If Netscape dies, there's a good chance it takes Mozilla with it. Moz may continue to exist as a standalone browser, but if Netscape goes by-by, does anyone really think that Macromedia and other companies will continue making plugins for anyone but Microsoft? I know some people hate flash and other plugins, but they've become a neccessity if you want full use of the web. And corporate support helped Mozilla get where it is today. Without AOL/Netscape's support, Mozilla would never have gotten off of the ground. All the volunteer developers in the world wont change the fact that being tied with Netscape helps Mozilla immensely. I wouldn't be so hasty in celebrating it's demise.
We make it TOO easy for fraud as it is. Where I live, you don't even need a picture ID to vote, you just walk up and give your name, they check you off a list, and hand you a paper ballot. The South is famous for "Election Halloween", where massive numbers of the dead rise to vote.
I don't WANT it to be made easier to vote. I only want the people that actually care what's going on. People talk about what a shame it is that more Americans don't vote. Maybe it is, but dragging them to vote, for real or virtually, isn't going to make them GOOD voters. I like it that you have to register, and show up to the polls. You'll do all that if you CARE about issues. I don't want to make it easier for just any schmo to cast a vote that day without having to think about the issues or candidates.
Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.
For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.
"I like Rummy, and I'd have thought most/.'s would, too. After all, he's a gadget freak like the rest of us.:) "
Don't count on it. He's a conservative Republican (though a radical on defense issues). Rummy has about as much chance of popularity here as Bill Gates.
I was in G3 and G4 on Enterprise, back in the late 80's. You'd be surprised what's moved by pulleys, steel cables, and compressed air on the same carrier with 4 to 8 nuclear reactors. Ships are a balance of high tech, and simple + reliable, like the sound powered phones. When jets got too heavy to take off of decks under their own power, the Navy started looking for ways to catapult them off. After examining various complicated mechanical measures, the Navy settled on a simple system where steam...that's right, hot water to steam, propels them off the deck.
" My boss showed me the letter and asked what I thought because I work in IT. After I controlled my laughing, I told him to ignore it and make sure that we do not ever buy anything from Sun..."
Then if your boss has half a brain, you'll never be in a position of authority, because you're a moron. You don't make hardware and software purchase decisions based on politics or your personal feelings. You buy the best for the job at hand at a certain budget. If Solaris on Sparc makes the most sense for the task, then that's what you buy.
Good administrators and managers leave their personal feelings and pet causes at the door when they come to work. They bring in Linux because it makes sense for what they're doing, not because its cool have open source in the shop and they want to stick it to SCO/Sun/MS/Whoever.
As much as I admire OSX and the new Mac hardware, I have to be honest and say that I think Steve Jobs is burning bridges with a big group of Mac users. First he moves the Mac to a Unix codebase, which we love, but old-line Mac users have huge reservations about. Then he slowly goes about writing all the important apps for the Mac, pushing out longtime 3rd party vendors that Mac users have relied upon for years. This is a direct shot at Adobe, the software company most associated with Mac third party software. Jobs seems intent on making all software on the Mac "All Apple, All The Time". And I think this might be the new Apple's Achilles Heel; its really hard to expand your market if no one else is writing software for your platform. I know ole' Steve wants the revenue, but this is getting rediculous.
Crack must be cheap and plentiful amongst film critics these days. There was nothing original about this movie except the lengths the studio and reviewers went to decieve the public on it's quality and originality. It's just a mishmash of standard zombie flicks in a British setting with bad film stock and worse editing. I bought the hype and got fucked up the ass on this one.
28 days later, this fucking movie finally ended...
Ok, you work there. Good for you. As for HP-UX not going away, I'm pleasantly surprised at that. But I'm not going to bet it will never happen either. And If I hear someone use "FUD" one more time, I'm going to commit mass murder. That's the most abused fucking word on Slashdot
Because at one time, Systemax WAS offering FreeDOS on their boxes. I was always pissed that they wouldn't offer Linux as an alternative, because they actually sold a server product with a custom Linux OS.
Just as I was getting worried that Carly was turning the New HP into a pure MS vehicle (all this stuff about 64 bit Windows being Itanium's "killer app"). I was starting to think they'd ditch HP-UX any day now (as they will with PA-RISC, now that they're pushing Itanium). So it's a shock to see them putting Mandrake on a PC OEM style (and a business targeted PC too!). I hope they have stellar success with this. If this succeeds I hope they offer other distros like Red Hat, United Linux, and even something like Lindows on a consumer model, all OEM loaded. Compaq had started to offer Dell-style customization of PC's ordered over the web before the *cough*takeover*cough merger. I wonder if HP still does that? That'd be the perfect place to offer even more choice.
But, GoofyBoy, you're not fighting the GOOD FIGHT!
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
You pointed out what should have been obvious...
One, this is USA Today. The general readership in not exactly aiming at Mensa members...
Two, Gates is going to push MS and downplay competitors because *gasp* he OWNS MS! Who would'a thunk it?!
Look, if it was Scott McNeally, he'd be pushing Sun. If it were Larry Ellison, he'd be telling you how much DB2 sucks. If it were Linus, he'd tell you Linux is the future.
But if you're not a total OSS chearleader, even if you support OSS, a dozen trolls will creep out of the woodwork to flame you for "spreading MS FUD". Doctor, how much will it cost to get that chip removed from my shoulder?
Idealism over ideology, please. The two are not the same, and the former works when it's accompanied by a nice dose of honesty....
Ha ha ha ha. Have you actually READ my posts? If you did, it was with a filter, seeing what you wanted to see. I'm an advocate of open source in general, and Linux in particular. I just don't live my life with ideological blinders. I'm active in my lug, and statewide with other Linux groups. Maybe I should resign because I don't fit your idea of what Linux user should be?
Naaaa, ain't gonna do it. I'm not going sit back and accept whatever crap people throw out on the net, be it from OSS advocates or not. We could use a big dose of honesty, especially here on slashdot. And your comments on Gates sounded petty. I'm sick and tired of the MS chip we have on our shoulders, and when I smell bullshit, I'm going to call it.
"It had more to do with his father being a wealthy and politically well-connected lawyer"
Absolute Bullshit. Yeah, he came from a well off family. But his daddy didn't build Microsoft. He did. If anything, his family instilled a sense of drive and competitiveness in him that made him succeed. Just because you come from a family with some money doesn't guarantee success. How many rich families have we seen where the kids just weren't up to snuff with their parents? Can anybody say "Kennedy"?
Bill Gates was more successful than his father ever was. Donald Trump came from a similar background. His dad was rich, but not super rich. He had the drive to succeed on levels far higher than his own father. Same with Ted Turner.
No doubt, having families with money gave these guys an advantage when starting out, but please, be more honest. If they weren't any good themselves, they never would have succeeded. Period. Daddy's bucks can only help you so much.
I read your post, and though this will surprise you, I agree with your position and sympathize with you. I'm one of those evil right wing Americans that you hear so much about that likes the fact that we're the dominant power in the world right now.
So you might be shocked to learn that I completely agree with you. Open source software can help you. And if I were in your position, I wouldn't want to become beholden to one company's product no matter WHERE it comes from. An open, standards based information infrastructure is vital for that. China isn't developing Red Flag Linux to spur their software industry so much as to maintain their competitiveness with the US.
In fact, you're going to love this. I'm rooting for you here. And for everyone else across the world adopting OSS instead of MS products for their nation's needs. Why?
It isn't that I hate Microsoft. Far from it. On many levels, I truly admire Gates and his company. I'd like to see them stay successful.
What I don't want to see them do is dominate EVERYTHING. I want to see Apple succeed. And SGI. And Red Hat. And SuSe, etc, etc. I want OSS to be widely adopted across the world so that open standards rule the day. I have no problem with incredible numbers of people using MS stuff. This is heresy here to say this, but MS, unlike the past, makes a lot of good software now. I just want that software to use those same open standards that others use. I want other software to be able to interact and operate with MS software. Massive OSS use across the world can ensure that. When I go to a bank website, I want Mozilla to work too, not just IE.
So thornist, I say good luck to your country in it's quest for building a strong, open infrastructure. It's good for you, and frankly, it's good for us too.
"oh and ask Boeing how they feel about those lazy unproductive european workers who are currently grabbing most of their marketshare for civilian airliners despites highly unfavorable exchange rate."
Here's a better one. Ask them how they feel about Airbus winning those contracts because European goverments are subsidizing the consortium.
Not that it matters. I work in the air travel industry. And Airbus is about to eat the same losses Boeing is taking. Why?
Because regional jets are taking over. People are tired of flying through hubs. They want to get from one place to another. Short hops if possible. Regional jets will get all of the hot growth over the next twenty years. The projection for big airliners is flat at best over that period.
How many regional jets does Airbus make? Oh, that's right. Same as Boeing. None.
Changing market forces are killing big airplanes. Not superior European productivity. Please.
Airbus is doing as well as it is because goverment subsidies are allowing Airbus to sell planes at a cost lower than normally possible. This can't last forever, and European governments know it.
The big winners over the next couple of decades? Embraer of Brazil, and Bombardier of Canada.
....you might as well jump right-the-fuck off the cliff. I'm soooo very hoping this story isn't true. After all, this IS Slashdot, and we know everything is always accurate here, don't we?
You're right about MS turning this to their advantage. Hell, I WOULD if I were in their place.
"Remember that commercial about the computer hackers? The one where the bald and tattooed guy explains that he breaks into networks for the same reason he pierced his tongue? Yeah. Meet the Linux Crowd. They are THAT guy".
Expect something like that from corporate PR. Oh well. What's that they say? One step forward, two steps back?
How is this harming Windows users? So they'll have to download Java if they want to use it. So what? How is that different from having to download Quicktime, RealPlayer, or Adobe Reader? Why should Microsoft have to include competing products with theirs? That's like telling telling Coca-Cola "your company is too big. Ship one Pepsi with every six pack from now on to be fair to consumers".
Let the buyer beware, and download whatever he wants. And if you don't like the way Microsoft does things, buy a Mac, or go to any small PC store, and have them build you a white box to load your own OS on. They'll probably be happy to load something easy like Red Hat for you.
And for all of their ills, Microsoft has a point about Java. WHY should the industry just lay down and accept that Java is the future, if competitors say "we have something better, we're not using that"? Busting Microsoft for breaking the Java license is one thing. Making them ship a competitors product is another, especially when that competitor has been boasting for years that said product can be Microsoft's undoing.
The only way you can justify this is to say that since the anti-trust people blew it, this court will pick up the slack and regulate Microsoft in one area. That might even be a just action, but it would be bad law. Don't we have enough of that allready? We SHOULD have taken more anti-trust action against MS. We should have perhaps restricted their markets. We should have perhaps made them open their API's more fully to the public. We should never make them, or any company, distribute a competitor's product as a remedy.
Kazaa has basically made it's reputation spitting in the face of media companies. Their attitude to the RIAA and the US Government has been one of defiance, and frankly, arrogance from the very start.
Record labels will build their own online distribution points. Most of them are quite committed to the day Kazaa ceases to exist. If THIS was the strategy of Sharman Networks from the beginning, it was ill-concieved at best, and idiotic at worst. You don't piss in the face of competitors, laugh at them for it, and then expect them to actually WORK with you.
Most of the switchers to OSX that I see aren't coming from Windows. They're coming from Linux.
The old Mac zealots are staying with Apple despite their dislike of it's Unix core (a typical comment is "I got a Mac to get AWAY from things like Unix and command lines". OSX is good enough that they're staying anyway).
That leaves the new crowd of Apple fans, attracted by it's Unix core. And there's a lot of them from what I've seen. I go to lug meetings around my state, and more and more Ibooks/Powerbooks are popping up, sometimes outnumbering X86 laptops running Linux. This is at LUG meetings, my friend. My own lug's vice president uses a Powerbook now. He only touches Linux now for his servers. Despite the advances of GUIs and window managers for Linux, what I typically see is if that a Linux guy can afford a Mac, he gets one. If he can't, he runs Linux with a shiny KDE or Gnome desktop and talks about how it's "just as good" as a Mac; usually he's looking at the Mac with utter lust as he says this.
I personally think this is one reason that Apple hasn't released a port of Quicktime for Linux. They're busy wooing Linux users, and doing it very successfully.
They're almost certainly refering to the Wen Ho Lee case, which is still very controversial. Apparently, Chinese intelligence had penetrated the Los Alamos lab an obtained secrets pertaining to our nuclear weapons program (the Chinese had made a quantum leap in only ten years or so, and much of the work in this period appeared to be very similar to ours in some respects). The investigation focused on Lee, who is ethnic Chinese, a logtime employee at the Los Alamos labs, and who had made at least one trip to mainland China previously. His arrest and treatment seemed to be bungled, and the FBI got a black eye over it. Some people adamantly maintain that Lee was indeed a spy, but there was insuffcient evidence, and detractors held this as an example of incompetence and racism in the FBI.
" Not always. A more likely explanation is the 'many eyes' that can review the code."
I went to a speech by Gene Spafford here a few years ago, when the subject of Linux code quality versus other systems (especially MS) came up. Someone mentioned Eric Raymond's "Thousand Eyeballs" theory, that more people looking at the code ensured better quality.
Spaff responded "that does no good if those thousand eyeballs are looking at things like networking your toaster instead of quality and security".
I don't think this point is emphasized enough. It's not enough that lots of people are looking at the code. You need lot's of people with training, expierience, and an eye for problems to look at the code. He pointed out that one of the biggest problems in development is that while people can learn C from a book, and even get good at it, they don't learn proper software engineering techniques, philosophies, and debugging skills that way.
In short, simply being open source and having lots of developers isn't a solution in itself.
Look, I think people should be free to believe whatever they want. But if you think the Swedish system is so great, maybe you should pack up and move there, because we're never going to that kind of system. I read the article that you presented as evidence of what Swedes pay, but I'm not sold on those facts. There was an article a few years back about Swedish auto workers that had to be motivated by perks, because overtime would simply be sucked up by Swedish tax rates. And I know as recently as the late 90's, the Swedes had a bust ass deficit. So it isn't Paradise over there.
I'd be happy to pay more taxes if I was sure it would go to good causes. But too often, it doesn't, especially on the state level. When guys like Robert Byrd can make entire branches of major federal agencies pack up and move to his state, I'll want to keep my own money, thanks. Another problem is the definition of "Progressive". You and I will definitely have different definitions of progress.
Maybe there's no answer to this, because this country is both blessed and cursed with FAR diverging political opinions. But I would submit to you, sir, that most Americans would never go for Euro socialism-lite like that which is found in Sweden. The beauty of this country, is that you're free to try to convince myself and everyone otherwise....
Slashdot Mirror
If Netscape dies, there's a good chance it takes Mozilla with it. Moz may continue to exist as a standalone browser, but if Netscape goes by-by, does anyone really think that Macromedia and other companies will continue making plugins for anyone but Microsoft? I know some people hate flash and other plugins, but they've become a neccessity if you want full use of the web. And corporate support helped Mozilla get where it is today. Without AOL/Netscape's support, Mozilla would never have gotten off of the ground. All the volunteer developers in the world wont change the fact that being tied with Netscape helps Mozilla immensely. I wouldn't be so hasty in celebrating it's demise.
We make it TOO easy for fraud as it is. Where I live, you don't even need a picture ID to vote, you just walk up and give your name, they check you off a list, and hand you a paper ballot. The South is famous for "Election Halloween", where massive numbers of the dead rise to vote.
I don't WANT it to be made easier to vote. I only want the people that actually care what's going on. People talk about what a shame it is that more Americans don't vote. Maybe it is, but dragging them to vote, for real or virtually, isn't going to make them GOOD voters. I like it that you have to register, and show up to the polls. You'll do all that if you CARE about issues. I don't want to make it easier for just any schmo to cast a vote that day without having to think about the issues or candidates.
I thought I recognized the poster's nick. I check my Freaks list, and there's ole' Squiggy. And now I read his post, and completely agree.
Will wonders never cease...
Gotta wonder what it was that got me on his shit list in the first place...sounds like we agree on some things.
"Next: USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)"
Why not? You have to name them after someone or something, and like Jimmy Carter before him, Bush One's popularity has risen after he left office, and also like Carter, he has a Navy background as a WW II Naval Aviator (Carter was a sub officer and nuke; thus, a sub was named after him). Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson both also served in the Navy. They won't get carriers, but don't be too terribly shocked if they eventually get smaller classes of ships named after them, perhaps destroyers. Richard Nixon is the one Navy President I'm fairly sure will never be honored with a ship.
For more info on how the Navy names ships, see here.
"I like Rummy, and I'd have thought most /.'s would, too. After all, he's a gadget freak like the rest of us. :) "
Don't count on it. He's a conservative Republican (though a radical on defense issues). Rummy has about as much chance of popularity here as Bill Gates.
I was in G3 and G4 on Enterprise, back in the late 80's. You'd be surprised what's moved by pulleys, steel cables, and compressed air on the same carrier with 4 to 8 nuclear reactors. Ships are a balance of high tech, and simple + reliable, like the sound powered phones. When jets got too heavy to take off of decks under their own power, the Navy started looking for ways to catapult them off. After examining various complicated mechanical measures, the Navy settled on a simple system where steam...that's right, hot water to steam, propels them off the deck.
" My boss showed me the letter and asked what I thought because I work in IT. After I controlled my laughing, I told him to ignore it and make sure that we do not ever buy anything from Sun..."
Then if your boss has half a brain, you'll never be in a position of authority, because you're a moron. You don't make hardware and software purchase decisions based on politics or your personal feelings. You buy the best for the job at hand at a certain budget. If Solaris on Sparc makes the most sense for the task, then that's what you buy.
Good administrators and managers leave their personal feelings and pet causes at the door when they come to work. They bring in Linux because it makes sense for what they're doing, not because its cool have open source in the shop and they want to stick it to SCO/Sun/MS/Whoever.
As much as I admire OSX and the new Mac hardware, I have to be honest and say that I think Steve Jobs is burning bridges with a big group of Mac users. First he moves the Mac to a Unix codebase, which we love, but old-line Mac users have huge reservations about. Then he slowly goes about writing all the important apps for the Mac, pushing out longtime 3rd party vendors that Mac users have relied upon for years. This is a direct shot at Adobe, the software company most associated with Mac third party software. Jobs seems intent on making all software on the Mac "All Apple, All The Time". And I think this might be the new Apple's Achilles Heel; its really hard to expand your market if no one else is writing software for your platform. I know ole' Steve wants the revenue, but this is getting rediculous.
"Reinvents the Zombie movie"
"Scary as Hell"
Crack must be cheap and plentiful amongst film critics these days. There was nothing original about this movie except the lengths the studio and reviewers went to decieve the public on it's quality and originality. It's just a mishmash of standard zombie flicks in a British setting with bad film stock and worse editing. I bought the hype and got fucked up the ass on this one.
28 days later, this fucking movie finally ended...
Ok, you work there. Good for you. As for HP-UX not going away, I'm pleasantly surprised at that. But I'm not going to bet it will never happen either. And If I hear someone use "FUD" one more time, I'm going to commit mass murder. That's the most abused fucking word on Slashdot
Because at one time, Systemax WAS offering FreeDOS on their boxes. I was always pissed that they wouldn't offer Linux as an alternative, because they actually sold a server product with a custom Linux OS.
Just as I was getting worried that Carly was turning the New HP into a pure MS vehicle (all this stuff about 64 bit Windows being Itanium's "killer app"). I was starting to think they'd ditch HP-UX any day now (as they will with PA-RISC, now that they're pushing Itanium). So it's a shock to see them putting Mandrake on a PC OEM style (and a business targeted PC too!). I hope they have stellar success with this. If this succeeds I hope they offer other distros like Red Hat, United Linux, and even something like Lindows on a consumer model, all OEM loaded. Compaq had started to offer Dell-style customization of PC's ordered over the web before the *cough*takeover*cough merger. I wonder if HP still does that? That'd be the perfect place to offer even more choice.
Damnit, who let Bill Maher post again?!
You pointed out what should have been obvious...
One, this is USA Today. The general readership in not exactly aiming at Mensa members...
Two, Gates is going to push MS and downplay competitors because *gasp* he OWNS MS! Who would'a thunk it?!
Look, if it was Scott McNeally, he'd be pushing Sun. If it were Larry Ellison, he'd be telling you how much DB2 sucks. If it were Linus, he'd tell you Linux is the future.
But if you're not a total OSS chearleader, even if you support OSS, a dozen trolls will creep out of the woodwork to flame you for "spreading MS FUD". Doctor, how much will it cost to get that chip removed from my shoulder?
Idealism over ideology, please. The two are not the same, and the former works when it's accompanied by a nice dose of honesty....
Ha ha ha ha. Have you actually READ my posts? If you did, it was with a filter, seeing what you wanted to see. I'm an advocate of open source in general, and Linux in particular. I just don't live my life with ideological blinders. I'm active in my lug, and statewide with other Linux groups. Maybe I should resign because I don't fit your idea of what Linux user should be?
Naaaa, ain't gonna do it. I'm not going sit back and accept whatever crap people throw out on the net, be it from OSS advocates or not. We could use a big dose of honesty, especially here on slashdot. And your comments on Gates sounded petty. I'm sick and tired of the MS chip we have on our shoulders, and when I smell bullshit, I'm going to call it.
"It had more to do with his father being a wealthy and politically well-connected lawyer"
Absolute Bullshit. Yeah, he came from a well off family. But his daddy didn't build Microsoft. He did. If anything, his family instilled a sense of drive and competitiveness in him that made him succeed. Just because you come from a family with some money doesn't guarantee success. How many rich families have we seen where the kids just weren't up to snuff with their parents? Can anybody say "Kennedy"?
Bill Gates was more successful than his father ever was. Donald Trump came from a similar background. His dad was rich, but not super rich. He had the drive to succeed on levels far higher than his own father. Same with Ted Turner.
No doubt, having families with money gave these guys an advantage when starting out, but please, be more honest. If they weren't any good themselves, they never would have succeeded. Period. Daddy's bucks can only help you so much.
I read your post, and though this will surprise you, I agree with your position and sympathize with you. I'm one of those evil right wing Americans that you hear so much about that likes the fact that we're the dominant power in the world right now.
So you might be shocked to learn that I completely agree with you. Open source software can help you. And if I were in your position, I wouldn't want to become beholden to one company's product no matter WHERE it comes from. An open, standards based information infrastructure is vital for that. China isn't developing Red Flag Linux to spur their software industry so much as to maintain their competitiveness with the US.
In fact, you're going to love this. I'm rooting for you here. And for everyone else across the world adopting OSS instead of MS products for their nation's needs. Why?
It isn't that I hate Microsoft. Far from it. On many levels, I truly admire Gates and his company. I'd like to see them stay successful.
What I don't want to see them do is dominate EVERYTHING. I want to see Apple succeed. And SGI. And Red Hat. And SuSe, etc, etc. I want OSS to be widely adopted across the world so that open standards rule the day. I have no problem with incredible numbers of people using MS stuff. This is heresy here to say this, but MS, unlike the past, makes a lot of good software now. I just want that software to use those same open standards that others use. I want other software to be able to interact and operate with MS software. Massive OSS use across the world can ensure that. When I go to a bank website, I want Mozilla to work too, not just IE.
So thornist, I say good luck to your country in it's quest for building a strong, open infrastructure. It's good for you, and frankly, it's good for us too.
"oh and ask Boeing how they feel about those lazy unproductive european workers who are currently grabbing most of their marketshare for civilian airliners despites highly unfavorable exchange rate."
Here's a better one. Ask them how they feel about Airbus winning those contracts because European goverments are subsidizing the consortium.
Not that it matters. I work in the air travel industry. And Airbus is about to eat the same losses Boeing is taking. Why?
Because regional jets are taking over. People are tired of flying through hubs. They want to get from one place to another. Short hops if possible. Regional jets will get all of the hot growth over the next twenty years. The projection for big airliners is flat at best over that period.
How many regional jets does Airbus make? Oh, that's right. Same as Boeing. None.
Changing market forces are killing big airplanes. Not superior European productivity. Please.
Airbus is doing as well as it is because goverment subsidies are allowing Airbus to sell planes at a cost lower than normally possible. This can't last forever, and European governments know it.
The big winners over the next couple of decades? Embraer of Brazil, and Bombardier of Canada.
....you might as well jump right-the-fuck off the cliff. I'm soooo very hoping this story isn't true. After all, this IS Slashdot, and we know everything is always accurate here, don't we?
You're right about MS turning this to their advantage. Hell, I WOULD if I were in their place.
"Remember that commercial about the computer hackers? The one where the bald and tattooed guy explains that he breaks into networks for the same reason he pierced his tongue? Yeah. Meet the Linux Crowd. They are THAT guy".
Expect something like that from corporate PR. Oh well. What's that they say? One step forward, two steps back?
How is this harming Windows users? So they'll have to download Java if they want to use it. So what? How is that different from having to download Quicktime, RealPlayer, or Adobe Reader? Why should Microsoft have to include competing products with theirs? That's like telling telling Coca-Cola "your company is too big. Ship one Pepsi with every six pack from now on to be fair to consumers".
Let the buyer beware, and download whatever he wants. And if you don't like the way Microsoft does things, buy a Mac, or go to any small PC store, and have them build you a white box to load your own OS on. They'll probably be happy to load something easy like Red Hat for you.
And for all of their ills, Microsoft has a point about Java. WHY should the industry just lay down and accept that Java is the future, if competitors say "we have something better, we're not using that"? Busting Microsoft for breaking the Java license is one thing. Making them ship a competitors product is another, especially when that competitor has been boasting for years that said product can be Microsoft's undoing.
The only way you can justify this is to say that since the anti-trust people blew it, this court will pick up the slack and regulate Microsoft in one area. That might even be a just action, but it would be bad law. Don't we have enough of that allready? We SHOULD have taken more anti-trust action against MS. We should have perhaps restricted their markets. We should have perhaps made them open their API's more fully to the public. We should never make them, or any company, distribute a competitor's product as a remedy.
Kazaa has basically made it's reputation spitting in the face of media companies. Their attitude to the RIAA and the US Government has been one of defiance, and frankly, arrogance from the very start.
Record labels will build their own online distribution points. Most of them are quite committed to the day Kazaa ceases to exist. If THIS was the strategy of Sharman Networks from the beginning, it was ill-concieved at best, and idiotic at worst. You don't piss in the face of competitors, laugh at them for it, and then expect them to actually WORK with you.
Most of the switchers to OSX that I see aren't coming from Windows. They're coming from Linux.
The old Mac zealots are staying with Apple despite their dislike of it's Unix core (a typical comment is "I got a Mac to get AWAY from things like Unix and command lines". OSX is good enough that they're staying anyway).
That leaves the new crowd of Apple fans, attracted by it's Unix core. And there's a lot of them from what I've seen. I go to lug meetings around my state, and more and more Ibooks/Powerbooks are popping up, sometimes outnumbering X86 laptops running Linux. This is at LUG meetings, my friend. My own lug's vice president uses a Powerbook now. He only touches Linux now for his servers. Despite the advances of GUIs and window managers for Linux, what I typically see is if that a Linux guy can afford a Mac, he gets one. If he can't, he runs Linux with a shiny KDE or Gnome desktop and talks about how it's "just as good" as a Mac; usually he's looking at the Mac with utter lust as he says this.
I personally think this is one reason that Apple hasn't released a port of Quicktime for Linux. They're busy wooing Linux users, and doing it very successfully.
They're almost certainly refering to the Wen Ho Lee case, which is still very controversial. Apparently, Chinese intelligence had penetrated the Los Alamos lab an obtained secrets pertaining to our nuclear weapons program (the Chinese had made a quantum leap in only ten years or so, and much of the work in this period appeared to be very similar to ours in some respects). The investigation focused on Lee, who is ethnic Chinese, a logtime employee at the Los Alamos labs, and who had made at least one trip to mainland China previously. His arrest and treatment seemed to be bungled, and the FBI got a black eye over it. Some people adamantly maintain that Lee was indeed a spy, but there was insuffcient evidence, and detractors held this as an example of incompetence and racism in the FBI.
Details can be found here.
" Not always. A more likely explanation is the 'many eyes' that can review the code."
I went to a speech by Gene Spafford here a few years ago, when the subject of Linux code quality versus other systems (especially MS) came up. Someone mentioned Eric Raymond's "Thousand Eyeballs" theory, that more people looking at the code ensured better quality.
Spaff responded "that does no good if those thousand eyeballs are looking at things like networking your toaster instead of quality and security".
I don't think this point is emphasized enough. It's not enough that lots of people are looking at the code. You need lot's of people with training, expierience, and an eye for problems to look at the code. He pointed out that one of the biggest problems in development is that while people can learn C from a book, and even get good at it, they don't learn proper software engineering techniques, philosophies, and debugging skills that way.
In short, simply being open source and having lots of developers isn't a solution in itself.
Look, I think people should be free to believe whatever they want. But if you think the Swedish system is so great, maybe you should pack up and move there, because we're never going to that kind of system. I read the article that you presented as evidence of what Swedes pay, but I'm not sold on those facts. There was an article a few years back about Swedish auto workers that had to be motivated by perks, because overtime would simply be sucked up by Swedish tax rates. And I know as recently as the late 90's, the Swedes had a bust ass deficit. So it isn't Paradise over there.
I'd be happy to pay more taxes if I was sure it would go to good causes. But too often, it doesn't, especially on the state level. When guys like Robert Byrd can make entire branches of major federal agencies pack up and move to his state, I'll want to keep my own money, thanks. Another problem is the definition of "Progressive". You and I will definitely have different definitions of progress.
Maybe there's no answer to this, because this country is both blessed and cursed with FAR diverging political opinions. But I would submit to you, sir, that most Americans would never go for Euro socialism-lite like that which is found in Sweden. The beauty of this country, is that you're free to try to convince myself and everyone otherwise....
Good luck to you, sir.