What eBay is basically doing here is slowly phasing in a closed payment system. If you buy through eBay, you pay through eBay (PayPal). It's totally their perogative to do this. Of course, it's totally your perogative not to use eBay if this model doesn't agree with you. If enough people object to it, then it opens up an opportunity for someone else to step in and offer an auction site with open payment options. eBay competitors have failed before but perhaps this will change the landscape.
It's nice to see that this time around, Microsoft's advertising people remembered to have a bunch of people astroturf on Slashdot about how great the new ads are.
Who gets to decide what's true? The web is decentralized. All this would end up doing is making the groupthink problem even worse. Some loud people push an idea, it spreads a bit, then they declare a "concensus" and begin character-assassinating any dissenters. So I ask again, who gets to be the final authority on what is true and what isn't? The Pope, perhaps? (As a Protestant I've got a problem with that... [grin]) The whole point of the Internet is that it's decentralized. Installing choke points over what constitutes "truth" would be just as bad as installing choke points onto the network itself. Top-down management is bad!
Then we entered the real world. Finding the Microsoft actually makes rather competitive products.
And if that were the whole story, few geeks would have a problem with them. Really, who doesn't want to use the right tool for the job? But that isn't the entire picture. Microsoft may have a few competitive products, but if you want to go anywhere near them, you're forced to take half a dozen other half-baked products that they forced down your throat. Then in order to interoperate properly you have to outfit your entire network with Microsoft technologies that you didn't want. And let's not forget the way they use their big money and market position to force preloads, manipulate international standards bodies such as ISO, and a million other reasons why Microsoft will build a better product only as a last resort.
No, it's not just about the product. If they succeeded on merit alone they would deserve to win. But that's not the Microsoft we know.
Follow the money trail, and you will eventually find out who is behind all this. I'm willing to bet that no more than 48 hours will go by before something is posted to Groklaw revealing how Microsoft is somehow bankrolling this little expedition.
I was thinking about this the other day. I'm almost 30. The internet came about in my generation. IT has been going on much longer. How was it done before "always-on", "always-connected"? Surely it was less efficient. And yet, you hear about IT people from that time staying in their jobs for decades, loving what they do, etc. Nowadays you're surprised to see someone stick around 3 years in a "permanent" job.
You're showing your inexperience here.
Today, I oversee much of the technology in a mid size data center. When something blows up in the middle of the night, I get a phone call from a night shift operator. Sometimes I can just give them instructions, but sometimes I will have to call in a senior person, or failing that, fix the issue myself.
30 years ago, my father had a job similar to the one I have now. The technology was different -- it involved big IBM systems fed by punch cards -- but they still operated 24/7. And guess what? When a job blew up in the middle of the night, he got a call from a night shift operator too.
(On the other hand, about seven years ago he gave up on IT and now he sells boats. So maybe the industry sucks after all.)
Microsoft ought to just go ahead and add a Google Blocker into Internet Explorer. We all know it's what they really want to do, so there's no sense in beating around the bush.:)
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
They just don't care because there are no real competitors to Flash. For most mainstream sites today, Flash is mandatory. (And no amount of boycott will change that.)
So what you're suggesting is that competition from Silverlight is good, and that Microsoft (as well as Microsoft shills like Miguel) are actually doing us a favor?
Microsoft's biggest problem isn't Google, it is that everyone is writing for a platform that is vendor neutral. It's extraordinarily difficult to find a business client that wants a client program - they want everything on the web whether it is stupid or not, and that's what has MS really worried.
I have frequently used this fact to argue that Netscape won the browser war after all.
...Microsoft now officially has its head in the clouds.
Old school Microsoft bashers will, of course, recognize this as Microsoft's tried-and-true strategy of preannouncing vaporware in order to freeze the market. Buyers put their plans on hold and wait for Microsoft's product to emerge, effectively killing the competition, even though the competition has non-vapor products on the market today.
Does anyone even remotely think that the vaporware strategy will work this time? Cloud computing is all about the elasticity of computing resources. It's a natural fit for unlicensed operating systems. Microsoft's entire business is built around per-unit software licensing. Anyone who's been around an IT shop that uses Microsoft products knows that keeping track of licenses is practically a full time job. Add in the elasticity of cloud computing and it becomes pretty much impossible.
I'd even go as far as saying that cloud computing is fundamentally incompatible with Windows.
I accept nothing less than a new decentrelized protocol to replace NNTP.
Ok, you get to work on that, then. I sincerely doubt that UseNet's fall from usefulness has anything to do with NNTP, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Go get your replacement protocol up and running and we'll see what happens.
Thankfully, most observers are able to see through this particular line of nonsense at this point. Sadly, however, it's likely that Ballmer and other 'softies actually believe it. They're so narcissistic that they really do believe that Microsoft is the epicenter of innovation, and that it really is impossible for good ideas to come from anywhere other than Redmond.
In fact, many open source projects and products use Microsoft as a reference point for how not to design software. Call it a second mover advantage if you like.
I've always maintained that the Bell System was broken up along the wrong lines. Regardless of whether you're talking copper or fiber, an ILEC should be allowed to do nothing other than provide that copper or fiber from your home or business to their central office. They shouldn't be allowed to provide any services. The central office then becomes a colocation facility, where CLEC's then offer voice, data, video, or whatever. It's the perfect solution, really.
UseNet originated at a time when a vast portion of its network was built upon store-and-forward technologies such as UUCP, BITNET, and various homegrown protocols for the smaller sites. If you could do store and forward you could probably carry newsgroups.
Today, everyone has interactive Internet access. That's why no one is scrambling to "fix" UseNet. Today's users Google for what interests them, and they eventually find themselves on a relevant message board. That message board is probably not replicated to thousands of other servers across the globe, because the whole world can already reach it directly.
The only nuisance is that you have to create accounts on all these systems. Hopefully, technologies such as OpenID will fix that.
(And yeah, there are plenty of smaller message boards that thrive specifically because they are smaller scale than UseNet. I've been a BBS sysop for 20 years, and our community is thriving because everyone has the opportunity to know everyone else without having to deal with a 1% signal to noise ratio. It also helps that we offer both text and web based user interfaces to the same message boards, so we can be equally as welcoming to newbies and old-skool green screeners.)
There are times when I just want to send a voicemail home without ringing the phone -- often because it's late and I don't want to wake anyone up. Since I'm already running Asterisk, I just registered a DID with IPKall, which is a free service. When I dial the IPKall number, it goes straight into voicemail. So if, for example, my wife wakes up in the middle of the night and sees the VM light on the phone blinking, she can push the button and find out that I'm stuck at work on an overnight project, or whatever. If, on the other hand, the purpose of my call is important enough to wake someone up at home, I dial the main number and the phones ring.
I have an idea for a mouse replacement. It's called a "keyboard."
Seriously, it's about time application designers started thinking seriously about the keyboard again. Yes, it takes more time to learn a keyboard-driven application than a mouse-driven one, but once you learn it, the productivity level is much higher. Ask any office typist who was forced to switch from WordPerfect to Microsoft Word a decade or so ago. Taking your hand off the keyboard and clicking the little button (or worse -- navigating through pull down menus) takes more time than hitting a function key, or even a key combination.
Yes, there is limited keyboard navigation now, but tab-tab-tabbing through the onscreen widgets until the one you want is highlighted is not an acceptable substitute for a true keyboard-driven design.
You're comparing Chavez to Ballmer? WTF has gone on around this place.
I know, I know, it really isn't a fair comparison. Microsoft's tyranny has affected over a billion people, making Gates and Ballmer guilty of more crimes against humanity than Chavez could ever hope for.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting how a comment accusing Microsoft of astroturfing Slashdot got modded down. Kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
What eBay is basically doing here is slowly phasing in a closed payment system. If you buy through eBay, you pay through eBay (PayPal). It's totally their perogative to do this. Of course, it's totally your perogative not to use eBay if this model doesn't agree with you. If enough people object to it, then it opens up an opportunity for someone else to step in and offer an auction site with open payment options. eBay competitors have failed before but perhaps this will change the landscape.
It's nice to see that this time around, Microsoft's advertising people remembered to have a bunch of people astroturf on Slashdot about how great the new ads are.
...that they'll need Bill Gates *and* Jerry Seinfeld *and* Steve Ballmer *and* Julia Louis-Dreyfus *and* Michael Richards to advertise it.
Who gets to decide what's true? The web is decentralized. All this would end up doing is making the groupthink problem even worse. Some loud people push an idea, it spreads a bit, then they declare a "concensus" and begin character-assassinating any dissenters. So I ask again, who gets to be the final authority on what is true and what isn't? The Pope, perhaps? (As a Protestant I've got a problem with that... [grin]) The whole point of the Internet is that it's decentralized. Installing choke points over what constitutes "truth" would be just as bad as installing choke points onto the network itself. Top-down management is bad!
I would just add that if you think Active Directory is "pretty darn good" --- you're fired.
And if that were the whole story, few geeks would have a problem with them. Really, who doesn't want to use the right tool for the job? But that isn't the entire picture. Microsoft may have a few competitive products, but if you want to go anywhere near them, you're forced to take half a dozen other half-baked products that they forced down your throat. Then in order to interoperate properly you have to outfit your entire network with Microsoft technologies that you didn't want. And let's not forget the way they use their big money and market position to force preloads, manipulate international standards bodies such as ISO, and a million other reasons why Microsoft will build a better product only as a last resort.
No, it's not just about the product. If they succeeded on merit alone they would deserve to win. But that's not the Microsoft we know.
In other words, will this new xVM run unmodified operating systems on ordinary 32-bit hardware that doesn't have hardware VM extensions?
Follow the money trail, and you will eventually find out who is behind all this. I'm willing to bet that no more than 48 hours will go by before something is posted to Groklaw revealing how Microsoft is somehow bankrolling this little expedition.
You're showing your inexperience here.
Today, I oversee much of the technology in a mid size data center. When something blows up in the middle of the night, I get a phone call from a night shift operator. Sometimes I can just give them instructions, but sometimes I will have to call in a senior person, or failing that, fix the issue myself.
30 years ago, my father had a job similar to the one I have now. The technology was different -- it involved big IBM systems fed by punch cards -- but they still operated 24/7. And guess what? When a job blew up in the middle of the night, he got a call from a night shift operator too.
(On the other hand, about seven years ago he gave up on IT and now he sells boats. So maybe the industry sucks after all.)
Microsoft ought to just go ahead and add a Google Blocker into Internet Explorer. We all know it's what they really want to do, so there's no sense in beating around the bush. :)
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
So what you're suggesting is that competition from Silverlight is good, and that Microsoft (as well as Microsoft shills like Miguel) are actually doing us a favor?
Will it run on Midori?
I have frequently used this fact to argue that Netscape won the browser war after all.
...Microsoft now officially has its head in the clouds.
Old school Microsoft bashers will, of course, recognize this as Microsoft's tried-and-true strategy of preannouncing vaporware in order to freeze the market. Buyers put their plans on hold and wait for Microsoft's product to emerge, effectively killing the competition, even though the competition has non-vapor products on the market today.
Does anyone even remotely think that the vaporware strategy will work this time? Cloud computing is all about the elasticity of computing resources. It's a natural fit for unlicensed operating systems. Microsoft's entire business is built around per-unit software licensing. Anyone who's been around an IT shop that uses Microsoft products knows that keeping track of licenses is practically a full time job. Add in the elasticity of cloud computing and it becomes pretty much impossible.
I'd even go as far as saying that cloud computing is fundamentally incompatible with Windows.
Insight, or even direct observation, of internal processes in Redmond is not necessary. Their products speak for themselves.
Ok, you get to work on that, then. I sincerely doubt that UseNet's fall from usefulness has anything to do with NNTP, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Go get your replacement protocol up and running and we'll see what happens.
Thankfully, most observers are able to see through this particular line of nonsense at this point. Sadly, however, it's likely that Ballmer and other 'softies actually believe it. They're so narcissistic that they really do believe that Microsoft is the epicenter of innovation, and that it really is impossible for good ideas to come from anywhere other than Redmond.
In fact, many open source projects and products use Microsoft as a reference point for how not to design software. Call it a second mover advantage if you like.
I've always maintained that the Bell System was broken up along the wrong lines. Regardless of whether you're talking copper or fiber, an ILEC should be allowed to do nothing other than provide that copper or fiber from your home or business to their central office. They shouldn't be allowed to provide any services. The central office then becomes a colocation facility, where CLEC's then offer voice, data, video, or whatever. It's the perfect solution, really.
(Yes, deliberately provocative subject. Please read on.)
UseNet originated at a time when a vast portion of its network was built upon store-and-forward technologies such as UUCP, BITNET, and various homegrown protocols for the smaller sites. If you could do store and forward you could probably carry newsgroups.
Today, everyone has interactive Internet access. That's why no one is scrambling to "fix" UseNet. Today's users Google for what interests them, and they eventually find themselves on a relevant message board. That message board is probably not replicated to thousands of other servers across the globe, because the whole world can already reach it directly.
The only nuisance is that you have to create accounts on all these systems. Hopefully, technologies such as OpenID will fix that.
(And yeah, there are plenty of smaller message boards that thrive specifically because they are smaller scale than UseNet. I've been a BBS sysop for 20 years, and our community is thriving because everyone has the opportunity to know everyone else without having to deal with a 1% signal to noise ratio. It also helps that we offer both text and web based user interfaces to the same message boards, so we can be equally as welcoming to newbies and old-skool green screeners.)
Yeah, that's probably why that Lie-Nucks thing never took off either. :)
There are times when I just want to send a voicemail home without ringing the phone -- often because it's late and I don't want to wake anyone up. Since I'm already running Asterisk, I just registered a DID with IPKall, which is a free service. When I dial the IPKall number, it goes straight into voicemail. So if, for example, my wife wakes up in the middle of the night and sees the VM light on the phone blinking, she can push the button and find out that I'm stuck at work on an overnight project, or whatever. If, on the other hand, the purpose of my call is important enough to wake someone up at home, I dial the main number and the phones ring.
I have an idea for a mouse replacement. It's called a "keyboard."
Seriously, it's about time application designers started thinking seriously about the keyboard again. Yes, it takes more time to learn a keyboard-driven application than a mouse-driven one, but once you learn it, the productivity level is much higher. Ask any office typist who was forced to switch from WordPerfect to Microsoft Word a decade or so ago. Taking your hand off the keyboard and clicking the little button (or worse -- navigating through pull down menus) takes more time than hitting a function key, or even a key combination.
Yes, there is limited keyboard navigation now, but tab-tab-tabbing through the onscreen widgets until the one you want is highlighted is not an acceptable substitute for a true keyboard-driven design.
I know, I know, it really isn't a fair comparison. Microsoft's tyranny has affected over a billion people, making Gates and Ballmer guilty of more crimes against humanity than Chavez could ever hope for.