Linux on the desktop is great for those of us who use the full functionality it has to offer, or at least a subset of it.
Your average office user though WANTS Windows. Okay, it may crash quite frequently, but let's face it; it's intuitive, and well-designed aesthetically.
Lets keep working on the desktop for ourselves and if others want to use it, great... But lets not forget where our true strength lies: In the Server market.
I think people are missing the point here: What's really at stake is not the future of Napster anymore, but the precedent they are setting in offering the record industry this kind of money.
This is perhaps the worst thing that could have happened for other businesses hoping to get into online music.
I've felt for a long time that Napster could have avoided this mess by muddying the waters a little, and morphing into an app the expressed purpose of which was not just to share mp3s but pother types of less-contentious files too. In such circumstances it could be claimed that while yes people were using the facility to pirate music, that was not its purpose and was in fact an abuse of the system.
A Napster client with an inbuilt XML-based IM system is something I'd have used (and am in fact trying to code right now), or perhaps an implementation of a gopher-like protocol for locating files worldwide... but I'm dreaming... diversification would probably not even be considered by the makers of a tool which was originally written to facilitate piracy.
It's difficult for Microsoft to do something like that though. Opening their sources completely would quite possibly kill Microsoft. Microsoft don't even do a lot of their own support work, so they wouldn't have enough support contracts to fall back on.
Quite apart from the fact that if they did open their sources, Linux / *BSD would probably end up having better support for Win32 apps than any MS OS.
For Microsoft open source just isn't feasible, much as I hate to admit it.
Is it legal to make a change to DVDs to deliberately break thousands of DVD players? I think both the USDOJ and the European monopolies commission might have something to say about that.
I have so far neglected to buy a DVD player, and I have no intention of ever buying one if it means that at the whim of some bunch of money-grabbing fascists, it can suddenly become usless.
The biggest problem that I can see now is that while many technical people worldwide know what's going on, nobody else seems to care.
Why is it that the average Joe Soap always ignores any problem until it hits the national news? By then the damage is usually done.
How about a campaign to raise awareness of the DVD issue? How many websites would be prepared to link to a responsible site explaining clearly and without bias, the full history and details of the DVD issues?
Or maybe an online petition on a few wellknown websites? This way the names could be forwarded on to the MPAA, DVDCA, DOJ etc. Any other thoughts?
Microsoft's business tactics are cutthroat and unfair.
They have never even tried to hide this fact. Even during the anti-trust trial, Microsoft breached the anti-trust laws flagrantly.
Why would they suddenly show a desire to be seen as nice guys? They hold their monopoly, they still abuse it, and Linux is (however distant) a threat to their market.
I don't believe Microsoft's image is of huge concern to them. The vast majority of people don't care about Microsoft's morals, or lack of them. Many highly-principled people the world over use Microsoft operating systems, because they believe it's easier, regardless of what Microsoft may have done to some other people, some other company. Microsoft know this. They will keep knocking Linux, and MSNBC will continue to broadcast more anti-UNIX/Linux stories than any other news agency.
Most new UNIX vulnerabilities are highlighted on MSNBC in big headlines, and are kept around for a few days, linked from the main page of the site. Vulnerabilities in Microsoft operating systems are briefly reported with a reassuring promise from some Microsoft big-shot & quickly swept under the carpet. If you disagree with me on this, then please watch MSNBC a little closer, you might be surprised at what you see.
Does anyone here really believe that any Microsoft-affiliated organisation would actually run such a poll if they thought it possible that Linux would come out on top?
That would fly in the face of all we know about Microsoft. They would only put up such a poll if they were assured of winning it. Whether they rigged it by pushing up Windows votes, or by disallowing certain browsers/architectures from posting, I think we can be pretty much guaranteed that should Linux have stayed ahead, something would mysteriously have happened to the poll.
In interfering with the poll on the MSNBC site, if in fact they did, Microsoft have violated the integrity of MSNBC as a "news-gathering organisation". However, as news is not Microsoft's core business, it isn't surprising that something like this has come to light. If they can't show integrity in their core business, how can they be expected to do so anywhere else.
To get straight to the point, I have never, in spite of years of using Linux, managed to get it to lock up to the point where I needed to reboot.
A lot of people here seem to be going a little too far in their eagerness to prove that they are impartial in the battle of the OSes and only want the best OS be it Win2K or *nix. SO WHAT if "only crap applications" lock up Win2K. There are a lot of crap applications out there for Win32, and believe it or not there are also crap apps for Linux. The difference is, if I install unstable software in Linux and it screws up, there is a VASTLY higher chance that I will be able to recover from it without a reboot, than there would be if I was running any MS Windows environment.
There is also the fact that any piece of software, server or userspace, can become unstable given the right circumstances, so saying that only crap software will crash Win2K just doesn't cut it for a serious sysadmin.
*nix are purpose-built multiuser OSes with all the advantages and power that brings. NT and it's derivatives do not IMO provide sufficient facilities for recovery from an application crash without the dreaded reboot, a fact that makes Win* unsuitable for use as a server in a serious computing environment.
People, try to look at things from a pragmatic point of view here. It may be fashionable to say nice things about Win2K, but lets at least try to keep it realistic shall we?
This is really going to get me flamed, but anyway here goes...
In my time in IT (a little over 7 years), many of the Windows NT sysadmins I've met have been jumped-up Win95 users, who just happened to be able to convince the boss they could run a server.
Coming from the Win9x background, I have noticed that these people have little or no concept of just how vulnerable a badly passworded (or unpassworded) server can be. I've found that a little knowledge actually IS a dangerous thing... the experienced Win9x users don't take Windows NT and it's associated apps too seriously as they associate it with their home PCs.
The same people incidentally, when moved to a UNIX system, become highly paranoid, as it is easier for them to take something they don't have at home seriously.
M$ Office has a lot more in terms of brand recognition than Star Office will have for the forseeable future. I don't think M$ see Star Office as much to worry about. While you make a valid point I believe Linux is the only OS that M$ hasn't already ported Office to, that is likely to be a danger to M$ in the desktop stakes. Many, many Windows users don't like Windows, but are afraid to move away from it, because of the perceived lack of familiar software. Office on Linux will kill Windows in time.
If Micrsoft were to port Office to Linux, or allow someone else to do it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot at point-blank range with a bazooka.
Office on Linux would give many more businesses the confidence to run Linux and potentially cost Microsoft most of their OS sales over time. IE on Linux on the other hand makes sense if they intend to really wipe netscape off the face of the earth. Of course it would depend on the stability of the port.
Might be a good thing if they were to follow COrel's example and use Wine, more code contributions to Wine would be a very good thing for those of use who don't have $99 floating around to throw into a copy of VMware.
Everybody gets made fun of every once in a while. Very few people actually mind. This isn't about political-correctness, it's about a hack who can't think of a decent story that would get publicity on it's own merits, so he decides to slag off a few popular comic strips.
It's much easier to do this than actually go to the trouble of writing a real story after all, right?
That's a question that you could answer yourself just by thinking about it. For example, when Wine reaches release-grade, and is capable of running all Win32 software, MS-Word will still suck sitting on top of it. Equally, I think a port of software such as Outlook for example to Linux, will still not improve the quality of the software. It may crash less, because it's sitting on a stable platform... but if it's bad software, it doesn't matter what platform it's running on.
This obviously wasn't run past Corel's lawyers. Because of their use of GPL'd software, kernel etc., their own license agreement is legally invalid, and should it be violated they would have no case in any court.
However, I believe it IS possible for an individual to sign away their own statutory rights under copyright law and this may be what Corel are relying on. To clarify, if you were to receive a copy of the software complete with license and were NOT required to SIGN a license agreement then you are entitled to use the software under the terms of the GPL. BUT if you sign the license agreement, then you are bound by Corel's terms & conditions of use. If this is what Corel are doing, I wouldn't be inclined to purchase ANY of their products again.
Isn't this sort of practice that has Microsoft in court for the antitrust trial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but insisting that Universities and other academic institutions drop all non-MS products in return for cheap software licenses is anti-competitive.
To a large extent, Java was a victim of the war between Sun and Microsoft over Microsoft's "embrace & entend" tactics. The uncertainty over how Java was going to go may have been a significant factor in slowing up the adoption of Java-based technology by numerous large companies. The "bazaar" development model on which Linux relies hugely should be sufficient to prevent that ever happening to Linux.
However, should Linux become too commercialised, and the flow of GPL'd software slow down, I think that could see a significant shift in the user-base - and developer-base - to some other open-source platform, such as FreeBSD. However, I don't believe Linux will ever go away, there are too many people at this time with too large a stake in it.
I can just see it now... Micro$oft also making it ICQ compatible and including their updated IM client in a service release to W98. Let's hope they manage to use this to shoot themselves in the foot in the antitrust trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the desktop is great for those of us who use the full functionality it has to offer, or at least a subset of it.
Your average office user though WANTS Windows. Okay, it may crash quite frequently, but let's face it; it's intuitive, and well-designed aesthetically.
Lets keep working on the desktop for ourselves and if others want to use it, great... But lets not forget where our true strength lies: In the Server market.
I think people are missing the point here: What's really at stake is not the future of Napster anymore, but the precedent they are setting in offering the record industry this kind of money.
This is perhaps the worst thing that could have happened for other businesses hoping to get into online music.
I've felt for a long time that Napster could have avoided this mess by muddying the waters a little, and morphing into an app the expressed purpose of which was not just to share mp3s but pother types of less-contentious files too. In such circumstances it could be claimed that while yes people were using the facility to pirate music, that was not its purpose and was in fact an abuse of the system.
A Napster client with an inbuilt XML-based IM system is something I'd have used (and am in fact trying to code right now), or perhaps an implementation of a gopher-like protocol for locating files worldwide... but I'm dreaming... diversification would probably not even be considered by the makers of a tool which was originally written to facilitate piracy.
My prediction for the falling out of the sky of Mir is exactly: 2001-03-16 22:55:00
It's difficult for Microsoft to do something like that though. Opening their sources completely would quite possibly kill Microsoft. Microsoft don't even do a lot of their own support work, so they wouldn't have enough support contracts to fall back on.
Quite apart from the fact that if they did open their sources, Linux / *BSD would probably end up having better support for Win32 apps than any MS OS.
For Microsoft open source just isn't feasible, much as I hate to admit it.
I'm no lawyer but...
Is it legal to make a change to DVDs to deliberately break thousands of DVD players? I think both the USDOJ and the European monopolies commission might have something to say about that.
I have so far neglected to buy a DVD player, and I have no intention of ever buying one if it means that at the whim of some bunch of money-grabbing fascists, it can suddenly become usless.
The biggest problem that I can see now is that while many technical people worldwide know what's going on, nobody else seems to care.
Why is it that the average Joe Soap always ignores any problem until it hits the national news? By then the damage is usually done.
How about a campaign to raise awareness of the DVD issue? How many websites would be prepared to link to a responsible site explaining clearly and without bias, the full history and details of the DVD issues?
Or maybe an online petition on a few wellknown websites? This way the names could be forwarded on to the MPAA, DVDCA, DOJ etc. Any other thoughts?
Microsoft's business tactics are cutthroat and unfair.
They have never even tried to hide this fact. Even during the anti-trust trial, Microsoft breached the anti-trust laws flagrantly.
Why would they suddenly show a desire to be seen as nice guys? They hold their monopoly, they still abuse it, and Linux is (however distant) a threat to their market.
I don't believe Microsoft's image is of huge concern to them. The vast majority of people don't care about Microsoft's morals, or lack of them. Many highly-principled people the world over use Microsoft operating systems, because they believe it's easier, regardless of what Microsoft may have done to some other people, some other company. Microsoft know this. They will keep knocking Linux, and MSNBC will continue to broadcast more anti-UNIX/Linux stories than any other news agency.
Most new UNIX vulnerabilities are highlighted on MSNBC in big headlines, and are kept around for a few days, linked from the main page of the site. Vulnerabilities in Microsoft operating systems are briefly reported with a reassuring promise from some Microsoft big-shot & quickly swept under the carpet. If you disagree with me on this, then please watch MSNBC a little closer, you might be surprised at what you see.
I wasn't.
Does anyone here really believe that any Microsoft-affiliated organisation would actually run such a poll if they thought it possible that Linux would come out on top?
That would fly in the face of all we know about Microsoft. They would only put up such a poll if they were assured of winning it. Whether they rigged it by pushing up Windows votes, or by disallowing certain browsers/architectures from posting, I think we can be pretty much guaranteed that should Linux have stayed ahead, something would mysteriously have happened to the poll.
In interfering with the poll on the MSNBC site, if in fact they did, Microsoft have violated the integrity of MSNBC as a "news-gathering organisation". However, as news is not Microsoft's core business, it isn't surprising that something like this has come to light. If they can't show integrity in their core business, how can they be expected to do so anywhere else.
To get straight to the point, I have never, in spite of years of using Linux, managed to get it to lock up to the point where I needed to reboot.
A lot of people here seem to be going a little too far in their eagerness to prove that they are impartial in the battle of the OSes and only want the best OS be it Win2K or *nix. SO WHAT if "only crap applications" lock up Win2K. There are a lot of crap applications out there for Win32, and believe it or not there are also crap apps for Linux. The difference is, if I install unstable software in Linux and it screws up, there is a VASTLY higher chance that I will be able to recover from it without a reboot, than there would be if I was running any MS Windows environment.
There is also the fact that any piece of software, server or userspace, can become unstable given the right circumstances, so saying that only crap software will crash Win2K just doesn't cut it for a serious sysadmin.
*nix are purpose-built multiuser OSes with all the advantages and power that brings. NT and it's derivatives do not IMO provide sufficient facilities for recovery from an application crash without the dreaded reboot, a fact that makes Win* unsuitable for use as a server in a serious computing environment.
People, try to look at things from a pragmatic point of view here. It may be fashionable to say nice things about Win2K, but lets at least try to keep it realistic shall we?
I want an alarm clock that can feel pain... ;)
...the only practical use I can see for it is as an aid to the blind.
I wonder will it be marketed for the blind?
I doubt it.
This is really going to get me flamed, but anyway here goes...
In my time in IT (a little over 7 years), many of the Windows NT sysadmins I've met have been jumped-up Win95 users, who just happened to be able to convince the boss they could run a server.
Coming from the Win9x background, I have noticed that these people have little or no concept of just how vulnerable a badly passworded (or unpassworded) server can be. I've found that a little knowledge actually IS a dangerous thing... the experienced Win9x users don't take Windows NT and it's associated apps too seriously as they associate it with their home PCs.
The same people incidentally, when moved to a UNIX system, become highly paranoid, as it is easier for them to take something they don't have at home seriously.
Just my tuppence worth.
M$ Office has a lot more in terms of brand recognition than Star Office will have for the forseeable future. I don't think M$ see Star Office as much to worry about. While you make a valid point I believe Linux is the only OS that M$ hasn't already ported Office to, that is likely to be a danger to M$ in the desktop stakes. Many, many Windows users don't like Windows, but are afraid to move away from it, because of the perceived lack of familiar software. Office on Linux will kill Windows in time.
If Micrsoft were to port Office to Linux, or allow someone else to do it, they would be shooting themselves in the foot at point-blank range with a bazooka.
Office on Linux would give many more businesses the confidence to run Linux and potentially cost Microsoft most of their OS sales over time. IE on Linux on the other hand makes sense if they intend to really wipe netscape off the face of the earth. Of course it would depend on the stability of the port.
Might be a good thing if they were to follow COrel's example and use Wine, more code contributions to Wine would be a very good thing for those of use who don't have $99 floating around to throw into a copy of VMware.
Everybody gets made fun of every once in a while. Very few people actually mind. This isn't about political-correctness, it's about a hack who can't think of a decent story that would get publicity on it's own merits, so he decides to slag off a few popular comic strips.
It's much easier to do this than actually go to the trouble of writing a real story after all, right?
That's a question that you could answer yourself just by thinking about it. For example, when Wine reaches release-grade, and is capable of running all Win32 software, MS-Word will still suck sitting on top of it. Equally, I think a port of software such as Outlook for example to Linux, will still not improve the quality of the software. It may crash less, because it's sitting on a stable platform... but if it's bad software, it doesn't matter what platform it's running on.
This obviously wasn't run past Corel's lawyers. Because of their use of GPL'd software, kernel etc., their own license agreement is legally invalid, and should it be violated they would have no case in any court.
However, I believe it IS possible for an individual to sign away their own statutory rights under copyright law and this may be what Corel are relying on. To clarify, if you were to receive a copy of the software complete with license and were NOT required to SIGN a license agreement then you are entitled to use the software under the terms of the GPL. BUT if you sign the license agreement, then you are bound by Corel's terms & conditions of use. If this is what Corel are doing, I wouldn't be inclined to purchase ANY of their products again.
Isn't this sort of practice that has Microsoft in court for the antitrust trial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but insisting that Universities and other academic institutions drop all non-MS products in return for cheap software licenses is anti-competitive.
To a large extent, Java was a victim of the war between Sun and Microsoft over Microsoft's "embrace & entend" tactics. The uncertainty over how Java was going to go may have been a significant factor in slowing up the adoption of Java-based technology by numerous large companies.
The "bazaar" development model on which Linux relies hugely should be sufficient to prevent that ever happening to Linux.
However, should Linux become too commercialised, and the flow of GPL'd software slow down, I think that could see a significant shift in the user-base - and developer-base - to some other open-source platform, such as FreeBSD. However, I don't believe Linux will ever go away, there are too many people at this time with too large a stake in it.
I can just see it now... Micro$oft also making it ICQ compatible and including their updated IM client in a service release to W98. Let's hope they manage to use this to shoot themselves in the foot in the antitrust trial.