Even if MS' competitors would have died out anyway, MS still engaged in illegal activities against them, and b/c of the negative effects this has on the public (which has been shown by other monopolies time and time again) illegal activities against us.
If a poisioner slips someone poision, but the victim, before taking it dies of a heart attack, this is still AFAIK (IANAL) attempted murder. That would be hard to discover. MS isn't even so lucky or smart to successfully cover up what it's done.
They have broken the law, it's established fact, now we get to see what happens. Objecting that they did not break the law, at least until an appeal, is irrelevant.
And just to try to preempt those who would argue about the Mac or Linux or another system...
None of these could be easily and inexpensively switched to by the vast majority of MS' customers, both OEMs and individuals.
Linux, unfortunately, is still quite difficult for newbies (not that Windows is a hell of a lot better when it has trouble), is lacking a number of applications and drivers which are only on Windows (and sometimes the Mac) and is really not ready for prime time *end users*. Yet. Given time, it may very well be.
The Mac, much as I personally love it, requires investments in new hardware and software, and also does not posess many narrowly targeted programs which only exist on the Windows platform. Fortunately we've got a lot of the big names, but that's not quite enough, especially when coupled with the additional costs.
Furthermore, Judge Jackson (JJ to his friends;) specifically said that even if he had expanded the scope of what he found MS' monopoly to be, including the Mac, et al, it would not make a difference.
MS has a monopoly in OSes for x86 systems. While many other OSes exist, none is even remotely as powerful in the market as Windows is. Please try to tell me that that's not the case, I need a good laugh.
So you are then saying that a purely free market - one in which there are no limitations whatsoever to the actions of those within it - is a Bad Thing.
I concur. Due to unfortunate aspects of human nature, there are going to invariably be some limits to the participants of a society and economy. This is for the best interests of everyone, as you've noted.
The issue then becomes, what limits and regulations permit the greatest degree of freedom, while ensuring that no additional freedom is placed in jeopardy, and which has the best results (e.g. a strong economy, prosperous citizens) for those involved. This is a *tremendously* complicated thing to work out.
However, imposing limits in a way that prevents the system from spiraling into anarchy is, you have agreed, a Good Thing. Well, one limit is the body antitrust law. It's intended to act as a governor, only engaging when a singular success threatens the success of all other participants, much like a classic governor on a steam engine prevents the engine from running at dangerously high levels of power for safety purposes.
While everyone will surely have differing opinions on the specifics, you've just accepted the basic concept that total freedom is dangerous because it includes the freedom to revoke other people's freedoms. That most low of acts is pretty nearly what Microsoft is being accused of, by the way; using the freedom they've been fairly granted to achieve so much power that the freedom which ought to be enjoyed by others is in jeopardy. That cannot be allowed.
I dunno. I've been suspecting strongly that Bush would win the '00 election for a couple years now. He's got a lot of money, he's a got a recognizable name. He's a governor, of a state with a lot of votes. His brother is (sadly, given that McKay was a lot better IMHO) governor of another big voting state.
His opponent is Al Gore. Who's got a pretty lousy reputation for being boring, an environmentalist (could swing either way) and who has been a VP for eight years thus pretty nicely eliminating him from the public eye.
Including the previous Bush (who had run for Pres once or twice before signing on with Reagan who he really had been blasting back in '80) there have been like two VPs who were elected to President in history. This doesn't include VPs who got it through other means, like the guy either dying in office or being Nixon. That's much more common.
So Gore has pretty damn lousy chances. But the Democratic party is almost certainly going to nominate him b/c he's the VP and that's somewhat traditional. If they want to have a fighting chance at getting their man in, they should dump Gore and pick up a fresh guy, which would certainly end up being Bradley. Who is not terribly impressive to me either, but I've been getting really pissed off at the quality of our politicians lately. They haven't been getting worse, necessarily, I've just been noticing it. I'll probably vote 3rd party (I'm not registered to a party and I think it's awful that parties can get any assistance from the govt., including using our voting equipment and monies for primaries) but will have to check out the various candidates.
There's a good quote I'm reminded of, btw: I went to the store the other day to buy a bolt for our front door, for as I told the storekeeper, the governor was coming here. "Aye," said he, "and the Legislature too." "Then I will take two bolts," said I. He said that there had been a steady demand for bolts and locks of late, for our protectors were coming. - Henry David Thoreau
Since when? IIRC - it's been a long time - Netscape, even as 0.9 beta software was free to people and institutes associated with education (I was a student at the time) but cost money for everyone else. Which is why Mosaic tended to be the king at the time, though with so many of the Mosiac dev people at Netscape (Mosaic Communications Corporation originally, which is why we have 'Mozilla') it stalled out.
Now, they didn't make you prove you could legally dl it though, so it did get distributed freely a lot.
Oh yes. Once, a few years ago I suddenly had an attack of 'long term vision.' Things can change *radically* over a reasonably good period of time. Sooner or later all things shall pass - MS, I suspect, won't last more than another thirty years until they're bought out by someone, grow lethargic and are no longer capable of exerting the type of power they do now, or just erodes away. How many companies have lasted, more or less the same, since the 50's? 1900? 1850's? earlier? Not a hell of a lot. Seems like it b/c of our lifespans and that many of us here are kind of youngish. But I think that they'll get theirs sooner or later. The real question is, will anyone care enough about MS enough at the time to notice that they recieve their comeuppance? Doubtful.
Yeah, well, this has to do with the differing interpretations of 'united states of america.' You'll find that before approximately the 1860's common practice was to refer to 'these united states' because our nation was considered to be an aggregate entity composed of multiple states. After that time, usage changed to 'the united states' which were now considered a single entity which was only divisible into states for administrative purposes but not anything more.
Similarly the Civil War is also known as the War Between the States, depending on if you think of it as an entity divided or many states on different sides.
Southerners, like yours truly, may sometimes slip back to the antebellum usage, partially because many of us are still pissed off about the whole thing (although as a Floridian I am actually more annoyed at the division of Spanish Florida into Florida and parts of Alabama and Mississipi) and partially because there are still many people who feel that the US is (are) intended to be a collection of divers states and not a single federal entity.
We now return you to our previously scheduled/. discussion, already in progress.
Incorrect. Microsoft could, if they wished create a new country or sufficiently modify an extant country to suit their desires. This has been done before, notably by several fruit companies in Central America, which is where the term 'Banana Republic' originates (it's not just a trendy clothing store;)
More importantly, if MS had decided that they were going to break the laws of these United States, which it has been proven they did, there was nothing to prevent them from moving the corporation to a different country in which laws which they were more comfortable with existed. They could have even done so just before making the fateful decision to break the law, and would now not be in this situation. However, barring certain rare cases, those within the US, especially those who derive their citizenship or existance (in the case of a corporation, which is what MS is - an artificial 'person' which exists only because of favorable laws of the land and nothing else) are subject to the law. That's the deal. That's the contract. No one forced them to agree to it - they did so of their own free will, just as I believe you would have them do, given the nature of your other postings.
The specifics of this contract are spelled out quite copiously in the law, which MS and/or Bill Gates has never been too poor to have carefully interpreted for them (Bill was born _VERY_ wealthy; easily 60+ points in GURPS between wealth and patron advantages;) by trained professionals. It is understood that a significant part of the application of these laws will be performed by judges, juries, the body of precedents and all of the other trappings of our legal system. Modifications are made by the government constantly, but are publicized and there is no excuse for anything as powerful as MS is to be ignorant of it other than choosing to be.
Ultimately you can't deny that MS agreed to be bound by US laws. It is irrelevant whether the basis of these laws is immoral. If you disagree with a law you may campaign to strike it down, but until then you're still bound by it. MS is aware of this - they have never, to my knowledge opposed the basis of antitrust law. They certainly could have done so for many years before it was applied to them. But they didn't. Instead, they only now defend themselves, much like the drunk driver complaining about DUI laws not having anything to do with him. I haven't got much sympathy for people who don't fight injustice or percieved injustice until it's being rammed down their throats. They're called cowards.
MS broke the law, now we await to see the results. It's that simple.
I disagree. Let us consider that we exist in a free market. There are no rules or regulations, as these would diminish our freedom. I then threaten to shoot you with a pistol unless you give me everything you own. In a truly free market this is an acceptable practice - I am selling to you, at any price which I deem fit, your continued existence, which, by virtue of being able to immediately end it, I am in posession of. In the real world, which is infinitely more applicable to the matter at hand, this is a really illegal thing to do, and I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think otherwise.
This is a really extreme example though, and not of much use. The real point is that whatever you would like the world to be like, the MS case is happening in the context of what the world is actually like right now. Feel free to try to change the world to fall into line with your beliefs, but don't think that they necessarily govern the behavior of people right now. We have laws prohibiting the behavior which Microsoft has been proven to have undertaken. Disagree with them, change them, ignore them, follow them - that's up to you. But that's currently irrelevant.
iirc, they bought word as well, while it was still in development for the mac, slapped their name on it and sold it on the market. much as i dislike ms, i will grant that word 4 was a really good program. unfortunately they stopped adding useful features and bug fixes and we got the awful word 5 and the unspeakable word 6 and now back to awful word98.
Boy, you're much more thorough than I am. For years now I've registered as John Satan, 9 Dante Circle, Pandemonium HL 00666+0666, tel (666) 666-0666, same for fax, email j.satan@pandenet.hl.
Most places don't verify these things - too much work, and 99% of people fill it out honestly anyway, never once making the connection between this and the junk mail and spam they get.
Lawyers can be dumb, but they're smart enough to generally avoid typing in the first place. They have secretaries type. And they have very strict requirements on the formatting of their documents so it seems that WP has turned out to be the best suited. Want to effect a change? Make an emacs lawyer mode. It would probably catch on quickly as long as it can import WP files without a hitch.
Actually it's only true if I were: 1. A programmer, which I am not (try as I might, I'm just not good at it) 2. A really damn good programmer (even rarer than #1) 3. Could access all of the proprietary information required for good graphics software (like patented color matching systems)
The point of my post was that designers are using Macs not because we're stupid - though there are always stupid people in every profession - but because Windows and Linux systems usually either don't offer what we want or offer too little to make changing systems attractive.
I'm not on a power trip (although design has many practical applications - like forgery;), at least I don't think so. But I don't like it when people tell me that I and my bretheren are dumbasses for using a practical solution, especially if the person saying that is unfamiliar with what we do in the first place.
I'll tell you this, and this is a FACT, not opinion. Gimp, and Linux in general are really not useful for graphic designers.
Really this is less important for Linux because the underlying OS is just a thing for us. It's not important, because we're really concerned with the applications. If Linux could run my software I'd switch.
But the Gimp... non-graphic designers always wonder why we stick to Photoshop. The reason is because the Gimp is lacking in a number of key areas. Chief among these is that it has lousy color support.
Sure it can display RGB color. That's about the last thing I need. Lab is a very good color space and last I heard it wasn't supported. This may have changed but it's not the really critical one. CYMK is totally absent from the Gimp AFAIK, as well as support for Pantone. Nothing in this country gets printed, in color, professionally without being in either CYMK (or a subset thereof) or in Pantone or once in a jillion years Hexachrome. NOTHING. That's just how things are for little reasons like chemistry and the color spectrum.
This means that suddenly the Gimp is only useful for people making RGB or greyscale images. Very few people deal exclusively in those colorspaces. Web designers, while only concerned with RGB or greyscale output often have to convert other people's more complicated files and so there's little reason to adopt an incomplete solution just because it's there. Would you switch from Emacs (assuming you use it) to an editor without support for capital letters? Only if you're e. e. cummings.
Since the Gimp is not sufficiently attractive to draw people to Linux all by itself, let's look at what else Linux is lacking:
Fonts Most shops have a really large investment in typefaces. Thousands of dollars of typefaces. Typically in Mac PostScript format, which may not lend itself to conversion to something Linux can use. If not, that's bad because it's of critical importance that everyone have the same fonts (or be able to use them) for about the same reasons that it's good for people writing software to rely on standard libraries and APIs. Only more so.
Layout The only layout program I know of for Unix is Framemaker, which is commercial and no longer being updated AFAIK. Plus it's more suitable towards books than single-page design, and is heavily weighted towards typesetting. TeX is for typesetting, not layout and while I'm told LaTeX has some simple layout functions it's probably not a good replacement for Quark.
Illustration Is there a good illo program for Linux? Something like Illustrator? I don't do vector when I can avoid it so I have not looked into this much. Still a vector program is an essential part of the desktop publisher's toolkit.
Misc apps There are a lot of little plug-ins and single-purpose apps out there. Some are drivers for exotic hardware like scanners or imagesetter RIPs. Others are like KPT Bryce or AlienSkin. I know people who depend heavily on these kinds of things and would stand on one leg if that's what it took to get them to work. Sure they could program their own, but few designers are also programmers. You want to get non-programmers using Linux, this is what you deal with.
All of that stuff is critical. All of it is a problem for the designer who wants to use Linux exclusively. Since designers tend to not give a crap about the OS and just want tools that work (as I mentioned, I knew one shop that had been using a customized PDP-11 for ~15 years because that's what worked - at least until it couldn't be fixed) the Mac is a really attractive option. If standard commercial apps get ported over that will be much more of an inducement than the current offerings on Linux are.
Me, I like Linux, BeOS, Mac... but only one is good for work right now. I'm painfully aware of how old the MacOS is which is why I'm looking forwards to MacOS X (which is based on BSD). Get my stuff working on Linux and I'll use that. It's not even a matter of preference right now.
Mostly though I'm vocal on this subject because I just don't like ignorant bozos, no matter what OS they use, telling me that I'm an idiot even though I know what's up with the state of DTP and they don't. Non-designers have no right to talk to me that way.
Hey, it's about as stressful as those 'netslave' guys. It's a world of deadlines. Lots of deadlines.
I'm not trying to say that all of us are Knuth or anything. But none of the 100-150 or so designers I know are dumb about computers - after all 90% of dtp is computer-based now, and I can't think of anyone who prefered the old way, which still pops up a bit depending on how you do your comps.
The main thing about designers is that since computers are just a tool, a way to get what we want accomplished, people will often find some way of doing something and stick with it. I once worked in a shop where after ~15-20 years the DEC PDP-11 they had used for layout finally died. The designers there were expert PDP operators but were still learning the Mac. The PDP had worked, so why change? While I personally enjoy noodling around with computers, this is probably what you're encountering: people who don't give a crap how it works, as long as it does work and can do what they need.
1. MS has not got much to do with design. Hell, MS has nothing whatsoever to do with design other than torturing those of us who have to import Word into Quark or something.
2. Adobe, while expensive, has earned it's place. PostScript is good. Photoshop is good. Illustrator is good. If anyone needs to be taken down a notch it's Quark.
Ho ho ho. I can guess that you're not a designer. I am, though.
Am I ignorant? No, I don't think so. I know a crapload about how my computer works, and I use windows and linux on a pretty regular basis, though not for work.
I, like most designers, am extremely technical. I _HAVE_ to be. Programming is mostly conceptual work - get a clear idea of what you're doing and then type a lot. But programmers can use a tty if they have to and so IMHO they have it lucky.
I have to pay attention to my color calibration; the mess of original files that have to get into the computer or adjusted so as to work well with others (slides, transparencies, photos, recreating lost originals, screened art...); font issues up the wazoo (I've probably memorized the appearance of a few thousand different faces by now); intercompatability between my software - Quark, PageMaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand - which is not just by vendor (Illustrator and Freehand HATE each other) but also version; maintain strict version control over the various files; preserve projects that can easily sit at a few hundred megs each for years and be able to get them working later, without pickled hardware or software; and output.
It's output that's a real killer. Changing from RGB to Lab to CYMK and Pantone colorspaces. Screening. Going over the films, by hand, with a lupe to make sure everything's perfect. Making the fscking imagesetter and RIP are working, which is easily the most annoying thing I have ever had to do - I could kill a certian imagesetter company's employees without remorse. Dealing with film processing, which is not quite as automated as I'd like. Thank god I don't have to strip or make plates though.
On top of all of this I have to be a good designer with an excellent sense of color, design, know the ins and outs of typography (like why Adobe deserves their status) as well as traditional paste up for comps and such.
And, because stuck up people like you tend to work as admins, I have to keep all the hardware running perfectly by myself, keep track of viruses, bugs in the many many programs we use, administer LANs and learn enough about AppleScript programming to automate what I can.
If I'm working in a print house (presently I am not) then 90% of the business of the company goes through me. Multimillion dollar presses sit idle if I'm not on time. Fortunately we have weeded out a lot of the PHBs in print, though the web is full of 'em.
So I end up doing three jobs: Designer, Computer Operator and Sysadmin.
I'm thanking god for MacOS X completely because it's based on BSD. I desperately want unix underpinnings for the Mac so that it won't be crash prone (which has more to do with flakey but unique software or a lack of maintenance than it does anything else). DPS will be very sweet.
Linux, while also attractive, simply doesn't have the kind of software I need (Gimp is not usable for print yet, and there are a lot of patents so it probably won't ever be AFAIK) or else I'd be happy to switch.
USB of course, other than for mickey mouse crap (keyboards, mice, tablets) is useless. Serious periperhals (scanners, some printers, disks) are SCSI. Firewire's nice, especially since it's hot-swappable (the biggest attraction for me) but I won't be using it for years, I'm sure.
So please don't go thinking that Mac users - particularly graphic designers are stupid. We're not. Having to deal with people like you, we can't be.
I agree. I'd be willing to donate US$20 (approx the price of a DVD;) to help out.
While I don't presently use linux, it can't hurt to have more than one DVD program floating around - the one that came with my computer isn't particularly impressive IMHO.
I don' think this is entirely accurate. My understanding is that in the past charters were revoked by the courts in cases where it was found that a corporation had harmed the people in the area in which it was chartered. Hasn't been done for a long time though, and the law may have changed. But if there's a constitutional death penalty for people, it seems like a double standard to not have one for corporate citizens.
There are some Mac SCSI DVDs, but since most Macs have IDE now (as well as already having DVDs from the factory in many cases) they're getting rare. You might just want to get an IDE controller card and IDE DVD since they'll add up to be less than the SCSI DVD I bet. Too bad if you're short on slots....
Please, please don't confuse typesetting (which is what TeX does) with layout (which TeX doesn't do, AFAIK).
These are two very different things, and given that my job frequently revolves around layout, I don't appreciate being confused for a typesetter.
Good definitions would be too long for here, but basically typesetting is concerned with the appearance and formatting of text and textual elements (like equations). Layout is concerned with the arrangement of graphic elements and _blocks_ of text, which have already been typeset.
True, the lines are blurring now that both typesetting and layout are computerized, but for the sake of helping me to avoid boring typsetting work, please use these two terms properly;)
The pressing of the Matrix that's out has a jillion bugs, and this has been causing problems all over the place. On my Mac, I have to mount it as an ISO-9660 disk and not UDF or it won't work. Even some home DVD players have been having trouble with it. I'd suggest you try a different disk. (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is a good choice;)
The cartoon was actually pretty good. They had some good writers, and could do things that they were unable to with live action b/c of the low fx budget. Could have been better, yes, but was not as bad as Voyager.;)
(Although when the ship got hit, they _did_ just rock the camera back and forth)
I used to be a trekkie. And I still love TOS; one of my favorite games is to channel surf and be able to name which random TOS episode is on, within five seocnds (I do this with the Simpsons too).
But at about the time that DS9 came along, I just got sick of it. Nothing was happening. Nothing was changing. And of course, B5 came along and stole my heart. I had known that it would be great, when I first read of it in ~92 and JMS had said that they'd be showing the weirdness of the alien restroom.
Basically, nothing is or has happened with Trek for some time. I think that the best thing that they could do would be to give it a rest for ten or twenty years and see what fresh ideas can come along later, or find some way to tear down all of the cruft and start over again.
The idea in post #96 is a very good one. Although a lot would depend on writing, cast, etc. I'd be willing to give it a try, which is more than I can say for Voyager or the awful movies that have followed VI. (the reason II, III and IV were good was that they told a continuing story you dumbass writers!).
The other good idea I've heard is to do a series based before TOS. This could be cool b/c the writers wouldn't really be able to, if they knew what was good for them, write particle du jour episodes. No holodecks. No civilians on the ship. No borg. No Q. No transporters at all. The old Klingons - maybe. That could be really good if they'd be willing to take chances. Killing characters if the story demands it is good, as Roy Fokker taught us. Taking dramatic turns with the show is good, if the story demands it, as B5 taught us. And take a lesson from TOS, and make some shows that have some relevancy to the current day, but without making them wimpy (eg the TNG drug ep).
They won't do it though, which is why I doubt I'll ever see a good, new Trek show again. And everyone can suffer from this. Honestly, JMS was ripping off (consciously or not) Star Blazers/Yamato all over the place with the spin off and it wasn't at all appealing to me.
Anyone have ideas for what could make Trek great again? Certainly it wouldn't involve any of the crap that's come out lately.
but _that's_ an idea...have it centre around a character that is similar to the traveler, or similar to Q or the like....have only one reoccuring character that goes around and get's involved in others lives
Good job. You just described "Doctor Who.";) (Doctors I liked, most to least: 4,7,3,5,2,8,1,6)
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't entirely matter.
Even if MS' competitors would have died out anyway, MS still engaged in illegal activities against them, and b/c of the negative effects this has on the public (which has been shown by other monopolies time and time again) illegal activities against us.
If a poisioner slips someone poision, but the victim, before taking it dies of a heart attack, this is still AFAIK (IANAL) attempted murder. That would be hard to discover. MS isn't even so lucky or smart to successfully cover up what it's done.
They have broken the law, it's established fact, now we get to see what happens. Objecting that they did not break the law, at least until an appeal, is irrelevant.
And just to try to preempt those who would argue about the Mac or Linux or another system...
;) specifically said that even if he had expanded the scope of what he found MS' monopoly to be, including the Mac, et al, it would not make a difference.
None of these could be easily and inexpensively switched to by the vast majority of MS' customers, both OEMs and individuals.
Linux, unfortunately, is still quite difficult for newbies (not that Windows is a hell of a lot better when it has trouble), is lacking a number of applications and drivers which are only on Windows (and sometimes the Mac) and is really not ready for prime time *end users*. Yet. Given time, it may very well be.
The Mac, much as I personally love it, requires investments in new hardware and software, and also does not posess many narrowly targeted programs which only exist on the Windows platform. Fortunately we've got a lot of the big names, but that's not quite enough, especially when coupled with the additional costs.
Furthermore, Judge Jackson (JJ to his friends
MS has a monopoly in OSes for x86 systems. While many other OSes exist, none is even remotely as powerful in the market as Windows is. Please try to tell me that that's not the case, I need a good laugh.
So you are then saying that a purely free market - one in which there are no limitations whatsoever to the actions of those within it - is a Bad Thing.
I concur. Due to unfortunate aspects of human nature, there are going to invariably be some limits to the participants of a society and economy. This is for the best interests of everyone, as you've noted.
The issue then becomes, what limits and regulations permit the greatest degree of freedom, while ensuring that no additional freedom is placed in jeopardy, and which has the best results (e.g. a strong economy, prosperous citizens) for those involved. This is a *tremendously* complicated thing to work out.
However, imposing limits in a way that prevents the system from spiraling into anarchy is, you have agreed, a Good Thing. Well, one limit is the body antitrust law. It's intended to act as a governor, only engaging when a singular success threatens the success of all other participants, much like a classic governor on a steam engine prevents the engine from running at dangerously high levels of power for safety purposes.
While everyone will surely have differing opinions on the specifics, you've just accepted the basic concept that total freedom is dangerous because it includes the freedom to revoke other people's freedoms. That most low of acts is pretty nearly what Microsoft is being accused of, by the way; using the freedom they've been fairly granted to achieve so much power that the freedom which ought to be enjoyed by others is in jeopardy. That cannot be allowed.
His opponent is Al Gore. Who's got a pretty lousy reputation for being boring, an environmentalist (could swing either way) and who has been a VP for eight years thus pretty nicely eliminating him from the public eye.
Including the previous Bush (who had run for Pres once or twice before signing on with Reagan who he really had been blasting back in '80) there have been like two VPs who were elected to President in history. This doesn't include VPs who got it through other means, like the guy either dying in office or being Nixon. That's much more common.
So Gore has pretty damn lousy chances. But the Democratic party is almost certainly going to nominate him b/c he's the VP and that's somewhat traditional. If they want to have a fighting chance at getting their man in, they should dump Gore and pick up a fresh guy, which would certainly end up being Bradley. Who is not terribly impressive to me either, but I've been getting really pissed off at the quality of our politicians lately. They haven't been getting worse, necessarily, I've just been noticing it. I'll probably vote 3rd party (I'm not registered to a party and I think it's awful that parties can get any assistance from the govt., including using our voting equipment and monies for primaries) but will have to check out the various candidates.
There's a good quote I'm reminded of, btw:
I went to the store the other day to buy a bolt for our front door, for as I told the storekeeper, the governor was coming here. "Aye," said he, "and the Legislature too." "Then I will take two bolts," said I. He said that there had been a steady demand for bolts and locks of late, for our protectors were coming.
- Henry David Thoreau
Since when? IIRC - it's been a long time - Netscape, even as 0.9 beta software was free to people and institutes associated with education (I was a student at the time) but cost money for everyone else. Which is why Mosaic tended to be the king at the time, though with so many of the Mosiac dev people at Netscape (Mosaic Communications Corporation originally, which is why we have 'Mozilla') it stalled out.
Now, they didn't make you prove you could legally dl it though, so it did get distributed freely a lot.
Oh yes. Once, a few years ago I suddenly had an attack of 'long term vision.' Things can change *radically* over a reasonably good period of time. Sooner or later all things shall pass - MS, I suspect, won't last more than another thirty years until they're bought out by someone, grow lethargic and are no longer capable of exerting the type of power they do now, or just erodes away. How many companies have lasted, more or less the same, since the 50's? 1900? 1850's? earlier? Not a hell of a lot. Seems like it b/c of our lifespans and that many of us here are kind of youngish. But I think that they'll get theirs sooner or later. The real question is, will anyone care enough about MS enough at the time to notice that they recieve their comeuppance? Doubtful.
Yeah, well, this has to do with the differing interpretations of 'united states of america.' You'll find that before approximately the 1860's common practice was to refer to 'these united states' because our nation was considered to be an aggregate entity composed of multiple states. After that time, usage changed to 'the united states' which were now considered a single entity which was only divisible into states for administrative purposes but not anything more.
/. discussion, already in progress.
Similarly the Civil War is also known as the War Between the States, depending on if you think of it as an entity divided or many states on different sides.
Southerners, like yours truly, may sometimes slip back to the antebellum usage, partially because many of us are still pissed off about the whole thing (although as a Floridian I am actually more annoyed at the division of Spanish Florida into Florida and parts of Alabama and Mississipi) and partially because there are still many people who feel that the US is (are) intended to be a collection of divers states and not a single federal entity.
We now return you to our previously scheduled
Incorrect. Microsoft could, if they wished create a new country or sufficiently modify an extant country to suit their desires. This has been done before, notably by several fruit companies in Central America, which is where the term 'Banana Republic' originates (it's not just a trendy clothing store ;)
;) by trained professionals. It is understood that a significant part of the application of these laws will be performed by judges, juries, the body of precedents and all of the other trappings of our legal system. Modifications are made by the government constantly, but are publicized and there is no excuse for anything as powerful as MS is to be ignorant of it other than choosing to be.
More importantly, if MS had decided that they were going to break the laws of these United States, which it has been proven they did, there was nothing to prevent them from moving the corporation to a different country in which laws which they were more comfortable with existed. They could have even done so just before making the fateful decision to break the law, and would now not be in this situation. However, barring certain rare cases, those within the US, especially those who derive their citizenship or existance (in the case of a corporation, which is what MS is - an artificial 'person' which exists only because of favorable laws of the land and nothing else) are subject to the law. That's the deal. That's the contract. No one forced them to agree to it - they did so of their own free will, just as I believe you would have them do, given the nature of your other postings.
The specifics of this contract are spelled out quite copiously in the law, which MS and/or Bill Gates has never been too poor to have carefully interpreted for them (Bill was born _VERY_ wealthy; easily 60+ points in GURPS between wealth and patron advantages
Ultimately you can't deny that MS agreed to be bound by US laws. It is irrelevant whether the basis of these laws is immoral. If you disagree with a law you may campaign to strike it down, but until then you're still bound by it. MS is aware of this - they have never, to my knowledge opposed the basis of antitrust law. They certainly could have done so for many years before it was applied to them. But they didn't. Instead, they only now defend themselves, much like the drunk driver complaining about DUI laws not having anything to do with him. I haven't got much sympathy for people who don't fight injustice or percieved injustice until it's being rammed down their throats. They're called cowards.
MS broke the law, now we await to see the results. It's that simple.
I disagree. Let us consider that we exist in a free market. There are no rules or regulations, as these would diminish our freedom. I then threaten to shoot you with a pistol unless you give me everything you own. In a truly free market this is an acceptable practice - I am selling to you, at any price which I deem fit, your continued existence, which, by virtue of being able to immediately end it, I am in posession of. In the real world, which is infinitely more applicable to the matter at hand, this is a really illegal thing to do, and I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think otherwise.
This is a really extreme example though, and not of much use. The real point is that whatever you would like the world to be like, the MS case is happening in the context of what the world is actually like right now. Feel free to try to change the world to fall into line with your beliefs, but don't think that they necessarily govern the behavior of people right now. We have laws prohibiting the behavior which Microsoft has been proven to have undertaken. Disagree with them, change them, ignore them, follow them - that's up to you. But that's currently irrelevant.
iirc, they bought word as well, while it was still in development for the mac, slapped their name on it and sold it on the market. much as i dislike ms, i will grant that word 4 was a really good program. unfortunately they stopped adding useful features and bug fixes and we got the awful word 5 and the unspeakable word 6 and now back to awful word98.
Boy, you're much more thorough than I am. For years now I've registered as John Satan, 9 Dante Circle, Pandemonium HL 00666+0666, tel (666) 666-0666, same for fax, email j.satan@pandenet.hl.
Most places don't verify these things - too much work, and 99% of people fill it out honestly anyway, never once making the connection between this and the junk mail and spam they get.
Lawyers can be dumb, but they're smart enough to generally avoid typing in the first place. They have secretaries type. And they have very strict requirements on the formatting of their documents so it seems that WP has turned out to be the best suited. Want to effect a change? Make an emacs lawyer mode. It would probably catch on quickly as long as it can import WP files without a hitch.
Actually it's only true if I were: 1. A programmer, which I am not (try as I might, I'm just not good at it) 2. A really damn good programmer (even rarer than #1) 3. Could access all of the proprietary information required for good graphics software (like patented color matching systems)
The point of my post was that designers are using Macs not because we're stupid - though there are always stupid people in every profession - but because Windows and Linux systems usually either don't offer what we want or offer too little to make changing systems attractive.
I'm not on a power trip (although design has many practical applications - like forgery ;), at least I don't think so. But I don't like it when people tell me that I and my bretheren are dumbasses for using a practical solution, especially if the person saying that is unfamiliar with what we do in the first place.
I'll tell you this, and this is a FACT, not opinion. Gimp, and Linux in general are really not useful for graphic designers.
Really this is less important for Linux because the underlying OS is just a thing for us. It's not important, because we're really concerned with the applications. If Linux could run my software I'd switch.
But the Gimp... non-graphic designers always wonder why we stick to Photoshop. The reason is because the Gimp is lacking in a number of key areas. Chief among these is that it has lousy color support.
Sure it can display RGB color. That's about the last thing I need. Lab is a very good color space and last I heard it wasn't supported. This may have changed but it's not the really critical one. CYMK is totally absent from the Gimp AFAIK, as well as support for Pantone. Nothing in this country gets printed, in color, professionally without being in either CYMK (or a subset thereof) or in Pantone or once in a jillion years Hexachrome. NOTHING. That's just how things are for little reasons like chemistry and the color spectrum.
This means that suddenly the Gimp is only useful for people making RGB or greyscale images. Very few people deal exclusively in those colorspaces. Web designers, while only concerned with RGB or greyscale output often have to convert other people's more complicated files and so there's little reason to adopt an incomplete solution just because it's there. Would you switch from Emacs (assuming you use it) to an editor without support for capital letters? Only if you're e. e. cummings.
Since the Gimp is not sufficiently attractive to draw people to Linux all by itself, let's look at what else Linux is lacking:
Most shops have a really large investment in typefaces. Thousands of dollars of typefaces. Typically in Mac PostScript format, which may not lend itself to conversion to something Linux can use. If not, that's bad because it's of critical importance that everyone have the same fonts (or be able to use them) for about the same reasons that it's good for people writing software to rely on standard libraries and APIs. Only more so.
The only layout program I know of for Unix is Framemaker, which is commercial and no longer being updated AFAIK. Plus it's more suitable towards books than single-page design, and is heavily weighted towards typesetting. TeX is for typesetting, not layout and while I'm told LaTeX has some simple layout functions it's probably not a good replacement for Quark.
Is there a good illo program for Linux? Something like Illustrator? I don't do vector when I can avoid it so I have not looked into this much. Still a vector program is an essential part of the desktop publisher's toolkit.
All of that stuff is critical. All of it is a problem for the designer who wants to use Linux exclusively. Since designers tend to not give a crap about the OS and just want tools that work (as I mentioned, I knew one shop that had been using a customized PDP-11 for ~15 years because that's what worked - at least until it couldn't be fixed) the Mac is a really attractive option. If standard commercial apps get ported over that will be much more of an inducement than the current offerings on Linux are.
Me, I like Linux, BeOS, Mac... but only one is good for work right now. I'm painfully aware of how old the MacOS is which is why I'm looking forwards to MacOS X (which is based on BSD). Get my stuff working on Linux and I'll use that. It's not even a matter of preference right now.
Mostly though I'm vocal on this subject because I just don't like ignorant bozos, no matter what OS they use, telling me that I'm an idiot even though I know what's up with the state of DTP and they don't. Non-designers have no right to talk to me that way.
Hey, it's about as stressful as those 'netslave' guys. It's a world of deadlines. Lots of deadlines.
I'm not trying to say that all of us are Knuth or anything. But none of the 100-150 or so designers I know are dumb about computers - after all 90% of dtp is computer-based now, and I can't think of anyone who prefered the old way, which still pops up a bit depending on how you do your comps.
The main thing about designers is that since computers are just a tool, a way to get what we want accomplished, people will often find some way of doing something and stick with it. I once worked in a shop where after ~15-20 years the DEC PDP-11 they had used for layout finally died. The designers there were expert PDP operators but were still learning the Mac. The PDP had worked, so why change? While I personally enjoy noodling around with computers, this is probably what you're encountering: people who don't give a crap how it works, as long as it does work and can do what they need.
???
1. MS has not got much to do with design. Hell, MS has nothing whatsoever to do with design other than torturing those of us who have to import Word into Quark or something.
2. Adobe, while expensive, has earned it's place. PostScript is good. Photoshop is good. Illustrator is good. If anyone needs to be taken down a notch it's Quark.
Ho ho ho. I can guess that you're not a designer. I am, though.
Am I ignorant? No, I don't think so. I know a crapload about how my computer works, and I use windows and linux on a pretty regular basis, though not for work.
I, like most designers, am extremely technical. I _HAVE_ to be. Programming is mostly conceptual work - get a clear idea of what you're doing and then type a lot. But programmers can use a tty if they have to and so IMHO they have it lucky.
I have to pay attention to my color calibration; the mess of original files that have to get into the computer or adjusted so as to work well with others (slides, transparencies, photos, recreating lost originals, screened art...); font issues up the wazoo (I've probably memorized the appearance of a few thousand different faces by now); intercompatability between my software - Quark, PageMaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand - which is not just by vendor (Illustrator and Freehand HATE each other) but also version; maintain strict version control over the various files; preserve projects that can easily sit at a few hundred megs each for years and be able to get them working later, without pickled hardware or software; and output.
It's output that's a real killer. Changing from RGB to Lab to CYMK and Pantone colorspaces. Screening. Going over the films, by hand, with a lupe to make sure everything's perfect. Making the fscking imagesetter and RIP are working, which is easily the most annoying thing I have ever had to do - I could kill a certian imagesetter company's employees without remorse. Dealing with film processing, which is not quite as automated as I'd like. Thank god I don't have to strip or make plates though.
On top of all of this I have to be a good designer with an excellent sense of color, design, know the ins and outs of typography (like why Adobe deserves their status) as well as traditional paste up for comps and such.
And, because stuck up people like you tend to work as admins, I have to keep all the hardware running perfectly by myself, keep track of viruses, bugs in the many many programs we use, administer LANs and learn enough about AppleScript programming to automate what I can.
If I'm working in a print house (presently I am not) then 90% of the business of the company goes through me. Multimillion dollar presses sit idle if I'm not on time. Fortunately we have weeded out a lot of the PHBs in print, though the web is full of 'em.
So I end up doing three jobs: Designer, Computer Operator and Sysadmin.
I'm thanking god for MacOS X completely because it's based on BSD. I desperately want unix underpinnings for the Mac so that it won't be crash prone (which has more to do with flakey but unique software or a lack of maintenance than it does anything else). DPS will be very sweet.
Linux, while also attractive, simply doesn't have the kind of software I need (Gimp is not usable for print yet, and there are a lot of patents so it probably won't ever be AFAIK) or else I'd be happy to switch.
USB of course, other than for mickey mouse crap (keyboards, mice, tablets) is useless. Serious periperhals (scanners, some printers, disks) are SCSI. Firewire's nice, especially since it's hot-swappable (the biggest attraction for me) but I won't be using it for years, I'm sure.
So please don't go thinking that Mac users - particularly graphic designers are stupid. We're not. Having to deal with people like you, we can't be.
I agree. I'd be willing to donate US$20 (approx the price of a DVD ;) to help out.
While I don't presently use linux, it can't hurt to have more than one DVD program floating around - the one that came with my computer isn't particularly impressive IMHO.
I don' think this is entirely accurate. My understanding is that in the past charters were revoked by the courts in cases where it was found that a corporation had harmed the people in the area in which it was chartered. Hasn't been done for a long time though, and the law may have changed. But if there's a constitutional death penalty for people, it seems like a double standard to not have one for corporate citizens.
There are some Mac SCSI DVDs, but since most Macs have IDE now (as well as already having DVDs from the factory in many cases) they're getting rare. You might just want to get an IDE controller card and IDE DVD since they'll add up to be less than the SCSI DVD I bet. Too bad if you're short on slots....
Please, please don't confuse typesetting (which is what TeX does) with layout (which TeX doesn't do, AFAIK).
;)
These are two very different things, and given that my job frequently revolves around layout, I don't appreciate being confused for a typesetter.
Good definitions would be too long for here, but basically typesetting is concerned with the appearance and formatting of text and textual elements (like equations). Layout is concerned with the arrangement of graphic elements and _blocks_ of text, which have already been typeset.
True, the lines are blurring now that both typesetting and layout are computerized, but for the sake of helping me to avoid boring typsetting work, please use these two terms properly
It turns out that the first thing that your roomate does is to turn off the webcam ;)
The pressing of the Matrix that's out has a jillion bugs, and this has been causing problems all over the place. On my Mac, I have to mount it as an ISO-9660 disk and not UDF or it won't work. Even some home DVD players have been having trouble with it. I'd suggest you try a different disk. (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is a good choice ;)
The cartoon was actually pretty good. They had some good writers, and could do things that they were unable to with live action b/c of the low fx budget. Could have been better, yes, but was not as bad as Voyager. ;)
(Although when the ship got hit, they _did_ just rock the camera back and forth)
But at about the time that DS9 came along, I just got sick of it. Nothing was happening. Nothing was changing. And of course, B5 came along and stole my heart. I had known that it would be great, when I first read of it in ~92 and JMS had said that they'd be showing the weirdness of the alien restroom.
Basically, nothing is or has happened with Trek for some time. I think that the best thing that they could do would be to give it a rest for ten or twenty years and see what fresh ideas can come along later, or find some way to tear down all of the cruft and start over again.
The idea in post #96 is a very good one. Although a lot would depend on writing, cast, etc. I'd be willing to give it a try, which is more than I can say for Voyager or the awful movies that have followed VI. (the reason II, III and IV were good was that they told a continuing story you dumbass writers!).
The other good idea I've heard is to do a series based before TOS. This could be cool b/c the writers wouldn't really be able to, if they knew what was good for them, write particle du jour episodes. No holodecks. No civilians on the ship. No borg. No Q. No transporters at all. The old Klingons - maybe. That could be really good if they'd be willing to take chances. Killing characters if the story demands it is good, as Roy Fokker taught us. Taking dramatic turns with the show is good, if the story demands it, as B5 taught us. And take a lesson from TOS, and make some shows that have some relevancy to the current day, but without making them wimpy (eg the TNG drug ep).
They won't do it though, which is why I doubt I'll ever see a good, new Trek show again. And everyone can suffer from this. Honestly, JMS was ripping off (consciously or not) Star Blazers/Yamato all over the place with the spin off and it wasn't at all appealing to me.
Anyone have ideas for what could make Trek great again? Certainly it wouldn't involve any of the crap that's come out lately.
Good job. You just described "Doctor Who." ;)
(Doctors I liked, most to least: 4,7,3,5,2,8,1,6)