Honestly I think the Netscape brand was destroyed during the 4.x days. When I hear Netscape I get the shivers, even though the other side of my brain knows v6/7 is a completely different codebase.
Mozilla is a new start and the only complaint I have is the ugly Netscape-theme which comes out at default (which also gives me the shivers).
I bet in the EULA you have to sign to use such a device there is a clause like:
" * Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), [insert big corp here] may provide security related updates that will be automatically downloaded into your brain. These security related updates may disable your ability to see/listen Secure Content and/or may disable portions of your brain. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update."
(I like the last sentence best. I just could not make the last sentence any better than the original. This last sentence assures me that everything is fine and nobody has to worry.)
Now just let's hope that they never implement Product Activation on this. (Use of insecure content detected, brain shutting down...)
IBM gave them the OS-monopoly on preinstalled IBM-PCs back in 1981.
After that, they just followed the industry and were late on every computer related motion there was. The GUI, multitasking the transition to 32 and 64 bits are things where Microsoft was always very late. Bill Gates assured us in 1993 that he's not interested in the Internet for example.
That's pretty much it. Everybody would have made billions with that monopoly. actually Microsoft are not evil genuises, they are just lucky and pretty incompetent.
More importantly, FreeDOS does not contain the "L"-word.
While a few years ago Microsoft would have tracked down everything non-Windows, they seem to have backed to the position to accept everything that is not Linux.
Microsoft is on the defensive in every market. They have to pay people to keep using Windows (Peru, etc. Anybody guess how long other countries figure that out and want a similar deal? Peru could be a big disaster for MSFT) which doesn't sound like a viable business model in the long-term for me.
If the cost to develop the software + safety margin is > X' * Z' (where Delta and Markup maximize profit), then they shouldn't develop it in the first place.
Since you don't know how many copies you will sell, you don't know how big the cost is per copy sold.
Q.E.D.
And somebody selling lemons or lemonade is not selling software. Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics.
The proof?
Open source works in software, but not in not a single non-software market.
Software means high fixed costs and neglectible variable costs which causes a tendendency to monopolies/dominations (like Windows, Quicken, Photoshop). Actually, the market breaks down when it comes to software (commercial competition ceases sooner or later) and the non-commercial open-source model works much more efficient than closed-source.
And you are right, music, movies and books (in general everything that sells information) is indeed similar to software. However you can't take "Alien 1" and modify it to get "Alien 2" so I doubt that we see open movies anytime soon.
A company won't sell software for less than the cost unless they are stupid.
Wrong. Again.
When you got the software-product, you have already spent the money. Not selling the product won't bring it back.
The goal is to extract the most money out of the market. If it turns out that the market does not cover the expenses, that's too bad, but doesn't change the goal to extract the most out of the market.
Why do you think companies always set the price at the last minute?
Again:
Costs are irrelevant when setting the price for a software product
Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics, get that through your head.
This decreases the costs to both companies and market forces bring down the cost of the packages relative to the benefit gained by the tax funded library.
In what naive world do you live?
Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.
Whats the point of turning linux into a windows machine?
There is no point in that.
But you should be able to run legacy-apps.
You know, just like Win16 could run DOS apps and Win9x could run Win16 apps and WinXP can run Win9x apps.
Re:Evolving Concepts at Microsoft are Frightening
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, the most important part of Microsoft-trustworthy computing is:
"We don't trust you."
Re:Yes, but who's fault is it? Not MS'!
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 2
Everytime some issue surfaces on Windows, numerous MSFT-shareholders ^W -supporters come out of the woodwork and scream "It's not MSFT's fault! It's not MSFT's fault!"
First, why should *anybody* care whose fault it is? This reminds me of the Code-Red fiasco. The Windows-shills are not interested in solutions, the only thing they are interested in is that their sacred, worshipped Microsoft is not blamed. (Pretty good illustrated by the "smash computer with huge hammer" - exploit.)
Second, if Win32 is the only affected platform, maybe, just maybe it's MSFT's fault after all. But (see above) it's irrelevant whose fault it is. It's obviously a Win32 problem and a very good reason not to run a Win32-platform, no matter if Microsoft, evil hackers, CowboyNeal or the bad weather is to be blamed.
Actually, Microsoft is pretty stupid warning about this.
Because when Microsoft sais "Linux is a threat to intellectual property rights", all Joe Sixpack will understand is "If I want to keep pirating mp3s and moviez, I'll have to switch to Linux"
So far, Microsoft has not found FUD against Linux that actually works...
Re:But it makes the firewall illegal, no?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2
There is a difference between them claiming it and them actually having it.
First, in countries without consumer protection laws (= USA) Microsoft really has that right. Second, the only thing that really matters is what Microsoft thinks. Even in countries with consumer protection laws, the software will behave just like in the USA and will install whatever Microsoft wants.
It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished.
They can just keep violators from getting activation codes.
Re:Remote Admin Rights?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is typical of MSFT-apologists
"It's no big deal, everybody is doing it"
"No, Microsoft is the only who does [nasty things]"
"Then don't use it, geeez."
First of all, even if you only "go with manual updates" Microsoft still has the right to ignore all settings you made and install one update or another (DRM) anyway.
As long as you can find a way to do it from outside my front door, sure.
If the police has the RIGHT (=search warrant) to enter the house, you go to jail if you treat them like burglars.
When Microsoft has the RIGHT (= this EULA) to do whatever they want on your computer, you are an evil hacker/pirate/terrorist when you deny them their right.
They don't have any "secret" technology like you are implying here.
You answer it yourself
The only way will be for the client machine to initiate the connection. a.k.a. Automatic Windows Update
You only got it wrong that this is the only way.
Right now, they just have to ignore the setting that disables Windows Update. Not really hard, isn't it?
Of course, if they are smart, they would use IE and download the patches whenever you go to microsoft.com or msn.com or hotmail.com (They control hotmail, don't forget that). No firewall, nothing can stop them.
(Of course this is not needed as the ordinary Joe will just use the in-built firewall, which - well you get the idea.
Re:But it makes the firewall illegal, no?
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 2
Please mod parent up.
Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want on your computer.
Trying to stop them is not only futile but also illegal.
When will people start to think and ignore the mostly irrelevant transfer rates?
transfer rates are irrelevant in most cases, I don't care if I can get 6MB/s or 600MB/s after the DVD has spun up if takes 5 seconds to spin up and over 100ms to reposition.
That's why SCSI-drives are still better than IDE-drives, because they just don't make any > 10000rpm IDE-drives...
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla is a new start and the only complaint I have is the ugly Netscape-theme which comes out at default (which also gives me the shivers).
I bet in the EULA you have to sign to use such a device there is a clause like:
" * Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ("Secure Content"), [insert big corp here] may provide security related updates that will be automatically downloaded into your brain. These security related updates may disable your ability to see/listen Secure Content and/or may disable portions of your brain. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update."
(I like the last sentence best. I just could not make the last sentence any better than the original. This last sentence assures me that everything is fine and nobody has to worry.)
Now just let's hope that they never implement Product Activation on this. (Use of insecure content detected, brain shutting down...)
While Dell is probably forced to have the same list-price for all OSes, Microsoft can't forbid them to grant discounts or extra stuff to customers.
If Dell wants to win a big contract, FreeDOS will allow them to reduce their prices a little more than they could with Windows.
IBM gave them the OS-monopoly on preinstalled IBM-PCs back in 1981.
After that, they just followed the industry and were late on every computer related motion there was. The GUI, multitasking the transition to 32 and 64 bits are things where Microsoft was always very late. Bill Gates assured us in 1993 that he's not interested in the Internet for example.
That's pretty much it. Everybody would have made billions with that monopoly. actually Microsoft are not evil genuises, they are just lucky and pretty incompetent.
While a few years ago Microsoft would have tracked down everything non-Windows, they seem to have backed to the position to accept everything that is not Linux.
Microsoft is on the defensive in every market. They have to pay people to keep using Windows (Peru, etc. Anybody guess how long other countries figure that out and want a similar deal? Peru could be a big disaster for MSFT) which doesn't sound like a viable business model in the long-term for me.
Windows-domination will in a couple of years.
If you are too stupid to drink coffee, you should be put into a geriatric clinic (or equivalent) but you should not be honored for your stupidity.
We'll talk about that in 2 years when Microsoft has "upgraded" anybody they could catch with DRM.
Since you don't know how many copies you will sell, you don't know how big the cost is per copy sold.
Q.E.D.
And somebody selling lemons or lemonade is not selling software. Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics.
The proof?
Open source works in software, but not in not a single non-software market.
Software means high fixed costs and neglectible variable costs which causes a tendendency to monopolies/dominations (like Windows, Quicken, Photoshop). Actually, the market breaks down when it comes to software (commercial competition ceases sooner or later) and the non-commercial open-source model works much more efficient than closed-source.
And you are right, music, movies and books (in general everything that sells information) is indeed similar to software. However you can't take "Alien 1" and modify it to get "Alien 2" so I doubt that we see open movies anytime soon.
Does anybody know wether you can upgrade XBox-RAM?
Wrong. Again.
When you got the software-product, you have already spent the money. Not selling the product won't bring it back.
The goal is to extract the most money out of the market. If it turns out that the market does not cover the expenses, that's too bad, but doesn't change the goal to extract the most out of the market.
Why do you think companies always set the price at the last minute?
Again:
Costs are irrelevant when setting the price for a software product
Software economics work fundamentally different than normal economics, get that through your head.
Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.
Reread that statement. I did not say that prices are irrelevant, I said that costs are irrelevant in setting the price.
Peru got big bucks because the threatened to go open-source.
I guess next year the other Latin-American states will do the same, the year after that all 3rd world countries.
Winlots, face it: Microsoft has to pay people to mak them run Windows.
We'll see if that's a viable business model...
In what naive world do you live?
Software companies will charge whatever the market will pay. It's irrelevant how much the software cost.
Yes, because they got sucked into a dead platform (XBox).
There is no point in that.
But you should be able to run legacy-apps.
You know, just like Win16 could run DOS apps and Win9x could run Win16 apps and WinXP can run Win9x apps.
"We don't trust you."
First, why should *anybody* care whose fault it is? This reminds me of the Code-Red fiasco. The Windows-shills are not interested in solutions, the only thing they are interested in is that their sacred, worshipped Microsoft is not blamed. (Pretty good illustrated by the "smash computer with huge hammer" - exploit.)
Second, if Win32 is the only affected platform, maybe, just maybe it's MSFT's fault after all. But (see above) it's irrelevant whose fault it is. It's obviously a Win32 problem and a very good reason not to run a Win32-platform, no matter if Microsoft, evil hackers, CowboyNeal or the bad weather is to be blamed.
Because when Microsoft sais "Linux is a threat to intellectual property rights", all Joe Sixpack will understand is "If I want to keep pirating mp3s and moviez, I'll have to switch to Linux"
So far, Microsoft has not found FUD against Linux that actually works...
First, in countries without consumer protection laws (= USA) Microsoft really has that right. Second, the only thing that really matters is what Microsoft thinks. Even in countries with consumer protection laws, the software will behave just like in the USA and will install whatever Microsoft wants.
It would be up to Microsoft to go after every single violator that they want punished.
They can just keep violators from getting activation codes.
"It's no big deal, everybody is doing it"
"No, Microsoft is the only who does [nasty things]"
"Then don't use it, geeez."
First of all, even if you only "go with manual updates" Microsoft still has the right to ignore all settings you made and install one update or another (DRM) anyway.
What will you do? Sue them?
If the police has the RIGHT (=search warrant) to enter the house, you go to jail if you treat them like burglars.
When Microsoft has the RIGHT (= this EULA) to do whatever they want on your computer, you are an evil hacker/pirate/terrorist when you deny them their right.
So when(if)ever a new GPL comes out, you only can win, not lose.
You answer it yourself
The only way will be for the client machine to initiate the connection. a.k.a. Automatic Windows Update
You only got it wrong that this is the only way.
Right now, they just have to ignore the setting that disables Windows Update. Not really hard, isn't it?
Of course, if they are smart, they would use IE and download the patches whenever you go to microsoft.com or msn.com or hotmail.com (They control hotmail, don't forget that). No firewall, nothing can stop them.
(Of course this is not needed as the ordinary Joe will just use the in-built firewall, which - well you get the idea.
Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want on your computer.
Trying to stop them is not only futile but also illegal.
transfer rates are irrelevant in most cases, I don't care if I can get 6MB/s or 600MB/s after the DVD has spun up if takes 5 seconds to spin up and over 100ms to reposition.
That's why SCSI-drives are still better than IDE-drives, because they just don't make any > 10000rpm IDE-drives...