The GPL does not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of the writers of non-GPL code who want to work with GPL code, and especially if you're in the shoes of such as MS, it can easily appear to have been written that way specifically out of spite towards big business.
It was... kind of... in an indirect fashion.
Basically, the purposes of the GPL were to a) make selling software as a standalone product impossible and b) serreptitiously generate more GPLed software.
I think what MS is hoping for here is that folks who want to work with big business will begin to release under less severe licenses, or that a GPL will be written with more allowances than what currently exists.
The LGPL is a reasonable balance between Open Source principles and commercial reality. However, RMS doesn't really like the LGPL, because he's not the kind of bloke who is capable of compromise.
I love it. Each and every one of you out there using Windows XP should truly understand that one day, MS will say the same thing about XP, too.
Each and every one of you out there using any commercial OS should truly understand that one day, your vendor will say the same thing about your current OS, too.
Only in a Microsoft world would still-supported products be abandoned since they were, "just too broken."
Note that "only in a Microsoft world" is a product like Windows 98 supported for so long in the first place. When was the last time Apple released a patch for MacOS 8.x ? How about Red Hat for RHL 5.x ? Heck, I don't Sun even support Solaris for that long and it's an enterprise-class server OS, not a home desktop OS.
Your criticism is petty, to say the least.
But the irony is that this "breakage" is not something that appears over time; it's not bitrot. These are security vulernabilities that have always been present.
Windows 98 is nothing special in this regard.
The Microsoft patch cycle is a joke. Needing a torrent of patches in order to stay "secure" means that you probably aren't secure anyways.
Maybe you should have a look at the volume and frequency of patches on other systems.
Whereas malware, because it must find way to circumvent protection and operate without the user noticing it, must exploit very specific bugs and is highly dependant on the specific flavor on which it must run (versions of kernel/libraries/apps, CPU, compiler architecture,...).
So yes, cRak3rz will still be able to program viruses, except that those viruses will only be able to attack opensuse 14.3, maybe fedora core 8, but not debian 3.3 because they all depend on a bug found in the linux kernel version 2.12.5.1, and the binary only work with EM64T architecture, not SPARC10 or ARM11, and *BSD are out of question.
1. Most "exploits" do not rely on software vulnerabilities.
2. Most modern unix systems are only different enough to be annoying and frustrating (from a user perspective) not different enough for diversity to be really effective. You know how nice it is to be able to sit in front of "any" unix machine and make it work ? The same principle applies to malware.
This is compared to *nix where a lot of fundamental philosophies and tools very much date back over 30 years.
Personally, I think it would be hilarious to put one of today's average unix users (ie: Linux brats) on to a thirty year old unix system. Heck, even just sitting them down in front of an early- mid-90s commercial unix would be quite entertaining.
The suggestion that the world would be (markedly) different if some other OS was #1 is silly to begin with, but trying to say that all the other OSes around today would be exactly the same if they had spent the last twenty years in the same position as DOS and Windows beggars belief.
90% of the "problems" in Windows (both perceived and actual) are because of the end users (which includes developers, in this context). If the user demographic was substantially different, the OS would be as well. This applies equally to unix - if you think unix would be the same today if it were on 95% of end user PCs, you're delusional. Similarly, if you think it subsequently wouldn't be suffering from the same "problems".
A 30-minute porn movie costs 4X what a 2-hour Hollywood movie would, because of it being taboo.
OTOH, a porn flick - even at the high end - probably only costs 1/10th as much to make. There's a lot of room to move in profit margins like that.
The porn industry will never die. At *worst* it would become "mainstream" and the profit margins would drop. Hollywood could not meet the sheer volume - let alone variety - that pornography consumers demand.
This is about as stale as it gets at this stage, so I'll just knock the legs out from under your core argument first: IT is Information Technology, not as you seem to think callcentres and nerds in beige slacks doing tech support. Information Technology IS computers. So boom, there goes the first half of your post.
About the only thing you've cut the legs out from under here, is the strawman you resurrected from the last few posts.
And as to the second part, you didn't respond to the point I made, to whit that when megashaft were in their infancy, loose IP laws allowed them to pick and choose.
That's because you didn't make a point, you waved your hand around a bit and made a vague assertion.
What IP laws do you think were "looser", that contributed in any meaningful fashion to Microsoft's success ? Why was it any different for Microsft that any of their contemporaries ?
Or is the EU jealous too? Not corrupt enough for you?
Heh. The EU is the epitomy of corrupt, protectionist beareaucracy. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
I think this statement says more about you then anything I could say.
What ? That I can come up with a suitably silly example to get a point across ?
And if you want to come across as anything but an astro turfer or a shill you need to be a little more rational.
Which of my arguments are irrational ? And why ? Just repeating it doesn't make it so.
Means nothing. If MS refuses to implement it then it's dead. They have refused to implement it. Yet one more standard MS refuses to implement.
A cursory Google search would suggest they *are* implementing it.
Once again I don't buy the argument that every company is evil.
Neither do I. Of course, I don't buy the argument that common business practices are "evil", either.
Clearly there are some companies that are more ethical then others. MS is amongst the worst.
IMHO, your classification of Microsoft as "amongst the worst" is an insult to the victims of reuly vile corporate behaviour. How can you place Microsoft on the same level as IBM's collusion with the Nazis, Nestle's marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third world countries, or deceptive (and lethal) practices of the tobacco industry ?
As I said, about the *nastiest* thing you could ever accuse Microsoft of doing is putting another company out of business - and most of them are out of business because they deserved it-. How can you possibly say that is even in the same ballpark - hell, even playing the same *game* - as some of the "worst" corporate behaviour out there ?
Nonsense. Maytag, rockport, snapper, and thousands of other companies seem to be able to function without resorting to lying, cheating or stealing.
Are you sure ? Have you subjected them to the same level of crutiny you do Microsoft ?
Closely allied with MS.
I can assure you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the content industry is - and has been - lobbying for longer, stricter copyrights far more zealously than Microsoft, and with far more nefarious plans. There are also numerous companies that have abused the patent system much more than Microsoft ever have.
The big problem with your assertion that Microsoft is "amongst the worst" in terms of corporate behaviour, is that it doesn't stand up to any sort of objective analysis - *especially* once you move outside the realm of the computer industry. So far the worst things you been able to come up with are vague accusations of theft general belligerence. I could come up with a ten examples of more "evil" corporate behaviour than that without even trying. Someone of a suitably socialist/anti-corporate mindset could probably come up with dozens, if not hundreds.
Something that the majority of Slashdot readers seem not to understand (and with justification) is that purchasing decisions are not rational.
No, something that the majority of Slashdot readers do not understand is that purchasing decisions are rarely made on the basis of up-front component costs.
I already said them. Ms is actively trying to destroy innovation in the IT industry.
That's rather vague and opionated. I was hoping for something a little more... specific and objective.
I might as well say OSS is actively trying to destroy the software industry. It's about as valid.
It's a plauge on the industry as a whole. SInce the entire world communicates and does business via the IT industry MS is harmful to the world.
Look, if you want to come across as anything more than yet another Slashdot Anti-Microsoft Zealot, you'll need to try an sound a little less like Chicken Little.
Look at how hard they tried and succeeded in killing SPF for example. There was no need to do that. They just wanted their own patent encumbered standard so they killed an open standard.
I can't profess to keeping up with every little thing that Microsoft does, but a quick google returned this suggesting it went to the IETF to be ratified.
That's just one example. There are a million more. If you are not aware of them then you are wilfully ignorant.
No, I just don't have an irrational hatred of anything Microsoft does and a reasonable grasp on how the business world operates.
In addition to their activities which harm the industry they have actively lied, cheated and stole from their partners. All of them!. That's sleazy, unethical and yes evil. It's evil to say you are entering into a partnership and then steal technology and customers from the partner.
I think you will have a great deal of difficulty finding anything Microsoft have done that every other sizable company (software industry or otherwise) hasn't also done.
Yes but not specific. They are lobbying the govt to mandate DRMed bioses which won't run trusted code.
I presume you mean "Trusted Computing Platform". Seems to me we're coming back to that thing about not being able to pirate the latest and greatest software and media. TCP has perfectly valid technical arguments in its favour, even if you don't like it. It's highly unlikely to ever be dictating you can only use Microsoft software.
Once again, your real enemy here is not Microsoft, it is the "content" companies. If you want to stop things like DRM, you need to lobby for copyright reform and the destruction of lecherous companies like the RIAA and friends, not Microsoft. If you want to stop ridiculous things like patentable business methods, then you need to lobby for patent reform. If it's not Microsoft, it'll be (already is) Apple, or someone else.
And you remember all those whirry round tapes in NASA flight control? Computers.
You seem to be rather missing the point.
Yeah you did. And you're doing it again in theis post.
Where ?
What the fuck. You think you can just pull out computers and everything will run as per the 1950s?
Go back. Read the thread again. Attempt to interpret context and apply some thought before you post another reply. That way you might be end up doing something other than mercilessly pummelling a strawman.
Ah, fuck it, your mind is too set to bother with something so rational.
I never said just yanking away all the computers in the world would have no effect, I said the suggestion that "IT" is the one thing that keeps us all from reverting back to the stone age is laughable. Any remotely switched-on schoolchild should easily be able to come up with several "industries" more critical to the functioning of modern society than the bunch of snake oil salesmen making up the majority of the "IT" industry.
Theres not much I can say in the face of such monumental ignorance.
There's little I can say in the face of the stupidity, paranoia and ad-hominems of the average Slashdot post, either, but I try.
If you pull out the computers today, we all die in about four weeks, without an economy, from starvation.
Again, such ridiculous hyperbole doesn't even pass the laugh test - and that's ignoring that "computers" aren't the topic under discussion, nor has "pulling them out" been proposed.
None of which were produced by microsoft, all of which were either stolen under looser IP laws (that durn freewheeling again) or "borrowed", which amounts to the same thing, and then locked down by silver-spoon-billy.
Damn, I hope the next time someone "steals" something from me they leave a pile of cash behind.
Your "arguments" are baseless, tired and off-topic. Put some more effort into it.
Try again, young man. The reason you can do all of the above are Dell and their rather nifty production and supply lines.
Which wouldn't exist if that hardware hadn't had a cheap, ubiquitous OS - allowing cheap, ubiquitous software - to run. Incidentally, I think it's Compaq you should be thanking, for coming up with the first PC clone. Dell just grabbed the ball and ran with it.
Much as it must pain you to realise this - and even you must understand it, because it's so plainly obvious - the world of the commodotised PC is symbiotic. It wouldn't exist without Dell, nor would it exist without Microsoft, nor would it exist without any of dozens of other players, large and small, past and present. Your teeth grinding must disturb people in surrounding offices, every time you think about how DOS and Windows were key enabling factors in the PC revolution.
Really, though, it's just not that important. You should try and get on with your life rather than getting all stressed about history.
That gilly bates managed to secure a good contract with IBM and then Dell says nothing about the quality of his products.
Ah, the source of your angst becomes more clear. A standard combination of jealousy and a large chunk of wood on the shoulder.
Aaaaand we have more burbling of the brown stuff. What about that whole open source movement there.
Pedantic literalism is right up there with spelling flames, in the realms of sound counter-arguments. At least your strawman argument required a bit of thought to come up with.
How are the cheques these days anyway?
How predictable. This whole "shill" thing is getting to be just like Godwin.
"The longer a Slashdot thread about Microsoft grows, the more likely any posters not actively criticising Microsoft will be called hired shills".
It's actually kind of depressing to think there are people out there who seriously think Microsoft is a foremost problem in the modern world. No wonder we're in so much trouble.
I agree that we have different standards. I see lots of activities other then slavery and destruction of the environment as evil.
Your arguments would be more convincing if some of these things Microsoft does that are supposedly "evil" were elaborated upon.
Ms is actively lobbying the govt to prevent you from exercizing those choices.
Microsoft are lobbying the Government to prevent the sale or contruction of any computers that don't run Microsoft software ? Now *that* would be something worth reading about.
Actually, in English, it is called 'football'. That was the point of starting this 'Soccer?' thread.
There are many places in the world that use "soccer", not "football". Here in Australia, for example, where there are several other established codes of "football", "soccer" is by far the most common (and more importantly, least confusing) name.
Saying "football" to a random Australian - depending upon which part of the country you're in and which part of the country (or world) the person you're talking to is from - could result in a conversation about any one of four quite different (well, only three of them qualify as "quite different) sports.
It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.
If you like American Football and Soccer, then Rugby Union is probably your dream sport. Most of the athleticism, dynamic and constant play of soccer, all of the body-crunching violence (plus interest) of American Football (only without the body armour)
But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.
You cannot truly appreciate the fitness and incredible (and unmatched, IMHO) amount of whole-body co-ordination required to play soccer at a high level unless you've actually played the game competitively, IMHO.
The real beauty of soccer - and the main reason behind its popularity - is that it scales all the way from a couple of kids kicking a dead dog's head around all the way up to an epic spectacle like the World Cup. You can play it anywhere, even with people who have never touched a ball before - yet players at the top level regularly perform feats with a ball the typical - even the above average - person couldn't even dream of replicating. Soccer is incredibly easy to just pick up, but simultaneously incredibly difficult to play well.
Once again you seem to think it's not a major problem and only see the fight in the narrowest terms possible. We clearly disagree.
Yes, that's because I see the RIAA and co. trying to shape the world so a person's credit card is automatically debited every time they get a song stuck in their head, and the only way to acquire entertainment is from an RIAA-approved outlet. I see Microsoft, on the other hand, trying to stop people pirating Windows and hacking Xboxes.
I certainly know which one I consider the larger threat.
You talk as if putting us in the seventies would not be a major blow to the world.
No, I talk as if putting us in the seventies wouldn't be the "end of civilisation". I personally would probably be in a different job, get a lot more fresh air and watch a lot less porn, but apart from that my life would not be significantly different.
I don't buy this argument. I hear it all the time from the shillboys. I don't believe that every company in the world or every company in IT is as evil as Ms. I just don't buy it.
And I don't buy the "argument" anti-Microsoft zealots like yourself spout all over Slashdot about Microsoft being the Great Satan. Largely because of a) Microsoft's lack of any activity that could reasonably be called "evil" and b) the propensity of pretty much every other sizable corporation to act in the same fashion.
Maybe we just have different standards of "evil". I'm afraid mine rates slavery, destruction of the environment and propogation of death and suffering far, far higher than it does selling a piece of software to willing buyers that checks back every day to see if it's been pirated.
Once again we clearly disagree. I think the ability to talk, communicate, read, pass information to your progeny is more important then most other things in the world. Ms controls all of that right now.
Utterly ridiculous. Microsoft control *none* of those things, and companies like the RIAA or News Ltd. (not to mention your Government) will be exerting control over them long before Microsoft ever does.
There is no force whatsoever that currently compels me to use Microsoft software. Even when *using* Microsoft software, there is no force compelling me to use their propretarry formats. *Let alone* actively stopping me from using other file formats, software or hardware.
It is a shortened version of the ironic phrase, "I suppose I could care less, but I don't know how."
No, it's an erroneous reproduction of the older idiom "I couldn't care less". Given that it relies entirely on vocal intonation (or prior knowledge of the "meaning") to be anything but gibberish, its origin was almost certainly from mispronunciations and/or "mishearings" via regional accents - probably of the phrase originating in written material - followed by repetition.
Incidentally, the word you're after is "sarcastic", not "ironic".
Outside of the US, "I could care less" is seen as the nonsensical error it is and correct usage is "I couldn't care less". Even *within* the US, people with a decent English education realise the former is a perversion after it requires an explanation and sufficient linguistic/mental gymnastics to be meaningful.
The meaning of "I couldn't care less" is quickly and easily understood, whether the phrase is heard or read. The same cannot be said for "I could care less". This is because the latter is (supposedly) a shortening of a longer phrase that requires a suitably sarcastic intonation to communicate meaning, whereas the former is coherent on its own.
What. Information Technoology. The stuff that lets me talk to people in Cambodia and Australia instantly. The stuff that has enabled almost all of the massive leaps forward in technology over the last thirty years, from jet planes to medicine. And this is what you trivialise to Myspace.
You may be stunned to know people were making international telephone calls, bouncing stuff off satellites and flying around in jet planes back in the '60s. Back then it was still mostly called Engineering.
So have effective ICBMs. You want to tell me they haven't had an effect on civilisation?
At no stage did I even *suggest* "IT" hadn't had an (incredible) effect on civilisation. I was questioning the original poster's implication that modern civilisation would fall apart without it. Since, being extremely pessimistic, a world without "IT" would be roughly like the 1950s (or, say, a better life than half the world's population has right now), I think his claim was just a *teensy* bit exaggerated.
I'll also point that it's only been the last decade or so, when home computers have become common, the internet has become easily accessible and business methods have actually begun to rely on the presence of computing equipment "everywhere", that "IT" has become an integral part of daily life for a significant portion of the developed world.
Y'all seem to be forgetting that even in the '80s, computers were uncommon.
MS has been terrible for IT.
Uh, hello ? DOS ? The IBM PC ? Commoditisation of the personal computer ? Ubiquitous interface ?
You might not *like* that Microsoft was the company that did it - although _someone_ had to - but they are unquestionably one of the primary reasons you can go out and buy a US$300 PC and then run hundreds of thousands of programs on it and why the average person can sit down in front of the average computer and be able to use it.
They have supported the locking down of algorithms and business methods via patents, [...]
So has everyone else. Hell, there are companies out there patenting *gene sequences*.
Not to mention, Microsoft have hardly been aggressive in attempts to enforce patents they hold. Far from it, in fact.
[...] which has had a chilling effect on innovation and the freewheeling, anything goes culture of pre-MS days, [...]
Right. Because there's been no "innovation and freewheeling" since the late '70s. Anyone and everyone's ability to go out, but a computer and run whatever-the-hell-they-want on it has just been a figment of my imagination. The Amiga, Apple, the Mac, Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Acorn, Linux, FreeBSD, GNOME, KDE - none of it really happened, right ? Those ten or so old computers I've got at home - none of which have a single piece of Microsoft software on them - aren't actually there ?
You probably don't remember what that was like.
Clearly, I do and you don't. In particular, you might want to cast your mind back and remember that Microsoft was the *underdog* until the early '90s. IBM was the big, mean, nasty corporation everyone hated. (My, my, has the world changed...)
All in all, you have my vote for most asinine post of 2006. Congratulations, u r teh winnar!
Hey, at least I realise food, clothing, shelter, transport, safety and access to unbiased information are more important to modern civilisation than being able to play Halo 3 and SMS my friends 100 times a day.
And what flute modded this up? Methinks we have shills amongst us.
Ah, yes, the standard Slashdot ad-hominem. "Clearly, if someone doesn't agree with us that Microsoft is the greatest evil the world has ever known (and Linux r00lz btw), they *must* be getting paid to say that".
Get some fucking perspective. About the *worst* thing Microsoft has done is put another company out of business, and you're trying to say they're up there with corporations selling engines of death and destruction, getting wars started for the sake of profit, stopping farmers growing food, restricting the availability of life-saving drugs and using slave labour ?
Everyone even vaguely connected with an industry that generates "intellectual property" lobbied very hard for the DMCA. And, I repeat, there's a lot more of them you need to worry about before getting around to Microsoft.
The RIAA and friends, and companies producing media like newspapers and TV shows, are the ones you really need to worry about leveraging copyright to restrict the "flow of information", not Microsoft.
If you think the only thing at stake here is copyright violation then you are still sleeping.
I think the only "freedom" 99% of people worried about not being able to download and install the next version of Windows from TPB is their freedom to get the latest and greatest for free.
Clearly we have different viewpoints about the importance of IT in the modern world.
Indeed. You seem to think not having it would put us in the stone age. I think it would put us in the seventies.
Nonsense. More great actual and potential technologies have died because of Ms then for any other reason.
This such ridiculous hyperbole I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.
Ms kills innovation.
Prove it.
I disagree. Take out Ms and the whole thing comes crumbling down.
If it weren't Microsoft, it would be someone else. Be thankful it wasn't Apple that ended up at the top of the computing world heap.
Ms is the richest and most powerful company in IT and one of the most powerful companies in the world. Other then a few oil companies and walmart (all various degrees of evil) it's Ms.
Personally, I'm far, far more worried about military industries, drug companies, media companies (both the RIAA kind and Fox News kind) and food/farming research companies (to name a few) than I am about Microsoft. Because a) they've got more political clout than Microsoft could ever *dream* of and b) their psychopathic behaviour has a vastly greater impact on my life - and others' lives - than Microsoft ever could.
I really think you need to get some perspective, here. Microsoft have such a miniscule influence on the things that are really important in your life that it's ridiculous to say they're even playing the same game as big pharma, big media, big oil and their ilk. Hell, *Nike* rate higher on the "evil" scale than Microsoft does.
Ms is actively trying to curb this freedom and working in close partnerships with others who want to curb this freedom.
Your paranoia is showing. About the only "freedom" Microsoft is actively trying to curb is the "freedom" to violate copyright[0].
On another point IT is arguably the most imporant industry on the planet. It is literally the glue that holds modern civiliation together. Ms is bad for IT, Ms is bad for civilization.
Maybe if you're a thirteen year old kid who thinks "modern civilisation" equates to ipods, Myspace and mobile phones.
"IT" has only been a significant part of "civilisation" for - at a stretch - thirty years (realistically, closer to ten).
I also feel compelled to point out that Microsoft has been one of the key factors in making "IT" so important in the first place. By pretty much any objective measure, Microsoft is *great* for IT.
I'm all for "fighting the man", but there are so many bigger, worthier targets than Microsoft out there it's just not funny (even if you restrict yourself to the area of "Intellectual Property" based corporations).
[0]Not that I personally have many qualms about violating copyright, but this "Microsoft is trying to oppress us" idiocy is really getting beyond a joke. Heaven help you if you were ever faced with *real* oppression. (That's the kind that actually puts your life at risk, rather than your ability to play the latest games for free.)
It's true however that they are amongst the least ethical companies around.
What's your point of reference here ?
There's a hell of a lot of companies out there orders of magnitude more unethical than Microsoft. Tobacco, gambling, military, medical, clothing, jewellery, etc.
On the 1 - 10 scale of Corporate Unethicalness (tm), Microsoft would struggle to hit a 3.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, they *wrote* it - they could hardly take something they already owned.
They're not giving it away, they're releasing it under the GPL.
If they were *giving* it away, they'd be releasing it into the Public Domain, or using a much less restrictive license like the BSDL.
s/abbreviated/incorrect/
They could call it the LGPL !
The GPL does not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of the writers of non-GPL code who want to work with GPL code, and especially if you're in the shoes of such as MS, it can easily appear to have been written that way specifically out of spite towards big business.
It was ... kind of ... in an indirect fashion.
Basically, the purposes of the GPL were to a) make selling software as a standalone product impossible and b) serreptitiously generate more GPLed software.
I think what MS is hoping for here is that folks who want to work with big business will begin to release under less severe licenses, or that a GPL will be written with more allowances than what currently exists.
The LGPL is a reasonable balance between Open Source principles and commercial reality. However, RMS doesn't really like the LGPL, because he's not the kind of bloke who is capable of compromise.
Each and every one of you out there using any commercial OS should truly understand that one day, your vendor will say the same thing about your current OS, too.
Only in a Microsoft world would still-supported products be abandoned since they were, "just too broken."
Note that "only in a Microsoft world" is a product like Windows 98 supported for so long in the first place. When was the last time Apple released a patch for MacOS 8.x ? How about Red Hat for RHL 5.x ? Heck, I don't Sun even support Solaris for that long and it's an enterprise-class server OS, not a home desktop OS.
Your criticism is petty, to say the least.
But the irony is that this "breakage" is not something that appears over time; it's not bitrot. These are security vulernabilities that have always been present.
Windows 98 is nothing special in this regard.
The Microsoft patch cycle is a joke. Needing a torrent of patches in order to stay "secure" means that you probably aren't secure anyways.
Maybe you should have a look at the volume and frequency of patches on other systems.
1. Most "exploits" do not rely on software vulnerabilities.
2. Most modern unix systems are only different enough to be annoying and frustrating (from a user perspective) not different enough for diversity to be really effective. You know how nice it is to be able to sit in front of "any" unix machine and make it work ? The same principle applies to malware.
Personally, I think it would be hilarious to put one of today's average unix users (ie: Linux brats) on to a thirty year old unix system. Heck, even just sitting them down in front of an early- mid-90s commercial unix would be quite entertaining.
The suggestion that the world would be (markedly) different if some other OS was #1 is silly to begin with, but trying to say that all the other OSes around today would be exactly the same if they had spent the last twenty years in the same position as DOS and Windows beggars belief.
90% of the "problems" in Windows (both perceived and actual) are because of the end users (which includes developers, in this context). If the user demographic was substantially different, the OS would be as well. This applies equally to unix - if you think unix would be the same today if it were on 95% of end user PCs, you're delusional. Similarly, if you think it subsequently wouldn't be suffering from the same "problems".
OTOH, a porn flick - even at the high end - probably only costs 1/10th as much to make. There's a lot of room to move in profit margins like that.
The porn industry will never die. At *worst* it would become "mainstream" and the profit margins would drop. Hollywood could not meet the sheer volume - let alone variety - that pornography consumers demand.
For the bad girl you actually want to have sex with: +1 Kinky.
For the fat chick you'll probably end up scoring with: +1 Arsehole.
About the only thing you've cut the legs out from under here, is the strawman you resurrected from the last few posts.
And as to the second part, you didn't respond to the point I made, to whit that when megashaft were in their infancy, loose IP laws allowed them to pick and choose.
That's because you didn't make a point, you waved your hand around a bit and made a vague assertion.
What IP laws do you think were "looser", that contributed in any meaningful fashion to Microsoft's success ? Why was it any different for Microsft that any of their contemporaries ?
Or is the EU jealous too? Not corrupt enough for you?
Heh. The EU is the epitomy of corrupt, protectionist beareaucracy. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
What ? That I can come up with a suitably silly example to get a point across ?
And if you want to come across as anything but an astro turfer or a shill you need to be a little more rational.
Which of my arguments are irrational ? And why ? Just repeating it doesn't make it so.
Means nothing. If MS refuses to implement it then it's dead. They have refused to implement it. Yet one more standard MS refuses to implement.
A cursory Google search would suggest they *are* implementing it.
Once again I don't buy the argument that every company is evil.
Neither do I. Of course, I don't buy the argument that common business practices are "evil", either.
Clearly there are some companies that are more ethical then others. MS is amongst the worst.
IMHO, your classification of Microsoft as "amongst the worst" is an insult to the victims of reuly vile corporate behaviour. How can you place Microsoft on the same level as IBM's collusion with the Nazis, Nestle's marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third world countries, or deceptive (and lethal) practices of the tobacco industry ?
As I said, about the *nastiest* thing you could ever accuse Microsoft of doing is putting another company out of business - and most of them are out of business because they deserved it-. How can you possibly say that is even in the same ballpark - hell, even playing the same *game* - as some of the "worst" corporate behaviour out there ?
Nonsense. Maytag, rockport, snapper, and thousands of other companies seem to be able to function without resorting to lying, cheating or stealing.
Are you sure ? Have you subjected them to the same level of crutiny you do Microsoft ?
Closely allied with MS.
I can assure you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the content industry is - and has been - lobbying for longer, stricter copyrights far more zealously than Microsoft, and with far more nefarious plans. There are also numerous companies that have abused the patent system much more than Microsoft ever have.
The big problem with your assertion that Microsoft is "amongst the worst" in terms of corporate behaviour, is that it doesn't stand up to any sort of objective analysis - *especially* once you move outside the realm of the computer industry. So far the worst things you been able to come up with are vague accusations of theft general belligerence. I could come up with a ten examples of more "evil" corporate behaviour than that without even trying. Someone of a suitably socialist/anti-corporate mindset could probably come up with dozens, if not hundreds.
No, something that the majority of Slashdot readers do not understand is that purchasing decisions are rarely made on the basis of up-front component costs.
That's rather vague and opionated. I was hoping for something a little more ... specific and objective.
I might as well say OSS is actively trying to destroy the software industry. It's about as valid.
It's a plauge on the industry as a whole. SInce the entire world communicates and does business via the IT industry MS is harmful to the world.
Look, if you want to come across as anything more than yet another Slashdot Anti-Microsoft Zealot, you'll need to try an sound a little less like Chicken Little.
Look at how hard they tried and succeeded in killing SPF for example. There was no need to do that. They just wanted their own patent encumbered standard so they killed an open standard.
I can't profess to keeping up with every little thing that Microsoft does, but a quick google returned this suggesting it went to the IETF to be ratified.
That's just one example. There are a million more. If you are not aware of them then you are wilfully ignorant.
No, I just don't have an irrational hatred of anything Microsoft does and a reasonable grasp on how the business world operates.
In addition to their activities which harm the industry they have actively lied, cheated and stole from their partners. All of them!. That's sleazy, unethical and yes evil. It's evil to say you are entering into a partnership and then steal technology and customers from the partner.
I think you will have a great deal of difficulty finding anything Microsoft have done that every other sizable company (software industry or otherwise) hasn't also done.
Yes but not specific. They are lobbying the govt to mandate DRMed bioses which won't run trusted code.
I presume you mean "Trusted Computing Platform". Seems to me we're coming back to that thing about not being able to pirate the latest and greatest software and media. TCP has perfectly valid technical arguments in its favour, even if you don't like it. It's highly unlikely to ever be dictating you can only use Microsoft software.
Once again, your real enemy here is not Microsoft, it is the "content" companies. If you want to stop things like DRM, you need to lobby for copyright reform and the destruction of lecherous companies like the RIAA and friends, not Microsoft. If you want to stop ridiculous things like patentable business methods, then you need to lobby for patent reform. If it's not Microsoft, it'll be (already is) Apple, or someone else.
You seem to be rather missing the point.
Yeah you did. And you're doing it again in theis post.
Where ?
What the fuck. You think you can just pull out computers and everything will run as per the 1950s?
Go back. Read the thread again. Attempt to interpret context and apply some thought before you post another reply. That way you might be end up doing something other than mercilessly pummelling a strawman.
Ah, fuck it, your mind is too set to bother with something so rational.
I never said just yanking away all the computers in the world would have no effect, I said the suggestion that "IT" is the one thing that keeps us all from reverting back to the stone age is laughable. Any remotely switched-on schoolchild should easily be able to come up with several "industries" more critical to the functioning of modern society than the bunch of snake oil salesmen making up the majority of the "IT" industry.
Theres not much I can say in the face of such monumental ignorance.
There's little I can say in the face of the stupidity, paranoia and ad-hominems of the average Slashdot post, either, but I try.
If you pull out the computers today, we all die in about four weeks, without an economy, from starvation.
Again, such ridiculous hyperbole doesn't even pass the laugh test - and that's ignoring that "computers" aren't the topic under discussion, nor has "pulling them out" been proposed.
None of which were produced by microsoft, all of which were either stolen under looser IP laws (that durn freewheeling again) or "borrowed", which amounts to the same thing, and then locked down by silver-spoon-billy.
Damn, I hope the next time someone "steals" something from me they leave a pile of cash behind.
Your "arguments" are baseless, tired and off-topic. Put some more effort into it.
Try again, young man. The reason you can do all of the above are Dell and their rather nifty production and supply lines.
Which wouldn't exist if that hardware hadn't had a cheap, ubiquitous OS - allowing cheap, ubiquitous software - to run. Incidentally, I think it's Compaq you should be thanking, for coming up with the first PC clone. Dell just grabbed the ball and ran with it.
Much as it must pain you to realise this - and even you must understand it, because it's so plainly obvious - the world of the commodotised PC is symbiotic. It wouldn't exist without Dell, nor would it exist without Microsoft, nor would it exist without any of dozens of other players, large and small, past and present. Your teeth grinding must disturb people in surrounding offices, every time you think about how DOS and Windows were key enabling factors in the PC revolution.
Really, though, it's just not that important. You should try and get on with your life rather than getting all stressed about history.
That gilly bates managed to secure a good contract with IBM and then Dell says nothing about the quality of his products.
Ah, the source of your angst becomes more clear. A standard combination of jealousy and a large chunk of wood on the shoulder.
Aaaaand we have more burbling of the brown stuff. What about that whole open source movement there.
Pedantic literalism is right up there with spelling flames, in the realms of sound counter-arguments. At least your strawman argument required a bit of thought to come up with.
How are the cheques these days anyway?
How predictable. This whole "shill" thing is getting to be just like Godwin.
"The longer a Slashdot thread about Microsoft grows, the more likely any posters not actively criticising Microsoft will be called hired shills".
It's actually kind of depressing to think there are people out there who seriously think Microsoft is a foremost problem in the modern world. No wonder we're in so much trouble.
Your arguments would be more convincing if some of these things Microsoft does that are supposedly "evil" were elaborated upon.
Ms is actively lobbying the govt to prevent you from exercizing those choices.
Microsoft are lobbying the Government to prevent the sale or contruction of any computers that don't run Microsoft software ? Now *that* would be something worth reading about.
There are many places in the world that use "soccer", not "football". Here in Australia, for example, where there are several other established codes of "football", "soccer" is by far the most common (and more importantly, least confusing) name.
Saying "football" to a random Australian - depending upon which part of the country you're in and which part of the country (or world) the person you're talking to is from - could result in a conversation about any one of four quite different (well, only three of them qualify as "quite different) sports.
It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.
If you like American Football and Soccer, then Rugby Union is probably your dream sport. Most of the athleticism, dynamic and constant play of soccer, all of the body-crunching violence (plus interest) of American Football (only without the body armour)
But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.
You cannot truly appreciate the fitness and incredible (and unmatched, IMHO) amount of whole-body co-ordination required to play soccer at a high level unless you've actually played the game competitively, IMHO.
The real beauty of soccer - and the main reason behind its popularity - is that it scales all the way from a couple of kids kicking a dead dog's head around all the way up to an epic spectacle like the World Cup. You can play it anywhere, even with people who have never touched a ball before - yet players at the top level regularly perform feats with a ball the typical - even the above average - person couldn't even dream of replicating. Soccer is incredibly easy to just pick up, but simultaneously incredibly difficult to play well.
But it'snot like the Romans did anything for them...
Yes, that's because I see the RIAA and co. trying to shape the world so a person's credit card is automatically debited every time they get a song stuck in their head, and the only way to acquire entertainment is from an RIAA-approved outlet. I see Microsoft, on the other hand, trying to stop people pirating Windows and hacking Xboxes.
I certainly know which one I consider the larger threat.
You talk as if putting us in the seventies would not be a major blow to the world.
No, I talk as if putting us in the seventies wouldn't be the "end of civilisation". I personally would probably be in a different job, get a lot more fresh air and watch a lot less porn, but apart from that my life would not be significantly different.
I don't buy this argument. I hear it all the time from the shillboys. I don't believe that every company in the world or every company in IT is as evil as Ms. I just don't buy it.
And I don't buy the "argument" anti-Microsoft zealots like yourself spout all over Slashdot about Microsoft being the Great Satan. Largely because of a) Microsoft's lack of any activity that could reasonably be called "evil" and b) the propensity of pretty much every other sizable corporation to act in the same fashion.
Maybe we just have different standards of "evil". I'm afraid mine rates slavery, destruction of the environment and propogation of death and suffering far, far higher than it does selling a piece of software to willing buyers that checks back every day to see if it's been pirated.
Once again we clearly disagree. I think the ability to talk, communicate, read, pass information to your progeny is more important then most other things in the world. Ms controls all of that right now.
Utterly ridiculous. Microsoft control *none* of those things, and companies like the RIAA or News Ltd. (not to mention your Government) will be exerting control over them long before Microsoft ever does.
There is no force whatsoever that currently compels me to use Microsoft software. Even when *using* Microsoft software, there is no force compelling me to use their propretarry formats. *Let alone* actively stopping me from using other file formats, software or hardware.
No, it's an erroneous reproduction of the older idiom "I couldn't care less". Given that it relies entirely on vocal intonation (or prior knowledge of the "meaning") to be anything but gibberish, its origin was almost certainly from mispronunciations and/or "mishearings" via regional accents - probably of the phrase originating in written material - followed by repetition.
Incidentally, the word you're after is "sarcastic", not "ironic".
Outside of the US, "I could care less" is seen as the nonsensical error it is and correct usage is "I couldn't care less". Even *within* the US, people with a decent English education realise the former is a perversion after it requires an explanation and sufficient linguistic/mental gymnastics to be meaningful.
The meaning of "I couldn't care less" is quickly and easily understood, whether the phrase is heard or read. The same cannot be said for "I could care less". This is because the latter is (supposedly) a shortening of a longer phrase that requires a suitably sarcastic intonation to communicate meaning, whereas the former is coherent on its own.
You may be stunned to know people were making international telephone calls, bouncing stuff off satellites and flying around in jet planes back in the '60s. Back then it was still mostly called Engineering.
So have effective ICBMs. You want to tell me they haven't had an effect on civilisation?
At no stage did I even *suggest* "IT" hadn't had an (incredible) effect on civilisation. I was questioning the original poster's implication that modern civilisation would fall apart without it. Since, being extremely pessimistic, a world without "IT" would be roughly like the 1950s (or, say, a better life than half the world's population has right now), I think his claim was just a *teensy* bit exaggerated.
I'll also point that it's only been the last decade or so, when home computers have become common, the internet has become easily accessible and business methods have actually begun to rely on the presence of computing equipment "everywhere", that "IT" has become an integral part of daily life for a significant portion of the developed world.
Y'all seem to be forgetting that even in the '80s, computers were uncommon.
MS has been terrible for IT.
Uh, hello ? DOS ? The IBM PC ? Commoditisation of the personal computer ? Ubiquitous interface ?
You might not *like* that Microsoft was the company that did it - although _someone_ had to - but they are unquestionably one of the primary reasons you can go out and buy a US$300 PC and then run hundreds of thousands of programs on it and why the average person can sit down in front of the average computer and be able to use it.
They have supported the locking down of algorithms and business methods via patents, [...]
So has everyone else. Hell, there are companies out there patenting *gene sequences*.
Not to mention, Microsoft have hardly been aggressive in attempts to enforce patents they hold. Far from it, in fact.
[...] which has had a chilling effect on innovation and the freewheeling, anything goes culture of pre-MS days, [...]
Right. Because there's been no "innovation and freewheeling" since the late '70s. Anyone and everyone's ability to go out, but a computer and run whatever-the-hell-they-want on it has just been a figment of my imagination. The Amiga, Apple, the Mac, Atari, Nintendo, Sega, Acorn, Linux, FreeBSD, GNOME, KDE - none of it really happened, right ? Those ten or so old computers I've got at home - none of which have a single piece of Microsoft software on them - aren't actually there ?
You probably don't remember what that was like.
Clearly, I do and you don't. In particular, you might want to cast your mind back and remember that Microsoft was the *underdog* until the early '90s. IBM was the big, mean, nasty corporation everyone hated. (My, my, has the world changed...)
All in all, you have my vote for most asinine post of 2006. Congratulations, u r teh winnar!
Hey, at least I realise food, clothing, shelter, transport, safety and access to unbiased information are more important to modern civilisation than being able to play Halo 3 and SMS my friends 100 times a day.
And what flute modded this up? Methinks we have shills amongst us.
Ah, yes, the standard Slashdot ad-hominem. "Clearly, if someone doesn't agree with us that Microsoft is the greatest evil the world has ever known (and Linux r00lz btw), they *must* be getting paid to say that".
Get some fucking perspective. About the *worst* thing Microsoft has done is put another company out of business, and you're trying to say they're up there with corporations selling engines of death and destruction, getting wars started for the sake of profit, stopping farmers growing food, restricting the availability of life-saving drugs and using slave labour ?
Everyone even vaguely connected with an industry that generates "intellectual property" lobbied very hard for the DMCA. And, I repeat, there's a lot more of them you need to worry about before getting around to Microsoft.
The RIAA and friends, and companies producing media like newspapers and TV shows, are the ones you really need to worry about leveraging copyright to restrict the "flow of information", not Microsoft.
If you think the only thing at stake here is copyright violation then you are still sleeping.
I think the only "freedom" 99% of people worried about not being able to download and install the next version of Windows from TPB is their freedom to get the latest and greatest for free.
Clearly we have different viewpoints about the importance of IT in the modern world.
Indeed. You seem to think not having it would put us in the stone age. I think it would put us in the seventies.
Nonsense. More great actual and potential technologies have died because of Ms then for any other reason.
This such ridiculous hyperbole I'm beginning to think you're just trolling.
Ms kills innovation.
Prove it.
I disagree. Take out Ms and the whole thing comes crumbling down.
If it weren't Microsoft, it would be someone else. Be thankful it wasn't Apple that ended up at the top of the computing world heap.
Ms is the richest and most powerful company in IT and one of the most powerful companies in the world. Other then a few oil companies and walmart (all various degrees of evil) it's Ms.
Personally, I'm far, far more worried about military industries, drug companies, media companies (both the RIAA kind and Fox News kind) and food/farming research companies (to name a few) than I am about Microsoft. Because a) they've got more political clout than Microsoft could ever *dream* of and b) their psychopathic behaviour has a vastly greater impact on my life - and others' lives - than Microsoft ever could.
I really think you need to get some perspective, here. Microsoft have such a miniscule influence on the things that are really important in your life that it's ridiculous to say they're even playing the same game as big pharma, big media, big oil and their ilk. Hell, *Nike* rate higher on the "evil" scale than Microsoft does.
Your paranoia is showing. About the only "freedom" Microsoft is actively trying to curb is the "freedom" to violate copyright[0].
On another point IT is arguably the most imporant industry on the planet. It is literally the glue that holds modern civiliation together. Ms is bad for IT, Ms is bad for civilization.
Maybe if you're a thirteen year old kid who thinks "modern civilisation" equates to ipods, Myspace and mobile phones.
"IT" has only been a significant part of "civilisation" for - at a stretch - thirty years (realistically, closer to ten).
I also feel compelled to point out that Microsoft has been one of the key factors in making "IT" so important in the first place. By pretty much any objective measure, Microsoft is *great* for IT.
I'm all for "fighting the man", but there are so many bigger, worthier targets than Microsoft out there it's just not funny (even if you restrict yourself to the area of "Intellectual Property" based corporations).
[0]Not that I personally have many qualms about violating copyright, but this "Microsoft is trying to oppress us" idiocy is really getting beyond a joke. Heaven help you if you were ever faced with *real* oppression. (That's the kind that actually puts your life at risk, rather than your ability to play the latest games for free.)
What's your point of reference here ?
There's a hell of a lot of companies out there orders of magnitude more unethical than Microsoft. Tobacco, gambling, military, medical, clothing, jewellery, etc.
On the 1 - 10 scale of Corporate Unethicalness (tm), Microsoft would struggle to hit a 3.
Really ? I had no idea...
</SARCASM>
What I meant, was exactly which aspect of the Linux marketplace is Debian "leading" in ?
Er, leading distribution of what ?