What's great is that Adobe couldn't help themselves and threw in some Marketing/Product comparison at the same time. The Adobe example moves faster then the Flash example (although the Flash one appears to be doing more than the Adobe)
Yep, AMD is using the M$ monopoly (which doesn't hurt them currently) to fight off the Intel monopoly (which can hurt them). Just image if Intel was able to convince Gateway, Dell, HP/Compaq to ship an Intel only version of Windows. That would really cut into AMD's market.
AMD should realize that by promoting one monopoly they are promoting all monopolies (including Intel). AMD should really be for forcing any/all monopolies to compete fairly. Their existence depends on that. If they help the M$ monopoly to stand and grow, they are also helping the Intel monopoly
IMHO The people who argue that they need to close their software are the people who fanatize about becoming super rich from the program, or putting a bunch of development up front and then living off the results. But in reality, even if you close your software and charge for it, most of the time you will at most be able to make a living for yourself and maybe a couple others (if you're lucky) And I suspect that most of that living will come from consulting and specializations to the product for specific customers....
I believe that during the up times last year that is what happened. There were frequent messages posted about so and so who developed such and such being hired by xyz corp to further develop so and so's project.
So it doesn't bother you the M$ (the real Borg) embraced and extented kerboros so that their implementation is incompatable with the rest of the world?
Which is why some much software is released under GPL. People want to give their stuff away, but they don't want some company to wrap it up as start selling it as their own. GPL ensures that the original author still gets credit for their part, and that the repository of useful free software continues to grow.
Seems like they want to eat their cake and take you money too. The classic company that wants to say they are releasing stuff under GPL, but also wants to make the money selling it as a product. It may even meet the letter of the GPL agreement, but certainly doesn't meet the spirit. I worked for a company that claimed they were open source, but what they really meant was that they wrote their own proprietary programs on top of open source software.
I don't think that I want a file system that is being sold as giving improved searching. The better recovery etc are also mentioned. It would be nice for M$ to be open about how the FS will work in the reliability areas.
Some moron tated this troll as interesting?!? Why don't I ever get moderation points!
#2 You forgot to mention competitors... Oh wait! they would never release that to competitors, now would they?
The whole NS argument is a huge troll. If fails to mention IE "bundling" IE with ever version of the monopoly OS it sells. If fails to mention that NS was kicking IEs ass until they had their air (money) sucked out of them by this action. You need money to improve your application and M$ knows it. I still prefer NS (version 6 now (which is really mozilla)) than IE. Only use IE for those stupid sites that are stupid enough to use M$ extensions so NS doesn't work.
M$ has actually done a pretty good job of manipulating the whole Java thing. They new initially that IE would ide unless they included Java. But, the couldn't help themslves, and had to add proprietary M$ extensions.
Then they jumped on the bandwagon of people trying to get Sun to release a standard for Java (and release control if it). But they weren't doing this because they felt that it would be good for consumers/customers. They wanted it standardized so that they could manipulate the statndard. Since Sun knew this, (and they don't have a monopoly) Sun had to do something to keep some control over Java so that M$ couldn't destroy it thru manipulation of the standard.
(M$ C# doesn't have they problem, so M$ "standardized it". When will the first M$ only exstension appear? Since M$ holds a monopoly and can create a new defacto standard if anyone else comes close to competing they aren't worried. I'd love to see someone like Sun propose a change to the "standard" just to see M$ either use it's weight to block it, ignore the new standard, or what ever.
Anyway, now M$ is trying to play all innocent and portray Sun as evil. But, in reality, M$ was successful in killing Java in the browser and are now trying to replace it with C#. Just trying to copy^h^h^h^hinnovate great technology.
Not only has the M$ monopoly been established, but also that the monopoly was used to hurt their competitors. The ecompetitors are now looking to receive back some of the money that they lost because of M$.
Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application. I beleive that you will also find Office code buried in the OS. Does that mean that Word is part of Windows? I believe that (currently) M$ still says it isn't.
No need to worry about looking like a monopoly. The Jr. administration via Ashcroft have essentially killed the monopoly case and show a green light towards M$ activities.
Yep, to ensure that the HD(s) are "correct". Most unixes these days either quick check or check every n times. BUT, having a fragmented disk does not cause programs and the system to fail.
You should never have the problem of shared clusters on a correctly operating system.
My boss had to defrag his upgraded (WinNT -> )Win2k box before it would be at all stable. He was ready to get a new box (still is) because this one wouldn't work.
Some explain to me why an OS can fail merely because it's hard disk is fragmented!!!!!
Strawman argument.... M$ wants to state cases dropped because the Federal settlement is such a sweet deal for them and the states are threatening the settlement.
Take your middleware argument the other way. Shouldn't Word and Excel (office) be part of the OS as everybody (corporate) seems to automatically buy them with the computer? Even if IE could be considered "middleware" (you need to look at computer history if you believe that it should be) it is still in violation as the only reason it was included was to kill Netscape.
Is there an official kernel bug list (using bugzilla:) )? If there isn't, why not? Either way, I would think that an official bug must exist before a patch can be submitted. This way, the patch could be attached to the bug. This then gives the maintainers a clear list of all the bugs and how they are fixed. The bugs could be prioritized and voted on so that the maintainer can work from the highest priority down when determining how to spend his/her time.
I don't think this is about Piracy. I believe it is about competition for the on-line revenue stream. I'm betting that Blizzard etc sees Battle.net as a major money maker. If they can force the free competition to be shut down, then they control the Warcraft III monopoly and save their revenue stream.
Slashdot Mirror
the first two posts were funny, but you werent' funny at all
Yeah, but would I still be able to get the BSOD as an add on module?
What's great is that Adobe couldn't help themselves and threw in some Marketing/Product comparison at the same time. The Adobe example moves faster then the Flash example (although the Flash one appears to be doing more than the Adobe)
I agree. Break the Word and Excel monopoly and the rest of the monopoly falls.
$30! I wish. Computer books are a minimum of $30, with many starting to push $60-$70.
AMD should realize that by promoting one monopoly they are promoting all monopolies (including Intel). AMD should really be for forcing any/all monopolies to compete fairly. Their existence depends on that. If they help the M$ monopoly to stand and grow, they are also helping the Intel monopoly
IMHO The people who argue that they need to close their software are the people who fanatize about becoming super rich from the program, or putting a bunch of development up front and then living off the results. But in reality, even if you close your software and charge for it, most of the time you will at most be able to make a living for yourself and maybe a couple others (if you're lucky) And I suspect that most of that living will come from consulting and specializations to the product for specific customers....
I believe that during the up times last year that is what happened. There were frequent messages posted about so and so who developed such and such being hired by xyz corp to further develop so and so's project.
So it doesn't bother you the M$ (the real Borg) embraced and extented kerboros so that their implementation is incompatable with the rest of the world?
Which is why some much software is released under GPL. People want to give their stuff away, but they don't want some company to wrap it up as start selling it as their own. GPL ensures that the original author still gets credit for their part, and that the repository of useful free software continues to grow.
What the person was saying is that one person could pay for the GPLed code and then put it on SourceForge for the rest of the world to download.
Seems like they want to eat their cake and take you money too. The classic company that wants to say they are releasing stuff under GPL, but also wants to make the money selling it as a product. It may even meet the letter of the GPL agreement, but certainly doesn't meet the spirit. I worked for a company that claimed they were open source, but what they really meant was that they wrote their own proprietary programs on top of open source software.
I don't think that I want a file system that is being sold as giving improved searching. The better recovery etc are also mentioned. It would be nice for M$ to be open about how the FS will work in the reliability areas.
Some moron tated this troll as interesting?!? Why don't I ever get moderation points!
#2 You forgot to mention competitors... Oh wait! they would never release that to competitors, now would they?
The whole NS argument is a huge troll. If fails to mention IE "bundling" IE with ever version of the monopoly OS it sells. If fails to mention that NS was kicking IEs ass until they had their air (money) sucked out of them by this action. You need money to improve your application and M$ knows it. I still prefer NS (version 6 now (which is really mozilla)) than IE. Only use IE for those stupid sites that are stupid enough to use M$ extensions so NS doesn't work.
M$ has actually done a pretty good job of manipulating the whole Java thing. They new initially that IE would ide unless they included Java. But, the couldn't help themslves, and had to add proprietary M$ extensions.
Then they jumped on the bandwagon of people trying to get Sun to release a standard for Java (and release control if it). But they weren't doing this because they felt that it would be good for consumers/customers. They wanted it standardized so that they could manipulate the statndard. Since Sun knew this, (and they don't have a monopoly) Sun had to do something to keep some control over Java so that M$ couldn't destroy it thru manipulation of the standard.
(M$ C# doesn't have they problem, so M$ "standardized it". When will the first M$ only exstension appear? Since M$ holds a monopoly and can create a new defacto standard if anyone else comes close to competing they aren't worried. I'd love to see someone like Sun propose a change to the "standard" just to see M$ either use it's weight to block it, ignore the new standard, or what ever.
Anyway, now M$ is trying to play all innocent and portray Sun as evil. But, in reality, M$ was successful in killing Java in the browser and are now trying to replace it with C#. Just trying to copy^h^h^h^hinnovate great technology.
Not only has the M$ monopoly been established, but also that the monopoly was used to hurt their competitors. The ecompetitors are now looking to receive back some of the money that they lost because of M$.
Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application. I beleive that you will also find Office code buried in the OS. Does that mean that Word is part of Windows? I believe that (currently) M$ still says it isn't.
No need to worry about looking like a monopoly. The Jr. administration via Ashcroft have essentially killed the monopoly case and show a green light towards M$ activities.
Yep, to ensure that the HD(s) are "correct". Most unixes these days either quick check or check every n times. BUT, having a fragmented disk does not cause programs and the system to fail.
You should never have the problem of shared clusters on a correctly operating system.
My boss had to defrag his upgraded (WinNT -> )Win2k box before it would be at all stable. He was ready to get a new box (still is) because this one wouldn't work.
Some explain to me why an OS can fail merely because it's hard disk is fragmented!!!!!
Probably setup by ex M$ Win admins :)
Strawman argument.... M$ wants to state cases dropped because the Federal settlement is such a sweet deal for them and the states are threatening the settlement.
Take your middleware argument the other way. Shouldn't Word and Excel (office) be part of the OS as everybody (corporate) seems to automatically buy them with the computer?
Even if IE could be considered "middleware" (you need to look at computer history if you believe that it should be) it is still in violation as the only reason it was included was to kill Netscape.
It has a monopoly on servers for Warcraft III. Some people think that creating their own server is okay while other feel that it is stealing.
Is there an official kernel bug list (using bugzilla :) )? If there isn't, why not? Either way, I would think that an official bug must exist before a patch can be submitted. This way, the patch could be attached to the bug. This then gives the maintainers a clear list of all the bugs and how they are fixed. The bugs could be prioritized and voted on so that the maintainer can work from the highest priority down when determining how to spend his/her time.
If battle.net is free, this point is mute.....
I don't think this is about Piracy. I believe it is about competition for the on-line revenue stream. I'm betting that Blizzard etc sees Battle.net as a major money maker. If they can force the free competition to be shut down, then they control the Warcraft III monopoly and save their revenue stream.