The best way I can think of to do this is setup an infrastructure similar in principle to Google's PageRank. So, anyone can be granted a certificate, but the strength of that cert is based upon an index of reputation. Which to me personally, is somewhat more meaningful than any given company(TM) buying a certificate. What method you'd use to create such an index would require more investigation, with considerations for security and spoofing prevention.
At it's base though, I like the concept. And would like to hear some ideas on what we could use as "karma" *cough*... Realistically though, (and this is where I need help from those more familiar with SSL certificates than I...) is there a facility in the signing process which allows for extra certificate information at the time of request? To my memory, I think there is. For instance:
Such and such has requested this and that on your system. Such and such has a reputability index of.65
Proceed? (Yes/No)
With the infrastructure already there, methinks the implementation is somewhat trivial. Can anyone help me refine the method?
But you still have to make the most of your PCI bandwith. Honestly, I didn't stop to think that it would be a card. Probably because I can't afford one, so all I've been looking into is software solutions for my crappy hardware.
Thanks for reminding me that the internet isn't run on piecemeal intel boxes.
According to freesoftware.com, the server runs FreeBSD on a one 550MHz Intel Pentium-III Xeon CPU-based machine with 4GB of memory, a gigabit ethernet adapter and two 200GB TeraSolutions TSR-2200 RAID-5 storage systems.
Sure, pushing bits isn't that hard. But this is a tiny box, especially when you've got 3000 different connections asking for various bits of data from a RAID 5 array (the slowest of raid configurations, great economy though...) That's where things get impressive. Sure most of the files are cached in the 4GB of memory, but to my knowledge any filesystem navigation requires real disk reads. To do that and maintain responsiveness while pushing 300Mbps is pretty impressive. I would have liked to see how fast FTP 'ls' commands returned results.
My esteem for FreeBSD has always been high, but it just "took it up another notch."
Insert clip of BSD Daemon shouting, "BAM!"
Now, to install it on my scavenged Pentium 90... *sob*
Somewhat in the same vein as your post; The thing which frustrated me most about the article was part of what you posted, "...While many Ars readers do this, the average power-user will not, so we will skip over the build process and focus on the pre-compiled program itself." wherein the author suggests that he plans to evaluate the product "as-is" without any modifications outside those available in the preferences menu. However, he then goes on to downplay features in Mozilla numerous times with statements like, "IE users can do this if they are willing to tweak a little (and who isn't![sic])." Thus unfairly reducing substantial features in Mozilla to little more than curiousities.
Don't get me wrong, the author makes a lot of valid points, but his arguments falter some in his criticisms. This however, is when one's arguments should be most robust.
I know what you mean. It always frustrates me when a TV is broadcasting dead air (whether it be because its getting no signal, it isn't tuned to the right input or whatever) and someone else then proceeds to shut the TV off because they don't know it's on.
It took me a while to figure out not everyone hears that high-pitched whine. Though, it doesn't bother me as much now as it used to. I'm not sure whether the desensitization is physical, psycological or both. =/
The standard stayed-back camping chair can't be beat. They're just so damn useful in any number of situations. The link given is for a basic chair through a Canadian distributor. There a number of different models and I'm sure you could phone around local camping stores to see if they have anything of the sort. The great thing about these things is that they are meant to go everywhere. They fold up nicely so they're easy to tote around with you to the beach, park, wherever.
I highly recommend getting one. Best of luck in your search.
Unfortunately, it makes little sense. The p2p cat is already out of the bag. The Copyright/IP has little to gain from his demise. These companies exist to make money. Revenge is not their business.
Agreed, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kan's passing are strange, but not inplausible. It'll take considerably more to start me laying such heavy accusations against anyone.
I do not believe now to be the time nor place for blame. I consider it to be the time for lamenting the loss of a good person. One who made significant inroads in technological advance, and political awareness.
Agreed, straight base-10 fractions of the day would be much easier for the populace to stomach. We don't all work with ICs and program in assembly. Even as a programmer, it's difficult thinking in base-16 when I have to do it.
I just can't envisage everyone making use of it. Personally, I think people would respond better to.575 for 12:45, than they would.8C0. I know I do, I just spent a few minutes brushing up on my hex just to make sure that.8C0 was indeed 12:45.
Break it up or move the decimal however you like, whether it be 5.75 for 5_75 or whatever. Coming from a metric country at least, base-10 is a hell of a lot more palletable.
Nearly 200 comments later, and you'd figure some people other than a few moderators would see the eloquence of this statement.
When getting into a code-sharing agreement usually means somehow resolving the disparity between the terms of the licences. In a case such as this, the gap in the terms of use is enormous. This puts both parties on a very slippery slope legally.
The unfortunate part of this situation is that one side has vast legal means at their disposal, and the other is a bunch of specialized industry companies with a bunch of hobbyists driving the consumer segment. In the case that Microsoft does manage to take control of OpenGL, some companies would file suit, some would pay their fees, and the Open Source community would be screwed.
I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory, just that Microsoft has made their "embrace and extend" policy for a reason: Because when they get their tentacles in somewhere, they are usually pretty sucessful turning the technology into something they can control.
I don't think it will happen this time. I hope it doesn't happen this time. However, cross-licencing with Microsoft is like pulling down your pants before being bent over a table.
why bother with the engineering and chip cooling hassles of a dual-GPU setup?
Well, because they've been developing dual GPU technology for over half a decade now, it isn't terribly difficult for them to do. That, in combination with the fact (as the article mentions) that their next generation GPU is still in development. Releasing a dual GPU card is an effective way for ATI to stay competitive in the high-end consumer graphics segment whilst they finish development of their next GPU.
As other posters have mentioned, ATI is notorious for driver trouble. For the most part though, they are being sensationalist. With few exceptions, ATI drivers are plenty stable. Unfortunately, they are damn slow and do not make full use of the card's capability. An excellent example of this is the consistent disparity between DirectX and OpenGL benchmarks for ATI cards. Admittedly, on occassion ATI drops the ball. Such was the case with the Fury MAXX driver for W2K. Then the quake3.exe debacle.
The point is, I wouldn't recommend buying brand new tech from anyone, nVidia included. The reward of being an early adopter and having bleeding edge performance for a few months is easily outweighed by the risks. In the case of ATI, being stuck with crappy drivers for a while. In the case of nVidia, being stuck without Linux drivers until they decide to release them. Either way, I fail to understand why people blame the manufacturers for their own stupid purchasing decisions. Even in the case of a company promising this or that, and you basing your decision on it, that is a risk you took. Sure, you can be pissed off at the company all you like, it doesn't change the fact that it was you who made the purchasing decision.
Finally, I have a guess as to why ATI has such driver trouble. It seems to me that nVidia has much tighter co-ordination between their hardware and software teams. That is, their new chip designs recieve input from the software team. I'd guess that they won't put into silicon anything which would fundamentally break the driver codebase. ATI on the otherhand doesn't seem to have this level of integration. Their hardware team comes out with some amazing tech, but leaves the software team struggling to keep up, as they have to essentially start from scratch each time a new chip is designed. Even if I'm reading too much into the situation, it is clear there is better communication amongst nVidia's hardware and software teams than there is with ATI's. At least to the extent that nVidia's software team can start designing their drivers comparitively early in the development process.
Okay, I'm done ranting now. One thing of mention is that most of my boxen have ATI cards in them, and I've never owned an nVidia product. However, this doesn't mean that I'm an ATI fanboy.
What is the point of putting it in such an arbitrary order as month, day, year anyway?
Probably derives from the standard full date form. For instance, today is Thursday, July 4, 2002. Take off the day of the week and you get July 4, 2002 (Month Day, Year).
In all seriousness though, I do like to see a reduction in duplication of effort. However, diversity is a fundamental construct of open source philosophy. So as with anything else, United Linux has its positive and negative aspects.
You may have misinterpretted me, however. I wasn't suggesting that you have to run a homogeneous MS environment for their products to retain core functionality. I was merely pointing out how they use 'features' which will only work with other MS products as leverage.
I agree, anything to improve and ease development with robust solutions like we hope Mono to be is a good thing. I also agree with your initial statement that.NET may succeed where Java did not, in bringing cross-platform compatability to full-scale applications.
I respectfully disagree with the contention that MS is prepared to give away what they've worked so hard to achieve (fairly or not =). Yes, Microsoft is the proverbial drum-playing octopus of the software world. But it's only because one tentacle knows what the other is doing that they are so successful. (Okay, enough of that analogy, I know. =) Here are some numbers from a quick search I did on Google. Microsoft market share:
Both excellent market position by any standard. I think all of us, including Microsoft know that they really don't have anywhere to go in the OS arena. The same cannot be said of the office suite space, however. They may be able to pick up a few points as companies roll-over from legacy Wordperfect and Lotus systems. So, like you say, it is a realistic ideal for them to grow their share in this space.
However, it is not realistic to believe Microsoft will sacrifice their other markets to gain share with its office suite. The reason is simple; control. The only way a company as large as Microsoft can maintain relevance is with control. If they didn't have it, they'd be quickly overtaken by smaller, more adaptable companies producing higher quality products. They've been able to stiffle such upstarts by buying them outright, or changing the rules of the game. The second Microsoft lets its control of the OS market slip, is the second they jump the shark. Microsoft is a smart company, and they learned this lesson early-on by watching IBM. The chances are mighty slim they would do something so daft.
I'll finish off by saying that I think we might be arguing different points. I agree with you on many issues. The only one I can't forsee is Microsoft giving anything up. I understand they are trying to change the direction of their company. And you may be right, true cross-platform compatability might be the first step in that direction. Though it is hard to fathom Microsoft shooting out a tire just to change the direction of the car. My (somewhat more pessimistic than your) predictions: Office will remain within the Windows/Mac domain, mostly because of 'enhancements' like those mentioned in the sibling to this post. Failing that MS would have to pull an ace out of it's sleeve to save it's OS business from utter ruin. Mono will become a great development platform, though we won't be able to run the majority of full-scale.NET applications, again because of the larger feature-set and integration abilities offered by MS. Though of course, all the applications we develop will be able to run on Windows (this may or may not be a bad thing).
Only time will tell, but I don't think.NET is the holy grail of computing. Nor the messiah, nor the devil incarnate. When it comes right down to it, for the developer,.NET is another tool in my belt. For Microsoft, I have no idea what.NET is. Some people say they're betting the whole company on this. I prefer to think they're just dipping their toe in the water before jumping in head-first. =) Kudos to Miguel and the boys, and good luck to us all.
This has been a great thread with some excellent points on both sides. As much as I'd like to see.NET manifest fully capable cross-platform applications, I'm quite certain it isn't going to happen.
Microsoft doesn't make money by selling individual products. They make money by leveraging products off one another to dominate markets. Sometimes they do it fairly and legally, sometimes not.
Whatever the case, Microsoft has worked hard to reach the position they are in now, and I'm quite certain (as should be everyone else) they are not going to throw it away by offering full featured cross-platform capability. If they were to do so, it would completely nullify their relevance on both the server and the desktop.
Microsoft is not that stupid.
To have access to all the bells and whistles of.NET, you'll have to run it on Microsoft platforms exclusively, again, both on the server and on the desktop. If you don't, I suspect you'll be stuck with something that looks and functions a heck of a lot like Java does now.
This is a stroke of genius on the part of Microsoft. Let us examine four hypothetical corporations:
Microsoft Server, Microsoft Desktop: Lucky them, full.NET capabilities!
Microsoft Server, Non-Microsoft Desktop: (Yeah, I think it'd be funny to see an organization like this too, but humor me. =) Too bad for these guys, they can't make full use of their.NET servers since their clients don't support everything.
Non-Microsoft Server, Microsoft Desktop: Too bad you can't make use of all the features on the client side because your server doesn't support them!
Non-Microsoft Server, Non-Microsoft Desktop: Although you don't have access to all the new fangled.NET features, you can do pretty much everything Java does. Then there's the advantage of being able to use a bunch of different languages, Java included!
Is everyone starting to see the broader picture yet?.NET is a Java-killer for the purposes of increasing Microsoft's market share in the OS arena (If that's even possible). From which, they will be able to leverage even more products and services.
It's a vicious little circle called Microsoft, and it's very easy to get sucked in. Open Source and Free Software will never die. It is simply the nature of the beast. However, I do like how the increase in it's popularity in all arenas has improved its quantity and its quality. And I am loathe to go back to the bad-old days of poor hardware support and tediously long development cycles. The question we have to ask ourselves is,
"By supporting.NET with projects like Mono, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?"
I don't know the answer quite yet, but I can't help the feeling that we are being given enough rope to tie our own noose, nor shake the image of Bill Gates saying to us,
I don't think this will be jumping the shark for Porsche. But I will say, I also dislike them neglecting their race program just when they were getting it going again with the GT-1s a couple of years ago. Also, neglecting to keep the GT-2s (or whatever they're called now) competitive with the Vipers is a shame. However, in Porsche's defence:
The Vipers are some pretty damn good cars.
Porsche has done the "off-road thing" before with good results.
There is no denying the success of Daimler Chrysler's Viper program is more from their hard work than Porsche's lack thereof. I'd prefer to see Porsche winning too, but it's doubly hard when you're going up against a company like Daimler Chrysler.
The last time Porsche went off-road they ended up making the best road car in the world. My favourite, and arguably the best Porsche ever, the 959 won the Paris/Dakkar rally 3 times (I think). The result of which was some excellent R&D for the 959 road car, then the Carerra4 and finally the Turbo. While the Cayenne may not come from the race world, I'm sure some valuable lessons were learned which can be put to later use. With the hurdle of the Cayenne's release crossed (or shark jumped, if you prefer =) hopefully more money will go back to the racing programs. I really wouldn't mind if Porsche took a break from GT racing for a bit, as much as I like it. So long as I got to see them in the World Rally Circuit. And it'd be nice to see them back in Paris/Dakkar (maybe next year. =)
This isn't the first time people thought Porsche has "jumped the shark". Initial reactions to almost all their new cars have been skeptical with the Porsche fanboys. The 911, 914, 924, 928, 944, 996 (water-cooled 911) all come to mind. While Porsche's experiments might not always pan-out, they never fail to produce quality automobiles. It's not like 911 production is going to stop tomorrow. And who knows, the Cayenne may be one damn fine auto. The 928 never got the recognition it deserved, and was only really appreciated after production ceased. So, lets give the Cayenne, and Porsche some time to prove themselves, and see if they really have jumped the shark. =)
Actually, I'd have to say the 914 is the lamest Porsche ever made.
As it relates to the 944, it is obvious you've never driven one. They are actually quite a nice little sports car. It may not have the power of its bretheren, but it handles like a dream, and is quite good looking to boot.
Keep in mind the 944 was never meant to be an extravagant sports car like the 911 or 928, but a Porsche accessible to the rest of us. Having had the opportunity to drive one, it most definitely lives up to the Porsche name and all that entails. Which is more than can be said for the 914 or even the 924.
Please have some idea of what you're talking about the next time you decide to open your mouth.
The best solution is to pipe all of the cold air return ducts through the server closet. This would work in both winter and summer by always providing the coolest possible air from the house.
While adding to your electric bill in the summer, it'd take away from your gas bill in the winter, because you wouldn't need to run the furnace as much to keep a constant temperature.
Hehe, no worries. I was just ranting about my childhood. =)
I know what you mean though, Genesis/Megadrive games were probably better suited to the harware in the early days of both systems than the SNES/SuperFamicom but as the hardware buffs above were saying, as developers learned to exploit the hardware, they were able to overcome earlier problems.
Sonic is a good example, the game gives a fantastic feeling of speed at times, and only chugs along on occasion. There are very few SNES games I can think of that produce that kind of feeling.
Conversely, if you want to see a later-generation game that makes the SNES puke, check out "Pocky & Rocky" by Konami. Phenomenally cool game, but really pushed the system hard at times, especially in 2p mode. =)
Slashdot Mirror
The best way I can think of to do this is setup an infrastructure similar in principle to Google's PageRank. So, anyone can be granted a certificate, but the strength of that cert is based upon an index of reputation. Which to me personally, is somewhat more meaningful than any given company(TM) buying a certificate. What method you'd use to create such an index would require more investigation, with considerations for security and spoofing prevention.
At it's base though, I like the concept. And would like to hear some ideas on what we could use as "karma" *cough*... Realistically though, (and this is where I need help from those more familiar with SSL certificates than I...) is there a facility in the signing process which allows for extra certificate information at the time of request? To my memory, I think there is. For instance:
With the infrastructure already there, methinks the implementation is somewhat trivial. Can anyone help me refine the method?
True...
But you still have to make the most of your PCI bandwith. Honestly, I didn't stop to think that it would be a card. Probably because I can't afford one, so all I've been looking into is software solutions for my crappy hardware.
Thanks for reminding me that the internet isn't run on piecemeal intel boxes.
Regards,
jungleboy
Holy fucking shit.
According to freesoftware.com, the server runs FreeBSD on a one 550MHz Intel Pentium-III Xeon CPU-based machine with 4GB of memory, a gigabit ethernet adapter and two 200GB TeraSolutions TSR-2200 RAID-5 storage systems.
Sure, pushing bits isn't that hard. But this is a tiny box, especially when you've got 3000 different connections asking for various bits of data from a RAID 5 array (the slowest of raid configurations, great economy though...) That's where things get impressive. Sure most of the files are cached in the 4GB of memory, but to my knowledge any filesystem navigation requires real disk reads. To do that and maintain responsiveness while pushing 300Mbps is pretty impressive. I would have liked to see how fast FTP 'ls' commands returned results.
My esteem for FreeBSD has always been high, but it just "took it up another notch."
Insert clip of BSD Daemon shouting, "BAM!"
Now, to install it on my scavenged Pentium 90... *sob*Wow, and AC with insight.
Nice cut.
Somewhat in the same vein as your post; The thing which frustrated me most about the article was part of what you posted, "...While many Ars readers do this, the average power-user will not, so we will skip over the build process and focus on the pre-compiled program itself." wherein the author suggests that he plans to evaluate the product "as-is" without any modifications outside those available in the preferences menu. However, he then goes on to downplay features in Mozilla numerous times with statements like, "IE users can do this if they are willing to tweak a little (and who isn't![sic])." Thus unfairly reducing substantial features in Mozilla to little more than curiousities.
Don't get me wrong, the author makes a lot of valid points, but his arguments falter some in his criticisms. This however, is when one's arguments should be most robust.
I know what you mean. It always frustrates me when a TV is broadcasting dead air (whether it be because its getting no signal, it isn't tuned to the right input or whatever) and someone else then proceeds to shut the TV off because they don't know it's on.
It took me a while to figure out not everyone hears that high-pitched whine. Though, it doesn't bother me as much now as it used to. I'm not sure whether the desensitization is physical, psycological or both. =/
The standard stayed-back camping chair can't be beat. They're just so damn useful in any number of situations. The link given is for a basic chair through a Canadian distributor. There a number of different models and I'm sure you could phone around local camping stores to see if they have anything of the sort. The great thing about these things is that they are meant to go everywhere. They fold up nicely so they're easy to tote around with you to the beach, park, wherever.
I highly recommend getting one. Best of luck in your search.
I've thought about it.
Unfortunately, it makes little sense. The p2p cat is already out of the bag. The Copyright/IP has little to gain from his demise. These companies exist to make money. Revenge is not their business.
Agreed, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kan's passing are strange, but not inplausible. It'll take considerably more to start me laying such heavy accusations against anyone.
I do not believe now to be the time nor place for blame. I consider it to be the time for lamenting the loss of a good person. One who made significant inroads in technological advance, and political awareness.
Agreed, straight base-10 fractions of the day would be much easier for the populace to stomach. We don't all work with ICs and program in assembly. Even as a programmer, it's difficult thinking in base-16 when I have to do it.
I just can't envisage everyone making use of it. Personally, I think people would respond better to .575 for 12:45, than they would .8C0. I know I do, I just spent a few minutes brushing up on my hex just to make sure that .8C0 was indeed 12:45.
Break it up or move the decimal however you like, whether it be 5.75 for 5_75 or whatever. Coming from a metric country at least, base-10 is a hell of a lot more palletable.
Nearly 200 comments later, and you'd figure some people other than a few moderators would see the eloquence of this statement.
When getting into a code-sharing agreement usually means somehow resolving the disparity between the terms of the licences. In a case such as this, the gap in the terms of use is enormous. This puts both parties on a very slippery slope legally.
The unfortunate part of this situation is that one side has vast legal means at their disposal, and the other is a bunch of specialized industry companies with a bunch of hobbyists driving the consumer segment. In the case that Microsoft does manage to take control of OpenGL, some companies would file suit, some would pay their fees, and the Open Source community would be screwed.
I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory, just that Microsoft has made their "embrace and extend" policy for a reason: Because when they get their tentacles in somewhere, they are usually pretty sucessful turning the technology into something they can control.
I don't think it will happen this time. I hope it doesn't happen this time. However, cross-licencing with Microsoft is like pulling down your pants before being bent over a table.
Riding Bruce's coat-tails,
-jungleboy
why bother with the engineering and chip cooling hassles of a dual-GPU setup?
Well, because they've been developing dual GPU technology for over half a decade now, it isn't terribly difficult for them to do. That, in combination with the fact (as the article mentions) that their next generation GPU is still in development. Releasing a dual GPU card is an effective way for ATI to stay competitive in the high-end consumer graphics segment whilst they finish development of their next GPU.
As other posters have mentioned, ATI is notorious for driver trouble. For the most part though, they are being sensationalist. With few exceptions, ATI drivers are plenty stable. Unfortunately, they are damn slow and do not make full use of the card's capability. An excellent example of this is the consistent disparity between DirectX and OpenGL benchmarks for ATI cards. Admittedly, on occassion ATI drops the ball. Such was the case with the Fury MAXX driver for W2K. Then the quake3.exe debacle.
The point is, I wouldn't recommend buying brand new tech from anyone, nVidia included. The reward of being an early adopter and having bleeding edge performance for a few months is easily outweighed by the risks. In the case of ATI, being stuck with crappy drivers for a while. In the case of nVidia, being stuck without Linux drivers until they decide to release them. Either way, I fail to understand why people blame the manufacturers for their own stupid purchasing decisions. Even in the case of a company promising this or that, and you basing your decision on it, that is a risk you took. Sure, you can be pissed off at the company all you like, it doesn't change the fact that it was you who made the purchasing decision.
Finally, I have a guess as to why ATI has such driver trouble. It seems to me that nVidia has much tighter co-ordination between their hardware and software teams. That is, their new chip designs recieve input from the software team. I'd guess that they won't put into silicon anything which would fundamentally break the driver codebase. ATI on the otherhand doesn't seem to have this level of integration. Their hardware team comes out with some amazing tech, but leaves the software team struggling to keep up, as they have to essentially start from scratch each time a new chip is designed. Even if I'm reading too much into the situation, it is clear there is better communication amongst nVidia's hardware and software teams than there is with ATI's. At least to the extent that nVidia's software team can start designing their drivers comparitively early in the development process.
Okay, I'm done ranting now. One thing of mention is that most of my boxen have ATI cards in them, and I've never owned an nVidia product. However, this doesn't mean that I'm an ATI fanboy.
What is the point of putting it in such an arbitrary order as month, day, year anyway?
Probably derives from the standard full date form. For instance, today is Thursday, July 4, 2002. Take off the day of the week and you get July 4, 2002 (Month Day, Year).
Mind you, it's still stupid. =)
...spread viruses/virii/whatever.
In all seriousness though, I do like to see a reduction in duplication of effort. However, diversity is a fundamental construct of open source philosophy. So as with anything else, United Linux has its positive and negative aspects.
That was a rather heart-warming tale, as I'm an OpenBSD user myself. However, I must take issue with one statement:
We had previously been running OpenBSD on all our quad processor Xeons.
I wasn't aware that OpenBSD had gained SMP functionality. In fact, I'm quite certain it has not. Much to the dismay of myself and others mind you.
So may I ask, is this some sort of "anti-troll"?
Congratulations!
Let's try and break the database! =)
Haha! Nice. =)
Again, well said. =)
You may have misinterpretted me, however. I wasn't suggesting that you have to run a homogeneous MS environment for their products to retain core functionality. I was merely pointing out how they use 'features' which will only work with other MS products as leverage.
I agree, anything to improve and ease development with robust solutions like we hope Mono to be is a good thing. I also agree with your initial statement that .NET may succeed where Java did not, in bringing cross-platform compatability to full-scale applications.
I respectfully disagree with the contention that MS is prepared to give away what they've worked so hard to achieve (fairly or not =). Yes, Microsoft is the proverbial drum-playing octopus of the software world. But it's only because one tentacle knows what the other is doing that they are so successful. (Okay, enough of that analogy, I know. =) Here are some numbers from a quick search I did on Google. Microsoft market share:
- 79% of the office suite market.
- 87% of the desktop OS market.
Both excellent market position by any standard. I think all of us, including Microsoft know that they really don't have anywhere to go in the OS arena. The same cannot be said of the office suite space, however. They may be able to pick up a few points as companies roll-over from legacy Wordperfect and Lotus systems. So, like you say, it is a realistic ideal for them to grow their share in this space.However, it is not realistic to believe Microsoft will sacrifice their other markets to gain share with its office suite. The reason is simple; control. The only way a company as large as Microsoft can maintain relevance is with control. If they didn't have it, they'd be quickly overtaken by smaller, more adaptable companies producing higher quality products. They've been able to stiffle such upstarts by buying them outright, or changing the rules of the game. The second Microsoft lets its control of the OS market slip, is the second they jump the shark. Microsoft is a smart company, and they learned this lesson early-on by watching IBM. The chances are mighty slim they would do something so daft.
I'll finish off by saying that I think we might be arguing different points. I agree with you on many issues. The only one I can't forsee is Microsoft giving anything up. I understand they are trying to change the direction of their company. And you may be right, true cross-platform compatability might be the first step in that direction. Though it is hard to fathom Microsoft shooting out a tire just to change the direction of the car. My (somewhat more pessimistic than your) predictions: Office will remain within the Windows/Mac domain, mostly because of 'enhancements' like those mentioned in the sibling to this post. Failing that MS would have to pull an ace out of it's sleeve to save it's OS business from utter ruin. Mono will become a great development platform, though we won't be able to run the majority of full-scale .NET applications, again because of the larger feature-set and integration abilities offered by MS. Though of course, all the applications we develop will be able to run on Windows (this may or may not be a bad thing).
Only time will tell, but I don't think .NET is the holy grail of computing. Nor the messiah, nor the devil incarnate. When it comes right down to it, for the developer, .NET is another tool in my belt. For Microsoft, I have no idea what .NET is. Some people say they're betting the whole company on this. I prefer to think they're just dipping their toe in the water before jumping in head-first. =) Kudos to Miguel and the boys, and good luck to us all.
This has been a great thread with some excellent points on both sides. As much as I'd like to see .NET manifest fully capable cross-platform applications, I'm quite certain it isn't going to happen.
Microsoft doesn't make money by selling individual products. They make money by leveraging products off one another to dominate markets. Sometimes they do it fairly and legally, sometimes not.
Whatever the case, Microsoft has worked hard to reach the position they are in now, and I'm quite certain (as should be everyone else) they are not going to throw it away by offering full featured cross-platform capability. If they were to do so, it would completely nullify their relevance on both the server and the desktop.
Microsoft is not that stupid.
To have access to all the bells and whistles of .NET, you'll have to run it on Microsoft platforms exclusively, again, both on the server and on the desktop. If you don't, I suspect you'll be stuck with something that looks and functions a heck of a lot like Java does now.
This is a stroke of genius on the part of Microsoft. Let us examine four hypothetical corporations:
- Microsoft Server, Microsoft Desktop: Lucky them, full
.NET capabilities!
- Microsoft Server, Non-Microsoft Desktop: (Yeah, I think it'd be funny to see an organization like this too, but humor me. =) Too bad for these guys, they can't make full use of their
.NET servers since their clients don't support everything.
- Non-Microsoft Server, Microsoft Desktop: Too bad you can't make use of all the features on the client side because your server doesn't support them!
- Non-Microsoft Server, Non-Microsoft Desktop: Although you don't have access to all the new fangled
.NET features, you can do pretty much everything Java does. Then there's the advantage of being able to use a bunch of different languages, Java included!
Is everyone starting to see the broader picture yet?It's a vicious little circle called Microsoft, and it's very easy to get sucked in. Open Source and Free Software will never die. It is simply the nature of the beast. However, I do like how the increase in it's popularity in all arenas has improved its quantity and its quality. And I am loathe to go back to the bad-old days of poor hardware support and tediously long development cycles. The question we have to ask ourselves is,
"By supporting .NET with projects like Mono, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?"
I don't know the answer quite yet, but I can't help the feeling that we are being given enough rope to tie our own noose, nor shake the image of Bill Gates saying to us,
"C'mon kids, try it, the first one is free!"
I don't think this will be jumping the shark for Porsche. But I will say, I also dislike them neglecting their race program just when they were getting it going again with the GT-1s a couple of years ago. Also, neglecting to keep the GT-2s (or whatever they're called now) competitive with the Vipers is a shame. However, in Porsche's defence:
The Vipers are some pretty damn good cars.
Porsche has done the "off-road thing" before with good results.
There is no denying the success of Daimler Chrysler's Viper program is more from their hard work than Porsche's lack thereof. I'd prefer to see Porsche winning too, but it's doubly hard when you're going up against a company like Daimler Chrysler.
The last time Porsche went off-road they ended up making the best road car in the world. My favourite, and arguably the best Porsche ever, the 959 won the Paris/Dakkar rally 3 times (I think). The result of which was some excellent R&D for the 959 road car, then the Carerra4 and finally the Turbo. While the Cayenne may not come from the race world, I'm sure some valuable lessons were learned which can be put to later use. With the hurdle of the Cayenne's release crossed (or shark jumped, if you prefer =) hopefully more money will go back to the racing programs. I really wouldn't mind if Porsche took a break from GT racing for a bit, as much as I like it. So long as I got to see them in the World Rally Circuit. And it'd be nice to see them back in Paris/Dakkar (maybe next year. =)
This isn't the first time people thought Porsche has "jumped the shark". Initial reactions to almost all their new cars have been skeptical with the Porsche fanboys. The 911, 914, 924, 928, 944, 996 (water-cooled 911) all come to mind. While Porsche's experiments might not always pan-out, they never fail to produce quality automobiles. It's not like 911 production is going to stop tomorrow. And who knows, the Cayenne may be one damn fine auto. The 928 never got the recognition it deserved, and was only really appreciated after production ceased. So, lets give the Cayenne, and Porsche some time to prove themselves, and see if they really have jumped the shark. =)
Yah, but if you've already been all those places, it's fun to try something different.
Putting your penis between a girl's boobs is great fun, you really should try it. =)
Actually, I'd have to say the 914 is the lamest Porsche ever made.
As it relates to the 944, it is obvious you've never driven one. They are actually quite a nice little sports car. It may not have the power of its bretheren, but it handles like a dream, and is quite good looking to boot.
Keep in mind the 944 was never meant to be an extravagant sports car like the 911 or 928, but a Porsche accessible to the rest of us. Having had the opportunity to drive one, it most definitely lives up to the Porsche name and all that entails. Which is more than can be said for the 914 or even the 924.
Please have some idea of what you're talking about the next time you decide to open your mouth.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. =)
Whaddyaguys think?
Hehe, no worries. I was just ranting about my childhood. =)
I know what you mean though, Genesis/Megadrive games were probably better suited to the harware in the early days of both systems than the SNES/SuperFamicom but as the hardware buffs above were saying, as developers learned to exploit the hardware, they were able to overcome earlier problems.
Sonic is a good example, the game gives a fantastic feeling of speed at times, and only chugs along on occasion. There are very few SNES games I can think of that produce that kind of feeling.
Conversely, if you want to see a later-generation game that makes the SNES puke, check out "Pocky & Rocky" by Konami. Phenomenally cool game, but really pushed the system hard at times, especially in 2p mode. =)
Cool. Thanks both for replying. I knew my facts weren't deadly accurate, but close enough. 512 did seem a little short. =)