The government should just invalidate their corporation then. Destroy their business altogether. Why muck around, if consumers remain to be hurt? I'm not seeing how doing anything to Microsoft helps consumers in any possible way. And there is the fallacy that Microsoft is a monopoly. Yeah, yeah the government found Microsoft guilty of having this elusive all-powerful monopoly status. And innocent people are sent to deathrow. And OJ is walking the same streets as you and I do. Justice is blind, but can be very dumb.
The abstraction of an "operating system" is merely a convenience to developers and users. Microsoft has every right to define what their "operating system" consists of--and no one can tell them different. To define what an "operating system" consists of for them and to force them to adhere to this government produced definition is no less than Microsoft being tried and found guilty of thoughtcrime.
See TUNES to expand your definition of what an "operating system" could be.
Microsoft domination? Patents? HA! What scares me is when the government is actually considering telling an organization what to think or produce. Will Linux/BSD/etc. operating systems be forced to adhere to what the government defines as an "operating system?" If not, then that seems a little bit of a double standard (and in this case the government has turned from pro-competition to plain anti-Microsoft). This isn't just about bundling a stupid interface to the standardized web. That issue is about as moot as bundling a steering wheel with a car. This is about the government defining what a car consists of to General Motors, and forcing them to adhere to that definition.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that too many people define an "operating system" as what Microsoft considers an "operating system." And the tragedy continues on Slashdot and the Linux/BSD community. Where people bicker about marketing nonsense words such as "innovation" and have a vision of an "operating system" as this esoteric *ix/desktop metaphor hotchpotch. If anyone thinks changing Microsoft's definition of an "operating system" will have any effect in bringing Linux/etc. to the "masses" then they are seriously wrong. If anyone actually thinks Linux/BSD are better for Microsoft's user base than Windows, they would be seriously mistaken.
This is the problem w/ KDE and GNOME, IMO. The people working on both are working towards a goal alright, but not one which will bring them anything significant. Both camps are working to bring something down (and I really hate to mention what that something is.. most people should understand what I mean if they have been around on/. and mailing lists long enough).
The idea of developing _for_ end-users is merely a bunch of hotair. The developers are still writing things for themselves--but indirectly. They want what they perceive comes with a desktop--power and control.
The reality is these same people who help GNOME/KDE truely _despise_ neophytes. I have seen countless times where developers on either side become frustrated with newbie questions and complaints. The developers can also be very mocking of the same people they target. Take Lycoris (aka Redmond Linux). There is a subtle (and sometimes not) condescending attitude present. "Linux is for everyone" is their motto. Are they saying that the pre-Lycoris Linux was not for everyone? Are they saying that end-user Joe is too stupid to use regular Linux, therefore he must use dumbed-down Linux?
There are no intended users of KDE and GNOME. There very much is an expected gain--power and control. Stereotypical Linux users (read: nerd) are very controlling. They must be able to control every aspect of their computer, their network, their house, etc. They enjoy this, but they crave more. Who is perceived to have a power on this thing called "desktop" which these nerds might enjoy having (and often times claim a god-given right to)?
This article isn't about usability at all. There are countless usability studies and thesis papers available, but the "Linux for the desktop" developers never seem to take notice. This is merely developer propaganda to tell others (and themselves) that they are doing this for the "end-users" and take focus off of their true intentions. Perhaps their true intentions are hidden even from themselves? Which I think is the case for many of them.
yes.. I remember now. "What the hell is this Red Hat thing doing in the back of my book?" First time I ever remember seeing Linux in a real-world out-in-public place. Red Hat also gave away CDs at various conferences (which I do believe weren't exactly all Linux-related conferences either). IIRC, they had quite a "street team" which put the Red Hat name out there.
Well.. I mean the future of Linux really and the people who have access to it. Development will still go on I'm sure, but at the rate it has been? If the advanced hardware becomes expensive (and closed-arch/proprietary) then it will be harder to get Linux/BSD/etc. ported to. I don't think there would be near the usage of Linux as there is today. I probably wouldn't be using Linux if Apple had beat off IBM back in the day. On the other hand, many open source apps will probably be ported (and already are, for Mac anyways).
As for which combo to have, I'm not sure why you choose Apple/MacOS X. With that combo you don't get a cheap architecture that can run an open source OS. At least with MS in control of the end-user market you get the cheap platform which can run open source OSes (at least until MS becomes interested in the hardware.. which I really don't see happening). You can have an almost entirely open system w/ x86. From complete hardware specs down to software specs--today. No dependency on one single vendor at all. Monitor, printer, CPU, sound card, video card, network card, case, motherboard, memory.. all have multiple companies which make the components. The only dependency is upon the standard which is implemented by the convergence of these companies' products (i.e. drive bays, form factor, etc. must match w/ case, motherboard, etc. in order for them all to work properly). This is part of the miracle I was talking about. Quite fascinating that thousands of companies can agree more-or-less on technical standards which are created by companies in cooperation and not competition. x86 is almost a freak of capitalism, if you ask me...
I'd still say the market was very small (and probably not growing). As for who VA Linux was selling to, it appears they were just targeting "Linux users." Not a very good choice of market since the Linux base is very fragmented into servers, programmers, hobbyists, etc. I doubt many would have purchased VA machines for server purposes (more likely Compaq, which was getting cozy with Linux at the time and seems to have been targeting servers at the time w/ Alphas). The remaining Linux users probably assembled their own PCs (or bought the cheaper? Windows machines and dual-booted). Could they hang on to whatever "Linux user" market was purchasing their PCs like Alienware? Perhaps if they had better marketing. I've heard their PCs weren't exactly cheap and I'm not so sure their service was that great either.
What you describe is fragmenting the complete PC software market. This _directly_ translates to hurting consumers. Instead of having all applications they need on one platform, they now have to purchase multiple platforms to obtain every application they need. And you know what? They now have to purchase _entire PCs_. Not just GatewayOS, because GatewayOS is now _bundled_ with GatewayPC.
Guess what will happen. A clear winner _will_ emerge and the "monopoly" power will simply shift to a PC vendor, a PC vendor OS, and Microsoft's fragmented Windows. Now people must comply with a vendor's definition of an OS. Just like Linux supporters must comply to Red Hat's definition of Linux simply so they have a substantial market there. And you see this happening with the adoption of RPM into even _Slackware_! And Debian, SuSE, etc. must also use RPMs to have a fighting chance at the marketplace.
Do not think that this "remedy" does more than stir up the consumer marketplace for a limited time. So much time will be lost in the scramble for a winner that advancement will creep to a stop for at least a little while.
Four words: Applicaton barrier to entry.
This is hillarious. You know what fragmenting Windows will do to software makers? CREATE AN EVEN HIGHER BARRIER TO ENTRY! Between the time of Windows' fragmentation and a PC vendor's definition of "Windows" captures the market there will be an emmense barrier placed on software makers. Instead of supporting just Windows they now must support GatewayOS, DellOS, CompaqOS, etc. This means multiple ports which are _costly_. And you know who is in the best position for the shift of "monopoly" power? Apple. They are already working in this exact way. They control the hardware and the software. Software makers will simply flock to Apple because now MacOS has the larger consumer market. Goodbye cheap generic hardware. Goodbye Linux. We now all use MacOS X. The barrier to OS competition is now a brickwall. Hardware will once again move towards proprietary and away from cheap generic x86 and the OS will once again be a part _of_ the computer, rather than an interchangable part (which is allowed by Microsoft and IBM's doing).
This demand for choice is going to simply create no choice. Be thankful you can install Linux/BSD on almost any PC out there today. Back in the day it was the _hobby_ market which created the extreme demand for IBM's mostly free architecture (which can be seen by the ability to install a mostly hobby OS such as Linux even 20 years after the hardware hobby market has evaporated). It was easy to clone. Today that demand is extremely small compared to end-user demand. End-users don't care about proprietary hardware or software. They just want the applications they need. They don't care about shelling out huge amounts of cash either, which is why they consistently purchase Windows with new PCs (and they do this _knowingly_.. they aren't misled at all). Hell, they pay huge amounts of cash _just_ for the pretty iMac colors. Do you really want these same people in charge of demanding where applications flock? The fact that we have a widespread clonable architecture is a near miracle in its own right. I believe people are taking this for granted.
Game consoles. You have software makers, proprietary APIs, zero compatibility of games from console to console (even within the same console maker), yet it THRIVES. We can't imagine any other way to buy game consoles.
Uhm. A game console is basically like an Apple computer. You can only use Apple software on an Apple computer. A PC on the other hand allows you to only use PC software (of course). Where it differs is at the OS level. If you fragment the depedency then _vendors_ will be hurt as well as software producers. Want to know why Red Hat is the dominate Linux OS? Because companies need a target. Many who support Linux do not support anything except Red Hat, for the exact same reason of fragmentation. Imagine if every software vendor/hardware vendor had to support something like Linux. Linux can be anything to anyone who wishes to change it. There is nothing stable about the system to build on. Game consoles are _extremely_ stable (more so than Windows PCs even). A new console only comes out when technical hurdles get in the way (and to compete with other console makers).
Would people be confused? No, of course not, just like Nintendo and PSX2 doesn't confuse them
If you go into Gateway and purchase, say a "Linux PC" (exact words) you would be extremely confused. You would not know what software came with it, or what dependencies it had. You would never see software claiming "For Linux" (exact words) because it would be confusing. Which Linux? Slack, Debian, Red Hat? Tiny Linux? There is no way to generically claim Linux (or fragmented Windows) support because there is an _infinite_ combination of dependencies. The software makers have to get much much more specific.
Any ruling that leaves MS in 100% control of the x86 OS market does NOTHING to stop MS from abusing their monolopy.
They don't control the x86 OS market. They dominate (not even control, really) the x86 _end-user_ market. Don't confuse the wide array of x86 uses with what the majority of x86 users need. They don't need Linux/BSD/BeOS/etc. They need Windows for whatever reasons they choose. The fact that x86 is so cheap is a direct result of end-users (the majority) relying on Microsoft to provide what they want and need. Just because you happen to be using x86 does not mean MS is hurting you in any way.
Apple seems to be proving that the consumer market can accept a new OS.
Do you really have that little faith in capitalism? I'll say this once: If there was an OS on the x86 platform that consumers WANTED, do you really think no vendors would pop up to accomodate those consumers? VA Linux attempted this, but demand was so low they turned into a software business (and I wager will eventually crumble). They perceived demand where there was none (i.e. Linux users who are not competent enough to purchase individual components and build a computer themselves, but at the same time competent enough to use Linux--a catch-22 basically). For a comparison of the lack of demand and vendors popping up to fill a niche market, take a look at Alienware. They seem to be going strong, yet the (very high-end) gaming market is a small subset of Microsoft's entire end-user market. Don't complain that vendors don't sell Linux/etc. PCs. There honestly is no other OS which does what the majority of vendor purchasers want, and the OSes _you_ want you probably would not want from a vendor-made PC anyways. The only demand from PC vendors is fake/false demand. Remember when Loki started selling games for Linux? So many people jumped up and down on Slashdot and elsewhere saying this is a good thing and they will go right out and purchase the games. In the end I'm sure many of those same folks did not purchase the games. It was a nice idea, but when it came time to "put their money where their mouth is" they didn't feel like playing games, didn't have enough time to play games, the games Loki sold were not new/good/etc., etc. In the end there was no true demand which could support Loki (only a minority of whiney Linux users who said they would but didn't).
AMD's CEO _is_ right. If Windows becomes fragmented it very well could set the (he says "computer," but I believe he means "PC") PC scene back a good 20 years (and impact other computer areas than the PC market, such as cheap RAM and drive space for databases, etc.). It will be a chain-reaction. Right now PC users more-or-less depend on a coherent concept called "Windows."
Please read the book The Mythical Man-Month. It explains why system integrity is an important (if not the _most_ important) thing about computer software systems.
Actually it already is working. It's basically the same thing as what Advogato.org does. So far Advogato hasn't had near the trash Slashdot or even Kuro5hin has. It may be hard to work into a pick-up type game, like quake/doom/wolf, though. Communication would be slightly tedious. My guess is you would need a central server and a password system. Users would have to log into this intermediate server and then _that_ server would then talk to the game server to initate a connection for the player. It's not impossible though.
Cross-platform is an oxymoron. Any language _is_ a platform to begin with. To use C/C++ code, you must first have a compiler, libraries, and header files. Lisp has claimed this before, but you need a Lisp interpreter/compiler on any machine you wish to run the code on. Java needs the VM. Perl needs, well, Perl. It all depends on how you define "platform." This little fact is skewed a great deal when people start claiming things such as "Java code runs on Macs and PCs," when, in fact, the code is actually running in a Java _machine_ or _platform_, which in turn runs on a native machine.
I would love to see the phrase "cross-platform" dropped from usage. As far as I'm concerned, it is only a marketing word used to make languages popular. It is about as useful as the word "innovative."
Linux will never become user-friendly because the people who create distros like this are _mocking_ user-friendliness. Do you think end-users won't be able to pick up on the mockingness of this? "Redmond Linux" or "Linux for the masses." They aren't providing anything _better_. All they are providing is discouragement for anyone wishing to use Linux. "You are too stupid to use actual Linux, so we give you this dumbed down Windows clone interface." "Good luck moron!" What a great way to win users. Er, did I say "user." I mean loser. Which is what the majority of Linux people think about Windows users anyhow.
Except that my goal is not to convince people that Copyright is wrong. I NEVER said that I thought Copyright (a monopoly) was wrong--so long as the period of monopoly-enforcement was short. I think it makes a lot of sense and is very much RIGHT. It should just be limited to a short period of time, that's all. And something that you can't pass on to your kids does NOT fit under our concept of ownership.
And I don't give a _damn_ about your fucking opinion. I did not ask for your opinion, you can keep your propaganda to _yourself_. For all intents and purposes copyright is the same as ownership. Such arrogance. To think that your opinion is the only valid one and you need to shove it down everyone's throat. Fuck you asshole.
It may be after the fact, but it's better than finding out that the flaw has existed for several months.
But those flaws _have_ been there for months and even _years_ before anyone found out. Who knows how many people have exploited it without making it public. At least in proprietary there is a better chance no one will discover exploits (and I am _not_ arguing proprietary is better in any way.. I'm arguing a matter of FUD from open-source camp).
I don't think anyone ever said more eyes make bugs shallow
This _is_ the argument many people use when claiming open-source is more secure than proprietary. It _is_ FUD and after-the-fact fixes _do not matter_. The time a vendor takes to release patches or announce a bug is irrelavant after the first exploit. The damage has been done, and anyone wanting into your box has already gotten there first.
If you insist on not believing me you should read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Sounds familiar, eh?
Or, less formally, ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.'' I dub this: ``Linus's Law''.
But in the context used by ESR, they are applying it to bugs which can be found by people _using_ the software. This has nothing to do with hidden bugs which can be used as system exploits. Then people take this concept and apply it to security. It doesn't _work_ in that context. Users aren't out there banging on their software trying to _exploit_ it. The only bugs found are ones which crop up during normal use. And there is the fallacy and FUD. Infact, ESR isn't talking about people looking at source code at all. He is making a point on the "release often, release early" idea.
That's not security up-front. That's after the fact. What you don't see is script kiddies have _still_ had access to that exploit before you get word on it. Then it is still up to you to get your computer patched up. Whatever damage could be done _has_ been done.
Open-source security fanatics claim "we can make software that is more secure than proprietary once you install it." Which they can't. More eyes _do not_ make bugs shallow. I would claim 95% of all people who download source code do _not_ review every single line of code for security flaws. Probably 4% are using the source code to find exploits and break into machines and 1% are actually using the source for the intended purposes.
No.. its "more eyes make all bugs shallow." The "Open Source security is better than proprietary" camp are specifically claiming that security is better up-front. They aren't talking about turn-around time after the fact.
Using turn-around time would be a fallacy in their argument that security is better. Security after the fact does not matter because in most cases the users of software will _never_ fix the bugs (thus, security is _no better_ after the fact--the damage has been done). Even the best system admins are at fault with this. I myself have never fixed the zlib bug, and frankly I don't give a damn. It's too much trouble to install patches and recompile apps. Unless its a daemon exploit, I don't worry with it.
Why you bring MS into _this_ issue is beyond me. They specifically state they have security issues and are working on them. They have a higher priority, believe it or not, on backwards compatibility and not breaking things. Open source hackers just whip up anything that works and gets it out there. Which is why there is tons of breakage when installing new libs, kernel, etc. Quick hacks != design.
The windows set up is like having the kernel based require mozilla or other nonsense.
AFAIK, the kernel is very tied to gcc (among other things) so your point is moot. IE is not just an application like you think. It has system dependencies which are hidden from the nice little GUI interface you see (and what you think is IE). Removing libc _is_ like removing the components that make up IE.
I can remove Konquorer, Netscape, Mozilla, and Nautulus, and still have a perfectly functional system.
Ahh, but can you remove GTK+ or QT and still run those? Didn't think so. MS is claiming IE is a system component, therefore it can't be removed. You _can_ remove the nice little GUI which lets you browse web pages, but not the stuff underneath. Windows depends on it too much.
Have fun with modular Linux! (and no, "reboot" won't work either =])
No software is truely that modular. There are technical issues that are there w/ IE. Remove/bin/bash for a good time! Do the same w/ perl. There are all kinds of dependencies that aren't visible on the "outside."
this case is becoming more about giving up market share to existing competitors
This has been the case the entire anti-trust investigation. From the initial 1990-91 investigations (IIRC, brought on by a competitor) to today's monopoly ruling. It's jealous competitors trying to cry monopoly to better themselves. It's pathetic and _truely_ anti-competitive. No investigations were started as a result of "consumer complaints." It has always been "business complaints."
What you are witnessing is a different "mode" of competition. Big businesses are using the tactic of crying monopoly--and actually having it work in their favor. Thus, no MS (or probably any.. if you look at past monopolies and who was doing the charging and what assumptions were held) monopoly exists. These businesses are the weaker competition--they don't deserve to have MS' position.
IMO, monopoly law should be seriously reconsidered. Besides government stepping in and causing harm to MS, it also labels MS as a crook or criminal--neither of which MS is. That territory should be reserved for actual criminals, such as Enron. MS' reputation is hurt considerably by all of this, and only because they play hardball and not illegal practices in any (known) way shape or form.
Supermarkets make money in volume, not price. Your comparison is seriously flawed because Coke and Pepsi _do_ have monopolies. Ever been to a movie theater? I went a few weeks ago and had to pay $3 for a Coke. There were no other options _but_ Coke. Been to Disney? It's either a Coke product or water. The prices are extremely inflated. You end up paying sometimes more than double the price of Coke right outside the park.
The reason supermarkets do not do this is because they _must_ keep low prices. Supermarkets compete _soley_ on who has the lowest prices and the variety of goods carried. If a food supplier, such as Coke, wished to make a deal with supermarkets then they would have to provide an incentive for the supermarket to agree. Disney's incentive is the price gouging--they are making money from the much higher price. Same with movie theaters, sports arenas, etc. To just offer the product at the regular "low" price, Coke would be paying out the ass to get a supermarket chain to agree. Instead, Coke finds easier routes such as Disney. That said, Coke/Pepsi do have some sort of deal with grocery stores. They deliver the merchandise themselves and stock the shelves themselves. Most likely to obtain better advertising--they can setup displays in ideal locations and compete with the Coke distributors directly (locally).
having open competition in a free market is crucial to how capitalism works
Yes, and I do believe that is how capitalism is _still_ working. Even with operating systems. I could be using MacOS or Windows, but I choose Linux.
How much better has IE become since Netscape died off?
Reverse the question. How much better has Netscape become after they "died" off? Mozilla is not even up to par with IE yet. Netscape is _still_ in business. They are now part of AOL if you have been living under a rock. I'm not disputing that competition can provide better products. I am saying that MS has no competition at all. Linux, MacOS, BeOS never competed with MS directly. No one has attempted to compete with MS, at the same quality level as MS can achieve. Why _shouldn't_ they be where they are in their market? Obviously they aren't ready for the _server_ market. But home/office market they are top-notch.
Look at the pattern of competition. Coke vs. Pepsi. Remember "Wintel?" Whatever happened to Intel's monopoly? *Poof* AMD came along. IIRC, Intel tried to stomp out AMD--and they failed. Why did they fail? Because AMD became a good competitor to Intel. This turned the tables completely. The PC _vendors_ then had the upperhand and could make negotiations work in _their_ favor. Before Intel had the upperhand. MS currently has the upperhand. Get someone with business brains in there and MS will be kissing PC vendors' asses. But that's the thing. MS _is_ the best. Nothing MS can do will ever stop competition from arising. They can only stop competition which is there in the first place. Follow me?
Their "monopoly" is based on air (it doesn't really exist). At any moment it _can_ be knocked down (and it _will_, just wait and see.. and it won't have a thing to do with government interaction. You can quote me on that). You can make a claim that no competition arises because people are afraid that MS will kill them off. This is merely a scapegoat for not trying. An excuse for failure. So far no one has _ever_ tried. Apple is in a different market and so was BeOS (BeOS was really Apple's market but for the PC architecture--not a smart move by Be). The only competition to Windows was OS/2. The thing is, Microsoft helped create OS/2. IBM at first had the upperhand--they were first there. Their marketing screwed up and they ultimately failed (nothing to do with Microsoft at all). IBM was bigger, faster, but couldn't give away a lollipop to a kid.
Even better, try to make them understand why they should care.
I'm curious. Why should they care? You make it sound like a duty to care. Perhaps this _is_ the value MS provides. Consumers don't _have_ to care. User-friendliness isn't just a GUI slapped over an OS.
The only ones who care are techno-brats, who feel anything computer-related they should have control over. What arrogance.
Most other people hate MS because they constantly talk about innovating, yet they continue to use technology that has been around for 20 years.
As opposed to the open source community which brags about security superiority, and has 10 Red Hat erratas a sendmail bug and a bind exploit the next week? It's called marketing. People don't hate Pilsbury for having "Brand New" baking products, when they are really rehashed versions of older products.
I'm sorry you're so hate-filled. Perhaps you can find help some day. In the meantime, remember MS just makes _software_. Get a grip.
Exactly. Frankly, anyone who can't install Linux shouldn't be using it. More likely than not they will experience trouble setting it up (install != setup). Anyone who wants Linux already has some idea what it is and is fairly technical. They can install it themselves if need be. Choice of OS is not some "God-given" right (or government given for that matter).
Microsoft is trying to force anyone who wants power locks to refuse power windows, or else install them by hand.
BOO HOO! Cry me a river. Buy a Palm, get a PalmOS. Buy a Mac, get MacOS.
I'm using what works for me: Linux. Why can't you accept the fact that no one is forcing anyone to use Windows? PC vendors aren't forcing people to buy their stupid machines. There are so many vendors that you _can_ find ones which bundle whatever you want. It shouldn't be that hard to find a PC vendor that doesn't have a deal with MS, but can still sell you Windows if you need it (at retail price, but that's what you pay if you need this level of service).
I downloaded Linux and all I have is this stupid Linux kernel! Where is MY choice?! Linus has a monopoly on Linux! WAAAA! *Whine* *Gripe* *Bitch* *Moan* Purchase a Windows PC and that is what you get, a _Windows_ PC.
You make it sound like MS is the only one who has deals with computer vendors. This isn't so. IBM bundles Lotus SmartSuite (not sure if they do today, they did at least in 1998). I've had computers bundled with Quicken, Comptons Encylopedia, etc.
Bundling/tie-ins are a practice in just about any market. Consumers should evaluate the entire computer and software functionality and purchase based on price vs. features. Are you implying that "Joe Sixpack" doesn't understand that the computer he is purchasing has MS Office? Or perhaps that he could purchase a cheaper computer, but it wouldn't have MS Office? This is no different from buying a car with power locks. The cheaper car may not have power locks, and he would know it. The expensive car has power locks, and he knows that too. There is nothing hidden from the consumer. When the consumer evaluates the entire computer, the software is a _part_ of the computer.
If it costs the same to purchase a computer with Windows, or without, then the consumer _still_ has the option of not purchasing the computer. Realistically, what would "Joe Sixpack" want with a PC that doesn't have Windows? If he doesn't want Windows he _does_ have that choice.
Why do people not understand that it is up to the _consumer_ to research products _before_ they buy them? Every business is out there trying to protect their own interests. There is nothing new that MS is doing.
Can we end this trite moral superiority badgering? It gets nowhere. Talk to your representatives if you have beef with MS. Frankly, I'm sick of reading it.
Slashdot Mirror
The government should just invalidate their corporation then. Destroy their business altogether. Why muck around, if consumers remain to be hurt? I'm not seeing how doing anything to Microsoft helps consumers in any possible way. And there is the fallacy that Microsoft is a monopoly. Yeah, yeah the government found Microsoft guilty of having this elusive all-powerful monopoly status. And innocent people are sent to deathrow. And OJ is walking the same streets as you and I do. Justice is blind, but can be very dumb.
The abstraction of an "operating system" is merely a convenience to developers and users. Microsoft has every right to define what their "operating system" consists of--and no one can tell them different. To define what an "operating system" consists of for them and to force them to adhere to this government produced definition is no less than Microsoft being tried and found guilty of thoughtcrime.
See TUNES to expand your definition of what an "operating system" could be.
Microsoft domination? Patents? HA! What scares me is when the government is actually considering telling an organization what to think or produce. Will Linux/BSD/etc. operating systems be forced to adhere to what the government defines as an "operating system?" If not, then that seems a little bit of a double standard (and in this case the government has turned from pro-competition to plain anti-Microsoft). This isn't just about bundling a stupid interface to the standardized web. That issue is about as moot as bundling a steering wheel with a car. This is about the government defining what a car consists of to General Motors, and forcing them to adhere to that definition.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that too many people define an "operating system" as what Microsoft considers an "operating system." And the tragedy continues on Slashdot and the Linux/BSD community. Where people bicker about marketing nonsense words such as "innovation" and have a vision of an "operating system" as this esoteric *ix/desktop metaphor hotchpotch. If anyone thinks changing Microsoft's definition of an "operating system" will have any effect in bringing Linux/etc. to the "masses" then they are seriously wrong. If anyone actually thinks Linux/BSD are better for Microsoft's user base than Windows, they would be seriously mistaken.
This is the problem w/ KDE and GNOME, IMO. The people working on both are working towards a goal alright, but not one which will bring them anything significant. Both camps are working to bring something down (and I really hate to mention what that something is.. most people should understand what I mean if they have been around on /. and mailing lists long enough).
The idea of developing _for_ end-users is merely a bunch of hotair. The developers are still writing things for themselves--but indirectly. They want what they perceive comes with a desktop--power and control.
The reality is these same people who help GNOME/KDE truely _despise_ neophytes. I have seen countless times where developers on either side become frustrated with newbie questions and complaints. The developers can also be very mocking of the same people they target. Take Lycoris (aka Redmond Linux). There is a subtle (and sometimes not) condescending attitude present. "Linux is for everyone" is their motto. Are they saying that the pre-Lycoris Linux was not for everyone? Are they saying that end-user Joe is too stupid to use regular Linux, therefore he must use dumbed-down Linux?
There are no intended users of KDE and GNOME. There very much is an expected gain--power and control. Stereotypical Linux users (read: nerd) are very controlling. They must be able to control every aspect of their computer, their network, their house, etc. They enjoy this, but they crave more. Who is perceived to have a power on this thing called "desktop" which these nerds might enjoy having (and often times claim a god-given right to)?
This article isn't about usability at all. There are countless usability studies and thesis papers available, but the "Linux for the desktop" developers never seem to take notice. This is merely developer propaganda to tell others (and themselves) that they are doing this for the "end-users" and take focus off of their true intentions. Perhaps their true intentions are hidden even from themselves? Which I think is the case for many of them.
yes.. I remember now. "What the hell is this Red Hat thing doing in the back of my book?" First time I ever remember seeing Linux in a real-world out-in-public place. Red Hat also gave away CDs at various conferences (which I do believe weren't exactly all Linux-related conferences either). IIRC, they had quite a "street team" which put the Red Hat name out there.
Well.. I mean the future of Linux really and the people who have access to it. Development will still go on I'm sure, but at the rate it has been? If the advanced hardware becomes expensive (and closed-arch/proprietary) then it will be harder to get Linux/BSD/etc. ported to. I don't think there would be near the usage of Linux as there is today. I probably wouldn't be using Linux if Apple had beat off IBM back in the day. On the other hand, many open source apps will probably be ported (and already are, for Mac anyways).
As for which combo to have, I'm not sure why you choose Apple/MacOS X. With that combo you don't get a cheap architecture that can run an open source OS. At least with MS in control of the end-user market you get the cheap platform which can run open source OSes (at least until MS becomes interested in the hardware.. which I really don't see happening). You can have an almost entirely open system w/ x86. From complete hardware specs down to software specs--today. No dependency on one single vendor at all. Monitor, printer, CPU, sound card, video card, network card, case, motherboard, memory.. all have multiple companies which make the components. The only dependency is upon the standard which is implemented by the convergence of these companies' products (i.e. drive bays, form factor, etc. must match w/ case, motherboard, etc. in order for them all to work properly). This is part of the miracle I was talking about. Quite fascinating that thousands of companies can agree more-or-less on technical standards which are created by companies in cooperation and not competition. x86 is almost a freak of capitalism, if you ask me...
I'd still say the market was very small (and probably not growing). As for who VA Linux was selling to, it appears they were just targeting "Linux users." Not a very good choice of market since the Linux base is very fragmented into servers, programmers, hobbyists, etc. I doubt many would have purchased VA machines for server purposes (more likely Compaq, which was getting cozy with Linux at the time and seems to have been targeting servers at the time w/ Alphas). The remaining Linux users probably assembled their own PCs (or bought the cheaper? Windows machines and dual-booted). Could they hang on to whatever "Linux user" market was purchasing their PCs like Alienware? Perhaps if they had better marketing. I've heard their PCs weren't exactly cheap and I'm not so sure their service was that great either.
Guess what will happen. A clear winner _will_ emerge and the "monopoly" power will simply shift to a PC vendor, a PC vendor OS, and Microsoft's fragmented Windows. Now people must comply with a vendor's definition of an OS. Just like Linux supporters must comply to Red Hat's definition of Linux simply so they have a substantial market there. And you see this happening with the adoption of RPM into even _Slackware_! And Debian, SuSE, etc. must also use RPMs to have a fighting chance at the marketplace.
Do not think that this "remedy" does more than stir up the consumer marketplace for a limited time. So much time will be lost in the scramble for a winner that advancement will creep to a stop for at least a little while. This is hillarious. You know what fragmenting Windows will do to software makers? CREATE AN EVEN HIGHER BARRIER TO ENTRY! Between the time of Windows' fragmentation and a PC vendor's definition of "Windows" captures the market there will be an emmense barrier placed on software makers. Instead of supporting just Windows they now must support GatewayOS, DellOS, CompaqOS, etc. This means multiple ports which are _costly_. And you know who is in the best position for the shift of "monopoly" power? Apple. They are already working in this exact way. They control the hardware and the software. Software makers will simply flock to Apple because now MacOS has the larger consumer market. Goodbye cheap generic hardware. Goodbye Linux. We now all use MacOS X. The barrier to OS competition is now a brickwall. Hardware will once again move towards proprietary and away from cheap generic x86 and the OS will once again be a part _of_ the computer, rather than an interchangable part (which is allowed by Microsoft and IBM's doing).
This demand for choice is going to simply create no choice. Be thankful you can install Linux/BSD on almost any PC out there today. Back in the day it was the _hobby_ market which created the extreme demand for IBM's mostly free architecture (which can be seen by the ability to install a mostly hobby OS such as Linux even 20 years after the hardware hobby market has evaporated). It was easy to clone. Today that demand is extremely small compared to end-user demand. End-users don't care about proprietary hardware or software. They just want the applications they need. They don't care about shelling out huge amounts of cash either, which is why they consistently purchase Windows with new PCs (and they do this _knowingly_.. they aren't misled at all). Hell, they pay huge amounts of cash _just_ for the pretty iMac colors. Do you really want these same people in charge of demanding where applications flock? The fact that we have a widespread clonable architecture is a near miracle in its own right. I believe people are taking this for granted.
AMD's CEO _is_ right. If Windows becomes fragmented it very well could set the (he says "computer," but I believe he means "PC") PC scene back a good 20 years (and impact other computer areas than the PC market, such as cheap RAM and drive space for databases, etc.). It will be a chain-reaction. Right now PC users more-or-less depend on a coherent concept called "Windows."
Please read the book The Mythical Man-Month. It explains why system integrity is an important (if not the _most_ important) thing about computer software systems.
Actually it already is working. It's basically the same thing as what Advogato.org does. So far Advogato hasn't had near the trash Slashdot or even Kuro5hin has. It may be hard to work into a pick-up type game, like quake/doom/wolf, though. Communication would be slightly tedious. My guess is you would need a central server and a password system. Users would have to log into this intermediate server and then _that_ server would then talk to the game server to initate a connection for the player. It's not impossible though.
Thank you for proving my point that they don't care about user-friendliness.
Cross-platform is an oxymoron. Any language _is_ a platform to begin with. To use C/C++ code, you must first have a compiler, libraries, and header files. Lisp has claimed this before, but you need a Lisp interpreter/compiler on any machine you wish to run the code on. Java needs the VM. Perl needs, well, Perl. It all depends on how you define "platform." This little fact is skewed a great deal when people start claiming things such as "Java code runs on Macs and PCs," when, in fact, the code is actually running in a Java _machine_ or _platform_, which in turn runs on a native machine.
I would love to see the phrase "cross-platform" dropped from usage. As far as I'm concerned, it is only a marketing word used to make languages popular. It is about as useful as the word "innovative."
Linux will never become user-friendly because the people who create distros like this are _mocking_ user-friendliness. Do you think end-users won't be able to pick up on the mockingness of this? "Redmond Linux" or "Linux for the masses." They aren't providing anything _better_. All they are providing is discouragement for anyone wishing to use Linux. "You are too stupid to use actual Linux, so we give you this dumbed down Windows clone interface." "Good luck moron!" What a great way to win users. Er, did I say "user." I mean loser. Which is what the majority of Linux people think about Windows users anyhow.
If you insist on not believing me you should read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Sounds familiar, eh?
And I quote... But in the context used by ESR, they are applying it to bugs which can be found by people _using_ the software. This has nothing to do with hidden bugs which can be used as system exploits. Then people take this concept and apply it to security. It doesn't _work_ in that context. Users aren't out there banging on their software trying to _exploit_ it. The only bugs found are ones which crop up during normal use. And there is the fallacy and FUD. Infact, ESR isn't talking about people looking at source code at all. He is making a point on the "release often, release early" idea.
That's not security up-front. That's after the fact. What you don't see is script kiddies have _still_ had access to that exploit before you get word on it. Then it is still up to you to get your computer patched up. Whatever damage could be done _has_ been done.
Open-source security fanatics claim "we can make software that is more secure than proprietary once you install it." Which they can't. More eyes _do not_ make bugs shallow. I would claim 95% of all people who download source code do _not_ review every single line of code for security flaws. Probably 4% are using the source code to find exploits and break into machines and 1% are actually using the source for the intended purposes.
No.. its "more eyes make all bugs shallow." The "Open Source security is better than proprietary" camp are specifically claiming that security is better up-front. They aren't talking about turn-around time after the fact.
Using turn-around time would be a fallacy in their argument that security is better. Security after the fact does not matter because in most cases the users of software will _never_ fix the bugs (thus, security is _no better_ after the fact--the damage has been done). Even the best system admins are at fault with this. I myself have never fixed the zlib bug, and frankly I don't give a damn. It's too much trouble to install patches and recompile apps. Unless its a daemon exploit, I don't worry with it.
Why you bring MS into _this_ issue is beyond me. They specifically state they have security issues and are working on them. They have a higher priority, believe it or not, on backwards compatibility and not breaking things. Open source hackers just whip up anything that works and gets it out there. Which is why there is tons of breakage when installing new libs, kernel, etc. Quick hacks != design.
root:# rm /lib/libc*
/bin/bash for a good time! Do the same w/ perl. There are all kinds of dependencies that aren't visible on the "outside."
root:# reboot
Have fun with modular Linux! (and no, "reboot" won't work either =])
No software is truely that modular. There are technical issues that are there w/ IE. Remove
What you are witnessing is a different "mode" of competition. Big businesses are using the tactic of crying monopoly--and actually having it work in their favor. Thus, no MS (or probably any.. if you look at past monopolies and who was doing the charging and what assumptions were held) monopoly exists. These businesses are the weaker competition--they don't deserve to have MS' position.
IMO, monopoly law should be seriously reconsidered. Besides government stepping in and causing harm to MS, it also labels MS as a crook or criminal--neither of which MS is. That territory should be reserved for actual criminals, such as Enron. MS' reputation is hurt considerably by all of this, and only because they play hardball and not illegal practices in any (known) way shape or form.
The reason supermarkets do not do this is because they _must_ keep low prices. Supermarkets compete _soley_ on who has the lowest prices and the variety of goods carried. If a food supplier, such as Coke, wished to make a deal with supermarkets then they would have to provide an incentive for the supermarket to agree. Disney's incentive is the price gouging--they are making money from the much higher price. Same with movie theaters, sports arenas, etc. To just offer the product at the regular "low" price, Coke would be paying out the ass to get a supermarket chain to agree. Instead, Coke finds easier routes such as Disney. That said, Coke/Pepsi do have some sort of deal with grocery stores. They deliver the merchandise themselves and stock the shelves themselves. Most likely to obtain better advertising--they can setup displays in ideal locations and compete with the Coke distributors directly (locally). Yes, and I do believe that is how capitalism is _still_ working. Even with operating systems. I could be using MacOS or Windows, but I choose Linux. Reverse the question. How much better has Netscape become after they "died" off? Mozilla is not even up to par with IE yet. Netscape is _still_ in business. They are now part of AOL if you have been living under a rock. I'm not disputing that competition can provide better products. I am saying that MS has no competition at all. Linux, MacOS, BeOS never competed with MS directly. No one has attempted to compete with MS, at the same quality level as MS can achieve. Why _shouldn't_ they be where they are in their market? Obviously they aren't ready for the _server_ market. But home/office market they are top-notch.
Look at the pattern of competition. Coke vs. Pepsi. Remember "Wintel?" Whatever happened to Intel's monopoly? *Poof* AMD came along. IIRC, Intel tried to stomp out AMD--and they failed. Why did they fail? Because AMD became a good competitor to Intel. This turned the tables completely. The PC _vendors_ then had the upperhand and could make negotiations work in _their_ favor. Before Intel had the upperhand. MS currently has the upperhand. Get someone with business brains in there and MS will be kissing PC vendors' asses. But that's the thing. MS _is_ the best. Nothing MS can do will ever stop competition from arising. They can only stop competition which is there in the first place. Follow me?
Their "monopoly" is based on air (it doesn't really exist). At any moment it _can_ be knocked down (and it _will_, just wait and see.. and it won't have a thing to do with government interaction. You can quote me on that). You can make a claim that no competition arises because people are afraid that MS will kill them off. This is merely a scapegoat for not trying. An excuse for failure. So far no one has _ever_ tried. Apple is in a different market and so was BeOS (BeOS was really Apple's market but for the PC architecture--not a smart move by Be). The only competition to Windows was OS/2. The thing is, Microsoft helped create OS/2. IBM at first had the upperhand--they were first there. Their marketing screwed up and they ultimately failed (nothing to do with Microsoft at all). IBM was bigger, faster, but couldn't give away a lollipop to a kid.
The only ones who care are techno-brats, who feel anything computer-related they should have control over. What arrogance.
I'm sorry you're so hate-filled. Perhaps you can find help some day. In the meantime, remember MS just makes _software_. Get a grip.
I'm using what works for me: Linux. Why can't you accept the fact that no one is forcing anyone to use Windows? PC vendors aren't forcing people to buy their stupid machines. There are so many vendors that you _can_ find ones which bundle whatever you want. It shouldn't be that hard to find a PC vendor that doesn't have a deal with MS, but can still sell you Windows if you need it (at retail price, but that's what you pay if you need this level of service).
I downloaded Linux and all I have is this stupid Linux kernel! Where is MY choice?! Linus has a monopoly on Linux! WAAAA! *Whine* *Gripe* *Bitch* *Moan* Purchase a Windows PC and that is what you get, a _Windows_ PC.
You make it sound like MS is the only one who has deals with computer vendors. This isn't so. IBM bundles Lotus SmartSuite (not sure if they do today, they did at least in 1998). I've had computers bundled with Quicken, Comptons Encylopedia, etc.
Bundling/tie-ins are a practice in just about any market. Consumers should evaluate the entire computer and software functionality and purchase based on price vs. features. Are you implying that "Joe Sixpack" doesn't understand that the computer he is purchasing has MS Office? Or perhaps that he could purchase a cheaper computer, but it wouldn't have MS Office? This is no different from buying a car with power locks. The cheaper car may not have power locks, and he would know it. The expensive car has power locks, and he knows that too. There is nothing hidden from the consumer. When the consumer evaluates the entire computer, the software is a _part_ of the computer.
If it costs the same to purchase a computer with Windows, or without, then the consumer _still_ has the option of not purchasing the computer. Realistically, what would "Joe Sixpack" want with a PC that doesn't have Windows? If he doesn't want Windows he _does_ have that choice.
Why do people not understand that it is up to the _consumer_ to research products _before_ they buy them? Every business is out there trying to protect their own interests. There is nothing new that MS is doing.
Can we end this trite moral superiority badgering? It gets nowhere. Talk to your representatives if you have beef with MS. Frankly, I'm sick of reading it.
Linux is not threatened. It will live on. Just like Linux doesn't threaten FreeDOS.
_Red Hat_ may be threatened. But then, who cares? "Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."