OSes, but I think the lock-in will be more painful and costly than before.
As someone who had a hell of a childhood and was beset by complexes (handicapped from birth) and loneliness (my father died when I was 9 and my mother's later boyfriend treated me like a dog), I can just say there are some things you should know and do if you're interested in your childrens well being:
1.Talk to them. It sound so simple, doesn't it? But is it? We all know as adults just how difficult the modern world is and how litttle time we have, but that overdone cliche about spending quality time with your children is damn important. Controlling your kids too much will make them fear you and lose your trust. Show them that you love them and are interested in their lives. Make them feel like home is a place of warmth and saftey and that you will protect them with everything you've got. 2.Treat them like real human beings. There are so many guides that advocate rules and strict parenting, but neglect the fact that your children are real human beings with their own personalities and feelings. Treating them with respect (privacy is important for them too) will help them when the time comes on the internet that some sicko doesn't treat them with respect. 3.Have a set of rules about what you can and will accept. This might seem paradoxial to what I said above, but it isn't. If you explain to your children why you set those rules instead of just being the parental nazi, they will be more likely to follow them. Having rules is important, very important, in that it shows children to realise and know what other people's limits are i.e. they realise as well that you are in fact a real person. 4.Never break their trust. This can be damn difficult, but it is damn important. Don't be too harsh if they break a rule or do something stupid. Show them you're angry or worried (yell if you need to, penalise them in a SMALL way if need be i.e. one week no internet or extra task around the house) but don't leave it at that. Talk to them afterward to show you're still interested. Learn to forgive your kids for breaking rules, and show them that it's ok. We all know how difficult and unforgiving life and society are. They don't need that at home as well, because then there's no difference between home and the wild for them.
I was under the impression that one could practically sue for almost anything in the US. Would it not be possible for someone to start a class action suit against the state election commission for willfully damaging the saftey of the democratic process in that state (MD)?
If Microsoft actually defies the EU commision and refuses to remove MediaPlayer I would be totally interested as to what the EU would do. They would fine Microsoft but that is probably the least of Microsoft's worries, but would they actually go as far as forbidding the sale of Windows until this was cleared up? I doubt it because Windows is used by the vast majority of businesses in Europe where it has much the same dominant share as in the USA and the business lobby is as strong in the EU as it is in the US and they would protest loudly at any such moves.
I see that Microsoft probably knows this and would almost certainly start a huge PR campaign all over Europe to organise protest in support of Microsoft "innovation". Coupled to this the fact that the only slightly possible x86 alternative, SuSE, has just sold its soul to Novell, and you have no real alternative if Microsoft just decides to be stubborn.
I just don't see much that the EU can really do apart from mandating open source in all official areas, such as universities, governments etc in future in order to break Microsoft's lock-in.
Vidal undoubtedly had current pols like Bush and Ashcroft in mind when he wrote his latest book, his third in two years. Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson takes us deep into the psyches of the patriotic trio. And even with all of their human foibles on display -- vanity, ambition, hubris, envy and insecurity -- their shared and profoundly rooted commitment to building the first democratic nation on Earth comes straight to the fore.
I dislike making statements like this, but only an American could have said that. There was a democracy in Switzerland in Europe in the 8th century, almost 1000 years before the USA came to be. And it's not the only one. There were others as well.
But that's not really my point, although the American habit of forgetting that a world exists outside its borders is surely a problem. No, actually I think the problem in the USA is a two edged sword. On the one hand there are few nations that believe in a written document as religiously as the Americans do in their constitution (I doubt that even Islamic republics have as many true believers). That blind belief in the constitution and the freedoms that it entails is what makes America a country that is not beset by shifting forms of governments and revolutions.
But that same belief in a document that is over 200 years old also makes the USA inflexible to change until it gets forced on them by corrupt politicians using fear to corrupt the system and change the meaning of that document.
How is it possible that laws can effectively be bought with enough money? How is it possible that laws concerning copyright carry criminal charges instead of civil one's? How is it possible that laws concerning copyright carry sentences that are more draconian than some of those concerning such violent crimes such as rape, physical attacks etc?
Does this mean that the *AA will eventually try to get a mandatory death sentence into law for breaches of copyright? Will 12-year file sharers be treated as adults and be thus sent to the gas chamber? I know that it sounds ridiculous but who would have thought that one could go to jail for 3 years for sharing an illegal movie while the leaders of Enron and Worldcom can get away with ruiing thousands of people's lives.
And you think the rest of the world looks to the USA as a shining example of democracy and freedom?
I think the idea in itself is a wonderful one, and it's something that I thought about years ago as a solution to the (then) problem of finding good developers and reducing costs. But I see a problem and that is from commercial developers who now make expensive software that is well liked by by end users. Think of Adobe's or Macromedia's products or even products such as games.
Let us assume that company X wants to make a product, let's call it PhotoX, which it would like to sell in competition to Photoshop. If the development is all done under the GPL (as opposed to say, the LGPL or BSD licences) how could the company be in a position to make a profit from the product, since the GPL requires that sources be made available?
I see the problem remaining that there would be no one willing to invest in such models for enduser software such as the above mentioned. Given that such companies are very profitable today, I find it hard to see an opensource alternative today unless the BSD for example is also used.
Why in hell would SCO subpoena Linus, Transmeta and RMS? I am very confident when I say that Linus, RMS and Transmeta in it's Linux dealings have never done anything with respect to Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux, Richard old chap) that is not a matter of public record. All the files, patches etc that have been inlcuded in the Linux kernel are available on the internet, as is the GPL. Linus' work on Linux done while working for Transmeta is well known as he stated that his contract allowed him to work on Linux, and no one has ever thought that Transmeta had some hidden SMP/NUMA know how etc.
Likewise the early Linux/GPL story is also a matter of public record as are the files.
The Novell subpoena is probably pure blind shooting in an attempt to discover some hidden agenda to discredit SCO by Novell by choosing Linux as its future. The interesting bit here is that we will finally know what the true deal was between Novell and SCO over the Unix properties.
There are only three semi rational conclusions that I can come to: 1. is that SCO is going to try to destroy the GPL in court, either by claiming it is not a valid licence (you can imagine the precedence that would set up for Microsoft's fuck ugly EULA's) or by trying to do some nationalistic McArthy era skullduggery in claiming RMS is a commie traitor and Linus an incompetent leader i.e chracter assasination. However that would leave them wide open to massive claims of copyright abuse by all the Linux contributors. 2. is that Microsoft is truly behind this case and that it is all part of a final MS funded and supported massive attack on OSS that will either succede and lead to total dismissal of OSS in the US* or be a huge setback leading to criminal charges aginst many in the industry. The way things are going I'm not so certain that this isn't the way things are going to turn out. The stakes are pretty damn high and the whole thing stinks of some underhanded motives. 3. It is truly an utterly desperate attempt by a dying company to raise its stocks value or get bought out. I think the original attempt was to get bought out but Darl and company miscalculated horribly and then went for plan B which was to pump up the stocks and get out.
*This will have no swing whatsoever outside the US and will probably work against MS there.
However I have one hope for these subpoenas, and that is that Novell, now a Linux company with SuSE and Linus, finally get off their fucking collective fat arses, get some lawyers and sue the hell out of SCO. The result of multiple lawsuits against SCO will almost assuredly kill SCO's stock value pretty soon.
I posted earlier today on Microsoft's next round of FUD vis a vis the idea that they may very well have something to do with the SCO debacle. I mentioned that in 2001 Microsoft did exactly the same thing as they are going to do now i.e. start and spread a large FUD campaign against Linux because they are fucking terrified that their OS is going nowhere, especially in the server space, their reputation is going down the drain with the ceasless sea of viruses and even the big companies are now starting to talk about using Linux on the desktop.
There are some interesting and ironic underpinnings to this story:
Microsoft is terrified. They have no real reason to be terrified because they own somehwere around 97% of all desktop machines and they make money on every damn PC sold with OEM software on it. But that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft's problem is that Microsoft is the epitomy of greed and the mother of all control freaks. There has never been another company, apart perhaps from IBM in earlier years, which was so absolutely mindlessly terrified in losing a single percentage point in marketshare. There is no other company that is willing to rack up huge losses in a single market segment, and that over years (xbox, PocketPC anyone?) until, due to simply having thrown enough money and resources at the problem over years, they finally start making gains. It's a fucking minddead approach and one that only Microsoft could afford to do, but it often works in their case.
The ironic bit in this newest FUD campaign is that the same thing backfired on them badly when they did it in 2001. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't think they could do the same thing again some years later, only this time they'll try to be more clever about it, including faked security benchmarks and other things. Microsoft cannot resist detracting anyone they are scared of, be it Apple's iTunes, Linux.
They are however extremely quiet and polite in markets where they are clearly the losers, be it in the xbox or mobile phone market.
And why are they the big losers in the mobile phone market? Because Microsoft has a track record of fucking every single partner over that they've ever worked with and apart from Microsoft marketing money dependant shitrag journalists like the creeps at ZDNet and CNet, almost everybody in the branch knows this and won't touch Microsoft with a 10 foot pole if they can avoid it.
This new campaign will almost assuredly fail, just give them time.
Having just read through quite a number of trolls interspersed with very many people shocked and highly suspicious that a vehicle with one wheel could actually work, and at the same time pointing to the Segway as somehow being Much Better(TM), I think I should point out a few things.
All those who think it is somehow unnatural for a vehicle to have one wheel (it's actually very much like a motorcycle at speeds below 12mph) have never seen anyone ride a unicycle. The ability to stay upright on a bicycle is due to the gyroscopic effect of the wheels turning, something which overweight geeks on their underexercised behinds perhaps have yet to discover. On this device you have the same effect while in motion plus there is an added horizontal gyroscope that spins up as the vehicle moves. That gyroscope tends to keep the vehicle upright although there are probably added sensors to adjust for rapid acceleration and braking.
Overall this device has a simpler and more natural approach to motion than the Segway, which suffers the fact that it has no natural gyroscopic effects to stay upright and must use a computer throughout. The person who claimed that the Segway's approach to motion (leaning forward to accelerate, backward to brake) is somehow better than this, apparently even at highway speeds (you're leaning far forward and someone abruptly stops in front of you? I'd love to see you gracefully stop either device in such conditions) should do some personal testing on the highway to see just how messy that could get, on either device.
I don't think that Microsoft is directly behind this action, but I sure as hell wouldn't put it past them to do so. They've done some pretty weird stuff in the past such as the famous dead people mailing initiative and their famous round of hideous anti-linux FUD in 2001 where Ballmer, Mundie and just about every honcho at MS were telling strange tales of viral cancer etc.
Given that they discovered that such direct FUD backfired but are reportedly gearing up for the next round of FUD with respect to security would you be willing to state with 100% certainty that MS is not behind this action?
I wouldn't.
If it is discovered through IBM's process of subpoenas that MS is in fact behind this I wonder what will happen then. I assume that MS will be facing a court action for trying to willfully harm a competitor's business that will make the $3 billion SCO claim look tame, and I think that there will be a number of anti-trust questions raised.
The big commercial software, music labels and movie studios are becomming more and more like big brother in 1984, using all the technical means at their disposal to become almost a law unto themselves (can someone explain to me how the fucking hell someone get's jailed without even profiting from the piracy?). And as for the quaint notion that some countries are better than others with respect to piracy, I think that is simply deceiving oneself*. Everywhere where those greedy disgusting bastards can bribe the officials in power in some manner, the same draconian prosecution will be applied.
Sooner or later one of these accused will commit suicide or will murder a prosecutor and then we really will be in our wonderful fascist superstate.
*The ironic thing is that Iran is one country where no copyright laws apply as they feel that God is the source of all innovation.
I would love to see an article highlighting the poorest and the richest, taking into consideration their jobs (or lack of them), lifestyles (does traveling three hours per day in a bus to do a McJob count as lifestyle?), health, families and social relationships.
I'll tell you why those people (except for the skycap) earn so much money: It's because society has its collective eyes permanently tuned towards the best performers in the totally false and misguided idea that they too could one day reach those heights. The article states factually that for every actor who makes $10 million, there are 1000 that wash dishes, and how many actors are there that truly act well enough to really deserve that $10 million?
It might be a sign of positive thinking to look towards society's best performers, but it would do society the world of good to seek some realism instead and realise that they themselves will never make it up there and look for more practical alternatives and to stop praising bad actors, corrupt CEOs, boring politicians and othodontists as if they were god.
As a recent Novell admin, I must say that Novell is one of the few companies, whose products, even though visciously confusing at times, have been a joy to use. I found NDS (eDirectory) to be an order of magnitue easier to configure and admin than AD or LDAP. Novell's NPDS (iPrint) is truly brilliant in the level of control it gives in printing workflow and Zenworks is an excellent tool that even works well with older Windows versions.
The things that Novell had going against it were Netware, which is an archaic pain on good days, even though it is very stable these days, and Novell's inability to adaquately market it's products in a clear manner.
Having all of Novell's goodies on Linux will be fantastic, and Novell would be idiots to sell out, especially if braindead analysts who do not deserve their jobs such as Laura Di(l)D(i)o say they should.
In fact the only thing that I worry about will be Novell's inability to market it's new self and products on Linux to PHB's who are notoriously dumb and will continue to believe that Novell is stuck somewhere around Netware4.1 for the next ten years in much the same fashion as those PHB's believe that the Mac is still sitting around System 7.5.
Yet another of my patented theoretical tangents, so either grab some beer or change the channel.
I know that the thrust of the author's article was to put people who can code in the spotlight of computer gee-whiz evolutionary theory, claiming that knowledge of say, html, is somehow beneficial as opposed to knowledge and posession of an MBA and the ability to manipulate us coders as we sweat over a screen. I sincerely doubt it. Computers are tools and knowledge of those tools, especially Windows is a prerequisite to getting a job or an education in some cases.
The market demands GUIs. Ordinary people at home would be absolutely lost today staring at the bash prompt or having to type driver addresses into the dos command.sys file using the dos editor. It's not as if people have become better at spelling since the advent of the internet, even though the correct spelling of any word is a google click away. People become adept at using tools and the market usually sorts out which ones are easier and win, in much the same way as people now know how to drive but have no more knowledge of the workings of a car even though it's been around for 100+ years.
As for the fact that GUIs only came after the CLI, I think that was a random fact influenced by our character based language. If say Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese had been the first developers of computers perhaps they would have started off with a totally different type of interface, one more along GUI lines to manipulate the computer.
IANAL (or his coffee boy) but one thing strikes me almost immediately upon reading the SCO and IBM requests and responses: IBM's method and language is far clearer and to the point than SCO's. IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic which basically states that IBM will present reasonable evidence as requested, but it requires that SCO also provide resonable evidence and point out exactly what, where and when has been infringed. That is something that SCO seems to have real problems in doing (and no, the 337'000 lines in 531 files in the Linux source that have been mentioned by SCO will not suffice as nowhere does SCO point out exactly, as required by law, which lines in those files are SCO's property with a reference to Unic source code), and SCO seems to have real problems in defining what has been infringed. In fact it seems as if SCO is trying to make a case as it goes along and has no real evidence to date.
What is also noticable is that IBM is bringing SCO's public behaviour into the case, finally. SCO is finally being called to account for it's disgusting public behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that IBM is going to use Darl, Chris and Mike's statements against them in court. I think those boys are probably too fucking stupid to realise that what they're said amounts to public record and is admissable in court. I hope they end up being as poor as I am. I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
Hey, cool reply! Thanks. As a Director developer in a previous life I was one of the people that almost went crazy at the loss of MTropolis, which was one of the most fantastic tools available, but Director really was the juggernaut in the niche that is CD-Rom based multimedia content and Flash is the juggernaut that is used in online multimedia content. I simply don't think that MS can dislodge them that easily. Given years, perhaps, but not in a short frame of time.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO is claiming that Novell's Linux aquisistion is competing against SCO, then what will SCO say when Novell point out that SCO was for quite a long time distributing it's own Linux distribution? Does that mean that SCO intends to sue itself?
SCO's poker game is incredibly high risk, and they really have shown an incredible ability to grasp at straws, but sooner or later there won't be any straws left, and SCO will be left either panting for funds from one of it's nebulous backers or dead in the water or both. I for one fully expect that MS will turn out to have been backing this show, even though I have no evidence.
I don't know whether the author is legally within his rights or not. Some claim he is, some claim he should have checked out his rights first.
I also don't know whether Apple is within it's rights or not, but I do know that Apple could have had the decency (or simple common sense in avoiding a PR scandal) to pay him for the software.
And that is what it boils down to really. Decency. I know all the yada yada yada Apple is in the business of making money yada yada and we're hard arsed bastards in this world yada yada, but decency goes a long way to ensuring good PR and employee loyalty and above all customer loyalty.
Whether Steve Jobs knew of this or not, I can only say the following to him: Be careful, Mr Jobs. Losing the loyalty of your employees can lose you the loyalty of your customers, and that it the one thing that Apple has always had above the rest. Don't fuck it up, because in the end, I don't care. I'll drop this Mac and run Linux or Windows if I see no difference between the business practices.
No, it's not some MS troll, but some thoughts after reading Paul Thurrot's blog and website, and all the points he makes (I mentioned some of this further down) and want to expand on it.
I don't think Paul Thurrot is a complete idiot. He really likes Windows, obviously, and seems to feel that MS has more to offer than Linux or Mac OSX. He does use both Linux and OSX and quite rightly points out some of the deficiencies that creep into OSX and Linux, albeit from the point of view of someone who has decided on which side of the fence he's sitting (Microsoft 4 ever).
He obviously, in light of his Windows bias, likes to point out problems, both existant and non existant in the two other OSes, such as the non-issue that Apple wasn't going to supply security fixes to Jaguar, and the initial problems with Panther Firewire and Filevault (there have been many of us on Mac forums that were really worried about this) and takes issue with Apple releasing a patch so quickly for those issues (would he have preferred waiting for a month?). He also points out general unhappiness with RH's Feodora (which Linux reviewers seem to agree with). He goes on to complain that the smallest iBook doesn't have the fastest processor as compared to the smallest Powerbook (why don't you just buy a 12" Powerbook then Paul?)
He also seems to see Longhorn as the next big thing in computing, and I for one agree that MS is probably going to have some pretty interesting features in it (the compositing, WinFS and multiple simultaneous users in the GUI for example) and it will probably be quite polished by the time it gets released.
Yet, he doesn't seem to see any problems with Microsoft's business practices, such as the fact that Longhorn Pro will only allow two simultaneous user sessions at once (Someone should tell him about Xwindows networking) and that the DRM features, while probably providing improved security will almost certainly cause havoc in companies that have a mix of older and newer software and will make lock-in even more odious than it is today as it will lock out any standards based mail or document system.
And this is what bothers me about so much of Microsoft's business: The OS (in Win2k and XP) has gotten to be reasonably stable and reliable and one cannot really argue the fact that so much software/games/hardware platforms etc are available, but Microsoft's decided lack of interest in real security (software vulnerability versus product activation i.e. Quality vs. Quantity) until the amount of derision in the press became overwhelming is a point in fact. Longhorn will be full of new features and will probably work well on then existing hardware, but one will by then almost certainly be tied into multiple DRM systems and I am willing to bet that MS will try it's subscription idea on home users again at some point.
It's a question of trust at the end of the day. Do I trust an OS that is completely open (Linux), mostly open (OSX), or mostly closed and locked up (Windows)?
I made my decision. I'm running OSX on my Powerbook.
The oldest and easiest way to track the IP address of where your mails are being read is to send an HTML coded e-mail with an image in it that is stored on a server where you have access to the logs. That might help a bit when they claim to be in Canada, Europe or where ever.
I just realised that SCO learned their entire new business approach from a Nigerian e-mail!
I've read a number of articles on Winsupersite, and come to the conclusion that Paul Thurrot really likes Windows. I read the bit where he takes four (4) laptops to the Microsoft PDC 2003 and then it hit me: He doesn't get it. He really doesn't get it. He's been to some of the OSX roll out events and claims that they're every bit as geeky as the Microsoft one's, yet I would be buggered to know why anyone takes 4 laptops (one of them an iBook) to a conference. I was under the impression that the purpose behind a laptop was to minimise one's burdens.
.Net, but I can see the costs invloved due the MS' hunger for money and control alienating many customers (Who the hell is going to trust MS not to lock them in? How many AV vendors are going to go out of business?)
And that attitude strikes me as the main failing behind almost all Microsoft OSes: Add so many features and doodahs that you kill any attempt at good usability. Can someone explain to me what a sidebar that takes up fully one sixth of the screen is doing there? I appreciate the fact that one would have a calendar, IM and mail notifications and all sorts of other stuff readily available, but wouldn't an improved task tray have solved that problem?
Crazy.
The task oriented approach as started in XP works with utter newbies. Doing sys admin, I saw anti-tech types and neophytes get on well with the task oriented approach. As we all know, most normal Windows users will get rid of the task stuff as soon as they can as it is damningly slow to do anything but I think many geeks and developers wildly over estimate the clueless newbie (I saw at least three people never use Windows Explorer and do all their searching and document managment from the Windows open/save dialogs-They didn't even know Windows Explorer existed, let alone know what a network drive or other computer arcana are). For home users and newbies, this is a good idea, make no mistake.
Apple's approach is make the UI consistent and simple, and is a good middle of the road approach and a better longterm idea, but Windows task stuff also works for newbies.
The Aero GUI running on the Avalon engine will no doubt be very good, but here too, I have the feeling that MS is going to overdo it in terms of mindlessly long paths to do any task, insane effects and crazy animations (what the fuck is a puppy doing there when I want to find something-- and yes I know you can get rid of it, but how easily?)
The palladium stuff will also find it's market in that some companies will swear by it. There will be just as many others that will swear at it though. It might very well help in terms of Virus and spam stuff though, but it really remains to be seen if that approach works, since there will be a lot of legacy stuff floating around which is usually where the exploits happen. I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt that they can make the OS more secure by rewriting the whole thing in
I dunno. I think Longhorn will probably be ok in terms of previous OSes, but I think the lock-in will be more painful and costly than before.
As someone who had a hell of a childhood and was beset by complexes (handicapped from birth) and loneliness (my father died when I was 9 and my mother's later boyfriend treated me like a dog), I can just say there are some things you should know and do if you're interested in your childrens well being:
1.Talk to them. It sound so simple, doesn't it? But is it? We all know as adults just how difficult the modern world is and how litttle time we have, but that overdone cliche about spending quality time with your children is damn important. Controlling your kids too much will make them fear you and lose your trust. Show them that you love them and are interested in their lives. Make them feel like home is a place of warmth and saftey and that you will protect them with everything you've got.
2.Treat them like real human beings. There are so many guides that advocate rules and strict parenting, but neglect the fact that your children are real human beings with their own personalities and feelings. Treating them with respect (privacy is important for them too) will help them when the time comes on the internet that some sicko doesn't treat them with respect.
3.Have a set of rules about what you can and will accept. This might seem paradoxial to what I said above, but it isn't. If you explain to your children why you set those rules instead of just being the parental nazi, they will be more likely to follow them. Having rules is important, very important, in that it shows children to realise and know what other people's limits are i.e. they realise as well that you are in fact a real person.
4.Never break their trust. This can be damn difficult, but it is damn important. Don't be too harsh if they break a rule or do something stupid. Show them you're angry or worried (yell if you need to, penalise them in a SMALL way if need be i.e. one week no internet or extra task around the house) but don't leave it at that. Talk to them afterward to show you're still interested. Learn to forgive your kids for breaking rules, and show them that it's ok. We all know how difficult and unforgiving life and society are. They don't need that at home as well, because then there's no difference between home and the wild for them.
I was under the impression that one could practically sue for almost anything in the US. Would it not be possible for someone to start a class action suit against the state election commission for willfully damaging the saftey of the democratic process in that state (MD)?
It's spelled "croissant".
If Microsoft actually defies the EU commision and refuses to remove MediaPlayer I would be totally interested as to what the EU would do. They would fine Microsoft but that is probably the least of Microsoft's worries, but would they actually go as far as forbidding the sale of Windows until this was cleared up? I doubt it because Windows is used by the vast majority of businesses in Europe where it has much the same dominant share as in the USA and the business lobby is as strong in the EU as it is in the US and they would protest loudly at any such moves.
I see that Microsoft probably knows this and would almost certainly start a huge PR campaign all over Europe to organise protest in support of Microsoft "innovation". Coupled to this the fact that the only slightly possible x86 alternative, SuSE, has just sold its soul to Novell, and you have no real alternative if Microsoft just decides to be stubborn.
I just don't see much that the EU can really do apart from mandating open source in all official areas, such as universities, governments etc in future in order to break Microsoft's lock-in.
Vidal undoubtedly had current pols like Bush and Ashcroft in mind when he wrote his latest book, his third in two years. Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson takes us deep into the psyches of the patriotic trio. And even with all of their human foibles on display -- vanity, ambition, hubris, envy and insecurity -- their shared and profoundly rooted commitment to building the first democratic nation on Earth comes straight to the fore.
I dislike making statements like this, but only an American could have said that. There was a democracy in Switzerland in Europe in the 8th century, almost 1000 years before the USA came to be. And it's not the only one. There were others as well.
But that's not really my point, although the American habit of forgetting that a world exists outside its borders is surely a problem. No, actually I think the problem in the USA is a two edged sword. On the one hand there are few nations that believe in a written document as religiously as the Americans do in their constitution (I doubt that even Islamic republics have as many true believers). That blind belief in the constitution and the freedoms that it entails is what makes America a country that is not beset by shifting forms of governments and revolutions.
But that same belief in a document that is over 200 years old also makes the USA inflexible to change until it gets forced on them by corrupt politicians using fear to corrupt the system and change the meaning of that document.
How is it possible that laws can effectively be bought with enough money? How is it possible that laws concerning copyright carry criminal charges instead of civil one's? How is it possible that laws concerning copyright carry sentences that are more draconian than some of those concerning such violent crimes such as rape, physical attacks etc?
Does this mean that the *AA will eventually try to get a mandatory death sentence into law for breaches of copyright? Will 12-year file sharers be treated as adults and be thus sent to the gas chamber? I know that it sounds ridiculous but who would have thought that one could go to jail for 3 years for sharing an illegal movie while the leaders of Enron and Worldcom can get away with ruiing thousands of people's lives.
And you think the rest of the world looks to the USA as a shining example of democracy and freedom?
I think the idea in itself is a wonderful one, and it's something that I thought about years ago as a solution to the (then) problem of finding good developers and reducing costs. But I see a problem and that is from commercial developers who now make expensive software that is well liked by by end users. Think of Adobe's or Macromedia's products or even products such as games.
Let us assume that company X wants to make a product, let's call it PhotoX, which it would like to sell in competition to Photoshop. If the development is all done under the GPL (as opposed to say, the LGPL or BSD licences) how could the company be in a position to make a profit from the product, since the GPL requires that sources be made available?
I see the problem remaining that there would be no one willing to invest in such models for enduser software such as the above mentioned. Given that such companies are very profitable today, I find it hard to see an opensource alternative today unless the BSD for example is also used.
He lives in California. Try Google.
Why in hell would SCO subpoena Linus, Transmeta and RMS? I am very confident when I say that Linus, RMS and Transmeta in it's Linux dealings have never done anything with respect to Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux, Richard old chap) that is not a matter of public record. All the files, patches etc that have been inlcuded in the Linux kernel are available on the internet, as is the GPL. Linus' work on Linux done while working for Transmeta is well known as he stated that his contract allowed him to work on Linux, and no one has ever thought that Transmeta had some hidden SMP/NUMA know how etc.
Likewise the early Linux/GPL story is also a matter of public record as are the files.
The Novell subpoena is probably pure blind shooting in an attempt to discover some hidden agenda to discredit SCO by Novell by choosing Linux as its future. The interesting bit here is that we will finally know what the true deal was between Novell and SCO over the Unix properties.
There are only three semi rational conclusions that I can come to:
1. is that SCO is going to try to destroy the GPL in court, either by claiming it is not a valid licence (you can imagine the precedence that would set up for Microsoft's fuck ugly EULA's) or by trying to do some nationalistic McArthy era skullduggery in claiming RMS is a commie traitor and Linus an incompetent leader i.e chracter assasination. However that would leave them wide open to massive claims of copyright abuse by all the Linux contributors.
2. is that Microsoft is truly behind this case and that it is all part of a final MS funded and supported massive attack on OSS that will either succede and lead to total dismissal of OSS in the US* or be a huge setback leading to criminal charges aginst many in the industry. The way things are going I'm not so certain that this isn't the way things are going to turn out. The stakes are pretty damn high and the whole thing stinks of some underhanded motives.
3. It is truly an utterly desperate attempt by a dying company to raise its stocks value or get bought out. I think the original attempt was to get bought out but Darl and company miscalculated horribly and then went for plan B which was to pump up the stocks and get out.
*This will have no swing whatsoever outside the US and will probably work against MS there.
However I have one hope for these subpoenas, and that is that Novell, now a Linux company with SuSE and Linus, finally get off their fucking collective fat arses, get some lawyers and sue the hell out of SCO. The result of multiple lawsuits against SCO will almost assuredly kill SCO's stock value pretty soon.
I posted earlier today on Microsoft's next round of FUD vis a vis the idea that they may very well have something to do with the SCO debacle. I mentioned that in 2001 Microsoft did exactly the same thing as they are going to do now i.e. start and spread a large FUD campaign against Linux because they are fucking terrified that their OS is going nowhere, especially in the server space, their reputation is going down the drain with the ceasless sea of viruses and even the big companies are now starting to talk about using Linux on the desktop.
There are some interesting and ironic underpinnings to this story:
Microsoft is terrified. They have no real reason to be terrified because they own somehwere around 97% of all desktop machines and they make money on every damn PC sold with OEM software on it. But that is not Microsoft's problem. Microsoft's problem is that Microsoft is the epitomy of greed and the mother of all control freaks. There has never been another company, apart perhaps from IBM in earlier years, which was so absolutely mindlessly terrified in losing a single percentage point in marketshare. There is no other company that is willing to rack up huge losses in a single market segment, and that over years (xbox, PocketPC anyone?) until, due to simply having thrown enough money and resources at the problem over years, they finally start making gains. It's a fucking minddead approach and one that only Microsoft could afford to do, but it often works in their case.
The ironic bit in this newest FUD campaign is that the same thing backfired on them badly when they did it in 2001. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they didn't think they could do the same thing again some years later, only this time they'll try to be more clever about it, including faked security benchmarks and other things. Microsoft cannot resist detracting anyone they are scared of, be it Apple's iTunes, Linux.
They are however extremely quiet and polite in markets where they are clearly the losers, be it in the xbox or mobile phone market.
And why are they the big losers in the mobile phone market? Because Microsoft has a track record of fucking every single partner over that they've ever worked with and apart from Microsoft marketing money dependant shitrag journalists like the creeps at ZDNet and CNet, almost everybody in the branch knows this and won't touch Microsoft with a 10 foot pole if they can avoid it.
This new campaign will almost assuredly fail, just give them time.
Having just read through quite a number of trolls interspersed with very many people shocked and highly suspicious that a vehicle with one wheel could actually work, and at the same time pointing to the Segway as somehow being Much Better(TM), I think I should point out a few things.
All those who think it is somehow unnatural for a vehicle to have one wheel (it's actually very much like a motorcycle at speeds below 12mph) have never seen anyone ride a unicycle. The ability to stay upright on a bicycle is due to the gyroscopic effect of the wheels turning, something which overweight geeks on their underexercised behinds perhaps have yet to discover. On this device you have the same effect while in motion plus there is an added horizontal gyroscope that spins up as the vehicle moves. That gyroscope tends to keep the vehicle upright although there are probably added sensors to adjust for rapid acceleration and braking.
Overall this device has a simpler and more natural approach to motion than the Segway, which suffers the fact that it has no natural gyroscopic effects to stay upright and must use a computer throughout. The person who claimed that the Segway's approach to motion (leaning forward to accelerate, backward to brake) is somehow better than this, apparently even at highway speeds (you're leaning far forward and someone abruptly stops in front of you? I'd love to see you gracefully stop either device in such conditions) should do some personal testing on the highway to see just how messy that could get, on either device.
I don't think that Microsoft is directly behind this action, but I sure as hell wouldn't put it past them to do so. They've done some pretty weird stuff in the past such as the famous dead people mailing initiative and their famous round of hideous anti-linux FUD in 2001 where Ballmer, Mundie and just about every honcho at MS were telling strange tales of viral cancer etc.
Given that they discovered that such direct FUD backfired but are reportedly gearing up for the next round of FUD with respect to security would you be willing to state with 100% certainty that MS is not behind this action?
I wouldn't.
If it is discovered through IBM's process of subpoenas that MS is in fact behind this I wonder what will happen then. I assume that MS will be facing a court action for trying to willfully harm a competitor's business that will make the $3 billion SCO claim look tame, and I think that there will be a number of anti-trust questions raised.
The big commercial software, music labels and movie studios are becomming more and more like big brother in 1984, using all the technical means at their disposal to become almost a law unto themselves (can someone explain to me how the fucking hell someone get's jailed without even profiting from the piracy?). And as for the quaint notion that some countries are better than others with respect to piracy, I think that is simply deceiving oneself*. Everywhere where those greedy disgusting bastards can bribe the officials in power in some manner, the same draconian prosecution will be applied.
Sooner or later one of these accused will commit suicide or will murder a prosecutor and then we really will be in our wonderful fascist superstate.
*The ironic thing is that Iran is one country where no copyright laws apply as they feel that God is the source of all innovation.
I would love to see an article highlighting the poorest and the richest, taking into consideration their jobs (or lack of them), lifestyles (does traveling three hours per day in a bus to do a McJob count as lifestyle?), health, families and social relationships.
I'll tell you why those people (except for the skycap) earn so much money: It's because society has its collective eyes permanently tuned towards the best performers in the totally false and misguided idea that they too could one day reach those heights. The article states factually that for every actor who makes $10 million, there are 1000 that wash dishes, and how many actors are there that truly act well enough to really deserve that $10 million?
It might be a sign of positive thinking to look towards society's best performers, but it would do society the world of good to seek some realism instead and realise that they themselves will never make it up there and look for more practical alternatives and to stop praising bad actors, corrupt CEOs, boring politicians and othodontists as if they were god.
As a recent Novell admin, I must say that Novell is one of the few companies, whose products, even though visciously confusing at times, have been a joy to use. I found NDS (eDirectory) to be an order of magnitue easier to configure and admin than AD or LDAP. Novell's NPDS (iPrint) is truly brilliant in the level of control it gives in printing workflow and Zenworks is an excellent tool that even works well with older Windows versions.
The things that Novell had going against it were Netware, which is an archaic pain on good days, even though it is very stable these days, and Novell's inability to adaquately market it's products in a clear manner.
Having all of Novell's goodies on Linux will be fantastic, and Novell would be idiots to sell out, especially if braindead analysts who do not deserve their jobs such as Laura Di(l)D(i)o say they should.
In fact the only thing that I worry about will be Novell's inability to market it's new self and products on Linux to PHB's who are notoriously dumb and will continue to believe that Novell is stuck somewhere around Netware4.1 for the next ten years in much the same fashion as those PHB's believe that the Mac is still sitting around System 7.5.
There's an "L" missing between the "i" and the "d" in that name above, which would properly demonstrate what her analysis is and has been worth.
Yet another of my patented theoretical tangents, so either grab some beer or change the channel.
I know that the thrust of the author's article was to put people who can code in the spotlight of computer gee-whiz evolutionary theory, claiming that knowledge of say, html, is somehow beneficial as opposed to knowledge and posession of an MBA and the ability to manipulate us coders as we sweat over a screen. I sincerely doubt it. Computers are tools and knowledge of those tools, especially Windows is a prerequisite to getting a job or an education in some cases.
The market demands GUIs. Ordinary people at home would be absolutely lost today staring at the bash prompt or having to type driver addresses into the dos command.sys file using the dos editor. It's not as if people have become better at spelling since the advent of the internet, even though the correct spelling of any word is a google click away. People become adept at using tools and the market usually sorts out which ones are easier and win, in much the same way as people now know how to drive but have no more knowledge of the workings of a car even though it's been around for 100+ years.
As for the fact that GUIs only came after the CLI, I think that was a random fact influenced by our character based language. If say Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese had been the first developers of computers perhaps they would have started off with a totally different type of interface, one more along GUI lines to manipulate the computer.
IANAL (or his coffee boy) but one thing strikes me almost immediately upon reading the SCO and IBM requests and responses: IBM's method and language is far clearer and to the point than SCO's. IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic which basically states that IBM will present reasonable evidence as requested, but it requires that SCO also provide resonable evidence and point out exactly what, where and when has been infringed. That is something that SCO seems to have real problems in doing (and no, the 337'000 lines in 531 files in the Linux source that have been mentioned by SCO will not suffice as nowhere does SCO point out exactly, as required by law, which lines in those files are SCO's property with a reference to Unic source code), and SCO seems to have real problems in defining what has been infringed. In fact it seems as if SCO is trying to make a case as it goes along and has no real evidence to date.
What is also noticable is that IBM is bringing SCO's public behaviour into the case, finally. SCO is finally being called to account for it's disgusting public behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that IBM is going to use Darl, Chris and Mike's statements against them in court. I think those boys are probably too fucking stupid to realise that what they're said amounts to public record and is admissable in court. I hope they end up being as poor as I am. I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
Hey, cool reply! Thanks. As a Director developer in a previous life I was one of the people that almost went crazy at the loss of MTropolis, which was one of the most fantastic tools available, but Director really was the juggernaut in the niche that is CD-Rom based multimedia content and Flash is the juggernaut that is used in online multimedia content. I simply don't think that MS can dislodge them that easily. Given years, perhaps, but not in a short frame of time.