This probably won't affect WC3 sales at all. Sure a few people won't buy it because of this. But Joe Bob consumer who walks into Best Buy to buy it because Computer Gaming World said that it is a good game doesn't give a care about the DCMA. They are the ones they are selling to.
It is really about corporations doing an end run around the system as much as individuals hacking products. Think about it. They are doing something illegal (well, unconstitutional) to get their way. What is copying CDs or downloading MP3s you don't own, or DivXs or whatever? Doing something illegal to get their own way. The corporations are just bigger and better at it.
The stockholders would be getting screwed if they were expecting to get a dividend. They have purchased stock knowing full well (or at least they should or else they shouldn't be buying stock) that MS has never paid a divident, nor are they expected or legally obligated to. If the stockholders don't like it, then sell, and buy GE.
I can't quite understand why it didn't get nominated for any musical categories. Basically anything that Baz had to do with, didn't get nominated. How does a movie get nominated for Best Picture, but not for direction?
This is what well designed OO projects are supposed to be like. The key is then make the infrastructure between the components secure. When that communication/whatever is secure, then each component is the aformentioned "little program" that does "one task". I think one of the biggest problems is the amount of hybrid OO/traditional programs our there.
Look at TRW Space and defence in Redondo beach CA, look at BAE Systems in San Diego. Those places are cutting edge. I don't understance the "2nd or 3rd rate" comment, definitly troll.
Remember that ARPANET was developed by government contractors.
Job for life mentality? What does that mean? Their company offers a pension instead of stock options that may well evaporate? They offer job security? Those things are more important as you grow older and get married and whatnot.
I interviewed with TRW. (Didn't take it because I decided I didn't like Cali). One of the people that I was interviewed by was actually a telemetry engineer for the Apollo 13 mission. That was cool.
The reason that a lot of places don't get much attention is that most of the really cool stuff to work on is rated DOD Top secret.
When I taught an introductrry class at Purdue (3 years ago), we had a similar thing. It worked on both source and object level. It had a scaleable sensitivity, so that we could compensate for things that could only be written a few ways, for example linked list implementations. When it did find suspects, it would allow us to do a split window Diff on the files with the suspected portions highlighted. It was pretty sweet. I would always demo it the first day of class to scare the crap out of the kids.
We usually cought 5-10 per semester (out of about 200). Most of those were people who would steal printouts from the printers in the back of the room and copy the code.
It was always most obvious (and most pathetic) when 2 people would turn in things that were broken, in the same way, just with variable names changed. Ex:
for(i = 0, i max, ++i)... and
for(counter = 0, counter maxSize, ++counter)...
The trick that you would need to do is to make sure you wrap a lot of the OS rheteroric in a way that doesn't sound communist or anti-capitalist.
As soon as your opponent would say: " wants to give away all software, and that will cost jobs, especially in this industry where people are being laid off now" then you are sunk with the 40,000 people who don't know the industry.
Another thing you will realize, is that, on the whole, people don't care about the same things that get discussed on here. They just don't. Perhaps they should, but that doesn't make it happen. So again, I wish you luck.
Why can't the auto manufactures develop a decent HUD. Imagine something that could project the centerline of the road on the window when it is snowing or raining hard. Or perhaps, it could incorporate itself with the collision avoidence systems and show when obstacles are in the way.
You could even have a game in it, you know. . if someone cuts you off on the highway, then you press a button on the stearing wheel, and it sends a projected missle at it or something.
Seriously, I think HUDS in cars would be great, and it would definitly limit the above mentioned "head-down" time.
No government has taken action like this because the states cannot afford to bring down thier entire IT infrastrucure for the change in OS, change in file formats for all of the millions of existing documents, and for the training and support for all of the newbies.
"Free" software is free(beer) when used by an educated individual, but is not free when it somes to an enterprise solution.
Lots of companies have vast amounts of data, both text and otherwise to which they need access. The company I work for, Maxim-IT, Inc focuses on search technologies for non-structured data (like CAD files and the like).
This would be great for an industrial shop floor QA system. It could take the picture and then analyze the photo for measurements and then check each and every part, as they fly across the line. I know systems that do this exist, but most of those use lasers and are much more expensive.
For Java to do anything bad it has to have explicit permission from the user. In that case, in my opinion, it isn't a virus, just a dangerous program and the user should acuatlly read the warning boxes.
It could happen if some company would give away the private keys for a trusted company and then use that key to sign a modified and dangerous version. (Say like a rooted version of Yahoo chat or something like that, that has to be trusted to run right.)
Beta/VHS wasn't about image quality. It was about porn. People chose to have less quality porn over no porn (since all content had to be approved by the Beta people before they would allow it to be shipped).
[ I originally was going to post nothing on this topic. I'm burned
out, and I don't want my fatigue to appear like I'm posting
self-indulgent garbage. However, several people have argued with
me, and convinced me that maybe I should make a statement to "end an
era," and as a piece of net "history." At the least, even if it is
perceived as self-indulgent garbage, it will fit right in with the
rest of the net. ]
There is a Zen adage about how anything one cannot bear to give up is
not owned, but is in fact the owner. What follows relates how I am
owned by one less thing....
About a dozen years ago, when I was still a grad student at Georgia
Tech, we got our first Usenet connection (to allegra, then being run
by Peter Honeyman, I believe). I'd been using a few dial-in BBS
systems for a while, so it wasn't a huge transition for me. I quickly
got "hooked": I can claim to be someone who once read every newsgroup
on Usenet for weeks at a time!
After several months, I realized that it was difficult for a newcomer
to tell what newsgroups were available and what they covered. I made
a pass at putting together some information, combined it with a
similar list compiled by another netter, and began posting it for
others to use. Eventually, the list was joined by other documents
describing net history and information.
In April of 1982 (I believe it was -- I saved no record of the year,
but I know it was April), I began posting those lists regularly,
sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; the longest break was for 4
months a few years ago when I was recovering from pneumonia and poor
personal time management. (Tellingly, only a few people noticed the
lack of postings, and almost all the mail was "When will they come
out?" rather than "Did something happen?") As time went on, people
began to attach far more significance to the posts than I really
intended. It was flattering for a very short time, and a burden for
most of the rest; there is no telling how much time I have devoted
over the last decade to answering questions, editing the postings, and
debating the role of newsgroup naming, to cite a few topics. I really
tired of being a "semi-definitive" voice.
Starting several years ago, at about the time people started pushing
for group names designed to offend or annoy others, or with a lack of
concern about the possible effects it might have on the net as a whole
(e.g., rec.drugs and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac) I began to question
why I was doing the postings. I have had a growing sense of futility:
people on the net can't possibly find the postings useful, because
most of the advice in them is completely ignored. People don't seem
to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly
violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature
files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common
sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings
of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly
indicating that they aren't being read. "Sendsys" bombs and forgeries
abound. People rail about their "rights" without understanding that
every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not
least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them
respect your own. Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise
are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days.
I have finally concluded that my view of how things should be is too
far out-of-step with the users of the Usenet, and that my efforts are
not valued by enough people for me to invest any more of my energy in
the process. I am tired of the effort involved, and the meager --
nay, nonexistent -- return on my volunteer efforts.
This hasn't happened all at once, but it has happened. Rather than
bemoan it, I am acting on it: the set of "periodic postings" posted
earlier this week was my last. After 11 years, I'm hanging it up.
David Lawrence and Mark Moraes have generously (naively?) agreed to
take over the postings, for whatever good they may still do. David
will do the checkgroups, and lists of newsgroups and moderators
(news.lists), and Mark will handle the other informational postings
(news.announce.newusers).
I'm not predicting the death of the Usenet -- it will continue without
me, with nary a hiccup, and six months from now most users will have
forgotten that I did the postings...those few who even know now, that
is. That is as it should be, I suspect. Nor am I leaving the
Usenet entirely. There are still a half-dozen groups that I read
sometimes (a few moderated and comp.* groups), and I will continue to
read them. That's about it, though. I've gone from reading all the
groups to reading less than ten. Funny, though, the total volume of
what I read has stayed almost constant over the years.:-)
My sincere thanks to everyone who has ever said a "thank you" or
contributed a suggestion for the postings. You few kept me going at
this longer than most sane people would consider wise. Please lend
your support to Mark and David if you believe their efforts are
valuable. Eventually they too will burn out, just as the Usenet has
consumed nearly everyone who has made significant contributions to its
history, but you can help make their burden seem worthwhile in
between.
In closing, I'd like to repost my 3 axioms of Usenet. I originally
posted these in 1987 and 1988. In my opinion as a semi-pro
curmudgeon, I think they've aged well:
Axiom #1:
"The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even
resemble the real world."
Corollary #1:
"Attempts to change the real world by altering the structure
of the Usenet is an attempt to work sympathetic magic -- electronic
voodoo."
Corollary #2:
"Arguing about the significance of newsgroup names and their
relation to the way people really think is equivalent to arguing
whether it is better to read tea leaves or chicken entrails to
divine the future."
Axiom #2:
"Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,
intelligence, or common sense."
Corollary #3:
"An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards
could produce something like Usenet."
Corollary #4:
"They could do a better job of it."
Axiom #3:
"Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Usenet."
Corollary #5:
"In an unmoderated newsgroup, no one can agree on what constitutes
the 10%."
Corollary #6:
"Nothing guarantees that the 10% isn't crap, too."
Which of course ties in to the recent:
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it." --spaf (1992)
"Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes."
-- spaf (1988?)
--
Gene Spafford, COAST Project Director
Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences
Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone: (317) 494-7825
===
And that is why you bought and use those, if more people were like you then Word would be different. It isn't the companies fault that there are uninformed consumers.
No but they are getting there. AOL-TW owns: Many TV networks, the nations largest Cable TV system, the only majorly successfully cable broadband system, the nations largest ISP, many magazine and publishing systems, etc....
MS can't even come close to the number of markets they are in. It would be as if MS would buy Ziff-Davis, and the AT&T broadband unit to even come close.
substitute National ID for Passport, Oracle TV for MSNBC, and Oracle Box for XBox...
I'm currently using Opera and just for fun opened a Netscape window to look at the MSNBC cover page, I played NFL2k2 by Sega on a friends XBox last night, don't have messenger or.NET running my XP machine, and it all seems to work just fine. XBox works fine with non-MS games, MSNBC works fine on non MS TVs even AOL-TW cable, and I can still install any browser I want on the new and fancy Windows. The only reason that MS has so much weight, is that there is so much consumer demand for their products. Why do you think that the OEMs were so scared if they threatened to revoke the OEM agreement, they would lose all of those potential customers. Anti-Monopoloy law was designed to help the consumer, not other companies, and I'm still not convinced that MS has done as much consumer harm what people are being let to believe by the AOL-TW-Sun lobby.
There is one thing that I'm not sure I understand about the culture of/. here. How can a vocal few (not making broad generalizations here) be fine with more government regulation against MS, but want them to keep their hands out of everything else? If Redhat actually ended up doing very well financially, will you support the government stepping in and saying "No, you can't be that big." Why is there so much less out-cry against, Sun-AOL-TW-etc.? (Notice I don't use netscape, they don't exist anymore as a viable entity anymore.) Given the chance to go back in time, any of the CEOs of any of the big software companies would do the exact same things as Gates and MS has done in the past. Apple would be there now, if they didn't make so many bad decisions in the 80s and early 90s.
Why is MS where they are? Cut throught business practices, strategic partnerships, product innovation, and good luck. Why do you think Sun-Tzu's Art of War is required reading at business schools around the country.
Anyone who thinks that McNealy or Ellison would not do the same things that Gates has done is very Naieve. Look how hard Ellison is pushing to get Oracle for a national ID card. Are people lobbying for an open solution to that, even though it is a crappy idea anyway? Ok..I'm done ranting. ..start the moderator's downward spiral....
I use Insight@Home....... they say no servers, the guy that did the install said he has 2 running (they don''t enforce it). They don't care if you VPN. I have a static IP. They do have a cap on upstream, but it is not that much of an issue. Basically, he just said that they will get pissed if you run a high traffic porn site or something like that. This is near Purdue U, and they are getting serious competition from Verizon DSL in the market, so that could be why they aren't so tight assed about it.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife got XP Pro and Office XP full versions, minus documentation, "for academic use," for $5 a pop at Purdue.
This probably won't affect WC3 sales at all. Sure a few people won't buy it because of this. But Joe Bob consumer who walks into Best Buy to buy it because Computer Gaming World said that it is a good game doesn't give a care about the DCMA. They are the ones they are selling to.
It is really about corporations doing an end run around the system as much as individuals hacking products. Think about it. They are doing something illegal (well, unconstitutional) to get their way. What is copying CDs or downloading MP3s you don't own, or DivXs or whatever? Doing something illegal to get their own way. The corporations are just bigger and better at it.
-----
-2 Flamebait.
The stockholders would be getting screwed if they were expecting to get a dividend. They have purchased stock knowing full well (or at least they should or else they shouldn't be buying stock) that MS has never paid a divident, nor are they expected or legally obligated to. If the stockholders don't like it, then sell, and buy GE.
I can't quite understand why it didn't get nominated for any musical categories. Basically anything that Baz had to do with, didn't get nominated. How does a movie get nominated for Best Picture, but not for direction?
I work for a company that does what you are looking for. Check out Maxim-IT.
This is what well designed OO projects are supposed to be like. The key is then make the infrastructure between the components secure. When that communication/whatever is secure, then each component is the aformentioned "little program" that does "one task". I think one of the biggest problems is the amount of hybrid OO/traditional programs our there.
Look at TRW Space and defence in Redondo beach CA, look at BAE Systems in San Diego. Those places are cutting edge. I don't understance the "2nd or 3rd rate" comment, definitly troll.
Remember that ARPANET was developed by government contractors.
Job for life mentality? What does that mean? Their company offers a pension instead of stock options that may well evaporate? They offer job security? Those things are more important as you grow older and get married and whatnot.
I interviewed with TRW. (Didn't take it because I decided I didn't like Cali). One of the people that I was interviewed by was actually a telemetry engineer for the Apollo 13 mission. That was cool.
The reason that a lot of places don't get much attention is that most of the really cool stuff to work on is rated DOD Top secret.
When I taught an introductrry class at Purdue (3 years ago), we had a similar thing. It worked on both source and object level. It had a scaleable sensitivity, so that we could compensate for things that could only be written a few ways, for example linked list implementations. When it did find suspects, it would allow us to do a split window Diff on the files with the suspected portions highlighted. It was pretty sweet. I would always demo it the first day of class to scare the crap out of the kids.
... and
...
We usually cought 5-10 per semester (out of about 200). Most of those were people who would steal printouts from the printers in the back of the room and copy the code.
It was always most obvious (and most pathetic) when 2 people would turn in things that were broken, in the same way, just with variable names changed. Ex:
for(i = 0, i max, ++i)
for(counter = 0, counter maxSize, ++counter)
Those things just made me mad.
The trick that you would need to do is to make sure you wrap a lot of the OS rheteroric in a way that doesn't sound communist or anti-capitalist.
As soon as your opponent would say: " wants to give away all software, and that will cost jobs, especially in this industry where people are being laid off now" then you are sunk with the 40,000 people who don't know the industry.
Another thing you will realize, is that, on the whole, people don't care about the same things that get discussed on here. They just don't. Perhaps they should, but that doesn't make it happen. So again, I wish you luck.
Why can't the auto manufactures develop a decent HUD. Imagine something that could project the centerline of the road on the window when it is snowing or raining hard. Or perhaps, it could incorporate itself with the collision avoidence systems and show when obstacles are in the way.
You could even have a game in it, you know. . if someone cuts you off on the highway, then you press a button on the stearing wheel, and it sends a projected missle at it or something.
Seriously, I think HUDS in cars would be great, and it would definitly limit the above mentioned "head-down" time.
No government has taken action like this because the states cannot afford to bring down thier entire IT infrastrucure for the change in OS, change in file formats for all of the millions of existing documents, and for the training and support for all of the newbies.
"Free" software is free(beer) when used by an educated individual, but is not free when it somes to an enterprise solution.
This is a plug:
Lots of companies have vast amounts of data, both text and otherwise to which they need access. The company I work for, Maxim-IT, Inc focuses on search technologies for non-structured data (like CAD files and the like).
This would be great for an industrial shop floor QA system. It could take the picture and then analyze the photo for measurements and then check each and every part, as they fly across the line. I know systems that do this exist, but most of those use lasers and are much more expensive.
Here, here.
For Java to do anything bad it has to have explicit permission from the user. In that case, in my opinion, it isn't a virus, just a dangerous program and the user should acuatlly read the warning boxes.
It could happen if some company would give away the private keys for a trusted company and then use that key to sign a modified and dangerous version. (Say like a rooted version of Yahoo chat or something like that, that has to be trusted to run right.)
Beta/VHS wasn't about image quality. It was about porn. People chose to have less quality porn over no porn (since all content had to be approved by the Beta people before they would allow it to be shipped).
I know this is a repeat but this is a great read. Dr. Gene Spafford's farewell posting. If you don't know who that is, look it up.
n ews.groups,soc.net-people
:-)
===
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.misc,news.admin.misc,
Subject: That's all, folks
Followup-To: poster
Date: 29 Apr 1993 19:01:12 -0500
Message-ID:
[ I originally was going to post nothing on this topic. I'm burned
out, and I don't want my fatigue to appear like I'm posting
self-indulgent garbage. However, several people have argued with
me, and convinced me that maybe I should make a statement to "end an
era," and as a piece of net "history." At the least, even if it is
perceived as self-indulgent garbage, it will fit right in with the
rest of the net. ]
There is a Zen adage about how anything one cannot bear to give up is
not owned, but is in fact the owner. What follows relates how I am
owned by one less thing....
About a dozen years ago, when I was still a grad student at Georgia
Tech, we got our first Usenet connection (to allegra, then being run
by Peter Honeyman, I believe). I'd been using a few dial-in BBS
systems for a while, so it wasn't a huge transition for me. I quickly
got "hooked": I can claim to be someone who once read every newsgroup
on Usenet for weeks at a time!
After several months, I realized that it was difficult for a newcomer
to tell what newsgroups were available and what they covered. I made
a pass at putting together some information, combined it with a
similar list compiled by another netter, and began posting it for
others to use. Eventually, the list was joined by other documents
describing net history and information.
In April of 1982 (I believe it was -- I saved no record of the year,
but I know it was April), I began posting those lists regularly,
sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; the longest break was for 4
months a few years ago when I was recovering from pneumonia and poor
personal time management. (Tellingly, only a few people noticed the
lack of postings, and almost all the mail was "When will they come
out?" rather than "Did something happen?") As time went on, people
began to attach far more significance to the posts than I really
intended. It was flattering for a very short time, and a burden for
most of the rest; there is no telling how much time I have devoted
over the last decade to answering questions, editing the postings, and
debating the role of newsgroup naming, to cite a few topics. I really
tired of being a "semi-definitive" voice.
Starting several years ago, at about the time people started pushing
for group names designed to offend or annoy others, or with a lack of
concern about the possible effects it might have on the net as a whole
(e.g., rec.drugs and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac) I began to question
why I was doing the postings. I have had a growing sense of futility:
people on the net can't possibly find the postings useful, because
most of the advice in them is completely ignored. People don't seem
to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly
violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature
files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common
sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings
of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly
indicating that they aren't being read. "Sendsys" bombs and forgeries
abound. People rail about their "rights" without understanding that
every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not
least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them
respect your own. Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise
are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days.
I have finally concluded that my view of how things should be is too
far out-of-step with the users of the Usenet, and that my efforts are
not valued by enough people for me to invest any more of my energy in
the process. I am tired of the effort involved, and the meager --
nay, nonexistent -- return on my volunteer efforts.
This hasn't happened all at once, but it has happened. Rather than
bemoan it, I am acting on it: the set of "periodic postings" posted
earlier this week was my last. After 11 years, I'm hanging it up.
David Lawrence and Mark Moraes have generously (naively?) agreed to
take over the postings, for whatever good they may still do. David
will do the checkgroups, and lists of newsgroups and moderators
(news.lists), and Mark will handle the other informational postings
(news.announce.newusers).
I'm not predicting the death of the Usenet -- it will continue without
me, with nary a hiccup, and six months from now most users will have
forgotten that I did the postings...those few who even know now, that
is. That is as it should be, I suspect. Nor am I leaving the
Usenet entirely. There are still a half-dozen groups that I read
sometimes (a few moderated and comp.* groups), and I will continue to
read them. That's about it, though. I've gone from reading all the
groups to reading less than ten. Funny, though, the total volume of
what I read has stayed almost constant over the years.
My sincere thanks to everyone who has ever said a "thank you" or
contributed a suggestion for the postings. You few kept me going at
this longer than most sane people would consider wise. Please lend
your support to Mark and David if you believe their efforts are
valuable. Eventually they too will burn out, just as the Usenet has
consumed nearly everyone who has made significant contributions to its
history, but you can help make their burden seem worthwhile in
between.
In closing, I'd like to repost my 3 axioms of Usenet. I originally
posted these in 1987 and 1988. In my opinion as a semi-pro
curmudgeon, I think they've aged well:
Axiom #1:
"The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even
resemble the real world."
Corollary #1:
"Attempts to change the real world by altering the structure
of the Usenet is an attempt to work sympathetic magic -- electronic
voodoo."
Corollary #2:
"Arguing about the significance of newsgroup names and their
relation to the way people really think is equivalent to arguing
whether it is better to read tea leaves or chicken entrails to
divine the future."
Axiom #2:
"Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,
intelligence, or common sense."
Corollary #3:
"An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards
could produce something like Usenet."
Corollary #4:
"They could do a better job of it."
Axiom #3:
"Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Usenet."
Corollary #5:
"In an unmoderated newsgroup, no one can agree on what constitutes
the 10%."
Corollary #6:
"Nothing guarantees that the 10% isn't crap, too."
Which of course ties in to the recent:
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it." --spaf (1992)
"Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes."
-- spaf (1988?)
--
Gene Spafford, COAST Project Director
Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences
Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone: (317) 494-7825
===
Tapes sound good on the first pass....
.CrapCDFormat --> Tape --> WAV --> MP3 and GoodCDFormat...
.you have a tape too now.
hmm. .
Might take longer, but Hey. .
And that is why you bought and use those, if more people were like you then Word would be different. It isn't the companies fault that there are uninformed consumers.
I use about a 50/50 mix of Word and Lout.
Macintosh, oh wait, they priced themselves out of the market.
Wordperfect (defacto standard in Legal realms)
Lotus 1-2-3
(both now inferior products feature wise to Word or Excel)
Soy
I agree, but they are the ones bitching about it the most.
And again, where has this done extreme harm to the consumer? Consumers can do more things, more easily, on their computers, then ever before.
Anti-Monopoly law was designed to help the consumer, not competiting companies.
Sun-AOL etc are NOT monopoly's
No but they are getting there. AOL-TW owns: Many TV networks, the nations largest Cable TV system, the only majorly successfully cable broadband system, the nations largest ISP, many magazine and publishing systems, etc....
MS can't even come close to the number of markets they are in. It would be as if MS would buy Ziff-Davis, and the AT&T broadband unit to even come close.
substitute National ID for Passport, Oracle TV for MSNBC, and Oracle Box for XBox...
.NET running my XP machine, and it all seems to work just fine. XBox works fine with non-MS games, MSNBC works fine on non MS TVs even AOL-TW cable, and I can still install any browser I want on the new and fancy Windows. The only reason that MS has so much weight, is that there is so much consumer demand for their products. Why do you think that the OEMs were so scared if they threatened to revoke the OEM agreement, they would lose all of those potential customers. Anti-Monopoloy law was designed to help the consumer, not other companies, and I'm still not convinced that MS has done as much consumer harm what people are being let to believe by the AOL-TW-Sun lobby.
I'm currently using Opera and just for fun opened a Netscape window to look at the MSNBC cover page, I played NFL2k2 by Sega on a friends XBox last night, don't have messenger or
There is one thing that I'm not sure I understand about the culture of /. here. How can a vocal few (not making broad generalizations here) be fine with more government regulation against MS, but want them to keep their hands out of everything else? If Redhat actually ended up doing very well financially, will you support the government stepping in and saying "No, you can't be that big." Why is there so much less out-cry against, Sun-AOL-TW-etc.? (Notice I don't use netscape, they don't exist anymore as a viable entity anymore.) Given the chance to go back in time, any of the CEOs of any of the big software companies would do the exact same things as Gates and MS has done in the past. Apple would be there now, if they didn't make so many bad decisions in the 80s and early 90s.
.I'm done ranting. . .start the moderator's downward spiral....
Why is MS where they are? Cut throught business practices, strategic partnerships, product innovation, and good luck. Why do you think Sun-Tzu's Art of War is required reading at business schools around the country.
Anyone who thinks that McNealy or Ellison would not do the same things that Gates has done is very Naieve. Look how hard Ellison is pushing to get Oracle for a national ID card. Are people lobbying for an open solution to that, even though it is a crappy idea anyway? Ok.
I use Insight@Home....... they say no servers, the guy that did the install said he has 2 running (they don''t enforce it). They don't care if you VPN. I have a static IP. They do have a cap on upstream, but it is not that much of an issue. Basically, he just said that they will get pissed if you run a high traffic porn site or something like that. This is near Purdue U, and they are getting serious competition from Verizon DSL in the market, so that could be why they aren't so tight assed about it.