>means that a significant percentage of the churchgoing population >(who, in turn, are a significant percentage of the population at large)
That percentage is *not* really significant, not in the large cities of western europe anyway.
apart from that, people can go to the church in the morning and surf the web in the afternoon. Just like people can surf in the morning and watch a football match in the afternoon.
> a sample that is likely skewed towards the geek crowd
I don't follow your logic. The geek "crowd" is too small to change the numbers, most of the geeks use firefox in work as well, and someone who works in front of the monitor all week, propably would not spent the day-off surfing.
>there wasn't much you could do on a Sunday commercially
Not every such device that is made is actually sold, and the consumer pays for the unsold units as well. Taxes are proportional to the price:VAT for instance, will be applied to these 25c. A few companies might think that continuing this business is not a good idea => less supply drives the price up. A number of companies will prefer to use their own format => less supply, development costs, price goes up. And as a consumer, how many of these devices have you bought? If you add all these up i'd say that you would be out a few dozen dollars by now. You just can't disrupt a healthy market like that without affecting the end user...
But anyway, i don't see how microsoft can enforce this patent without the fear of lawsuits: VFAT is only preffered because its the only format supported by all MS operating systems, 90+% of computers worldwide: MS is practically asking for a fee for devices that need to communicate with your windows box, which is propably illegal.
>If they opened up their software, wouldn't that just be begging for the software to be misused?
EU is not asking MS to open up their software ! They are basically asking for documentation on the communication protocols of windows clients, as keeping the protocols closed doesn't allow other companies to build servers that can work with windows clients.
>There are two applications in there that appear to be both Mozilla and OpenOffice. >Both of these applications, from what I know, do not use the Gnome widget sets >in preference for their own.
I don't see a mozilla window there, but the openoffice window uses the gnome widgets: They are exactly the same icons with gedit (the top window), only with no text underneath...
Gnome/GTK is backed up by many companies, including redhat and novell -- the two bigger players in the linux market. The development of gnome is adapting to their needs, it simply is not an open project anymore, but this is another discussion. The point is, that being the default DE in those distros, pretty much makes it the main DE of linux, it's the first thing most new users will see when they install linux. And Linus being who he is, and doing what he does on OSDL, should be allowed an opinion on this.
>If Linux is so much better than Windows, why hasn't Linux displaced Windows >on the desktop market, like Windows displaced Apple?
Windows never displaced apple on the desktop, IBM PC and the clones (running *DOS*) overtook apple 2. Even when the macintosh with Mac OS came out, people still preferred the command line DOS over a state of the art (at the time) graphical interface. Apple *never* caught up with PCs again.
It just means that there are many other important factors, it's not just a question of which system is the best... In this example Apple had killer features: Graphical, multitasking (sort of) interface, faster machines etc.. but they couldn't come back, mostly because of the snowball effect and the open architecture of IBM PC.
>Then, tell us how often a Palestinian blows him/herself up in Israel. >Once a month, or so. Much more frequently. And that's not even mentioning >the human bombings in Iraq.
Now, you do understand that there is a war going on down there? Although terrible and unforgivable, it's not so much different than bombing a city, as germans, soviets and allies did in WW2.
Killing a doctor on the other hand is just cold-blooded murder, a despicable act, especially if you think about all those people a doctor could save if he stayed alive.
>IE has been part of Windows since Win95 whether we like it or not.
Win 98 actually.
>This situation is a US company being fined on a foreign law. How is that possible? >Do they have jurisdiction to do such things?
Yes, if the company sells products in Korea it has to respect korean laws. And i imagine that getting permission to sell your products does not imply that your business practises are legal.
>they should just ban it, and inform Microsoft of why they've been banned
They propably cannot do that. For once, USA would be rightfully pissed off and might just decide to ban korean cars from the US market. Besides i imagine that USA and S.Korea have signed many treaties dealing with trade over the years.
>Again, you seem to be glossing over the "exclusive control" part of the definition.
Microsoft has the power to exclude competition. Believe it or don't if you like, but it was (repeatedly) proven in court.
>Microsoft can not and never has had any exclusive control over the production of software.
Correct. It does have exclusive control, over the software *MARKET*. Note that this is not illegal. What's illegal is *using* this power.
>one cannot control prices over anything other than their own software
Indeed !!! And this is the power that a monopoly has: control over the price of its *own* products. Normally the price is controlled by the market itself. And make no mistake, Microsoft has *huge* profit margins in windows and office. Much bigger than any competing software. The combination alone of high market share and profit margins spell "monopoly".
>No one has a "right" to put their software into Microsoft's products anymore than Ford >has a right to put their engines into a Toyota.
Indeed, and no one asked for it. I don't understand how you got that.
>despite the fact that Apple has a majority marketshare of the music downloading business.
irrelevant. A majority market share, or even a monopoly is not the problem here. The korean court ordered microsoft to add links to competitors not because it was the law, or the right thing to do but as a *punishment* to illegal behavior.
>The whole "microsoft is a monopoly" argument is so absurd because >we aren't even talking about a scarcity of resources
There has never been a "scarsity of resources" in making telephone lines either, but there have been monopolies in the communication market. This is the case in many countries today, actually..
>It seems that the politicians and judges that went after Microsoft >and labelled them a "monopoly" were more influenced by politics >and lobbyists that the actual definition of a monopoly
If you scroll down the page you referenced, you will find a more relevant definition of monopoly, and you can reach your own conclusions.
Main Entry: monopoly Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p&-lE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -lies 1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill --see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section 2 : one that has a monopoly
>As far as I know I can install lots of media players on my box.
Yes, but can you choose *not* to install WMP?
>Linux is bad because, you know, it gives stuff away for free?
Linux does not "give stuff away for free": The software is free. Some distros include Real Player (among many others media players). They would propably include WMP as well if it microsoft allowed it, and there was a linux version. If microsoft included all those players as well, nobody would complain about anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft is on trial because they *are* a monopoly and they *only* bundle their own player, which you are forced to install.
>Users want the media player and they want it bundled.
I'm pretty sure that they would like photoshop bundled as well, what's your point? If they cost the same, naturally anyone will choose the most for his money.
The problem is not the software, the problem is monopoly: Since microsoft has 95% of the desktop market, bundling media player with windows is, apparently, illegal. There are laws about such things, it's not a decision based on user surveys....
>I've already weighed its importance to whether or not I can get my job done and how long it takes to do so.
If you don't have a car and a license, the fastest way to get from point A to point B would be to use the bus, which by the way has many many features that you can't find in a car: You don't need to spent time learning to use it. You can read the newspaper. You can take a nap. You don't have to choose your own music. You don't care about parking. You don't have to watch the speed limits. Busses even have more wheels than cars. Cars on the other hand have only a handfull of advantages: Basically they are faster (which doesn't count if there are speed limits anyway), and you are *free* to go wherever you want.
>Leave the bashing out. Give me an objective argument as to why I should be using one application over the other.
See, i'm sure you can think of many many reasons to use a car, but they all come down to the bad things of taking the bus, don't they?
>Do you really know enough about low-level kernel resource management and subsystems to judge that >the unix architecture is superior?
The unix architecture, doesn't point to the kernel. There are many completely different kernels in the unix world. It's propably the system architecture that the gp is talking about, and yes, the tools are relevant. You see, the same tools are available for windows as well, but they are not nearly as usefull. PHP and perl have nothing to do with those tools either, although perl is another example of the different usage i was talking about. It is true that those tools were made for unix, not windows, so you really don't expect them to be as usefull. You would expect windows to have native tools though, which they don't, after 15 years in the market...
You are right that there is nothing to see here, but it's not because of the revenue thing. How could this article ever make it to slashdot? ScuttleMonkey should really check with someone before approving such a collaction of rumors and misfacts... This is slashdot, news for nerds, stuff that matters, isn't it?
First of all, it should read unix, not linux. Windows outsold *UNIX* servers for the first time. Linux is still behind, but it *is* growing faster than windows. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20051124/tc_cmp/17440 1563)
Linux does not have "a troubling time convincing customers to choose an uncertain and alien solution". It is doing great. Greater than ever actually. This was like the millionth consequent quarter with double digit growth.
The linux community was not left stunned, naturally. And it is not "as they say, the beginning of the end of Linux?" (Who on earth are "they"?!?)
Microsoft definetely does *not* undersell their server software "just to hold on to its market share". It has a high profit margin.
Windows will not "outsell linux in sheer numbers" when they will "giveaway its OS for free by integrating advertisements" as "Recent rumors claimed". Microsoft outsells linux *now*, linux has never outsold windows. And i'm pretty confident that these "rumors" were not about server software.
>or just a pain in the ass when you are late for an important meeting and need to do a two hour overhaul >on the engine yourself to get there.
I do believe windows have an edge over linux in that area: When you are late for a meeting because the presentation got screwed up in powerpoint everybody sympathizes:)
Somehow, i don't think thats the reason the filling is sealed.
q1: since everybody knows that numa, jfs, etc have been ported by ibm to linux, what possible reason would ibm have to keep those parts secret ? q2: What about all the sco code (sco not ibm) that supposedly has been copied to linux ? q3: if sco doesn't actually claim to be the copyright owner of any of this code, where did SCO find the millions of line of code they started this lawsuit before "IBM was required by the court to provide source code"?
We sign a contract, saying that i sell you a gnu linux license for $100 plus a 20% overhead with a 30% extra supply I sell my linux-license-selling business to another person who adds it up and asks you for $150. However it was understood by you that the extra applied to the overhead, not the license, so the price is actually $126.
This is a dispute that can be solved by the other contractor (me). If i testify that my understanding (intention) was the same as yours, you are clear. If not the problem remains.
In the SCO case, the original contractors (AT&T and IBM) and the people who actually signed the contracts agree on their original intentions, so SCO doesn't have a case here.
It's ok to break from loops, they don't have to be infinite loops though. At least one condition will always be at the end of the loop. You can break in hundreds other conditions as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to copy music. Windows XP have many copyrighted files as well...
>means that a significant percentage of the churchgoing population
>(who, in turn, are a significant percentage of the population at large)
That percentage is *not* really significant, not in the large cities of western europe anyway.
apart from that, people can go to the church in the morning and surf the web in the afternoon. Just like people can surf in the morning and watch a football match in the afternoon.
> a sample that is likely skewed towards the geek crowd
I don't follow your logic. The geek "crowd" is too small to change the numbers, most of the geeks use firefox in work as well, and someone who works in front of the monitor all week, propably would not spent the day-off surfing.
>there wasn't much you could do on a Sunday commercially
A good reason to shop on-line then.
FAT has actually been around for almost 40 years. FAT32 is relatively new (some win95 version).
>because it's easy, tested and does not need a strong protection for data loss.
Or, maybe, because it's the only one that is supported by all versions of windows?
It doesn't work that way:
Not every such device that is made is actually sold, and the consumer pays for the unsold units as well. Taxes are proportional to the price:VAT for instance, will be applied to these 25c. A few companies might think that continuing this business is not a good idea => less supply drives the price up. A number of companies will prefer to use their own format => less supply, development costs, price goes up.
And as a consumer, how many of these devices have you bought? If you add all these up i'd say that you would be out a few dozen dollars by now.
You just can't disrupt a healthy market like that without affecting the end user...
But anyway, i don't see how microsoft can enforce this patent without the fear of lawsuits: VFAT is only preffered because its the only format supported by all MS operating systems, 90+% of computers worldwide: MS is practically asking for a fee for devices that need to communicate with your windows box, which is propably illegal.
>If they opened up their software, wouldn't that just be begging for the software to be misused?
EU is not asking MS to open up their software ! They are basically asking for documentation on the communication protocols of windows clients, as keeping the protocols closed doesn't allow other companies to build servers that can work with windows clients.
>KDE installs all this useless crap that I don't want on my machine.
Most of these apps, (keyes,kteatime,amor etc) are in the package kdetoys, which you can safely remove from your installation.
>There are two applications in there that appear to be both Mozilla and OpenOffice.
...
>Both of these applications, from what I know, do not use the Gnome widget sets
>in preference for their own.
I don't see a mozilla window there, but the openoffice window uses the gnome widgets: They are exactly the same icons with gedit (the top window), only with no text underneath
Linus has a real reason to do this:
Gnome/GTK is backed up by many companies, including redhat and novell -- the two bigger players in the linux market. The development of gnome is adapting to their needs, it simply is not an open project anymore, but this is another discussion. The point is, that being the default DE in those distros, pretty much makes it the main DE of linux, it's the first thing most new users will see when they install linux. And Linus being who he is, and doing what he does on OSDL, should be allowed an opinion on this.
>If Linux is so much better than Windows, why hasn't Linux displaced Windows
>on the desktop market, like Windows displaced Apple?
Windows never displaced apple on the desktop, IBM PC and the clones (running *DOS*) overtook apple 2. Even when the macintosh with Mac OS came out, people still preferred the command line DOS over a state of the art (at the time) graphical interface. Apple *never* caught up with PCs again.
It just means that there are many other important factors, it's not just a question of which system is the best... In this example Apple had killer features: Graphical, multitasking (sort of) interface, faster machines etc.. but they couldn't come back, mostly because of the snowball effect and the open architecture of IBM PC.
>Then, tell us how often a Palestinian blows him/herself up in Israel.
>Once a month, or so. Much more frequently. And that's not even mentioning
>the human bombings in Iraq.
Now, you do understand that there is a war going on down there? Although terrible and unforgivable, it's not so much different than bombing a city, as germans, soviets and allies did in WW2.
Killing a doctor on the other hand is just cold-blooded murder, a despicable act, especially if you think about all those people a doctor could save if he stayed alive.
>IE has been part of Windows since Win95 whether we like it or not.
Win 98 actually.
>This situation is a US company being fined on a foreign law. How is that possible?
>Do they have jurisdiction to do such things?
Yes, if the company sells products in Korea it has to respect korean laws. And i imagine that getting permission to sell your products does not imply that your business practises are legal.
>they should just ban it, and inform Microsoft of why they've been banned
They propably cannot do that. For once, USA would be rightfully pissed off and might just decide to ban korean cars from the US market. Besides i imagine that USA and S.Korea have signed many treaties dealing with trade over the years.
>Again, you seem to be glossing over the "exclusive control" part of the definition.
Microsoft has the power to exclude competition. Believe it or don't if you like, but it was (repeatedly) proven in court.
>Microsoft can not and never has had any exclusive control over the production of software.
Correct. It does have exclusive control, over the software *MARKET*. Note that this is not illegal. What's illegal is *using* this power.
>one cannot control prices over anything other than their own software
Indeed !!! And this is the power that a monopoly has: control over the price of its *own* products. Normally the price is controlled by the market itself.
And make no mistake, Microsoft has *huge* profit margins in windows and office. Much bigger than any competing software. The combination alone of high market share and profit margins spell "monopoly".
>No one has a "right" to put their software into Microsoft's products anymore than Ford
>has a right to put their engines into a Toyota.
Indeed, and no one asked for it. I don't understand how you got that.
>despite the fact that Apple has a majority marketshare of the music downloading business.
irrelevant. A majority market share, or even a monopoly is not the problem here. The korean court ordered microsoft to add links to competitors not because it was the law, or the right thing to do but as a *punishment* to illegal behavior.
>The whole "microsoft is a monopoly" argument is so absurd because
>we aren't even talking about a scarcity of resources
There has never been a "scarsity of resources" in making telephone lines either, but there have been monopolies in the communication market. This is the case in many countries today, actually..
>It seems that the politicians and judges that went after Microsoft
>and labelled them a "monopoly" were more influenced by politics
>and lobbyists that the actual definition of a monopoly
If you scroll down the page you referenced, you will find a more relevant definition of monopoly, and you can reach your own conclusions.
Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p&-lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -lies
1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill --see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
2 : one that has a monopoly
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
>As far as I know I can install lots of media players on my box.
Yes, but can you choose *not* to install WMP?
>Linux is bad because, you know, it gives stuff away for free?
Linux does not "give stuff away for free": The software is free. Some distros include Real Player (among many others media players). They would propably include WMP as well if it microsoft allowed it, and there was a linux version. If microsoft included all those players as well, nobody would complain about anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft is on trial because they *are* a monopoly and they *only* bundle their own player, which you are forced to install.
>Users want the media player and they want it bundled.
....
I'm pretty sure that they would like photoshop bundled as well, what's your point? If they cost the same, naturally anyone will choose the most for his money.
The problem is not the software, the problem is monopoly: Since microsoft has 95% of the desktop market, bundling media player with windows is, apparently, illegal. There are laws about such things, it's not a decision based on user surveys
>I've already weighed its importance to whether or not I can get my job done and how long it takes to do so.
If you don't have a car and a license, the fastest way to get from point A to point B would be to use the bus, which by the way has many many features that you can't find in a car:
You don't need to spent time learning to use it. You can read the newspaper. You can take a nap. You don't have to choose your own music. You don't care about parking. You don't have to watch the speed limits. Busses even have more wheels than cars.
Cars on the other hand have only a handfull of advantages: Basically they are faster (which doesn't count if there are speed limits anyway), and you are *free* to go wherever you want.
>Leave the bashing out. Give me an objective argument as to why I should be using one application over the other.
See, i'm sure you can think of many many reasons to use a car, but they all come down to the bad things of taking the bus, don't they?
>Do you really know enough about low-level kernel resource management and subsystems to judge that
>the unix architecture is superior?
The unix architecture, doesn't point to the kernel. There are many completely different kernels in the unix world. It's propably the system architecture that the gp is talking about, and yes, the tools are relevant. You see, the same tools are available for windows as well, but they are not nearly as usefull.
PHP and perl have nothing to do with those tools either, although perl is another example of the different usage i was talking about.
It is true that those tools were made for unix, not windows, so you really don't expect them to be as usefull. You would expect windows to have native tools though, which they don't, after 15 years in the market...
You are right that there is nothing to see here, but it's not because of the revenue thing.
0 1563)
How could this article ever make it to slashdot? ScuttleMonkey should really check with someone before approving such a collaction of rumors and misfacts... This is slashdot, news for nerds, stuff that matters, isn't it?
First of all, it should read unix, not linux. Windows outsold *UNIX* servers for the first time. Linux is still behind, but it *is* growing faster than windows. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20051124/tc_cmp/1744
Linux does not have "a troubling time convincing customers to choose an uncertain and alien solution". It is doing great. Greater than ever actually. This was like the millionth consequent quarter with double digit growth.
The linux community was not left stunned, naturally. And it is not "as they say, the beginning of the end of Linux?" (Who on earth are "they"?!?)
Microsoft definetely does *not* undersell their server software "just to hold on to its market share". It has a high profit margin.
Windows will not "outsell linux in sheer numbers" when they will "giveaway its OS for free by integrating advertisements" as "Recent rumors claimed". Microsoft outsells linux *now*, linux has never outsold windows. And i'm pretty confident that these "rumors" were not about server software.
>or just a pain in the ass when you are late for an important meeting and need to do a two hour overhaul
:)
>on the engine yourself to get there.
I do believe windows have an edge over linux in that area: When you are late for a meeting because the presentation got screwed up in powerpoint everybody sympathizes
it has, and it has been pointed just the same. Should we *not* point out that a site is slashdotted when it's a microsoft site ?!?!?!?
Somehow, i don't think thats the reason the filling is sealed.
q1: since everybody knows that numa, jfs, etc have been ported by ibm to linux, what possible reason would ibm have to keep those parts secret ?
q2: What about all the sco code (sco not ibm) that supposedly has been copied to linux ?
q3: if sco doesn't actually claim to be the copyright owner of any of this code, where did SCO find the millions of line of code they started this lawsuit before "IBM was required by the court to provide source code"?
We sign a contract, saying that i sell you a gnu linux license for $100 plus a 20% overhead with a 30% extra supply
I sell my linux-license-selling business to another person who adds it up and asks you for $150.
However it was understood by you that the extra applied to the overhead, not the license, so the price is actually $126.
This is a dispute that can be solved by the other contractor (me). If i testify that my understanding (intention) was the same as yours, you are clear. If not the problem remains.
In the SCO case, the original contractors (AT&T and IBM) and the people who actually signed the contracts agree on their original intentions, so SCO doesn't have a case here.
It's ok to break from loops, they don't have to be infinite loops though. At least one condition will always be at the end of the loop. You can break in hundreds other conditions as well.