(DJB's license forbade distribution of modified source - you can only distribute patches. You man not distribute binary files that result from any modification from the distribution source. I argue that it isn't open source at all.)
This is like arguing RHEL isn't open source because it isn't packaged up in ready to use ISOs.
Techbuy have it listed at $193. Staticice has the cheapest at $169 (for the record, XP Professional costs the same, so it's no cheaper). Further, that's "retail", and is not reflective of the price Dell, HP, et al, would be paying (or perhaps even you, if you wanted to try a direct negotiation with Microsoft).
On the average box we supply to our customers, the next most expensive item is the MB at about AU$165. CPU, HDD, memory, case and optical drive are all much cheaper.
Do you seriously think most people are buying bottom-end whiteboxes like that, or do you think the majority of purchasers aim more for low-end (and up) whiteboxes and name-brand PCs from places like Harvey Norman ?
I've no doubt there are people buying bottom-end PCs with a 15" CRT, for whom the OS *is* the most expensive component, but you're drawing a mighty long bow indeed asserting that they make up the majority of computer buyers.
I didn't say they do, I said they can. GP was suggesting they can't.
IIRC, they can't be forced to exclusively sell Windows or get discounts if they do so. Microsoft can help them out with their marketing budget a bit, though. It's kind of a "You only sell Windows machines, add '${company} recommends Genuine Windows Vista' to each and every one of your brochures and web sites, call the preinstalled versions 'Genuine Windows Vista/XP' and get $20m of marketing, free, annually" deal.
Exactly. So the same sort of "exclusivity contract" that can be found in every industry.
You can argue that not receiving this "gift" is no penalty, but if essentially your whole competition gets to spend heaps of cash for free, it is one.
If it weren't such an important part of their business, they wouldn't "have" to do it. You can not blame OEMs for trying to sell the product the majority of the market is asking for.
That said, Vista *isn't* doing well, at least not as well as Microsoft expected it to.
According to who, of importance, from Microsoft ?
I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of starry-eyed marketing graduates and wet-behind-the-ears developers who are disappointed that Vista isn't taking over the world, but it's difficult to see how anyone with genuine industry experience would have expected Vista's uptake to be any faster than it has been.
Vista's penetration is proceeding much the same way intelligent people would have expected it to. They'll also be expecting it increase dramatically during 2009 as a more significant proportion of businesses roll through their ~3 year cycles and Windows 2008 Server machines start to appear.
More accurately, Vista _isn't_ universally known for being terrible if your universe includes only Microsoft. By universal, I mean common public opinion rather than everyone having the same opinion, and you will have a hard time arguing that common opinion _outside_ of Slashdot is positive, or perhaps you don't read other news or talk to very many people.
Of course, the vast bulk of these people have never used Vista, thus rendering their "common public opinion" worthless.
MS does have a habit of spreading FUD about Linux.
However, it pales into insignificance compared to the volume (and inaccuracy) of FUD produced by significant sections of the Linux community about Windows.
Used to be that when you signed up with an ISP you got a CD with various internet apps on it.
Yes, but that was back when the internet was an uncommon curiosity, rather than the primary reason for buying a computer.
Used to be your computer didn't come with a GUI or a network stack, either, and you had to pay extra for them. How popular do you think a system like that would be today ?
Also I'd imagine that PC manufacturers would happily install a browser before selling you the computer.
And they do. Of course, this increases costs to the OEM (and hence the customer), so there needs to be a genuine reason to do it.
Anyways the problem wasn't so much including a browser but tying it so deep into the OS and being nonstandard enough that it got to the point where surfing the net with any other browser was painful as so many sites were IE only
IE is tied no "deeper" into "the OS" than its equivalents in Linux(+KDE/GNOME) or OS X, nor has it ever been.
Microsoft pre-installing internet Explorer with Windows, dropping a metaphorical nuclear bomb to end the browser wars, and then integrating it into the system, making it impossible to remove.
Microsoft pre-installing Windows Messenger/Windows Live Messenger, making MSNp the dominant protocol
Indeed. Heaven forbid Microsoft respond to their competitors (or spur them on) by offering equivalent functionality (or introducing new functionality).
Steve Balmer claiming that Linux violates Microsoft's patents, scaring away any potential switchers.
This isn't "scaring away" anyone who matters. The idea that it's scaring away anyone at all in the desktop consumer market doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Microsoft offering deals to schools and third-world countries, so the little kiddies grow up only knowing how to use windows and Office.
But giving away Linux to those same schools and third-world countries, so the little kiddies grow up only knowing Linux, would be A-OK ?
Popular news and media outlets are routinely running stories about the slow adoption of Vista by major corporations and small businesses alike. New sales of Office are apparently lagging, too.
Yes. Just like they did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, etc, etc and so forth.
Basically, the old story of "what we have now is good enough" is, in many cases, happening all over again.
Exactly. So why does anyone think it's any more significant this time ?
It used to be, but as hardware prices have fallen and Windows prices have risen, that has changed. Now the OS is often the single most expensive component of a computer.
Rubbish. For starters, the OS is cheaper than it ever has been, and secondly, the most expensive part of the average computer today is likely the screen (assuming an LCD), followed by the processor, then maybe the hard disk. An OEM version of Windows probably costs Dell ca. US$50.
If you thought of a company whose name rhymes with "moogle" I'd say you are right on the mark. Google has grown to incredible dominance in an incredibly short period of time. If they continue to play their cards right, they will definitely end up as the unseating monopoly.
The word you're after here is "duopoly". Google aren't going to unseat Microsoft, because they don't have a product to replace Windows - and even if they did, they'd be unlikely to take serious marketshare without blatantly tying their web-services to their OS.
1. Good idea, but PC prices would skyrocket for a while.
No, they wouldn't. Retail prices of Windows would plummet to current OEM levels, but since hardly anyone buys it at retail, that's not going to make much difference to Microsoft.
It would most certainly *not* have the result the GP was after. Quite the opposite, in fact.
1) Disallow Volume Discounts to OEMS. A standard price for Windows for all.
If anything this would cement the so-called "Windows monopoly". You do realise the new "standard price" would be pretty much what the "OEM discount price" is now, right ?
2) Disallow "Exclusivity" clauses in OEM contracts. OEMS should be allowed to sell whatever OS they care to without penalty.
OEMs can do this now.
3) Stop hiding the cost of Windows in the price of the PC. The PC hardware should be offered at $X and the purchaser then offered a selection of OS and support options to choose from.
Punishing OEMs who don't agree with your personal worldview is just flat out immoral.
4) Force MS to adopted accepted industry standards and disallow the use of proprietary protocols and formatswhich are designed solely as a means to lock in users to the Microsoft platform.
Just what the industry needs. Legislation stating everything must be designed by a committee.
So let us imagine what the difference between the UK and the US could be. Oh yes the fact that you let every loony and criminal arm themselves to the teeth with cheap firearms.
There are numerous places in the world with gun ownership as high - if not higher - than the US, but with much lower homicide (and other firearms offences) rates.
Guns ain't the problem. You could perhaps make an argument that prevalent gun ownership makes a bad situation worse, but the idea of a direct causal relationship of Guns -> Homicides doesn't even get off the ground.
I'm quite sure that, given a well designed user interface, I could be far more productive with a multi-touch screen as a pointing device than with a mouse. The problem is that that would completely change the ergonomics of computer workstations and user interfaces (ie. the screen would have to be closer to horizontal than vertical, and buttons would have to be bigger and more round on average.)
I doubt it. You get either one of two outcomes:
1. Massive fatigue in your arms, wrists and hands from holding them out in front of you all day.; or
2. A very sore neck from look down where your hands rest on the desk all day.
Touchscreens and "holographic interfaces" a la Minority Report look and sound very cool, but usually fall flat in terms of usability when presented with a typical desktop user's usage patterns and working environment. Voice recognition fails for much the same reason.
The reason the mouse and keyboard work so well is because they fit well into the ergonomics of sitting at a desk. Since sitting at a desk isn't going to go away any time soon (if for no other reason than the massive costs of retooling offices), if you want to improve input devices, they need to fit within that model.
Here's an idea: devices on top of the monitor(s) to track where your eyes are looking and move the mouse pointer to that spot. This eliminates the need for a separate mouse device entirely, along with the disadvantages it brings (time wasted moving hand from keyboard to mouse, RSI) without having to make any real change to existing interfaces and working environments. I'm pretty sure the technology already exists to do this and has been demoed, although I'm not sure if it's accurate enough to handle some of the smaller UI elements, or for things like text selection.
And am I the only one who finds this feature completely annoying. I like things to be the way I left them. You don't come back to your keyboard to find the letters rearranged (or even missing) each day based on the keys you use most often.
Not really a good analogy. You use most of the keys on your keyboard very frequently and muscle memory confers a *massive* benefit (eg: touch or semi-touch typing).
Most of the items in a menu, however, are either unused, or used infrequently. Muscle memory confers much less of a benefit because you generally identify an item and then point the mouse at it, rather than just move the mouse the same distance every time. It makes sense in that context to reduce the number of items you need to search through to pick out the one you want.
Personally, I love those "personalised" menus, because they unclutter my interface and make it quicker and easier to access the items I use the most. I get the benefits of reorganising my frequently used items in an optimal manner, without having to take the time - or suffer from subconscious biases introducing inefficiences - to do so myself. I consider it a textbook example of "optimise for the common case".
Where could you ever state that it's unsafe to NOT go faster??? except in the cases where the drivers surrounding you are also going TOO FAST, and thus make an obstacle of you.
No. The safest speed to be travelling at is the 85th percentile. If you are being passed by are large volume of traffic, it's because you are going too slow, not because they are going too fast. *You* are the one creating the hazard and making the road less safe for everyone else.
Other than for other drivers ploughing into you (which would only happen if they're going too fast), slower would ALWAYS be safer.
Rubbish. On highways - and especially long distance driving - slower is not always safer. Lower speeds lead to lower levels of alertness and higher levels of fatigue.
The difference is that only a few tasks on a Mac asks you for a password while nearly everything in Windows is considered an admin task.
Rubbish.
Microsoft didn't fix the underlying security issues.
Like what ?
The security architecture of Windows NT has never been the problem, it's always been the UI to take advantage of it. With Vista, they fixed the interface to make it easier for users to benefit from the security infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
I placed 18 of them in a training room today, and I'm not normally even a hardware supplier.
Yet apparently you feel you can make authoritative statements about the hardware most people are buying ?
All arguably true, but my points as to why touchscreens are - in general - a bad idea remain.
I disagree. PD code can be "locked back up", making it only provisionally or temporarily free.
No, it can't. Someone can modify it and then "lock up" the resultant *derivative* code, but the original code will remain free.
It takes a license to make code truly and lastingly Free, which is an important distinction to most people around here.
Ah, sorry, i thought you meant "free", not "GNU/Free".
I agree. Public Domain licensing seems to be the worst of all worlds to me.
Code in the Public Domain is the only code that can, without question, be called "free".
(DJB's license forbade distribution of modified source - you can only distribute patches. You man not distribute binary files that result from any modification from the distribution source. I argue that it isn't open source at all.)
This is like arguing RHEL isn't open source because it isn't packaged up in ready to use ISOs.
Vista business OEM costs me AU$205 wholesale.
Techbuy have it listed at $193. Staticice has the cheapest at $169 (for the record, XP Professional costs the same, so it's no cheaper). Further, that's "retail", and is not reflective of the price Dell, HP, et al, would be paying (or perhaps even you, if you wanted to try a direct negotiation with Microsoft).
On the average box we supply to our customers, the next most expensive item is the MB at about AU$165. CPU, HDD, memory, case and optical drive are all much cheaper.
Do you seriously think most people are buying bottom-end whiteboxes like that, or do you think the majority of purchasers aim more for low-end (and up) whiteboxes and name-brand PCs from places like Harvey Norman ?
I've no doubt there are people buying bottom-end PCs with a 15" CRT, for whom the OS *is* the most expensive component, but you're drawing a mighty long bow indeed asserting that they make up the majority of computer buyers.
Can you do the equivalent to this on Windows?
Sure can.
Start -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Select Firefox -> Remove.
(In case that was too subtle, Firefox on Linux != IE in Windows.)
No they don't.
I didn't say they do, I said they can. GP was suggesting they can't.
IIRC, they can't be forced to exclusively sell Windows or get discounts if they do so. Microsoft can help them out with their marketing budget a bit, though. It's kind of a "You only sell Windows machines, add '${company} recommends Genuine Windows Vista' to each and every one of your brochures and web sites, call the preinstalled versions 'Genuine Windows Vista/XP' and get $20m of marketing, free, annually" deal.
Exactly. So the same sort of "exclusivity contract" that can be found in every industry.
You can argue that not receiving this "gift" is no penalty, but if essentially your whole competition gets to spend heaps of cash for free, it is one.
If it weren't such an important part of their business, they wouldn't "have" to do it. You can not blame OEMs for trying to sell the product the majority of the market is asking for.
That said, Vista *isn't* doing well, at least not as well as Microsoft expected it to.
According to who, of importance, from Microsoft ?
I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of starry-eyed marketing graduates and wet-behind-the-ears developers who are disappointed that Vista isn't taking over the world, but it's difficult to see how anyone with genuine industry experience would have expected Vista's uptake to be any faster than it has been.
Vista's penetration is proceeding much the same way intelligent people would have expected it to. They'll also be expecting it increase dramatically during 2009 as a more significant proportion of businesses roll through their ~3 year cycles and Windows 2008 Server machines start to appear.
More accurately, Vista _isn't_ universally known for being terrible if your universe includes only Microsoft. By universal, I mean common public opinion rather than everyone having the same opinion, and you will have a hard time arguing that common opinion _outside_ of Slashdot is positive, or perhaps you don't read other news or talk to very many people.
Of course, the vast bulk of these people have never used Vista, thus rendering their "common public opinion" worthless.
MS does have a habit of spreading FUD about Linux.
However, it pales into insignificance compared to the volume (and inaccuracy) of FUD produced by significant sections of the Linux community about Windows.
Used to be that when you signed up with an ISP you got a CD with various internet apps on it.
Yes, but that was back when the internet was an uncommon curiosity, rather than the primary reason for buying a computer.
Used to be your computer didn't come with a GUI or a network stack, either, and you had to pay extra for them. How popular do you think a system like that would be today ?
Also I'd imagine that PC manufacturers would happily install a browser before selling you the computer.
And they do. Of course, this increases costs to the OEM (and hence the customer), so there needs to be a genuine reason to do it.
Anyways the problem wasn't so much including a browser but tying it so deep into the OS and being nonstandard enough that it got to the point where surfing the net with any other browser was painful as so many sites were IE only
IE is tied no "deeper" into "the OS" than its equivalents in Linux(+KDE/GNOME) or OS X, nor has it ever been.
Microsoft pre-installing internet Explorer with Windows, dropping a metaphorical nuclear bomb to end the browser wars, and then integrating it into the system, making it impossible to remove.
Microsoft pre-installing Windows Messenger/Windows Live Messenger, making MSNp the dominant protocol
Indeed. Heaven forbid Microsoft respond to their competitors (or spur them on) by offering equivalent functionality (or introducing new functionality).
Steve Balmer claiming that Linux violates Microsoft's patents, scaring away any potential switchers.
This isn't "scaring away" anyone who matters. The idea that it's scaring away anyone at all in the desktop consumer market doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Microsoft offering deals to schools and third-world countries, so the little kiddies grow up only knowing how to use windows and Office.
But giving away Linux to those same schools and third-world countries, so the little kiddies grow up only knowing Linux, would be A-OK ?
Popular news and media outlets are routinely running stories about the slow adoption of Vista by major corporations and small businesses alike. New sales of Office are apparently lagging, too.
Yes. Just like they did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, etc, etc and so forth.
Basically, the old story of "what we have now is good enough" is, in many cases, happening all over again.
Exactly. So why does anyone think it's any more significant this time ?
It used to be, but as hardware prices have fallen and Windows prices have risen, that has changed. Now the OS is often the single most expensive component of a computer.
Rubbish. For starters, the OS is cheaper than it ever has been, and secondly, the most expensive part of the average computer today is likely the screen (assuming an LCD), followed by the processor, then maybe the hard disk. An OEM version of Windows probably costs Dell ca. US$50.
If you thought of a company whose name rhymes with "moogle" I'd say you are right on the mark. Google has grown to incredible dominance in an incredibly short period of time. If they continue to play their cards right, they will definitely end up as the unseating monopoly.
The word you're after here is "duopoly". Google aren't going to unseat Microsoft, because they don't have a product to replace Windows - and even if they did, they'd be unlikely to take serious marketshare without blatantly tying their web-services to their OS.
1. Good idea, but PC prices would skyrocket for a while.
No, they wouldn't. Retail prices of Windows would plummet to current OEM levels, but since hardly anyone buys it at retail, that's not going to make much difference to Microsoft.
It would most certainly *not* have the result the GP was after. Quite the opposite, in fact.
1) Disallow Volume Discounts to OEMS. A standard price for Windows for all.
If anything this would cement the so-called "Windows monopoly". You do realise the new "standard price" would be pretty much what the "OEM discount price" is now, right ?
2) Disallow "Exclusivity" clauses in OEM contracts. OEMS should be allowed to sell whatever OS they care to without penalty.
OEMs can do this now.
3) Stop hiding the cost of Windows in the price of the PC. The PC hardware should be offered at $X and the purchaser then offered a selection of OS and support options to choose from.
Punishing OEMs who don't agree with your personal worldview is just flat out immoral.
4) Force MS to adopted accepted industry standards and disallow the use of proprietary protocols and formatswhich are designed solely as a means to lock in users to the Microsoft platform.
Just what the industry needs. Legislation stating everything must be designed by a committee.
So let us imagine what the difference between the UK and the US could be. Oh yes the fact that you let every loony and criminal arm themselves to the teeth with cheap firearms.
There are numerous places in the world with gun ownership as high - if not higher - than the US, but with much lower homicide (and other firearms offences) rates.
Guns ain't the problem. You could perhaps make an argument that prevalent gun ownership makes a bad situation worse, but the idea of a direct causal relationship of Guns -> Homicides doesn't even get off the ground.
See below a quote from The Register;
Thanks, that's all the evidence I need to know you're just parroting FUD.
I cannot remember anything innovative MS has done.
What innovative things can you remember anyone doing ?
I'm quite sure that, given a well designed user interface, I could be far more productive with a multi-touch screen as a pointing device than with a mouse. The problem is that that would completely change the ergonomics of computer workstations and user interfaces (ie. the screen would have to be closer to horizontal than vertical, and buttons would have to be bigger and more round on average.)
I doubt it. You get either one of two outcomes:
1. Massive fatigue in your arms, wrists and hands from holding them out in front of you all day.; or
2. A very sore neck from look down where your hands rest on the desk all day.
Touchscreens and "holographic interfaces" a la Minority Report look and sound very cool, but usually fall flat in terms of usability when presented with a typical desktop user's usage patterns and working environment. Voice recognition fails for much the same reason.
The reason the mouse and keyboard work so well is because they fit well into the ergonomics of sitting at a desk. Since sitting at a desk isn't going to go away any time soon (if for no other reason than the massive costs of retooling offices), if you want to improve input devices, they need to fit within that model.
Here's an idea: devices on top of the monitor(s) to track where your eyes are looking and move the mouse pointer to that spot. This eliminates the need for a separate mouse device entirely, along with the disadvantages it brings (time wasted moving hand from keyboard to mouse, RSI) without having to make any real change to existing interfaces and working environments. I'm pretty sure the technology already exists to do this and has been demoed, although I'm not sure if it's accurate enough to handle some of the smaller UI elements, or for things like text selection.
And am I the only one who finds this feature completely annoying. I like things to be the way I left them. You don't come back to your keyboard to find the letters rearranged (or even missing) each day based on the keys you use most often.
Not really a good analogy. You use most of the keys on your keyboard very frequently and muscle memory confers a *massive* benefit (eg: touch or semi-touch typing).
Most of the items in a menu, however, are either unused, or used infrequently. Muscle memory confers much less of a benefit because you generally identify an item and then point the mouse at it, rather than just move the mouse the same distance every time. It makes sense in that context to reduce the number of items you need to search through to pick out the one you want.
Personally, I love those "personalised" menus, because they unclutter my interface and make it quicker and easier to access the items I use the most. I get the benefits of reorganising my frequently used items in an optimal manner, without having to take the time - or suffer from subconscious biases introducing inefficiences - to do so myself. I consider it a textbook example of "optimise for the common case".
Where could you ever state that it's unsafe to NOT go faster??? except in the cases where the drivers surrounding you are also going TOO FAST, and thus make an obstacle of you.
No. The safest speed to be travelling at is the 85th percentile. If you are being passed by are large volume of traffic, it's because you are going too slow, not because they are going too fast. *You* are the one creating the hazard and making the road less safe for everyone else.
Other than for other drivers ploughing into you (which would only happen if they're going too fast), slower would ALWAYS be safer.
Rubbish. On highways - and especially long distance driving - slower is not always safer. Lower speeds lead to lower levels of alertness and higher levels of fatigue.
The difference is that only a few tasks on a Mac asks you for a password while nearly everything in Windows is considered an admin task.
Rubbish.
Microsoft didn't fix the underlying security issues.
Like what ?
The security architecture of Windows NT has never been the problem, it's always been the UI to take advantage of it. With Vista, they fixed the interface to make it easier for users to benefit from the security infrastructure.