I have to agree the statement "[Microsoft]...is fast ending up with negative brand value" is a little far reaching (to put it mildly). But at the same time, you need a bit of different perspective if you think Microsoft is entirely trusted.
I can understand that there are environments out there where everyone has a glowing opinion of Microsoft - I could even imagine this being commonplace. This would fall in line with my occasionally meeting people who hold Microsoft in high esteem and are genuinely perplexed that someone else wouldn't.
But over the years, I've run in to more and more people who have at least a somewhat dim view if not entirely negative opinion of Microsoft. This used to be somewhat limited to the usual crowd of Mac enthusiasts and *nix malcontents. Now days, it is much more commonplace... from general end users to those who's careers are rather tightly linked to Microsoft products; people that I wouldn't have thought of as Microsoft critics.
Do some googling for Mike Roe and Microsoft. Mike Roe in this case was a 17yr old kid who's domain was part of a part-time web design buisiness. Microsoft even admited, after a public backlash, that they were overly agressive in this case. You would think they'd have learned from mistakes like this.
Actually, I act as though Linux's popularity in corporate America is new, and it is.
Let's make sure we're using the same context here. I'm not talking market share, mind share, or penetration in to the Enterprise market. I'm talking exposure to attack... an Infosec context.
My point is that Linux has already had the exposure required to test its mettle. Further popularity will not bring about a sudden increase in reported vulnerabilities. That's not to say there won't be any further bugs found. But sufficient exposure in the past has already put many eyes on Linux and more eyes won't lead to a sudden outbreak or incremental increase.
Now - I'm more than willing to hash out arguments why Linux on a corporate intranet (or heck - their public facing servers) will lead to singificantly more exposure (with the above stated context in mind). Do you have one?
The whole "wait until it gets popular" is an interesting concept - but it does tend to ignore a history of Linux (and various usual software packages bundled with "Linux" but running on other *nix platforms) being widely deployed and exposed. Linux has been under attack since the bad old days when Infosec wasn't taken seriously (or at least wasn't a viable market).
An amusing side note is that this is back when the "wait until it gets popular" argument was applied to WinNT because it really wasn't as wide-spread as it's *nix competition.
If it is an open source movement and the web site is dead with the possibility of it never going up again, is it not in the realm of possibility that others will pick up the pieces and do another one?
It seems that it should be possible. But it won't be easy without cooperation. And since the site owner doesn't seem keen to help create a site to supplant his, that cooperation is not forthcoming. This leaves those who wish to "pick up the pieces" with two distinct challenges.
The first challenge is replicating the content. This is certainly possible to do - a vast majority of the content seems to have come from the community. The site designs are probably sitting on hard drives of the developers and users right now. The problem is getting those who currently have copies to get around to resubmitting them. And that leads to the greatest challenge; network effect.
The users of OSWD all know about OSWD. It serves as a focus point for those who wish to publish works and those interested in finding those works. The more people who use this site, the more effective (and valuable) it becomes. More users means a larger audience to publish to and more publishers means a larger pool of content to select from. Anyone wishing to create a replacement will have to get the word out about their new site and convince people to begin using it instead of OSWD. Most of these types of sites gain popularity over time so a new replacement will likely have to wait some time before it's built up the same network effect value as OSWD.
That's not to say it can't happen, or shouldn't be done. There are quite a lot of examples of forked projects. And it helps if a significant portion of the community agrees on the fork and follows on to the replacement. A "good", or otherwise popular, fork will tend to form with a significantly larger network effect than those who begin from scratch. Which, in turn, helps get the word out and leads to a faster recovery (even if the original project remains and leads to a somewhat fractured community).
I agree with this statement. I don't think they created it either, but I do think they helped it along a lot.
I completely agree. Microsoft played an important role; they were a key player. Having said that... I wonder what the current landscape would have been like if Digital Research hadn't waited so long to get CP/M ported to the 8086 or at least been willing to work with IBM earlier on.
I, too, got my first computer before there was such a thing as an IBM PC.
Yep. Odd world it is today compared to the early years when having a home computer was rare and a MODEM was completely bizzare.
What I think you're talking about here is really aimed at the 3D accelerator market. And that particular segment was rather young. Young markets do not often begin as commodity markets - it takes time. Even then, there were standards such as OpenGL that Microsoft initially supported. Of course, Microsoft then produced their own API and dumped OpenGL. The interesting piece here is that chipset developers are STILL working with OpenGL as well as Microsoft's API. So while working with Microsoft is certainly good business - I don't think it has quite the same effect as you're portraying it.
"Commodity computing came about during the time of DOS - far, far before Windows." Simply stating this over and over without definition does not make it true. Did you ever buy a DOS machine? I did... several, and they were not really commodity. Sure, they were mass produced but they were not cheap (which is the other side of the 'commodity' coin). The prices of the machines back there were roughly what they cost now. You could get a decent machine for $1200 or so (today, I'd say you could get a decent machine for $600 though), however, the economics of the time were that the $1200 of the machine was a lot more money relative to other costs (and paychecks) than today.
To begin with, commodity does not mean cheap... or even affordable. Driving down prices is an effect of commodity products in a free market. It is not the "other side of the 'commodity' coin". True - prices have dropped over the years. And a good part of the reason is commodity hardware. But there are also other factors such as economy of scale (more demand for microcomputers) and increased efficiencies gained by the new technology.
Yes - I bought a DOS machine. A also bought a CP/M based Osborne 2 (Executive), a Commodore 64, and a couple TRS-80's (not to mention other machines from various bargain bin sales). There's a couple interesting things to note here. First - all the non-DOS systems were proprietary and cheaper than the DOS system. And the DOS system... well... it was a commodity box. It was a Compaq portable.
Compaq blew open the commodity microcomputer market. They did it by turning the IBM PC in to a commodity platform.
The IBM PC dominated the business computing market, arguably due to the IBM name. The IBM PC also made a strong showing in the home computer market since people were buying computers for home in step with what they were using at work.
For the IBM PC to go from proprietary product to commodity platform, three distinct areas had to be tackled. First - the hardware. That was simple enough since the IBM PC was off-the-shelf components and IBM also published plenty of details about the inner workings of the IBM PC to attract peripheral manufacturers. The second part was the Operating System - again easy since this wasn't an IBM property (more on this later). The final part was the tough one - the BIOS. That was the proprietary gateway. Compaq spent a million dollars to reverse engineer the BIOS. They produced a better PC than IBM. And in doing so, they flung open the floodgates. It wasn't long before Tandy 1000 was getting kudos for the best bang-for-the-buck. And an entire industry of local computer stores piecing together systems on-order sprung up in strip malls around the world. It was also the beginnings of Dell... although they wouldn't become the dominating name years later.
Let me stress something less it got lost in my rambling - the microcomputer industry was entirely proprietary up to the point that Compaq produced the first commodity systems. That is, systems built of specs that were not unique to Compaq. Others... many others... also producing compatible systems to these same specs solidified the commodity computing market. This was happening long before Windows became a household name.
Exactly. The parent poster obviously needs to read up a bit on microcomputing history. As an aside - I can't believe I'm agreeing with Overly Critical Guy on something.:P
It might be worth noting that Microsoft did provide one of the key components that lead to the commodity computer market; an identical OS. MS DOS, the non-IBM licensed version of PC DOS, allowed those who were able to piece together the software and reverse engineer the BIOS an identical OS to IBM's systems and therefore exact compatability with IBM systems. And this is why Microsoft flourished - it rode the wave of the commodity hardware market.
You gotta wonder... without QDOS... would CP/M have ended up providing that same key component to Compaq?
Why would Iraqi intelligence support an assassination attempt, when everyone knows Iraq would be blamed (right after Gulf War) and would lead to a sequel of the Gulf War (which no Iraqi wanted after losing so bad).
Because Saddam ordered them to. Saddam has certainly taken steps that defied rational thought and advice. Saddam has a personal grudge against (now) the Bush family. Besides, if the bomb had been set off as it was supposed to be, there would have been even less evidence to point back to Iraq. Especially when there are so many others one could point a finger at being the source of such an attack.
It's just an accusation, and I don't take it as credible, and certainly not cause enough for a full-scale invasion and war in which 20,000+ (by US military count, which is the minimum) civillians died.
I don't see it as justification for an all-out attack either. But it does provide some circumstantial evidence towards the view that Iraq was hardly an innocent country, cow-towed by the Gulf War, and posing no threat to the world around it.
And I don't buy that this was some kind of personal Bush vendetta.
If that's the case, why didn't we invade Cuba or nuke Russia for being somehow linked to the Kennedy assassination?
Next, you'll be demanding an immediate retaliatory off-world strike for invasion and abduction of US citizens.:P
North Korea attempted to expand its borders, but why was it considered less of a threat than Iraq? North Korea actually has nukes to threaten with.
What attempt to expand its borders? Perhaps you've missed the Korean War? Or was there another invasion that I missed?
In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with Iraq. You're not advocating invasion of North Korea, are you? Or are you claiming that the situation with Iraq is identical to the one on the Korean peninsula? I agree that there are some interesting simularities. But there are also considerable differences between the two. One major point is that, as far as I know, North Korea has not violated terms of their cease fire agreement (not that things are all rosey - ask anyone who's served in South Korea).
The attempted assassination of a US president? You mean the alleged plot that an Iraqi man confessed under torture by Kuwaitis? The man was allegedly angry because he lost his family to a US bombing strike. Aside from the fact that people will say anything under torture, how does this link to Iraq? A lone vigilante doesn't have any link to the government of Iraq.
There is more evidence than just a man facing execution (torture, while possible and even likely, is speculation). But I agree that there is some question as to whether Iraqi intelligence was really involved.
Well the US support the Shah of Iran who was a corrupt dictator. The people of Iran revolted. So the US started supporting Saddam Hussein, another corrupt dictator, fight a brutal war against Iran. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and told him where to drop them. Since he wasn't really going anywhere in his bloody war against Iran Saddam made peace with Iran. So the US stopped supporting Saddam.
Amazing what's happened in the last 15 years.:P But I suppose you have to go back a ways to get perspective. With that in mind, you missed a few points.
First - I would hate to have someone misunderstand you and believe the US invented an Iraq-Iran war. This conflict had been brewing for decades, if not centuries. Neither side of that conflict are without fault. Although it was Iraq who were ultimately decided as the aggressors. US support for Iraq came a couple years after the beginning of the war. The US had decided that the dictator in Iraq was far more preferable to the dictator in Iran - and little wonder why (at least from their perspective).
It would also be a mistake to interpret that US involvement as the primary support for Iraq. The vast majority of arms came from the Soviet Union with additional support from France, China, Germany, and Egypt. There was financial backing from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia among other Arab states. In comparison, US support was fairly minor. What's notable was that this support was also largely clandestine in nature - leading to some degree of scandal (arms sales to Iran lead to an earlier scandal).
The Iraq-Iran war is extremely costly for both sides. It's little wonder that hostilities would eventually cease as neither side was gaining anything to justify the cost. Oddly enough, Iraq had offered to end the war in '82 but Iran continued its attacks in the Iraqi government and so the war continued another 6 years.
That the US stopped supporting Saddam seems to fall in line with (most) of Saddam's other supporters. It also falls in line with other major geopolitical events such as the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. I would hesitate to point to Iraq's bargain with Iran as a sole reason the US began changing its attitude towards Iraq.
Then Saddam invaded Kuwait, which the US used to get a foothold in Saudi Arabia.
I agree with the statement. US involvement in Saudi Arabia always seemed like inviting Uncle Earnie over to help with some heavy lifting only to find him still crashing out on the couch 3 months later.
Having said that - your statement does tend to gloss over why the US was there to begin with and what it did. And it conveniently does so without having to mention any support for US involvement during the time period.
The US wisely didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War because the pentagon knew the casualties would be too high.
You might want to note that the US did, in fact, invade Iraq. But they wisely didn't roll in to Baghdad for a number of reasons. Casualties would be one point. Not wishing to completely dismantle Iraq's standing military (a gift to Iran) would be another. And ultimately, avoiding the mess of dealing with ousting Saddam is the major one. It would have been nice to see the Iraqis handle Saddam on their own.
Later, with absolutely no mandate from the UN or NATO, very few allies (with the exception of the UK), and no occupation plan, the US invaded Iraq.
Saddam is ruthless and resourceful. Not only did he outlast his opponents, he managed to defy the UN and to some extent flourish. It would end up taking direct involvement after all - 13 years later. True - this was done without the support of a decade ago. But then, scandals like the Oil for Food Program and financial links as well as military equipment support from Iraq's largest supporters and critics of US actions..
There was no connection between Iraq and the four hijacked planes on 11th of September 2001. Osama Bin Laden reportedly hated Sadam because he maintained a relatively secular country.
Agreed.
Even if the arguments of weapons of mass destruction were true, they wouldn't pose any threat to the US, or any other western country.
This I don't agree with. Iraq, under the Sadam regime, became a threat when it attempted to expand its borders. It has continued to be a threat since then. And while any Iraqi involvement with terrorism is, put generously, dubious... it doesn't mean they're suddenly innocent.
I don't think that anyone would argue that Sadam was a nice character, but he was far from the worst leader, even in the region. Additionally there are many other countries that are in far worse shape, and treat their people a lot worse than Iraq that have not received any attention from the US
None the less, Sadam did miscalculate by invading Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. Then attempt to circumvent the stipulations of Cease Fire... misappropriate funds at the expense of his own people's welfare... not to mention attempt assasination of a US President (we won't even go in to the shennanigans being played in the No Fly Zones in Nothern and Southern Iraq). What we see now is the outcome of a state of war that has been ongoing since 1990. Granted, that's hard to tell from what's coming out of the Bush Administration's press office.
...the unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations which posed no threat to America.
With the recent sabre-rattling directed at Iran and Syria, the definition of "protect" might become even more perverted and twisted.
I'm curious - what do you think was going on with Iraq for the last 15+ years? And what do you think Syria and Iran has been doing during that same time?
I'm no fan of the Bush Administration and am not keen to defend it's actions. However, I also find it a little odd that you use language that makes other players sound like innocent victoms of a bully superpower.
Isn't this precisely what Apple is doing with iPod + iTunes? If Apple can open an online music store and restrict competing hardware and software products then why can Microsoft not compete in exactly the same way? What about the tethering of music purchased on iTunes to the computer which purchased the music and the FairPlay system?
You're comparing apples to oranges. From the article:
The disputed plan, part of a marketing campaign known as "easy start," would have affected portable music devices that compete with Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iPod. It would have precluded makers of those devices from distributing to consumers music software other than Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, in exchange for Microsoft-supplied CDs.
A proper comparison would be to note that Apple requires Apple to bundle iTunes with sales of the iPod and other devices Apple sells. Which, I suppose, they do.... since it's all one company. But this is hardly your point.
Your confusion is over the content offered on iTunes. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with content. Would you care to point out where content providers are required to enter an exclusive contract with Apple to make that content only available via iTunes? Or perhapse where the Judge found objections to the Windows Media format?
If I may speculate about what might have been...if Winamp had focused on selling songs, and got Rio to make mp3 players that linked up to their software, we would be living in a totally different world right now.
And what songs was Winamp going to sell? The big content owners were busy fighting new distribution methods at that point. Furthermore, they certainly weren't interested in selling MP3s - still aren't.
Sure - the big guys aren't the whole show. But independants have been early adopters of MP3s; a format that plays in Winamp and the Rio. And what's the big news? iTune because Apple has managed to either bring the big media to the table, or at least provide a table where they'll sit at the right time... or perhapse both.
Dorks like tabletop roleplaying for the same reason they like to read pulp science fiction/fantasy, read comic books or watch harem anime: not because they're more "creative" or whatever but because they want to escape into a pleasant fantasy land. They avoid reading mainstream literature, which is too concerned with reality for comfort.
Welcome to escapism. Examples of mainstream escapism includes Hollywood movies, television, music, sports (high school, college, professional), alcohol, and even many examples of "mainstream literature". There are also very popular, but not quite recognized as mainstream, examples such as gambling, pornography, recreational drugs... among other vices.
Escapism is not unique to geeks (dorks, nerds, etc.). It's actually fairly common... and the basis of manner of industry. But are they all the same? Is dedicated viewing of Survivor the same as fanatical devotion to a sports team? How do these stack up with feeding the weekend Box Office take on the latest Hollywood blockbuster? Is watching those any different than anime? And how does anime (even the "harem anime" sub genre) fit in with tabletop RPGs?
The issue really isn't escapism - but the choice of avenue. Tabletop RPGs involve an interactive component that doesn't exist with most mainstream entertainment. And it certainly involves a degree of creativity that's not required in many other forms of entertainment - even in the parent's examples of viewing anime or reading comic books. If there wasn't that interest in creativity, participants would certainly be better served with other forms of entertainment. They wouldn't play RPGs. They would remain with other, more passive forms of escapism - be it mainstream Hollywood or more niche entertainment such as anime.
Social anxiety problems can be largely resolved given practice, so the sooner they stop the self-denial and start becoming adults, the better.
I'll be sure to keep this in mind during the next social engagement / at-work conversation about what happened this week on America's Idol / Survivor / Etc. or the next commentary honoring the "dedication" of some fan who attends a local sporting event painted in team colors.
Maybe this will help relieve the stigma people have about a lot of MS employees that are well known.
Of course - it doesn't matter. This guy isn't setting policy. He's not directing business strategy. And it's Microsoft's business history that makes it very odd to have them as a keynote speaker.
Keep on pointing out the obvious though, maybe the cluestick will land on them eventually.
The "cluestick" needed here is the site owners. There are plenty of sites capable of providing media clips viewable on any reasonably modern platform... to include Linux. While the grandparent poster did some off as whiney, they did have a good point. It's not hard to put content out there that's compatable to a wider audience.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree the statement "[Microsoft]...is fast ending up with negative brand value" is a little far reaching (to put it mildly). But at the same time, you need a bit of different perspective if you think Microsoft is entirely trusted.
I can understand that there are environments out there where everyone has a glowing opinion of Microsoft - I could even imagine this being commonplace. This would fall in line with my occasionally meeting people who hold Microsoft in high esteem and are genuinely perplexed that someone else wouldn't.
But over the years, I've run in to more and more people who have at least a somewhat dim view if not entirely negative opinion of Microsoft. This used to be somewhat limited to the usual crowd of Mac enthusiasts and *nix malcontents. Now days, it is much more commonplace... from general end users to those who's careers are rather tightly linked to Microsoft products; people that I wouldn't have thought of as Microsoft critics.
Do some googling for Mike Roe and Microsoft. Mike Roe in this case was a 17yr old kid who's domain was part of a part-time web design buisiness. Microsoft even admited, after a public backlash, that they were overly agressive in this case. You would think they'd have learned from mistakes like this.
"You will find that in OUR science courses, we do not teach about boogie men, evil spirits, elves or sprites...."
Or as an alternative...
"'Science'? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Let's make sure we're using the same context here. I'm not talking market share, mind share, or penetration in to the Enterprise market. I'm talking exposure to attack... an Infosec context.
My point is that Linux has already had the exposure required to test its mettle. Further popularity will not bring about a sudden increase in reported vulnerabilities. That's not to say there won't be any further bugs found. But sufficient exposure in the past has already put many eyes on Linux and more eyes won't lead to a sudden outbreak or incremental increase.
Now - I'm more than willing to hash out arguments why Linux on a corporate intranet (or heck - their public facing servers) will lead to singificantly more exposure (with the above stated context in mind). Do you have one?
apt-get install morrisworm2
You act like Linux popularity is a new thing.
The whole "wait until it gets popular" is an interesting concept - but it does tend to ignore a history of Linux (and various usual software packages bundled with "Linux" but running on other *nix platforms) being widely deployed and exposed. Linux has been under attack since the bad old days when Infosec wasn't taken seriously (or at least wasn't a viable market).
An amusing side note is that this is back when the "wait until it gets popular" argument was applied to WinNT because it really wasn't as wide-spread as it's *nix competition.
It seems that it should be possible. But it won't be easy without cooperation. And since the site owner doesn't seem keen to help create a site to supplant his, that cooperation is not forthcoming. This leaves those who wish to "pick up the pieces" with two distinct challenges.
The first challenge is replicating the content. This is certainly possible to do - a vast majority of the content seems to have come from the community. The site designs are probably sitting on hard drives of the developers and users right now. The problem is getting those who currently have copies to get around to resubmitting them. And that leads to the greatest challenge; network effect.
The users of OSWD all know about OSWD. It serves as a focus point for those who wish to publish works and those interested in finding those works. The more people who use this site, the more effective (and valuable) it becomes. More users means a larger audience to publish to and more publishers means a larger pool of content to select from. Anyone wishing to create a replacement will have to get the word out about their new site and convince people to begin using it instead of OSWD. Most of these types of sites gain popularity over time so a new replacement will likely have to wait some time before it's built up the same network effect value as OSWD.
That's not to say it can't happen, or shouldn't be done. There are quite a lot of examples of forked projects. And it helps if a significant portion of the community agrees on the fork and follows on to the replacement. A "good", or otherwise popular, fork will tend to form with a significantly larger network effect than those who begin from scratch. Which, in turn, helps get the word out and leads to a faster recovery (even if the original project remains and leads to a somewhat fractured community).
Germany has customer service that you can't get and the US has customer service that you don't want.
Don't look now... but there's always been US Government (complete with beurocracy, red tape, proposals, and grants) involved in Open Source.
I completely agree. Microsoft played an important role; they were a key player. Having said that... I wonder what the current landscape would have been like if Digital Research hadn't waited so long to get CP/M ported to the 8086 or at least been willing to work with IBM earlier on.
Yep. Odd world it is today compared to the early years when having a home computer was rare and a MODEM was completely bizzare.
What I think you're talking about here is really aimed at the 3D accelerator market. And that particular segment was rather young. Young markets do not often begin as commodity markets - it takes time. Even then, there were standards such as OpenGL that Microsoft initially supported. Of course, Microsoft then produced their own API and dumped OpenGL. The interesting piece here is that chipset developers are STILL working with OpenGL as well as Microsoft's API. So while working with Microsoft is certainly good business - I don't think it has quite the same effect as you're portraying it.
To begin with, commodity does not mean cheap... or even affordable. Driving down prices is an effect of commodity products in a free market. It is not the "other side of the 'commodity' coin". True - prices have dropped over the years. And a good part of the reason is commodity hardware. But there are also other factors such as economy of scale (more demand for microcomputers) and increased efficiencies gained by the new technology.
Yes - I bought a DOS machine. A also bought a CP/M based Osborne 2 (Executive), a Commodore 64, and a couple TRS-80's (not to mention other machines from various bargain bin sales). There's a couple interesting things to note here. First - all the non-DOS systems were proprietary and cheaper than the DOS system. And the DOS system... well... it was a commodity box. It was a Compaq portable.
Compaq blew open the commodity microcomputer market. They did it by turning the IBM PC in to a commodity platform.
The IBM PC dominated the business computing market, arguably due to the IBM name. The IBM PC also made a strong showing in the home computer market since people were buying computers for home in step with what they were using at work.
For the IBM PC to go from proprietary product to commodity platform, three distinct areas had to be tackled. First - the hardware. That was simple enough since the IBM PC was off-the-shelf components and IBM also published plenty of details about the inner workings of the IBM PC to attract peripheral manufacturers. The second part was the Operating System - again easy since this wasn't an IBM property (more on this later). The final part was the tough one - the BIOS. That was the proprietary gateway. Compaq spent a million dollars to reverse engineer the BIOS. They produced a better PC than IBM. And in doing so, they flung open the floodgates. It wasn't long before Tandy 1000 was getting kudos for the best bang-for-the-buck. And an entire industry of local computer stores piecing together systems on-order sprung up in strip malls around the world. It was also the beginnings of Dell... although they wouldn't become the dominating name years later.
Let me stress something less it got lost in my rambling - the microcomputer industry was entirely proprietary up to the point that Compaq produced the first commodity systems. That is, systems built of specs that were not unique to Compaq. Others... many others... also producing compatible systems to these same specs solidified the commodity computing market. This was happening long before Windows became a household name.
So what about DOS?
Commodity computing came about during the time of DOS - far, far before Windows.
Exactly. The parent poster obviously needs to read up a bit on microcomputing history. As an aside - I can't believe I'm agreeing with Overly Critical Guy on something. :P
It might be worth noting that Microsoft did provide one of the key components that lead to the commodity computer market; an identical OS. MS DOS, the non-IBM licensed version of PC DOS, allowed those who were able to piece together the software and reverse engineer the BIOS an identical OS to IBM's systems and therefore exact compatability with IBM systems. And this is why Microsoft flourished - it rode the wave of the commodity hardware market.
You gotta wonder... without QDOS... would CP/M have ended up providing that same key component to Compaq?
...one of several major or splinter terrorist groups operating in the region.... or even, say, a lone vigilante.
Because Saddam ordered them to. Saddam has certainly taken steps that defied rational thought and advice. Saddam has a personal grudge against (now) the Bush family. Besides, if the bomb had been set off as it was supposed to be, there would have been even less evidence to point back to Iraq. Especially when there are so many others one could point a finger at being the source of such an attack.
I don't see it as justification for an all-out attack either. But it does provide some circumstantial evidence towards the view that Iraq was hardly an innocent country, cow-towed by the Gulf War, and posing no threat to the world around it.
And I don't buy that this was some kind of personal Bush vendetta.
Next, you'll be demanding an immediate retaliatory off-world strike for invasion and abduction of US citizens.
What attempt to expand its borders? Perhaps you've missed the Korean War? Or was there another invasion that I missed?
In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with Iraq. You're not advocating invasion of North Korea, are you? Or are you claiming that the situation with Iraq is identical to the one on the Korean peninsula? I agree that there are some interesting simularities. But there are also considerable differences between the two. One major point is that, as far as I know, North Korea has not violated terms of their cease fire agreement (not that things are all rosey - ask anyone who's served in South Korea).
There is more evidence than just a man facing execution (torture, while possible and even likely, is speculation). But I agree that there is some question as to whether Iraqi intelligence was really involved.
Amazing what's happened in the last 15 years. :P But I suppose you have to go back a ways to get perspective. With that in mind, you missed a few points.
First - I would hate to have someone misunderstand you and believe the US invented an Iraq-Iran war. This conflict had been brewing for decades, if not centuries. Neither side of that conflict are without fault. Although it was Iraq who were ultimately decided as the aggressors. US support for Iraq came a couple years after the beginning of the war. The US had decided that the dictator in Iraq was far more preferable to the dictator in Iran - and little wonder why (at least from their perspective).
It would also be a mistake to interpret that US involvement as the primary support for Iraq. The vast majority of arms came from the Soviet Union with additional support from France, China, Germany, and Egypt. There was financial backing from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia among other Arab states. In comparison, US support was fairly minor. What's notable was that this support was also largely clandestine in nature - leading to some degree of scandal (arms sales to Iran lead to an earlier scandal).
The Iraq-Iran war is extremely costly for both sides. It's little wonder that hostilities would eventually cease as neither side was gaining anything to justify the cost. Oddly enough, Iraq had offered to end the war in '82 but Iran continued its attacks in the Iraqi government and so the war continued another 6 years.
That the US stopped supporting Saddam seems to fall in line with (most) of Saddam's other supporters. It also falls in line with other major geopolitical events such as the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. I would hesitate to point to Iraq's bargain with Iran as a sole reason the US began changing its attitude towards Iraq.
I agree with the statement. US involvement in Saudi Arabia always seemed like inviting Uncle Earnie over to help with some heavy lifting only to find him still crashing out on the couch 3 months later.
Having said that - your statement does tend to gloss over why the US was there to begin with and what it did. And it conveniently does so without having to mention any support for US involvement during the time period.
You might want to note that the US did, in fact, invade Iraq. But they wisely didn't roll in to Baghdad for a number of reasons. Casualties would be one point. Not wishing to completely dismantle Iraq's standing military (a gift to Iran) would be another. And ultimately, avoiding the mess of dealing with ousting Saddam is the major one. It would have been nice to see the Iraqis handle Saddam on their own.
Saddam is ruthless and resourceful. Not only did he outlast his opponents, he managed to defy the UN and to some extent flourish. It would end up taking direct involvement after all - 13 years later. True - this was done without the support of a decade ago. But then, scandals like the Oil for Food Program and financial links as well as military equipment support from Iraq's largest supporters and critics of US actions..
Agreed.
This I don't agree with. Iraq, under the Sadam regime, became a threat when it attempted to expand its borders. It has continued to be a threat since then. And while any Iraqi involvement with terrorism is, put generously, dubious... it doesn't mean they're suddenly innocent.
None the less, Sadam did miscalculate by invading Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. Then attempt to circumvent the stipulations of Cease Fire... misappropriate funds at the expense of his own people's welfare... not to mention attempt assasination of a US President (we won't even go in to the shennanigans being played in the No Fly Zones in Nothern and Southern Iraq). What we see now is the outcome of a state of war that has been ongoing since 1990. Granted, that's hard to tell from what's coming out of the Bush Administration's press office.
I'm curious - what do you think was going on with Iraq for the last 15+ years? And what do you think Syria and Iran has been doing during that same time?
I'm no fan of the Bush Administration and am not keen to defend it's actions. However, I also find it a little odd that you use language that makes other players sound like innocent victoms of a bully superpower.
You're comparing apples to oranges. From the article:
A proper comparison would be to note that Apple requires Apple to bundle iTunes with sales of the iPod and other devices Apple sells. Which, I suppose, they do.... since it's all one company. But this is hardly your point.
Your confusion is over the content offered on iTunes. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with content. Would you care to point out where content providers are required to enter an exclusive contract with Apple to make that content only available via iTunes? Or perhapse where the Judge found objections to the Windows Media format?
And what songs was Winamp going to sell? The big content owners were busy fighting new distribution methods at that point. Furthermore, they certainly weren't interested in selling MP3s - still aren't.
Sure - the big guys aren't the whole show. But independants have been early adopters of MP3s; a format that plays in Winamp and the Rio. And what's the big news? iTune because Apple has managed to either bring the big media to the table, or at least provide a table where they'll sit at the right time... or perhapse both.
Welcome to escapism. Examples of mainstream escapism includes Hollywood movies, television, music, sports (high school, college, professional), alcohol, and even many examples of "mainstream literature". There are also very popular, but not quite recognized as mainstream, examples such as gambling, pornography, recreational drugs... among other vices.
Escapism is not unique to geeks (dorks, nerds, etc.). It's actually fairly common... and the basis of manner of industry. But are they all the same? Is dedicated viewing of Survivor the same as fanatical devotion to a sports team? How do these stack up with feeding the weekend Box Office take on the latest Hollywood blockbuster? Is watching those any different than anime? And how does anime (even the "harem anime" sub genre) fit in with tabletop RPGs?
The issue really isn't escapism - but the choice of avenue. Tabletop RPGs involve an interactive component that doesn't exist with most mainstream entertainment. And it certainly involves a degree of creativity that's not required in many other forms of entertainment - even in the parent's examples of viewing anime or reading comic books. If there wasn't that interest in creativity, participants would certainly be better served with other forms of entertainment. They wouldn't play RPGs. They would remain with other, more passive forms of escapism - be it mainstream Hollywood or more niche entertainment such as anime.
I'll be sure to keep this in mind during the next social engagement / at-work conversation about what happened this week on America's Idol / Survivor / Etc. or the next commentary honoring the "dedication" of some fan who attends a local sporting event painted in team colors.
Of course - it doesn't matter. This guy isn't setting policy. He's not directing business strategy. And it's Microsoft's business history that makes it very odd to have them as a keynote speaker.
Hehe. Well... tongue-in-cheek... but an honest point (I'm not so sure how "insightful" :P).
The "cluestick" needed here is the site owners. There are plenty of sites capable of providing media clips viewable on any reasonably modern platform... to include Linux. While the grandparent poster did some off as whiney, they did have a good point. It's not hard to put content out there that's compatable to a wider audience.