"I'm as fired up now as I've ever been in 24 years at Microsoft,"
who gives a shit?
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten,"
yes, free / open source software will undoubtedly grow and flourish over the next decade.
Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
because ballmer is a douchebag, and he looks like uncle fester.
Advances in software in coming years would make such features practical, making "information workers" and those in fast-growing fields like healthcare more productive, he said.
what incredible powers of prediction! "advances in software will make information workers more productive". i've gotta write that down somewhere.
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
we're all especially ecstatic that microsoft has actually patented the XML formats of their documents, making them useless for XML's intended purpose - easy interchange of information - outside of microsoft products.
"The fact that companies like Oracle (Corp.), IBM (Corp.) and (Microsoft) have bet on an architected approach to interoperability is huge,"
"architected approach to interoperability". must write that down as well. may come up handy in my next meeting with management.
Ballmer scoffed at arguments that his company's operating system creates a computing "monoculture," [...] Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology, such as.NET
this public announcement was brought to you by the Totally Obviously Contradictory Council.
reducing the total cost of ownership of Windows compared with Linux, which is available for free, but often requires significant effort to integrate and maintain
especially with microsoft products. This behavior is by design. (tm), (c) microsoft support knowledgebase.
He cited a Microsoft-sponsored study by Forrester Research Inc. and a similar study by Gartner Inc. to bolster his claims.
in response, i would like to cite a study performed by my wife, commissioned by me, which finds that my cock is huge.
On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
mr ballmer has that to look forward to, at least.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked,"
yes, and if one of them is a consumer-oriented piece of dogshit for which security is an afterthought, and the other is a serious operating system with security designed in from the ground up and open to public review, guess which one will succumb to the attacks.
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
he can't possibly belive this means anything to anyone except non-tech managers who manage based on name recognition.
Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
and i would like to repeat the results of the study mentioned earlier in t
It's not suprising, but it's somewhat disappointing. MS was looking like they may be good to the community (and industry) for once. That didn't go far...
you don't honestly *believe* that MS has/had/will change its ways, do you?
some people will never learn.
listen up, everyone: it really isn't just knee-jerk hatred of MS. unless you hold MS stock and don't particularly care about computing, they really, honestly, truly do suck. they are evil, and they are a threat to free computing.
Yes, but it's when the good times turn into bad ones that they'll begin actually using their patent portfolio aggressively to keep their share value up.
...and the end-game to that will be that foreign governments will pull out of software patent agreements. advantage: F/OSS.
he's a rich guy (wrote yahoo stores or something) who has never even *used* java.
i've read several of his articles, and none of them strike me as particlarly insightful. most are more of the "hey, i have this quirky idea, which i think is cool but is actually rather mediocre, and i have a lot of leisure time on my hands, so i'm going to flatter myself by dwelling on my quirky, mediocre idea in public" variety.
how do normal open source projects start? a person or a group of people decide they need some software or have a cool idea that they would like to implement. they start the project and try to spread the word to get others interested.
how does MS do it? some guy from the bowels of the corporation comes out and says "say fellas, what would you like to do? anything, it doesn't matter. we don't care what it is. hell, we couldn't care less what happens to the project. just as long as you're all kept busy as little beavers, investing your time and skills in MS products, and not contributing time to real F/OSS projects. so, what'll it be? what MOTIVATES you strange creatures who have principles and actually code for pleasure and don't indenture yourselves to a massive corporation without the slightest concern for the overall computing landscape? how can we ENTICE you away from more worthy projects and toward some harmless time-waster that won't make F/OSS stronger?"
i get the feeling microsoft execs have been seeing this guy hanging around their offices a lot lately.
leveraging open source software, google offered excellent, browser-agnostic search with a minimum of clutter and advertising.
over the long term, this can be the same formula for success in IM. there is inertia and critical mass to overcom re: existing IM services, but the jabber technology, being free/open, and striving for interoperability with other protocols for its own sake instead of some strategic market share move, has a lot to offer.
i recently turned on a co-worker's windows pc, and practically got dizzy when the advertisement-laden AOL signon thing came up.
Personally, I don't wear company-branded shirts any more at all. I don't want to be a walking advertising billboard (who has had to pay for the privilege of advertising the company when I bought the damned thing). All the t-shirts I've bought recently have been a plain single colour with no logos.
i kill three birds with one stone: i buy F/OSS clothing. for the office, the more tasteful polo shirts with a tux or mozilla or debian logo is fine. i get a shirt, some F/OSS project gets a few bucks, and something i believe in gets free advertising wherever i go.
i've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that what we need is a unix-like OS with a BSD license for those who find the GPL unsuitable for their needs.
oh wait - there already is - it's called B S FUCKIN' D.
Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one.45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
true socialism will always fail because you still have the same power-hungry leaders defining the structure, and they will always define the structure towards their own interests, JUST LIKE CAPITALISM.
actually socialism will fail because it's based on false premises about human psychology.
the interesting question to me is whether that psychology is innate, or manufactured; and whether it's obsolete, and if so, if it can be changed.
i don't care about the implications for crypto or the science behind all of this. i just want to know what the fuck a "rump session" is, and would appreciate tips on avoiding them if i should go to such a conference.
Perhaps you could elucidate instead of just state? I find most people who spout such nonsense to be the inferior workers. Perhaps you aren't, fine. Most seem to be.
sure, if you could elaborate on just what in my statement you found confusing.
How nice of you to tell him what his environment is like.
my observation was more general than you understand it to be.
Having seen organized labor first-hand, I disagree with your view. I find it to be no more than bullying to allow slackers to pay them dues.
that seems to be a rather prejudiced observation, and demonstraby false. i, too, have seen organized labor, in a white-collar setting, and that's not what a find at all.
Ideally, mayhap, but in the real world they don't do that.
...from your perspective.
i don't doubt that there are seedy elements in labor unions, and perhaps some are hopelessly corrupt. but there are also those that are above-board and work well. and, in any case, they have gotten real gains for their employees.
Re:That's the goal
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
the goal of a just, modern society is workers who work less for more. The idea that we should all be furious worker bees is crap pushed on us by staggeringly greedy bastards who have been living like kings off other people's backs for as long as human society existed.
amen, brother.
what's sad about it from my perspective (my hair grows grey and my knees aren't quite what they used to be) is that so many bright, energetic young people just don't recognize this fundamental truth.
it's like reverse-idealism: in their optimistic prime, young people are more willing to spend their days, nights and weekends wading around in the shit their corporate masters pour on them, because they earnestly believe that *they* are special, and that *they* will be the ones who succeed, and they're therefore willing to accept a labor environment that's unjust and socially primitive overall.
as time goes on, you realize how much of your life and soul you've devoted to making other people rich and comfortable, and you resent the means they've used to get you to do that... and even if you've accumulated some material wealth in the process, the balance sheet looks questionable.
the current economic system has produced some miracles to be sure, and perhaps it may be the best that human beings can do - but don't fool yourself: an enormous price has been paid by a great many, while a relative few have paradise handed to them as a result.
The bottom line? My only way to resist is not stealing stuff from works or unionizing. Unionizing would hurt myself and others like me who are well above average in skill, productivity, and value-added to the company.
that's a nice personal perspective, but what about the (by definition) large majority of workers who are *not* "well above average"?
true, employment is driven by a series of sticks and carrots, and i don't think we can get away from that; but should human beings necessarily have their destinies dictated by the results of endless "cage-match" style antagonism with their fellow workers (competitors), having nothing but their personal, individual strengths to protect them?
i think there is a role for collective power in the labor force. sure, everyone wants to maximize productivity, but there is something to be said for smoothing out the distribution of wealth too, and coming to common understandings about what makes a humane, non-hellish work environment. even if you, personally, believe you would do better in a dog-eat-dog environment, you're still living the life of a dog, and consigning those around you (many of whom, admittedly, may have lesser talents than yourself) to the same circumstances.
organized labor is simply the counterweight to amassed capital in the hands of the economic elite. capital would love to deal with each worker-unit individually, and play one against the other. the role of labor is to realize labor's true worth as a unit.
it would be great if a "sensing" ad technology could also determine that i have no fucken disposable income, and just go dark to save us both the hassle.
Slashdot Mirror
who gives a shit?
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten,"
yes, free / open source software will undoubtedly grow and flourish over the next decade.
Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
because ballmer is a douchebag, and he looks like uncle fester.
Advances in software in coming years would make such features practical, making "information workers" and those in fast-growing fields like healthcare more productive, he said.
what incredible powers of prediction! "advances in software will make information workers more productive". i've gotta write that down somewhere.
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
we're all especially ecstatic that microsoft has actually patented the XML formats of their documents, making them useless for XML's intended purpose - easy interchange of information - outside of microsoft products.
"The fact that companies like Oracle (Corp.), IBM (Corp.) and (Microsoft) have bet on an architected approach to interoperability is huge,"
"architected approach to interoperability". must write that down as well. may come up handy in my next meeting with management.
Ballmer scoffed at arguments that his company's operating system creates a computing "monoculture," [...] Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology, such as .NET
this public announcement was brought to you by the Totally Obviously Contradictory Council.
reducing the total cost of ownership of Windows compared with Linux, which is available for free, but often requires significant effort to integrate and maintain
especially with microsoft products. This behavior is by design. (tm), (c) microsoft support knowledgebase.
He cited a Microsoft-sponsored study by Forrester Research Inc. and a similar study by Gartner Inc. to bolster his claims.
in response, i would like to cite a study performed by my wife, commissioned by me, which finds that my cock is huge.
On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
mr ballmer has that to look forward to, at least.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked,"
yes, and if one of them is a consumer-oriented piece of dogshit for which security is an afterthought, and the other is a serious operating system with security designed in from the ground up and open to public review, guess which one will succumb to the attacks.
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
he can't possibly belive this means anything to anyone except non-tech managers who manage based on name recognition.
Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
and i would like to repeat the results of the study mentioned earlier in t
i bet the local walmart will take on a subtle, eerie glow at night.
i hear he himself had that protective shield installed.
i spend most of my time on the internet spotting holes, come to think of it.
yes, but the person who moved into it after i left would need to get up the driveway, so evicting me wouldn't help.
i wouldn't drive one if i didn't need it to get up my fucken driveway in the winter.
you don't honestly *believe* that MS has/had/will change its ways, do you?
some people will never learn.
listen up, everyone: it really isn't just knee-jerk hatred of MS. unless you hold MS stock and don't particularly care about computing, they really, honestly, truly do suck. they are evil, and they are a threat to free computing.
then we can use the cell-phone itself to sterilize any idiot who actually buys things for someone who doesn't exist!
i've read several of his articles, and none of them strike me as particlarly insightful. most are more of the "hey, i have this quirky idea, which i think is cool but is actually rather mediocre, and i have a lot of leisure time on my hands, so i'm going to flatter myself by dwelling on my quirky, mediocre idea in public" variety.
how does MS do it? some guy from the bowels of the corporation comes out and says "say fellas, what would you like to do? anything, it doesn't matter. we don't care what it is. hell, we couldn't care less what happens to the project. just as long as you're all kept busy as little beavers, investing your time and skills in MS products, and not contributing time to real F/OSS projects. so, what'll it be? what MOTIVATES you strange creatures who have principles and actually code for pleasure and don't indenture yourselves to a massive corporation without the slightest concern for the overall computing landscape? how can we ENTICE you away from more worthy projects and toward some harmless time-waster that won't make F/OSS stronger?"
i get the feeling microsoft execs have been seeing this guy hanging around their offices a lot lately.
this is just a steak thrown to the dogs to distract them long enough for the bad guy to do his stuff.
christ, MS is desperate as hell, aren't they? they're trying everything at the same time, no matter how pathetic.
over the long term, this can be the same formula for success in IM. there is inertia and critical mass to overcom re: existing IM services, but the jabber technology, being free/open, and striving for interoperability with other protocols for its own sake instead of some strategic market share move, has a lot to offer.
i recently turned on a co-worker's windows pc, and practically got dizzy when the advertisement-laden AOL signon thing came up.
i kill three birds with one stone: i buy F/OSS clothing. for the office, the more tasteful polo shirts with a tux or mozilla or debian logo is fine. i get a shirt, some F/OSS project gets a few bucks, and something i believe in gets free advertising wherever i go.
is there nothing that does not reek with the stench of hyper-corporatism?
oh wait - there already is - it's called B S FUCKIN' D.
damn business-weasels.
Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
it would be perfect for delivering, say, five grams of crack from, say, microsoft marketing to, say, microsoft engineering.
actually socialism will fail because it's based on false premises about human psychology.
the interesting question to me is whether that psychology is innate, or manufactured; and whether it's obsolete, and if so, if it can be changed.
"we're about to make ourselves irrellllllevannnnt..."
i don't care about the implications for crypto or the science behind all of this. i just want to know what the fuck a "rump session" is, and would appreciate tips on avoiding them if i should go to such a conference.
sure, if you could elaborate on just what in my statement you found confusing.
How nice of you to tell him what his environment is like.
my observation was more general than you understand it to be.
Having seen organized labor first-hand, I disagree with your view. I find it to be no more than bullying to allow slackers to pay them dues.
that seems to be a rather prejudiced observation, and demonstraby false. i, too, have seen organized labor, in a white-collar setting, and that's not what a find at all.
Ideally, mayhap, but in the real world they don't do that.
i don't doubt that there are seedy elements in labor unions, and perhaps some are hopelessly corrupt. but there are also those that are above-board and work well. and, in any case, they have gotten real gains for their employees.
amen, brother.
what's sad about it from my perspective (my hair grows grey and my knees aren't quite what they used to be) is that so many bright, energetic young people just don't recognize this fundamental truth.
it's like reverse-idealism: in their optimistic prime, young people are more willing to spend their days, nights and weekends wading around in the shit their corporate masters pour on them, because they earnestly believe that *they* are special, and that *they* will be the ones who succeed, and they're therefore willing to accept a labor environment that's unjust and socially primitive overall.
as time goes on, you realize how much of your life and soul you've devoted to making other people rich and comfortable, and you resent the means they've used to get you to do that... and even if you've accumulated some material wealth in the process, the balance sheet looks questionable.
the current economic system has produced some miracles to be sure, and perhaps it may be the best that human beings can do - but don't fool yourself: an enormous price has been paid by a great many, while a relative few have paradise handed to them as a result.
that's a nice personal perspective, but what about the (by definition) large majority of workers who are *not* "well above average"?
true, employment is driven by a series of sticks and carrots, and i don't think we can get away from that; but should human beings necessarily have their destinies dictated by the results of endless "cage-match" style antagonism with their fellow workers (competitors), having nothing but their personal, individual strengths to protect them?
i think there is a role for collective power in the labor force. sure, everyone wants to maximize productivity, but there is something to be said for smoothing out the distribution of wealth too, and coming to common understandings about what makes a humane, non-hellish work environment. even if you, personally, believe you would do better in a dog-eat-dog environment, you're still living the life of a dog, and consigning those around you (many of whom, admittedly, may have lesser talents than yourself) to the same circumstances.
organized labor is simply the counterweight to amassed capital in the hands of the economic elite. capital would love to deal with each worker-unit individually, and play one against the other. the role of labor is to realize labor's true worth as a unit.
it would be great if a "sensing" ad technology could also determine that i have no fucken disposable income, and just go dark to save us both the hassle.