All very good points. Still, Ubuntu is the most serious new entrant to the Linux market in quite a while, so if they play their cards right, they might be a problem for RedHat in a few years.
When the rubber hits the road, RedHat is making their money from selling long-lifecycle stability and patch support, and not telephone support. Businesses like to keep the same setups for years at a time (think Windows 2000), and RH charges for the privledge.
It's great that Ubuntu offers a support service, but they're not really going to build a profitable business that way. It's going to come down to how well they successfully market their business products. Or, maybe as another poster pointed out, it's a charity operation and they don't really care.
Bah, you just restated my point in a different tone -- Ubuntu has eyeballs and the potential for revenue, now they just need to figure out how to do it.
I wonder if it's even a revenue strategy for Microsoft, or just a competitive thing to be in every market their competitors are, forcing them to spread out their more limited marketing resources.
Ubuntu market and RHEL market is totally different. Ubuntu is "now" heading toward Enterprise desktop environment with support, but Ubuntu had and always has been about average joe's Desktop PC while RHEL had and always has been about heavily toward Enterprise customers.
Ubuntu right now is your classic dotcom strategy -- blow through venture capital to get "eyeballs" and then figure out later how to build revenue out of that. And if Ubuntu can't figure it out, they end up just like Mandrake and Corel and all the other Linux Desktop business failures that have been forgotten about.
The thing is that RedHat has "been there, done that" -- they survived off an enormous amount of VC for years as the "first mover". And after a decade, they eventually figured out you can't build a business off free downloads and $50 boxes -- there's just no profit in mass-marketing Linux. So they gave the finger to a lot of their loyalists and went Enterprise, and it worked. So, unless something has changed in the last few years, Ubuntu is going to have to do the same -- go where the money is (corporations) or die.
I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat.
I don't think RedHat and Microsoft see themselves in direct competition to each other -- RedHat's focus is on the enterprise Unix market and competitors like Sun. That pisses Microsoft off because they were waiting for UNIX to collapse and the customers to come running to Windows. But RedHat hasn't done a thing to MS's existing markets.
On the other hand, Ubuntu is very much potential competition to RedHat because the software is more-or-less identical, and Ubuntu plans to sell similar support lifecycles.
eMule is nowhere near the ease of older networks like Kazaa. The network is biased towards larger files, so it's not as easy to find individual songs. Also the downloading mechanism "takes too long" for normal people. The key to using it is to have a larger queue, so instead of 1 albumn taking 3 days to download, you have 5 albumns that take 3 days to download. It's a good tool for the dedicated pirate looking for back-catalog or obscure stuff, but not so hot for the casual person looking for immediate gratification. In otherwords, it's probably something the RIAA can live with.
I think the derives from a failure to understand that the majority of illegal downloads *would never have otherwise been a legal purchase*.
I think it's safe to assume that there's a difference between the statistics the RIAA puts in their press releases and their actual understanding of consumer purchasing behavior, which is likely pretty sophisticated given the business they are in.
Forget the people who would never purchase, and concentrate on the group that might purchase or might pirate -- if iTunes purchases are rising in that group, then they're probably accurate in declaring victory.
One important point is that purchase-making decisions are psychologically complex and most often impuse driven -- especially for catchy pop music and 99c singles. Slashdot tends to stereotype downloaders as "rational robots" who "wouldn't have bought it anyways" because it suits the anti-RIAA argument. When in fact, given the lack of opportunity to download, a certain percentage of people would have bought it, and that's the group the RIAA is concerned with.
Let me add some content to your Apple advertisement:)
Apple's JVM implementation has something called Class data sharing to speed Java startup after the first invocation. The first time is just as slow as always. Since then the feature has been added to Sun Java 1.5, so if you're up to date, you should have this.
As an IT Manager, he probably could give a flying fuck what Walt Mossberg thinks. And maybe you should stop listening to other people and check the prices at Dell and HP? You can get a quite servicible business desktop computer for far below what Apple's consumer-oriented models cost.
The slightly more credible version of this speculation is that Apple is dumping Darwin and will port the OS X user interface frameworks to the Vista kernel, thus allowing perfect side-by-side Windows|Mac compatibility. Of course, that's still not very credible.
We weren't talking about Apple's products. We were talking about their business strategy, a point you astroturfers are going out of your way to deliberately masquerade -- probably because you have a financial interest of some sort.
Unless you are staying that you like the idea of having to burning CDs to move your files to different devices. But that would be pretty silly even for an apologist.
FWIW, I also like Apple products, unfortunately don't own their stock, don't really care that much about DRM, and and confess to be a filthy pirate.
A site like ESPN probably had the sort of obsessive table layout that used TDs for borders and nested tables for padding and the like. A long way away from the kinds of table sites I used to build,
I'm not arguing against the semantic ideology, in fact I agree with it. I just don't agree with the statement that it makes any significant difference in filesizes.
In the same way, using many div elements in place of table elements is equally as incorrect - div elements by definition do not denote any particular meaning to the structure of that part of the document.
That's nice, but CSS-P requires non-semantic DIVs/SPANs to achive the desired layout. Back to the drawing board, if that's now how it's supposed to work.
If you're using more div elements than the corrosponding elements used to create a syntaxically and semantically correct table then you're doing something seriously wrong.
More? I said it was roughly the same because practically TDs and TRs get turned into DIVs.
so you slander it so it will go away. Apple Zealot Buran goes on the attack because he can't back up his unsubstantiated FUD with evidence.
Again, wishing something weren't true doesn't make it a lie. That Apple refuses to license their DRM makes my statement truth, and yours the rambling mental garbage of an pretty dim apologist. Apple doesn't have a business built on single-vendor DRM? Are you really that stupid? It's sitting there in plain sight.
Sounds like you're upset because you think the free market... No, I don't really care about Apple's DRM or their business model. More power to them. It's your pathetic attempts at astroturfing that bother me.
What've heard is the most popular screenreaders hook into Internet Explorer, understand the page DOM, and don't have too much trouble with table-based layouts (which are all over the Internet). I think the whole lynx thing is largely a slashdot myth put forward by Unix caveman types that hate all technology invented after 1994.
CSS-P only has a significant filesize savings over tables if you were using FONT tags, which most people stopped using 8 years ago with "version 4" browsers. Given comparable layouts, you will have nearly as many DIV tags as TABLE TR TD tags -- if not more. It's a wash, there won't be any big difference.
My 86 Camry will beat your 2007 Camry in a drag race
I recently read an article noting that the 2007 Camry (with 250HP or whatever) will out drag race most sports cars from the 1980s, much less the sedans. Although, greater point taken about bloat.
BS. When AMD was leading up to the Hammer CPUs, they were doing the exact same benchmarketing that Intel is doing now. The truth is that if AMD had anything to show, they would be showing it.
Oh look, another appleturfer. They just keep coming. Yeah, there's hoops you can jump through to get around it, but is the propeitary DRM situation ideal for the consumer? Only an apple apologist would come out and say so.
(Pragmatically I don't particularlly care that much about cheap DRM pop music -- I was just trying to elucidate the RIAA's take on it. But seeing you mac-idiots continually goatseing yourself for Apple is too much to bear.)
What stores have less annoying DRM? It's not my job to substantiate FUD he pulled out of his ass. The truth is probably that they are all about equally annoying because they are all under the same RIAA licensing program.
DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation. Oh, I guess that explains why Apple doesn't licence their DRM to third parties. No wait, it doesn't because you're just here to appleturf, and you actually have zero understanding and insight into Apple's business model.
Slashdot Mirror
All very good points. Still, Ubuntu is the most serious new entrant to the Linux market in quite a while, so if they play their cards right, they might be a problem for RedHat in a few years.
When the rubber hits the road, RedHat is making their money from selling long-lifecycle stability and patch support, and not telephone support. Businesses like to keep the same setups for years at a time (think Windows 2000), and RH charges for the privledge.
It's great that Ubuntu offers a support service, but they're not really going to build a profitable business that way. It's going to come down to how well they successfully market their business products. Or, maybe as another poster pointed out, it's a charity operation and they don't really care.
Bah, you just restated my point in a different tone -- Ubuntu has eyeballs and the potential for revenue, now they just need to figure out how to do it.
True, but RedHat, SUSE, and Solaris are all established products. Ubuntu still has to figure out how to find customers that want to pay for it.
I wonder if it's even a revenue strategy for Microsoft, or just a competitive thing to be in every market their competitors are, forcing them to spread out their more limited marketing resources.
Ubuntu market and RHEL market is totally different. Ubuntu is "now" heading toward Enterprise desktop environment with support, but Ubuntu had and always has been about average joe's Desktop PC while RHEL had and always has been about heavily toward Enterprise customers.
Ubuntu right now is your classic dotcom strategy -- blow through venture capital to get "eyeballs" and then figure out later how to build revenue out of that. And if Ubuntu can't figure it out, they end up just like Mandrake and Corel and all the other Linux Desktop business failures that have been forgotten about.
The thing is that RedHat has "been there, done that" -- they survived off an enormous amount of VC for years as the "first mover". And after a decade, they eventually figured out you can't build a business off free downloads and $50 boxes -- there's just no profit in mass-marketing Linux. So they gave the finger to a lot of their loyalists and went Enterprise, and it worked. So, unless something has changed in the last few years, Ubuntu is going to have to do the same -- go where the money is (corporations) or die.
I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat.
I don't think RedHat and Microsoft see themselves in direct competition to each other -- RedHat's focus is on the enterprise Unix market and competitors like Sun. That pisses Microsoft off because they were waiting for UNIX to collapse and the customers to come running to Windows. But RedHat hasn't done a thing to MS's existing markets.
On the other hand, Ubuntu is very much potential competition to RedHat because the software is more-or-less identical, and Ubuntu plans to sell similar support lifecycles.
eMule is nowhere near the ease of older networks like Kazaa. The network is biased towards larger files, so it's not as easy to find individual songs. Also the downloading mechanism "takes too long" for normal people. The key to using it is to have a larger queue, so instead of 1 albumn taking 3 days to download, you have 5 albumns that take 3 days to download. It's a good tool for the dedicated pirate looking for back-catalog or obscure stuff, but not so hot for the casual person looking for immediate gratification. In otherwords, it's probably something the RIAA can live with.
I think the derives from a failure to understand that the majority of illegal downloads *would never have otherwise been a legal purchase*.
I think it's safe to assume that there's a difference between the statistics the RIAA puts in their press releases and their actual understanding of consumer purchasing behavior, which is likely pretty sophisticated given the business they are in.
Forget the people who would never purchase, and concentrate on the group that might purchase or might pirate -- if iTunes purchases are rising in that group, then they're probably accurate in declaring victory.
One important point is that purchase-making decisions are psychologically complex and most often impuse driven -- especially for catchy pop music and 99c singles. Slashdot tends to stereotype downloaders as "rational robots" who "wouldn't have bought it anyways" because it suits the anti-RIAA argument. When in fact, given the lack of opportunity to download, a certain percentage of people would have bought it, and that's the group the RIAA is concerned with.
The computers I use with Windows and Java have 1.5.06 and it is still very slow.
There's a very noticible difference in app startup speed if you see the Java icon in your taskbar. At least for me. It's still not real fast, I agree.
Let me add some content to your Apple advertisement :)
Apple's JVM implementation has something called Class data sharing to speed Java startup after the first invocation. The first time is just as slow as always. Since then the feature has been added to Sun Java 1.5, so if you're up to date, you should have this.
As an IT Manager, he probably could give a flying fuck what Walt Mossberg thinks. And maybe you should stop listening to other people and check the prices at Dell and HP? You can get a quite servicible business desktop computer for far below what Apple's consumer-oriented models cost.
The slightly more credible version of this speculation is that Apple is dumping Darwin and will port the OS X user interface frameworks to the Vista kernel, thus allowing perfect side-by-side Windows|Mac compatibility. Of course, that's still not very credible.
We weren't talking about Apple's products. We were talking about their business strategy, a point you astroturfers are going out of your way to deliberately masquerade -- probably because you have a financial interest of some sort.
Unless you are staying that you like the idea of having to burning CDs to move your files to different devices. But that would be pretty silly even for an apologist.
FWIW, I also like Apple products, unfortunately don't own their stock, don't really care that much about DRM, and and confess to be a filthy pirate.
A site like ESPN probably had the sort of obsessive table layout that used TDs for borders and nested tables for padding and the like. A long way away from the kinds of table sites I used to build,
I'm not arguing against the semantic ideology, in fact I agree with it. I just don't agree with the statement that it makes any significant difference in filesizes.
In the same way, using many div elements in place of table elements is equally as incorrect - div elements by definition do not denote any particular meaning to the structure of that part of the document.
That's nice, but CSS-P requires non-semantic DIVs/SPANs to achive the desired layout. Back to the drawing board, if that's now how it's supposed to work.
If you're using more div elements than the corrosponding elements used to create a syntaxically and semantically correct table then you're doing something seriously wrong.
More? I said it was roughly the same because practically TDs and TRs get turned into DIVs.
so you slander it so it will go away.
Apple Zealot Buran goes on the attack because he can't back up his unsubstantiated FUD with evidence.
Again, wishing something weren't true doesn't make it a lie.
That Apple refuses to license their DRM makes my statement truth, and yours the rambling mental garbage of an pretty dim apologist. Apple doesn't have a business built on single-vendor DRM? Are you really that stupid? It's sitting there in plain sight.
Sounds like you're upset because you think the free market...
No, I don't really care about Apple's DRM or their business model. More power to them. It's your pathetic attempts at astroturfing that bother me.
What've heard is the most popular screenreaders hook into Internet Explorer, understand the page DOM, and don't have too much trouble with table-based layouts (which are all over the Internet). I think the whole lynx thing is largely a slashdot myth put forward by Unix caveman types that hate all technology invented after 1994.
CSS-P only has a significant filesize savings over tables if you were using FONT tags, which most people stopped using 8 years ago with "version 4" browsers. Given comparable layouts, you will have nearly as many DIV tags as TABLE TR TD tags -- if not more. It's a wash, there won't be any big difference.
My 86 Camry will beat your 2007 Camry in a drag race
I recently read an article noting that the 2007 Camry (with 250HP or whatever) will out drag race most sports cars from the 1980s, much less the sedans. Although, greater point taken about bloat.
Supposedly in Vista. I can't find any real technical info, but here's the marketing blurb:l uate/feat/secfeat.mspx#EHF
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/eva
I can't hear the difference.
It's pretty obvious to me, and I'm tin-eared.
Anyway, shipping lowbit rate music that has obvious generation-loss on re-encoding is 100% by design.
BS. When AMD was leading up to the Hammer CPUs, they were doing the exact same benchmarketing that Intel is doing now. The truth is that if AMD had anything to show, they would be showing it.
Oh look, another appleturfer. They just keep coming. Yeah, there's hoops you can jump through to get around it, but is the propeitary DRM situation ideal for the consumer? Only an apple apologist would come out and say so.
(Pragmatically I don't particularlly care that much about cheap DRM pop music -- I was just trying to elucidate the RIAA's take on it. But seeing you mac-idiots continually goatseing yourself for Apple is too much to bear.)
What stores have less annoying DRM?
It's not my job to substantiate FUD he pulled out of his ass. The truth is probably that they are all about equally annoying because they are all under the same RIAA licensing program.
DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation.
Oh, I guess that explains why Apple doesn't licence their DRM to third parties. No wait, it doesn't because you're just here to appleturf, and you actually have zero understanding and insight into Apple's business model.