I imagine it's rather hard to find anyone to report on somthing, who has some sort of knowledge on the subject, that isn't one of theese three.
I don't see bias in itself as being the issue. In fact, sometimes I'd rather see opinions coming from people who have enough conviction in their opinion to stake a personal outcome on it. The problem is whether that bias is genuine or not.
It's easy to check on facts. You can keep an expert honest by doing so. The problem is, there are so few simple facts. Most issues involve a wide degree of interpretation of facts, or even conflicting methods to generate facts. How this is done is often about what the person believes or wants to happen. Now add to the mix professionals who aren't just in the Industry, but who's profession is to push an agenda. Suits are back all over again. This passes the point of a biased professional and becomes the profession of bias; deception.
The point of all this is not to remove bias. The overall goal is to filter out "facts" that are little more than a marketing department's fond wish. It is to decant the opinions and biases to produce the few resonably undisputed facts and then differing opinions on the issue at hand. Granted - this doesn't lead to a nice, neat story that tells you how you should view an issue. But then, the point is to inform - not sell something.
As an aside - yes... the overall business of a newspaper is to sell something. I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that it sells information.
Let me tell you, these teachers know absolutely nothing about PCs. We had to be careful to install the box right-side-up because otherwise they'll complain about their CD players not working and refuse to flip it over so they don't break them (I'm not making this up, though sometimes I wish I was)
So what you're saying is, to paraphrase, "basic computer + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM" - I'm not sure why you bothered to mention Linux. Unless the parent has a valid point.
HP could install Linux on every PC they ship, but the problems inherent in that should be easy to see for anyone, even the most die-hard linux fanboy (I'll give you a hint, basic computer + linux + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM).
Where does the article mention Linux? From the article:
The group, the Union Fédérale des Consommateurs-Que Choisir, (UFC) alleges consumers frequently lack the option of buying "bare" computers without software. UFC said it wants consumers to be able to choose the software for their machine and get reimbursed for purchasing an OS they did not want.
This is about offering an option without pre-loaded software (including whatever comes bunded as an "OS" these days). Does this mean HP shouldn't offer a bundled option too? Not that I could see. Go back over the article... read it again (or for the first time as the case may be).
This was also my reaction. They're dusting off Gene's concept again for another spin. This time, though, it won't have Kevin Sorbo to get all confused over the plots and pining for his leather pants.
Various US Government Agencies have been slow to pick up information security. With few notable exceptions, the US Government just doesn't get infosec. But what the US Government does understand is law. Law is a relatively slow process compared to the hack. Some of these cases take years before the Feds are knocking on doors. If you're a script kiddie who's keen on a *.gov address for your IRC bot, keep that in mind. In the short term you may be successful. But you have no idea if the US Government actually did notice and are taking the long, drawn out process to bring you down via whatever Law allows it.
I once attended an infosec meeting at a NASA center several years ago. The initial presentation was an analysis of an incident involving some Oganization's lab systems. It was well done and full of very handy technical information, lessons learned, and advice to other Orgs on how to avoid a simular incident. I looked around the room. Most eyes were well glazed over. Obviously the information was lost on an audience who should be taking notes. The next presentation came from our FBI representative. The rep. basically talked about the lab equipment that was confiscated... what was happening to the HDs during analysis... and the process of "getting the bad guys." The crowd lit up. Everyone was rather excited. They were going to get the bad guys. Few there seemed to realize that this was not "good news". Rather, it was a failure as the lab systems compromised represented lossess to already-tight budgets.
Things have changed since that time. Infosec is changing... at least at NASA. There are new attitudes, new requirements, new regulations. I've still got my own concerns and criticisms of the state of things. It's far from perfect, to say the least. But there is change. We'll see how well it holds.
Perhaps "racial" profiling is not the best term, since this will hunt out people based on Religion, which would be a much greater privacy concern in my mind.
Sure - but you're kidding yourself if you don't see a connection between religion and the current situation. It makes sense to include indicators of religion when it is, in fact, a common factor. The only question is whether it is the only factor and how much weight is given to it (and whether diet alone is considered a decisive for religion / beliefs).
There are a lot of posts already with the common theme of "innocuous behavior = terrorist!" I would agree if that is, in fact, the case. But most likely these are simply indicators with minor behavior patterns being weighted less than other indicators. The same concept is applied to many spam filters these days. For example, just because an email mentions "microcaps" doesn't mean its a spam pump-n-dump scheme. But I sure see a lot of those spams, so my filter tags an email for it. It takes other indicators (differently weighted) for that email to eventually be tagged as spam. And I would expect it takes more than avoiding pork to end up on a watch list.
Isn't this the old "raccoons eating the sensor" analogy?
That's the beauty of it! You THINK its the old "raccoons eating the hinges" analogy... but its actually unexpected twist; this time it's the sensor! It's new. It's edgy. It's high-tech! What's even better is that its just ripe for development. Just as everyone is comfortable with this sudden leap ahead, we'll produce our "racoons eating sensors ON THE INTERNET" patent we've been keeping tucked away. Sure, sure... some will probably complain about company officials sitting on the Racoon Suburban Infestation committee while sensor standards were being discussed. But we'll have another ace up our sleeve. Before the company stock gets cold, we'll spring the "one-nibble sensor eating racoon" patent. It's a gold mine, I tell you.
How could the savings be "under question" because of the discounted rate?
Well... this is a case study. As such, one question that comes to my mind is "how does this apply to my environment?" If I happen to be the Burmingham City Council, or another such Council it seems, then there's no question. But what if I'm representing another entity that doesn't get the special discounts? Obviously that's a part of the case study that needs to be highlighted as highly situational.
There's also a whole slew of indirect questions one could start considering. Such as - how long does this special rate last? And sure - we're talking about desktops now... how about other licensing such as CALs?
Back to my theme of "why PvP at all?" Do you enjoy watching the alarm channel? Isn't there something more enjoyable that you'd rather be doing? Why are the actions of the griefers allowed to control what players do? I'd rather not spend my time reacting to a griefer or have my game altered or interrupted because a player feels it is entertaining to watch me struggle or worse, when I do kill them, they simply come back because to them killing or being killed is the sum of the game.
I suppose at the most basic level, if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be doing it. There are plenty of guilds out there that ignore the alarms - we could be one of them if we wished. I could also play on a different server with different rules. In fact, I started playing WoW on a "normal" (usually referred to as PvE) server. A friend of mine was on a PvP server and so I played a couple months there too. When I came back to the PvE server, there was something missing. I was thrilled when Blizzard opened up RPPvP servers - I like the RP environment and I found that I missed the PvP mechanics.
Trying to hash out why I prever PvP is a bit more complex. Do I enjoy watching the alarm channel? Not per se. I have a little Addon that does it for me and lets me see what's going on in the world at a glance. If we're not doing anything particularly engrossing, we respond. There are plenty of times we've ignored attacks. And then there are a few rare times when I find myself watching that little Addon just waiting for someone to attack somewhere and give me (and my guild) a target to go after.
Ultimately me and my guild enjoy PvP. We're not so full of bloodlust that we go picking fights. But then, we don't have to. There's always someone willing to do it for us. That chaos thing in play. Does that mean we're playing at the whim of griefers? Only when we choose to. The amusing thing here is that we have run in to griefers who relished the attention. Kill them again and again, and they'd be back playing cat-and-mouse using lower-level players and NPCs as pawns. Our strategy with those particular individuals was to ignore them - and make it well known that they were being ignored. They went away.
The interesting thing is that we have made a difference. By following certain strategies and policies, we've managed to make the experience less enjoyable and names that would frequently show up in some areas would begin to fade away (off to greener pastures). We also have gained some minor noteriety for being defenders of our areas. There's a certain reward to having made a difference, and being noted for doing so.
There's also a lot of fun having worked with various others to make it possible. Our group fights very well together and that's a pleasure in itself. Granted - its possible to get some of that same feeling downing some major PvE boss. But I suppose there's a different feeling having gone toe-to-toe with other people.
One final note - playing PvP rules adds a certain... exitement to the game. It also adds a lot of stress. When on a PvE server, you pretty much know what you're facing and what you can expect from the environment. You do your thing, collect your reward, and move on. In a PvP environment, you run in to potentially hostile players. You never know for sure where an attack is going to come from. The odd thing is, I don't enjoy being attacked (and especially not ganked). Actually - I get a real kick running in to an opposing player and we just wave at each other and go on. But I must admit - the danger is exciting. It's certainly not for everyone. And that's why there's PvE servers.
I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."
Its an interesting behavior. When presented with complete anarchy - the ability to do whatever you want to do... what do you do? It seems many choose to destroy. Its interesting so few choose to build.
My WoW guild is on a RPPvP server. We have fostered a network of friends and alliances with other individuals and guilds. We monitor alerts coming from various cities / towns / outposts for our faction. When we see that there is a definate attack to the town, we tend to send someone as a scout as we marshal our forces. Usually we roll in with members of our guild and join up with individuals also defending the territory. Sometimes the raiders are strong enough that we have to call on our friends / allies not already present. We then commense to destroying those raiders and generally (to paraphrase) ruin their day. My only regret is that raiders can occasionally take over a middling-area town and proceed to gank other players and then leave when confronted without having paid much penalty for the greif they've dealt out. We try to balance that out by corpse-camping, etc. We want raiding a town to have been painful.
Is this your mention of justice? I suppose for us it is justice. We tend to leave others alone unless provoked. And there are, on rare occasion, nights where I'm just watching the alerts waiting for someone unlucky enough to attack one of our towns when we're all set and ready to go.
Re:The failure of the PS/2 killed OS/2
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They has brought a PC then an XT then an AT and kept all the same peripherals, monitors, add in cards, software, etc through the upgrades. Here was a new computer that was incompatible with everything they already had. Granted it was time for an upgrade, but consumers saw it as lock in and they hated it. People started buying clones in droves and the IBM dominance was dead. By the time windows 95 came out I rarely saw am IBM brand PC in a small business office.
And here is a hint of the true source of Microsoft's succes. The story really isn't about OS/2 and Windows... its about the emergence of a commodity platform.
The PS/2 was IBM's last-ditch effort to shove the commodity PC geanie back in the bottle. By this time, they had lost control of the platform they had introduced. The base system was off-the-shelf components. The gatekeeper of the whole syste, the BIOS, had been legally reverse-engineered (spawning the instant success of Compaq). An industry was rising around the "IBM PC clone" - and Microsoft was supplying an OS to anyone who wanted one. The PS/2 attempt surrounded the introduction of a competing bus archictecture - the Micro Channel Architecture (MCA). MCA was far superior to the standard ISA bus. But it was proprietary technology belonging to IBM and IBM would only allow implementing MCA bus and compatible cards under rather stiff licensing restrictions.
The industry decided to forego MCA's advantages for the advantages of a commodity platform. And so IBM lost its last battle on that front. OS/2 was collateral damage. Apple would later feel the sting. So-called clone manufactorers would continue to see their market grow. But the big winner was Microsoft who now made money (and built up network effect / market share) on every commodity platform sold... no matter who pieced it together. By the time OS/2 Warp came around... who was really keen to play IBM's game another time? And even if they were willing to... could they beat the network effect of Windows?
The "innovation" quip also stuck out for me. I used to get a chuckle out of seeing criticism of Microsoft innovation. Long diatribes about the origionation of the GUI as we know it from Xerox PARC to Apple were interesting historical exercises. But I never found it particularly damning of Microsoft (or Apple). Things changed when Microsoft themselves started to push the "innovation" meme. It took on an even darker tone when Microsoft claimed that their business model was the sole path to continued "innovation". Criticism of Microsoft's "innovation" is now more of an issue of debunking their rhetoric than claiming that any given company or project has earned the sole right to win marketshare.
As far as I know, though, it was never brought up to date with the retail version, it was dropped early, and it was really only a side project of one of the programmers anyways.
This reminds me of the early days of Ultima Online. UO had a native Linux client too. It was tucked away in their FTP site and, for a time, was kept up to date with the ongoing patch levels of the Windows client. Part of the informal terms of the client was to not mention it - don't even breath a word of it to the UO Helpdesk. It wasn't supported. But it did work. My understanding is that the client stopped being updated when the involved coders moved on - another side project.
They only sell it as an upgrade to a previous Mac OS that came preinstalled on an Apple computers.
OK - fair point. But having said that... sure... the box OS X comes in is a bit more sturdy than the normal cardboard and shrinkwrap. But assuming I'm staying within the realms of copyright law, there should be no issue with me taking my software pre-installed on my Mac and getting it to run on said toaster.
The only issue should be if I decide I want to run both my old Mac and my ToasterX. Or I take my OS X image and start passing it around to my friends so they can make their own ToasterX without the expense of buying OS X (and its expensive packaging).
Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.
It shouldn't matter. If I go and buy the complete OS X product in a box, I should be allowed to run it on my toaster if I can figure out how to do so. Whether or not Apple would be keen to support my toaster configuration is another story. But to have licensing restrictions as to what I can do with a product after purchasing it is counter to basic consumer rights.
I am a Christian. I work with a Muslim and a Hindu. Any of the three of us will help you set up your wireless network.
A Christian, a Muslin, and a Hindu set up a wireless network. The Christian says... actually, I don't know how the rest of the joke would go. But it doesn't matter. You missed the sarcasm inherent in Adams' blurb. This joke would probably be lost on you anyway.
That wasn't bashing. Clearly, the poster is pointing out the obvious.
What we had was a poster expressing righteous indignation over Adams' racist statement while completely missing that it was satire. And then they throw out a non sequitur about Isreal. What's obvious is the poster's own knee-jerk bias.
The way I see it, and a lot of other people too, is that basically Novell had the idea that Microsoft was going to start suing people over Linux, and rather than stand up for Linux and the community, they decided to become another MS lapdog.
That's possible. But Novell's motivation could also be exactly what the deal claims to be on the surface - compatibility. I use a Linux desktop in a Windows dominated enterprise (Windows dominated when it comes to office automation). I can think of two things Microsoft could tweak that'd cause me no end of aggravation - Exchange and SMB. SMB is handled via SAMBA (with Konq as my GUI front-end). Exchange is handled with Evolution... which itself is now a Novell project.
I could see a scenario where Novell management is hearing about all the work the Evolution team is having to do to hash out compatibility issues between Evolution and Exchange's DAV interface. They decide "hey - why don't we just set up a formal business relationship with Microsoft?" And off they go. Negotiations are worked out. Novell walks away happy with a deal that's going to allow them to use this formal relationship to keep their Linux product working in Windows enterprise environments. Microsoft is even more pleased - Ballmer spins the deal in to something else.
Now - I'm not saying this is how things are. But if we're going to play "what if", its just as easy to paint Novell as blindsided as it is to portray them as participant in Microsoft's campaign.
The original post was modded as flamebait. If it was modded off-topic, fine. It was modded as flamebait because I said something nice about Microsoft. Go back and re-read what I wrote & stop being so blind about basic anti-Microsoft sentiment on Slashdot.
You're right. One of the better mods should have been "off-topic" as most of the post was. The closest you seemed to come on that one was:
I know it's not open source and the license I got from them was super flaky. But in the interests of being able to use every technology available to me, I'll learn.NET. I'm more marketable to employers and, hell let's face it, even coding Microsoft libraries can be fun.
So you'll find some of their free (yes, free) software on my machine. Now, I had to pay for XP to be able to install that... but I still feel like I paid for XP & not the Express tools.
And that's where it starts coming close to flamebait. The only question would be if you're intentionally trying to confuse the "free" meaning or not. Trolls willfully do it.
In any case, your post is a poor example of retribution for saying nice things. You even pointed out yourself that you should have gotten "off-topic" mods. I suppose if you did, it simply would have been more anti-Microsoft sentiment and not because of the post itself being poorly conceived.
What's wrong with pointing out that anything pro microsoft is bad on Slashdot? What's wrong with providing proof of that sentiment?
Nothing. But claiming "I bet this gets down-modded" and then showing a previous example of a down-mod doesn't add anything to the point. Especially if that down-mod was shown to be accurate. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
It should be stressed that the "I bet I get modded" schtick applies to anything, not just the Slashdot-criticisms.
Slashdot Mirror
No one can be told what Slashdot is. You have to read it for yourself.
I don't see bias in itself as being the issue. In fact, sometimes I'd rather see opinions coming from people who have enough conviction in their opinion to stake a personal outcome on it. The problem is whether that bias is genuine or not.
It's easy to check on facts. You can keep an expert honest by doing so. The problem is, there are so few simple facts. Most issues involve a wide degree of interpretation of facts, or even conflicting methods to generate facts. How this is done is often about what the person believes or wants to happen. Now add to the mix professionals who aren't just in the Industry, but who's profession is to push an agenda. Suits are back all over again. This passes the point of a biased professional and becomes the profession of bias; deception.
The point of all this is not to remove bias. The overall goal is to filter out "facts" that are little more than a marketing department's fond wish. It is to decant the opinions and biases to produce the few resonably undisputed facts and then differing opinions on the issue at hand. Granted - this doesn't lead to a nice, neat story that tells you how you should view an issue. But then, the point is to inform - not sell something.
As an aside - yes... the overall business of a newspaper is to sell something. I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that it sells information.
Go back and read the article. You just agreed with the UFC - the group that filed the lawsuits against HP.
So what you're saying is, to paraphrase, "basic computer + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM" - I'm not sure why you bothered to mention Linux. Unless the parent has a valid point.
Where does the article mention Linux? From the article:
This is about offering an option without pre-loaded software (including whatever comes bunded as an "OS" these days). Does this mean HP shouldn't offer a bundled option too? Not that I could see. Go back over the article... read it again (or for the first time as the case may be).
This was also my reaction. They're dusting off Gene's concept again for another spin. This time, though, it won't have Kevin Sorbo to get all confused over the plots and pining for his leather pants.
Queue "Cat's in the Cradle" theme tune.
Apparently the "stern talking to" option involves a cheat code.
Various US Government Agencies have been slow to pick up information security. With few notable exceptions, the US Government just doesn't get infosec. But what the US Government does understand is law. Law is a relatively slow process compared to the hack. Some of these cases take years before the Feds are knocking on doors. If you're a script kiddie who's keen on a *.gov address for your IRC bot, keep that in mind. In the short term you may be successful. But you have no idea if the US Government actually did notice and are taking the long, drawn out process to bring you down via whatever Law allows it.
I once attended an infosec meeting at a NASA center several years ago. The initial presentation was an analysis of an incident involving some Oganization's lab systems. It was well done and full of very handy technical information, lessons learned, and advice to other Orgs on how to avoid a simular incident. I looked around the room. Most eyes were well glazed over. Obviously the information was lost on an audience who should be taking notes. The next presentation came from our FBI representative. The rep. basically talked about the lab equipment that was confiscated... what was happening to the HDs during analysis... and the process of "getting the bad guys." The crowd lit up. Everyone was rather excited. They were going to get the bad guys. Few there seemed to realize that this was not "good news". Rather, it was a failure as the lab systems compromised represented lossess to already-tight budgets.
Things have changed since that time. Infosec is changing... at least at NASA. There are new attitudes, new requirements, new regulations. I've still got my own concerns and criticisms of the state of things. It's far from perfect, to say the least. But there is change. We'll see how well it holds.
Sure - but you're kidding yourself if you don't see a connection between religion and the current situation. It makes sense to include indicators of religion when it is, in fact, a common factor. The only question is whether it is the only factor and how much weight is given to it (and whether diet alone is considered a decisive for religion / beliefs).
There are a lot of posts already with the common theme of "innocuous behavior = terrorist!" I would agree if that is, in fact, the case. But most likely these are simply indicators with minor behavior patterns being weighted less than other indicators. The same concept is applied to many spam filters these days. For example, just because an email mentions "microcaps" doesn't mean its a spam pump-n-dump scheme. But I sure see a lot of those spams, so my filter tags an email for it. It takes other indicators (differently weighted) for that email to eventually be tagged as spam. And I would expect it takes more than avoiding pork to end up on a watch list.
That's the beauty of it! You THINK its the old "raccoons eating the hinges" analogy... but its actually unexpected twist; this time it's the sensor! It's new. It's edgy. It's high-tech! What's even better is that its just ripe for development. Just as everyone is comfortable with this sudden leap ahead, we'll produce our "racoons eating sensors ON THE INTERNET" patent we've been keeping tucked away. Sure, sure... some will probably complain about company officials sitting on the Racoon Suburban Infestation committee while sensor standards were being discussed. But we'll have another ace up our sleeve. Before the company stock gets cold, we'll spring the "one-nibble sensor eating racoon" patent. It's a gold mine, I tell you.
Well... this is a case study. As such, one question that comes to my mind is "how does this apply to my environment?" If I happen to be the Burmingham City Council, or another such Council it seems, then there's no question. But what if I'm representing another entity that doesn't get the special discounts? Obviously that's a part of the case study that needs to be highlighted as highly situational.
There's also a whole slew of indirect questions one could start considering. Such as - how long does this special rate last? And sure - we're talking about desktops now... how about other licensing such as CALs?
I suppose at the most basic level, if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be doing it. There are plenty of guilds out there that ignore the alarms - we could be one of them if we wished. I could also play on a different server with different rules. In fact, I started playing WoW on a "normal" (usually referred to as PvE) server. A friend of mine was on a PvP server and so I played a couple months there too. When I came back to the PvE server, there was something missing. I was thrilled when Blizzard opened up RPPvP servers - I like the RP environment and I found that I missed the PvP mechanics.
Trying to hash out why I prever PvP is a bit more complex. Do I enjoy watching the alarm channel? Not per se. I have a little Addon that does it for me and lets me see what's going on in the world at a glance. If we're not doing anything particularly engrossing, we respond. There are plenty of times we've ignored attacks. And then there are a few rare times when I find myself watching that little Addon just waiting for someone to attack somewhere and give me (and my guild) a target to go after.
Ultimately me and my guild enjoy PvP. We're not so full of bloodlust that we go picking fights. But then, we don't have to. There's always someone willing to do it for us. That chaos thing in play. Does that mean we're playing at the whim of griefers? Only when we choose to. The amusing thing here is that we have run in to griefers who relished the attention. Kill them again and again, and they'd be back playing cat-and-mouse using lower-level players and NPCs as pawns. Our strategy with those particular individuals was to ignore them - and make it well known that they were being ignored. They went away.
The interesting thing is that we have made a difference. By following certain strategies and policies, we've managed to make the experience less enjoyable and names that would frequently show up in some areas would begin to fade away (off to greener pastures). We also have gained some minor noteriety for being defenders of our areas. There's a certain reward to having made a difference, and being noted for doing so.
There's also a lot of fun having worked with various others to make it possible. Our group fights very well together and that's a pleasure in itself. Granted - its possible to get some of that same feeling downing some major PvE boss. But I suppose there's a different feeling having gone toe-to-toe with other people.
One final note - playing PvP rules adds a certain... exitement to the game. It also adds a lot of stress. When on a PvE server, you pretty much know what you're facing and what you can expect from the environment. You do your thing, collect your reward, and move on. In a PvP environment, you run in to potentially hostile players. You never know for sure where an attack is going to come from. The odd thing is, I don't enjoy being attacked (and especially not ganked). Actually - I get a real kick running in to an opposing player and we just wave at each other and go on. But I must admit - the danger is exciting. It's certainly not for everyone. And that's why there's PvE servers.
Its an interesting behavior. When presented with complete anarchy - the ability to do whatever you want to do... what do you do? It seems many choose to destroy. Its interesting so few choose to build.
My WoW guild is on a RPPvP server. We have fostered a network of friends and alliances with other individuals and guilds. We monitor alerts coming from various cities / towns / outposts for our faction. When we see that there is a definate attack to the town, we tend to send someone as a scout as we marshal our forces. Usually we roll in with members of our guild and join up with individuals also defending the territory. Sometimes the raiders are strong enough that we have to call on our friends / allies not already present. We then commense to destroying those raiders and generally (to paraphrase) ruin their day. My only regret is that raiders can occasionally take over a middling-area town and proceed to gank other players and then leave when confronted without having paid much penalty for the greif they've dealt out. We try to balance that out by corpse-camping, etc. We want raiding a town to have been painful.
Is this your mention of justice? I suppose for us it is justice. We tend to leave others alone unless provoked. And there are, on rare occasion, nights where I'm just watching the alerts waiting for someone unlucky enough to attack one of our towns when we're all set and ready to go.
And here is a hint of the true source of Microsoft's succes. The story really isn't about OS/2 and Windows... its about the emergence of a commodity platform.
The PS/2 was IBM's last-ditch effort to shove the commodity PC geanie back in the bottle. By this time, they had lost control of the platform they had introduced. The base system was off-the-shelf components. The gatekeeper of the whole syste, the BIOS, had been legally reverse-engineered (spawning the instant success of Compaq). An industry was rising around the "IBM PC clone" - and Microsoft was supplying an OS to anyone who wanted one. The PS/2 attempt surrounded the introduction of a competing bus archictecture - the Micro Channel Architecture (MCA). MCA was far superior to the standard ISA bus. But it was proprietary technology belonging to IBM and IBM would only allow implementing MCA bus and compatible cards under rather stiff licensing restrictions.
The industry decided to forego MCA's advantages for the advantages of a commodity platform. And so IBM lost its last battle on that front. OS/2 was collateral damage. Apple would later feel the sting. So-called clone manufactorers would continue to see their market grow. But the big winner was Microsoft who now made money (and built up network effect / market share) on every commodity platform sold... no matter who pieced it together. By the time OS/2 Warp came around... who was really keen to play IBM's game another time? And even if they were willing to... could they beat the network effect of Windows?
The "innovation" quip also stuck out for me. I used to get a chuckle out of seeing criticism of Microsoft innovation. Long diatribes about the origionation of the GUI as we know it from Xerox PARC to Apple were interesting historical exercises. But I never found it particularly damning of Microsoft (or Apple). Things changed when Microsoft themselves started to push the "innovation" meme. It took on an even darker tone when Microsoft claimed that their business model was the sole path to continued "innovation". Criticism of Microsoft's "innovation" is now more of an issue of debunking their rhetoric than claiming that any given company or project has earned the sole right to win marketshare.
This reminds me of the early days of Ultima Online. UO had a native Linux client too. It was tucked away in their FTP site and, for a time, was kept up to date with the ongoing patch levels of the Windows client. Part of the informal terms of the client was to not mention it - don't even breath a word of it to the UO Helpdesk. It wasn't supported. But it did work. My understanding is that the client stopped being updated when the involved coders moved on - another side project.
OK - fair point. But having said that... sure... the box OS X comes in is a bit more sturdy than the normal cardboard and shrinkwrap. But assuming I'm staying within the realms of copyright law, there should be no issue with me taking my software pre-installed on my Mac and getting it to run on said toaster.
The only issue should be if I decide I want to run both my old Mac and my ToasterX. Or I take my OS X image and start passing it around to my friends so they can make their own ToasterX without the expense of buying OS X (and its expensive packaging).
It shouldn't matter. If I go and buy the complete OS X product in a box, I should be allowed to run it on my toaster if I can figure out how to do so. Whether or not Apple would be keen to support my toaster configuration is another story. But to have licensing restrictions as to what I can do with a product after purchasing it is counter to basic consumer rights.
A Christian, a Muslin, and a Hindu set up a wireless network. The Christian says... actually, I don't know how the rest of the joke would go. But it doesn't matter. You missed the sarcasm inherent in Adams' blurb. This joke would probably be lost on you anyway.
What we had was a poster expressing righteous indignation over Adams' racist statement while completely missing that it was satire. And then they throw out a non sequitur about Isreal. What's obvious is the poster's own knee-jerk bias.
That was an open letter to Steve Ballmer.
That's possible. But Novell's motivation could also be exactly what the deal claims to be on the surface - compatibility. I use a Linux desktop in a Windows dominated enterprise (Windows dominated when it comes to office automation). I can think of two things Microsoft could tweak that'd cause me no end of aggravation - Exchange and SMB. SMB is handled via SAMBA (with Konq as my GUI front-end). Exchange is handled with Evolution... which itself is now a Novell project.
I could see a scenario where Novell management is hearing about all the work the Evolution team is having to do to hash out compatibility issues between Evolution and Exchange's DAV interface. They decide "hey - why don't we just set up a formal business relationship with Microsoft?" And off they go. Negotiations are worked out. Novell walks away happy with a deal that's going to allow them to use this formal relationship to keep their Linux product working in Windows enterprise environments. Microsoft is even more pleased - Ballmer spins the deal in to something else.
Now - I'm not saying this is how things are. But if we're going to play "what if", its just as easy to paint Novell as blindsided as it is to portray them as participant in Microsoft's campaign.
You're right. One of the better mods should have been "off-topic" as most of the post was. The closest you seemed to come on that one was:
And that's where it starts coming close to flamebait. The only question would be if you're intentionally trying to confuse the "free" meaning or not. Trolls willfully do it.
In any case, your post is a poor example of retribution for saying nice things. You even pointed out yourself that you should have gotten "off-topic" mods. I suppose if you did, it simply would have been more anti-Microsoft sentiment and not because of the post itself being poorly conceived.
Nothing. But claiming "I bet this gets down-modded" and then showing a previous example of a down-mod doesn't add anything to the point. Especially if that down-mod was shown to be accurate. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
It should be stressed that the "I bet I get modded" schtick applies to anything, not just the Slashdot-criticisms.