not guilty? so you think $200 is a reasonable and fair price for a toy OS? and $500 for a word processor? and into the thousands for their attempt at a real OS? the mind boggles.:p
Even though I'm sure nobody is looking at this thread any longer, I wanted to address this. I actually don't believe that $200 is unreasonable for the underlying software that all other applications need. And it's actually lower than that for OEM's who have big volume deals. Obviously, free is better -- especially in the server market where the OS cost is much higher than $200. But I'm willing to pay that price, especially if I get reasonable support from the supplier.
$500 for a word processor is just plain stupid -- for the consumer, especially as there are a number of alternatives. Yes, interoperability is a factor, but most interoperability takes place between members of the same corporation. If management is dumb enough to pay $500 per seat, then that is their problem. If it were my company, I'd probably just make everybody use Star Office or something. Microsoft Word has some cool features, but most of them aren't ever used. While others may disagree, I don't believe Microsoft's monopoly in this area is truly earned. Maybe their FUD campaigns have been partly responsible, but there really are still choices left here.
They should not be required to support a product where the OEM has changed the installed software or the presentation.
True, but this is already the case. Microsoft does not support Windows that has been installed by an OEM. The OEM has its own support department for this. But all of this goes back to unnecessarily tying the browser into the operating system. The only practical reason to do so was to make sure that their browser was the defacto standard. Otherwise, the browser would have been easily separated from the rest of the OS and replaced by that of a competitor. Likewise, if Microsoft truly allows OEM's to add or remove features from the desktop, they aren't really changing the installed software. They are taking advantage of a feature Microsoft offered them.
Second, how long before these same "protectors of the public" tell Ms that they cannot install a MSN icon through a store bought upgrade version of Windows? Shouldn't we stop them there too?
I'm sorry, but this just isn't the same situation. There's not an OEM involved here. It would be more accurate to ask how long it would be before AOL can make deals with stores selling upgrade packages to include a special AOL-friendly version. This isn't likely to happen unless AOL becomes a VAR for Microsoft -- and if such happens, the terms of the contract aren't likely to allow such.
How long before this same government, in a statement to protect consumers at all levels, determines that all desktops, (apple and linux too) must be open to everyone, meaning if it can run there the OEM must put it there, or the creator of the software must do so?
Again, you're not seeing the point. This was an agreement between AOL and OEM's. There was no legislation or government statement that said all OEM's must put all possible packages on the machines. Instead, we're looking for the possibility that OEM's can choose to put what they want on the machines.
What's wrong with not knowing what channel you're watching? Does it really matter that it's on NBC, or CBS, or BBC? If it's a good television show, they're going to watch it.
Agreed. Whether the consumer knows what channel they are watching doesn't matter at all (IMHO). But what might be of more significance is the fact that many of the consumers are skipping the commercials. Since that is a substantial portion of what pays for the television programming, it could ultimately lead to consumers bearing a larger part of the financial responsibility. (IE, higher cable/sat bills).
I guess someone will claim they are exercising thier "monopoly" by making that requirement.
Yes, because they quite clearly are. They are using their operating system, which ships on almost all new desktop machines, as leverage to coax users into their internet service. They are also saying that OEM's cannot do likewise for competing services unless they provide equal coaxing for Microsoft's service. There are two nasty things that come out of monopolies. The first is exhorbitant prices -- which comes about once there are literarly no other choices for consumers. The second is the use of existing monopolies in one area of the market to destroy competition in another area. Both are illegal. Microsoft is not guilty of the first one (yet), but most definitely needs to bear guilt for the second.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal. Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
No, it's not. AOL doesn't sell operating systems. Don't get me wrong, AOL isn't sweet smelling and squeaky clean either. Obviously, they have their own potential monopoly situations with their total control over a large hunk of the media market. But in this segment of the market, AOL (and other potential providers) are being hurt by Microsoft's monopoly in the operating systems market. If major vendors like Compaq were selling desktop machines with a sizable slice of the operating system pie going to other OS flavors, Microsoft's move would merely be considered shrewd business. But with the current situation, it is abuse of a monopoly situation.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Certainly, AOL is flaming mad over this. But more importantly, vendors like Compaq should be angry. They aren't living in a glass house (at least not *this* glass house). If consumers knew enough about what's really going on, many of them would be angry too.
a total of 688.480 shares were sold at 6.2 Euros each. This results in an increase in capital of approximately 4.3 million Euros
For those of you that multipled the numbers together and were confused as to how they came up with 4.3 million, it should either read 688,480 shares sold at 6.2 Euros each or 688.480 shares sold at 6,2 Euros each, depending on what country you're from. I hope this is helpful -- I'm not trying to be critical.
Please consider this possibility -- a full press (pun intended:) critical TW media blitz against MS. Critical news stories. Investigative reports. Editorials. Might not that have an effect?
While it might initially impact Microsoft negatively, it would provide some seriously high-profile fuel for an antitrust suit against AOL-TW. Microsoft could simply whisper into the ear of one of the politicians currently wrapped around its little finger and get the ball rolling. AOL-TW would be nuts to try something like that. I think they've gotten dangerously close enough with the accusations of discriminating against competing ISP's for advertising space.
If the OEMs start to include the JRE why not also include the OpenOffice office suit. It doesn't cost them anything and will amke it possible for them to sell a office suit to theirs custumers without.
This idea is interesting... with one change. Most people buying a computer right now get a choice between Microsoft Office or Microsoft Works. It's rare for anybody to buy a new system with no office software at all. Based on this, OEMs may now have the incentive to provide a slightly lower-cost package to the user (assuming that Microsoft Works has a per-license cost). They could perhaps shave another $50 or $100 off the cost of their computer if the user chooses Open Office instead of the other two. But in order to know whether that will fly, you must find out what kind of wierd license agreements OEMs have with Microsoft.
Sure, you can include the JRE, but your Windows licenses will cost you $50 more per pop...
Instead of just making a statement like this, could you provide a little more information? Why would it cost another $50 per license? Are you referring to labor for including the JRE in the image? Some sort of hidden license fee that nobody knows about? Some sort of evil action you expect M$ to take in response?
I don't know of anybody who uses any java application on a regular basis. In fact, most of them run their browser with Java turned off.
Don't get out much, do you? I would say that most people don't even know what java is, and they leave it turned on in their browsers because they wouldn't know how to turn it off. They run java applets frequently without even realizing it. You need to think globally, dude.
What is your fascination with Java that makes you think it should automatically be installed everywhere?
Name one other VM language that has been, up to this point, included with every mainstream browser install. That's where the loss is. I honestly don't care whether or not all browsers come with Java. But I can write currently write applets that will work on almost any browser since V 3.0 of Netscape and Internet Explorer. And it'll even work on Opera.
Having a JRE available as an option works fine if the browser will always be downloaded in the first place. But users who can download and install a new browser aren't the ones I worry about. It's those that buy their computer with Windows pre-installed and don't know how to really change anything. If I design web pages with java applets, I want to be sure that pretty much anybody can see them. (with the obvious exception of Lynx users)
Like I said, I don't care WHAT the language is, but it needs to have most of the same capabilities as Java. And it needs to be multi-platform, multi-browser capable. Oh, and it needs to ALREADY be installed and running on the older browsers. Let me know when you figure out how to solve that problem.
I am very scared about their comment about
chickens with teeth!
Me too. When I was a child, one of my friends played a trick on my and locked me in a henhouse with rooster known to have a bad temper. It scared me so much I ripped the henhouse door off its hinges to get out. Granted, that same rooster wouldn't scare me at all now -- I could kick it across the chicken yard. But if it had teeth? Yikes! Roosters can be ferocious enough without them. Ever see a 'cock fight?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think just mgetty will be enough if voice mail is wanted. The vgetty extensions will also be needed.
I never set my system up to do this, but I was considering doing so, and looked at some of the documentation. The parent post here is essentially correct. You will need to pass a setup string to the modem to set distinct ring capability, and you have to add directives in the mgetty/vgetty configuration files to tell it what to do for each ring type.
I know my old USR 33.6 Kbps modem had the capability, but I never exploited it.
If anybody is still moderating this discussion, please mod this parent up.
other companies could start small, writing programs that have versions on both Windows and Linux, the get people comfortable with alternative applications and make the move to Linux a painless matter of saving some money and frustration.
There's a strong possibility that the key to success may be in development on a multi-platform environment. Despite its problems, Java is probably a good starting point. If you make lots of popular applications (including alternatives to M$ stuff) that run on any platform, you decrease people's need for Windows. This will make it much easier and more desirable to move to Linux or any other OS for that matter. Hopefully, Joe Q Public will have a computer that runs Java (and other VMs) fairly well by the end of the next year, making such applications a true possibility.
Darn, you beat me to it. But I'd like to add to your comments.
I've seen this kind of flame-fest ever since I started using the internet. Take usenet as an example. Outside of pr0n, I'd say more than half the posts in many unmoderated technical newsgroups are childish chatter. People call each other nasty stuff and say stupid things all the time. I think it's probably the whole anonymity of the experience. I'm certain that most of those people wouldn't use language like that to someone's face.
However, I don't think this is what stands in the way of more companies accepting and adopting Linux. One must hope that 1) people are less nasty in direct communications with companies like HP, and 2) that if employees are reading such mindless chatter, they realize that this is typical of the internet and not reflective of only Linux users. Instead, I think what prevents some companies from fully embracing Linux is customer base. If my company makes a computer product, and only 1% of all interested users say they would like to use my product with Linux, why should I bother to support it? Because Windows is already firmly entrenched, you must first win the hearts of the consumers before you can sway companies.
Microsoft's new products will now screen out Java as a possible carrier of computer viruses in e-mail and, under high-security settings, in Web-browsing software.
How many java e-mail viruses have we heard about? Surely this article is a satire. I honestly can't believe this crap. And it really disturbs me to think that most users *will* believe it.
The spokesman said the Java support in Windows up until now "is a lot of code that many users don't need..."
As though Windows didn't contain enough other code that many users don't need.... I'm really curious to see what will happen if they release XP this way.
Yes, I wasn't referring to the actual laws, but instead the fact that you can't prove or disprove whether nuclear fusion is really possible.
I think you confusion the concept of fusion with "cold fusion," which would not require plasmas and extreme temperatures.
Fusion definitely works, as our own favorite star has shown us for a long time. The problem is that it requires such extreme temperatures and operating conditions that making a working power generation facility capable of effeciently harnessing the released energy is difficult.
"Cold Fusion" on the other hand, would be the ideal dream for cheap energy production -- if it actually worked. It would allow production of energy from a fusion reaction at more reasonable temperatures, and would thus probably result in much less expensive power generating stations. Unfortunately, there have been, to my knowledge, two claims to date of a working cold fusion reaction, and neither has been reproducible nor could they actually be confirmed. I'm not a physicist, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
have democrats run one and republicans run another.
While I like the idea of a duplicate network, I DON'T like the idea of either of the two major political parties running the networks. We'd have "Florida in every state" if the results tallied on the two networks were not the same. If it were possible, it would be best if all election officials were not affiliated with any party. (Yes, I know it's not possible.)
I've had customers using GPS survey software which had to be installed with a special, date sensitive unlock key. If they accidentally left the iPaq out of its cradle over the weekend they have to call the software developer and convince them they aren't trying to copy the software to a new device.
Hmmm. Perhaps your customers should have learned to use backup and restore on ActiveSync? (Note that I am not defending the iPAQ here)
Now that I've read a bunch of the "did you read the article?" links, I think we have a new development idea for slashcode. Force people to follow the link to the article (or at least try to in the case of slashdotted sites) before they can post.
I'd personally rather contribute to a fund for a hostile takover of the law firm responsible for this -- just so we can fire the person responsible. Either that, or I'd like to see Adobe bear the burden. Since the law firm apparently acted independently (based on the section about German law), Adobe shouldn't be responsible, but it would be a nice gesture.
Is this the correct legal stance for us Canadians? I realise that Canadian copyright law is much more lax in some respects to United States law, I'm just not sure by how much.
I seem to remember somebody indicating in another post that that might be acceptable in Canada. But, like you, IANAL.
I'm pretty sure that in the US, lending copies to friends, family and coworkers would be a violation of the copyright -- even without monetary reward. I believe, however, that fair use allows you to make yourself a personal copy if you own the original. I employ this technique all the time with cassette tapes because they degrade through usage. You make a copy off the original right away, and play the copy until it dies. That way, you can make another copy from the original.
As for drilling students with state prescribed morality: this is the same reason church and schools are seperate
Absolutely. I think history has taken us down this path before. Are we stupid enough to let it take us there again? I hope not.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though I'm sure nobody is looking at this thread any longer, I wanted to address this. I actually don't believe that $200 is unreasonable for the underlying software that all other applications need. And it's actually lower than that for OEM's who have big volume deals. Obviously, free is better -- especially in the server market where the OS cost is much higher than $200. But I'm willing to pay that price, especially if I get reasonable support from the supplier.
$500 for a word processor is just plain stupid -- for the consumer, especially as there are a number of alternatives. Yes, interoperability is a factor, but most interoperability takes place between members of the same corporation. If management is dumb enough to pay $500 per seat, then that is their problem. If it were my company, I'd probably just make everybody use Star Office or something. Microsoft Word has some cool features, but most of them aren't ever used. While others may disagree, I don't believe Microsoft's monopoly in this area is truly earned. Maybe their FUD campaigns have been partly responsible, but there really are still choices left here.
GreyPoopon
--
True, but this is already the case. Microsoft does not support Windows that has been installed by an OEM. The OEM has its own support department for this. But all of this goes back to unnecessarily tying the browser into the operating system. The only practical reason to do so was to make sure that their browser was the defacto standard. Otherwise, the browser would have been easily separated from the rest of the OS and replaced by that of a competitor. Likewise, if Microsoft truly allows OEM's to add or remove features from the desktop, they aren't really changing the installed software. They are taking advantage of a feature Microsoft offered them.
Second, how long before these same "protectors of the public" tell Ms that they cannot install a MSN icon through a store bought upgrade version of Windows? Shouldn't we stop them there too?
I'm sorry, but this just isn't the same situation. There's not an OEM involved here. It would be more accurate to ask how long it would be before AOL can make deals with stores selling upgrade packages to include a special AOL-friendly version. This isn't likely to happen unless AOL becomes a VAR for Microsoft -- and if such happens, the terms of the contract aren't likely to allow such.
How long before this same government, in a statement to protect consumers at all levels, determines that all desktops, (apple and linux too) must be open to everyone, meaning if it can run there the OEM must put it there, or the creator of the software must do so?
Again, you're not seeing the point. This was an agreement between AOL and OEM's. There was no legislation or government statement that said all OEM's must put all possible packages on the machines. Instead, we're looking for the possibility that OEM's can choose to put what they want on the machines.
GreyPoopon
--
Agreed. Whether the consumer knows what channel they are watching doesn't matter at all (IMHO). But what might be of more significance is the fact that many of the consumers are skipping the commercials. Since that is a substantial portion of what pays for the television programming, it could ultimately lead to consumers bearing a larger part of the financial responsibility. (IE, higher cable/sat bills).
GreyPoopon
--
Yes, because they quite clearly are. They are using their operating system, which ships on almost all new desktop machines, as leverage to coax users into their internet service. They are also saying that OEM's cannot do likewise for competing services unless they provide equal coaxing for Microsoft's service. There are two nasty things that come out of monopolies. The first is exhorbitant prices -- which comes about once there are literarly no other choices for consumers. The second is the use of existing monopolies in one area of the market to destroy competition in another area. Both are illegal. Microsoft is not guilty of the first one (yet), but most definitely needs to bear guilt for the second.
Its the fairest way to end-run the AOL (we haven't been put in court, so we can do all the things that are bad until then) deal. Two wrongs don't make a right, hence the AOL deal is just as bad as what people accused MS of.
No, it's not. AOL doesn't sell operating systems. Don't get me wrong, AOL isn't sweet smelling and squeaky clean either. Obviously, they have their own potential monopoly situations with their total control over a large hunk of the media market. But in this segment of the market, AOL (and other potential providers) are being hurt by Microsoft's monopoly in the operating systems market. If major vendors like Compaq were selling desktop machines with a sizable slice of the operating system pie going to other OS flavors, Microsoft's move would merely be considered shrewd business. But with the current situation, it is abuse of a monopoly situation.
As for MS featuring their products over AOL's IM and the AOL service, uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...
Certainly, AOL is flaming mad over this. But more importantly, vendors like Compaq should be angry. They aren't living in a glass house (at least not *this* glass house). If consumers knew enough about what's really going on, many of them would be angry too.
GreyPoopon
--
For those of you that multipled the numbers together and were confused as to how they came up with 4.3 million, it should either read 688,480 shares sold at 6.2 Euros each or 688.480 shares sold at 6,2 Euros each, depending on what country you're from. I hope this is helpful -- I'm not trying to be critical.
GreyPoopon
--
While it might initially impact Microsoft negatively, it would provide some seriously high-profile fuel for an antitrust suit against AOL-TW. Microsoft could simply whisper into the ear of one of the politicians currently wrapped around its little finger and get the ball rolling. AOL-TW would be nuts to try something like that. I think they've gotten dangerously close enough with the accusations of discriminating against competing ISP's for advertising space.
GreyPoopon
--
Aha. That falls into the evil category (my last option). Actually, I agree that something like that will probably happen.
Now I just need to reprogram my slashdot preferences so that the HUMOR tag is displayed from now on. :)
GreyPoopon
--
This idea is interesting... with one change. Most people buying a computer right now get a choice between Microsoft Office or Microsoft Works. It's rare for anybody to buy a new system with no office software at all. Based on this, OEMs may now have the incentive to provide a slightly lower-cost package to the user (assuming that Microsoft Works has a per-license cost). They could perhaps shave another $50 or $100 off the cost of their computer if the user chooses Open Office instead of the other two. But in order to know whether that will fly, you must find out what kind of wierd license agreements OEMs have with Microsoft.
GreyPoopon
--
Instead of just making a statement like this, could you provide a little more information? Why would it cost another $50 per license? Are you referring to labor for including the JRE in the image? Some sort of hidden license fee that nobody knows about? Some sort of evil action you expect M$ to take in response?
GreyPoopon
--
Don't get out much, do you? I would say that most people don't even know what java is, and they leave it turned on in their browsers because they wouldn't know how to turn it off. They run java applets frequently without even realizing it. You need to think globally, dude.
GreyPoopon
--
Name one other VM language that has been, up to this point, included with every mainstream browser install. That's where the loss is. I honestly don't care whether or not all browsers come with Java. But I can write currently write applets that will work on almost any browser since V 3.0 of Netscape and Internet Explorer. And it'll even work on Opera.
Having a JRE available as an option works fine if the browser will always be downloaded in the first place. But users who can download and install a new browser aren't the ones I worry about. It's those that buy their computer with Windows pre-installed and don't know how to really change anything. If I design web pages with java applets, I want to be sure that pretty much anybody can see them. (with the obvious exception of Lynx users)
Like I said, I don't care WHAT the language is, but it needs to have most of the same capabilities as Java. And it needs to be multi-platform, multi-browser capable. Oh, and it needs to ALREADY be installed and running on the older browsers. Let me know when you figure out how to solve that problem.
GreyPoopon
--
Me too. When I was a child, one of my friends played a trick on my and locked me in a henhouse with rooster known to have a bad temper. It scared me so much I ripped the henhouse door off its hinges to get out. Granted, that same rooster wouldn't scare me at all now -- I could kick it across the chicken yard. But if it had teeth? Yikes! Roosters can be ferocious enough without them. Ever see a 'cock fight?
GreyPoopon
--
I never set my system up to do this, but I was considering doing so, and looked at some of the documentation. The parent post here is essentially correct. You will need to pass a setup string to the modem to set distinct ring capability, and you have to add directives in the mgetty/vgetty configuration files to tell it what to do for each ring type.
I know my old USR 33.6 Kbps modem had the capability, but I never exploited it.
GreyPoopon
--
other companies could start small, writing programs that have versions on both Windows and Linux, the get people comfortable with alternative applications and make the move to Linux a painless matter of saving some money and frustration.
There's a strong possibility that the key to success may be in development on a multi-platform environment. Despite its problems, Java is probably a good starting point. If you make lots of popular applications (including alternatives to M$ stuff) that run on any platform, you decrease people's need for Windows. This will make it much easier and more desirable to move to Linux or any other OS for that matter. Hopefully, Joe Q Public will have a computer that runs Java (and other VMs) fairly well by the end of the next year, making such applications a true possibility.
GreyPoopon
--
I've seen this kind of flame-fest ever since I started using the internet. Take usenet as an example. Outside of pr0n, I'd say more than half the posts in many unmoderated technical newsgroups are childish chatter. People call each other nasty stuff and say stupid things all the time. I think it's probably the whole anonymity of the experience. I'm certain that most of those people wouldn't use language like that to someone's face.
However, I don't think this is what stands in the way of more companies accepting and adopting Linux. One must hope that 1) people are less nasty in direct communications with companies like HP, and 2) that if employees are reading such mindless chatter, they realize that this is typical of the internet and not reflective of only Linux users. Instead, I think what prevents some companies from fully embracing Linux is customer base. If my company makes a computer product, and only 1% of all interested users say they would like to use my product with Linux, why should I bother to support it? Because Windows is already firmly entrenched, you must first win the hearts of the consumers before you can sway companies.
GreyPoopon
--
How many java e-mail viruses have we heard about? Surely this article is a satire. I honestly can't believe this crap. And it really disturbs me to think that most users *will* believe it.
GreyPoopon
--
As though Windows didn't contain enough other code that many users don't need.... I'm really curious to see what will happen if they release XP this way.
GreyPoopon
--
Talk about thinking ahead. It's kinda funny the way it reads, but it should read either "I think you confuse" or "I think you confused." Either works.
GreyPoopon
--
I think you confusion the concept of fusion with "cold fusion," which would not require plasmas and extreme temperatures.
Fusion definitely works, as our own favorite star has shown us for a long time. The problem is that it requires such extreme temperatures and operating conditions that making a working power generation facility capable of effeciently harnessing the released energy is difficult.
"Cold Fusion" on the other hand, would be the ideal dream for cheap energy production -- if it actually worked. It would allow production of energy from a fusion reaction at more reasonable temperatures, and would thus probably result in much less expensive power generating stations. Unfortunately, there have been, to my knowledge, two claims to date of a working cold fusion reaction, and neither has been reproducible nor could they actually be confirmed. I'm not a physicist, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
GreyPoopon
--
While I like the idea of a duplicate network, I DON'T like the idea of either of the two major political parties running the networks. We'd have "Florida in every state" if the results tallied on the two networks were not the same. If it were possible, it would be best if all election officials were not affiliated with any party. (Yes, I know it's not possible.)
GreyPoopon
--
So why does the article indicate that it has a platter? If this is the case, can it take the shock of use while riding on a bus?
GreyPoopon
--
Hmmm. Perhaps your customers should have learned to use backup and restore on ActiveSync? (Note that I am not defending the iPAQ here)
GreyPoopon
--
Oh wait, that'll just make slashdotting worse.
GreyPoopon
--
Otherwise, tell me where to donate.
GreyPoopon
--
I seem to remember somebody indicating in another post that that might be acceptable in Canada. But, like you, IANAL.
I'm pretty sure that in the US, lending copies to friends, family and coworkers would be a violation of the copyright -- even without monetary reward. I believe, however, that fair use allows you to make yourself a personal copy if you own the original. I employ this technique all the time with cassette tapes because they degrade through usage. You make a copy off the original right away, and play the copy until it dies. That way, you can make another copy from the original.
As for drilling students with state prescribed morality: this is the same reason church and schools are seperate
Absolutely. I think history has taken us down this path before. Are we stupid enough to let it take us there again? I hope not.
GreyPoopon
--