MS is a shrewd company. When IT was falling apart, they rolled out a new product and charged much, much higher prices for it than ever before. The move netted them some very nice profit.
It is just sound business practice that when the going gets tough, you RAISE prices, cut costs and ride out the hard times. MS followed this axoim to the letter.
Now, MS realizes that IT is coming close to a recovery phase, but also realizes that competition in the server market is much sharper than before.
When you are recovering in any market, it is sound business practice the cut prices in an effort to grow sales against your perceived competition. Of course this will be an uncertain time for them. A recovery is a very dangerous time for companies who have survived the shakeout. MS CFO probably well knows this. Who really knows at this point how sales will break for them?
This was a public warning they expect some trouble on the horizon. They chose to mention OSS, since the concept is a signifigant boil on their butt. They could have just as easily mentioned Sun, or Apple, or even IBM, but they didn't. It is possible they realize (read: they have data that suggests} they are facing tough competition in the smalll business market as some small firms are offering OSS as a part of their product mix which includes development support.
It appeals to me to be able to have an operating system that is fully programmable and configurable to my specific needs than to rely on Remond's concept of what I should be doing with my data. I don't think I am alone in this either.
Maybe they are running scared. Who knows? If they are, they bloody well should be. But with their huge pocketbook, it kinda defies logic.
What makes you think corporations aren't concerned about their own IT security? Why is it that private companies are singled out as a group whose social concerns apparently runs so counter to the ones discussed here?
Seems to me that this new IT security person appeals to MS and that is it. So, why lump the rest of us into that paradigm?
Don't get me wrong: I help run a company's IT and whatever pronouncements this new guy will make will have all the impact of a stale cocktail.
I find jokes like these as funny as the concepts they profess to support.
I think it is necessary to show the term of the ceasefire signed by Iraqi Armed Forces 12 years, which they have cnsistently broken and which gives us all the reason we need to wreck the Iraqi mobocracy using military force.
The other day we received a blank NDA from a pump manufacturer. It said that once we signed the document that not just the current staff but any one who comes into our hire and leaves can be held liable and by extension us, should they reveal any 'trade secrets.'
There was no indication of how any of this precious data would be transmitted: the issue of faxes of drawings and the like. Should they send specifications via electronic means, are we liable if someone hacks into our computer, or intercepts e-mail, or burglarizes the computer? The agreement said nothing about what constututed disclosure, no guidance on electronic documents and no 'material support' to ensure their IP rights. No provision for contacting our vendors to service this account. Are we liable if they fail to honor a third party's trade secrets concerns? The answer to me was a resounding yes.
In addition, it has a funny clause they stated that we could disclose their data, if it was already in the public domain. Since we deal in public standards, I could see a whole host of scenarios where we could be induced into inadvertently disclosing their 'trade secrets.'
A PUMP MANUFACTURER!
I came to the conclusion after reading this gem that signing the document would open us up to a legal snake pit. It would cost us more to impliment the agreement for the ONE customer than all of our others combined.
After doing some research and discovering they had done something on the order of $26.00 USD worth of business in the passed two years, I threw the agreement away. Wasn't even gonna spend a stoopid postage stamp on this NDA.
In Redhat Linux I use Gnome for a desktop, but I use the CLI far more than any other element of Redhat. Adminstering a tiny server in Redhat is sooo easy using the CLI, far more so than any of the GUI. Understand, it is not a matter of being elite: Using the Linux CLI is faster.
I guess your response is racist too. If Americans cannot discuss how worried they are about jobs, you would have to be racist for not allowing the remarks to stand without using the Red Herring of calling them and their remarks racist.
DirectvInternet was my first experience with DSL service. I was very pleased with their service. I went for it mainly becuase of the static IP. The service was soo reliable, the tech help was knowledgable and professional, and the service itself was sweetly Linux friendly. Too bad to see them go, but I already have a replacement DSLISP ready to go Monday morning. 30 days my ass. Watch me go!
There's a new thing out in the US, perhaps you've heard of it: turning a buck. Its legal and you almost have to do it if you are going to sell to kids and their parents.
Besides, what is the harm in trying to sell a toy to a kid? Products being hawked theses days are safer and better than ever before, so where's the harm? Why should toy menufactureres and game publisher have to compete against tits and ass? Who the hell in their right mind would want them to? Why not provide an enviroment that is safe for kids? Where's the manipulation? Moreover, where's the harm?
I think you need a course in marketing and economics to understand what goes on in advertsing product is absolutely harmless and in fact beneficial.
Nothing stops MS from offering specialially tweaked software for each department's use. If they are offering only off the shelf solutions and no chance for government to change the software to behave the way they want, they shouldn't gripe because a departments chooses an open source solution.
Open source software, the way it is marketed is perfect for DoD work simply because the software itself is tweakable. The IT people in govement departmenrs have a large degree of control over how software is used should they choose open source; they are not as reliant on MS's vision of how their software is used, nor should they be.
Should open source be required? I used to say yes, but then I realize, that is not choice. So of course no, but then neither should closed source be. It all comes down to what it will do for you. On one hand you get a product that MS does not warrent for any particular purpose, nor allow themselves to be held liable for any such use, versus a software product that does the same thing but at least allows the purchaser to to alter the code to suit their own preference, but retaining the decision as to whether to distribute it, under some liberal conditions.
I have looked over many of the anti-open source remarks. Their arguments seem to say that proprietary software is better for the massive offerings they have in applications, all of them including browsing, mail, office, etc... And so they are. But even the most fanatical MS groupie has got to admit that the Linux desktop and many of the applications are stable and usable enough for the mainstream; they are not very well marketed, mostly becuase that was never the point for Linux.
Many of the open source arguments fail to mention, from what I have seen, is that every Rehat Linux distro comes with no fewer than two programming languages, and if you want it all, there are many many other languages which come with a typical Linux distro, MS would be loathe to load upon thier own OS distro.
Those languages are already there ready to rock and roll, for those who want to fully customize their computer using shells sripts and the like; and I am talking only about bash commands and perl, not some of the other languages such as gawk and the like. Of course many like me have seen their fair share of glazed over eyes when you look into those eyes to tell them these as reasons for using Linux.
These are fantastic, wonderfully flexible mechanisms for people to make their computers do what they want when they want in the manner they desire, in a secure and stable manner. Last time I looked, I had to rely on MS's thinking on the subject, which is basically, we know better than you and what works well for you, so no perl for you.
Now, I will grant you not every human being on the face of the earth would like to learn programming, and I believe that a simpler Redhat distro targeted towards those who want an inexpensive OS so they can do internet stuff would probably be a better in for the Linux community to expand Linux for the average user.
So I guess the answer would be, Linux will probably not become mainstream for the average computer user. MS with their Xbox and this coming concept of a universal household computer appliance (all running MS products exclusively of course) will see to that soon enough. But Linux's existance has been demonstrated not to be tied to MS's concept of what computing will be, but rather what it should be: the freedom and the absolute right to tell your CPU which code to run and under which language.
I happen to be the tech person at my family's company and I am sold on Linux and open source solutions to business matters, and am moving our business computing towards Linux and away from MS for our basic tasks.
I guess I have rambled on about all this. But every chance I get I try to get people to try Linux, frustratingly to little avail, not, albeit, owing to the quality of Linux product, but to the deviously simplicity of MS products.
MS can't win on Slashdot. If they raise their prices they get accused of being a monopoly and abusing it. If they lower their prices they get accused of "dumping" and undercutting the competition.
Microsoft is the world's largest software maker, a maker of an OS and applications nearly ubiquitous in the computing world; a financial behemoth. Your remark would imply they wish to occupy some space up my ass in addition to 90 percent of all desktops.
The ONLY reason I even log on to/. is to read crticism of this 800 pound gorilla. Just because we can't ignore it doesn't mean we have to let them have their way with the rest of us.
I swear some of you Microsoft followers would have your heads fully planted up Microsoft's ass should they ever suddenly decide to stop moving for a minute.
Microsoft is considered a manufacturer and as such is forbidden by federal law to offer discounts only to certain customers. Any discounts they offer must be to all or they cannot offer them
DO a full install of Win98/ME using 98Lite ( http://www.litepc.com }. Costs about $25.00 for the full version but the benefits are enormous. Windows Internet Explorer along with large swaths of unneccesary software can be fully removed, leaving you with a nice stable machine that is secure from IE exploits, plus someone other than the good people of Redmond gets some money.
Then, you install Phoenix or Opera, or whatever you want and be all happy.
I love Linux on the desktop. Even with a PPP connection it is faster than Windows. For months I ran RedHat 7.3/Gnome on the desktop, installed freedos and ran Steel Panthers series games under dosemu, and using a piggy-backed harddrive and Wine, I could some older Windows games and Windows based patches for the DOS games.
But Wine/Winex was simply not up to the task of running Talonsoft games (East Front II and Operational Art of War) which I use for wargaming.
Now at work I run a tiny network with a Redhat SMB file server and a storage server. Most of the tasks used to maintain these two machines are automated bash scripts using cron, the file system, as I learned, was far and away more reliable than anything windows could do. The clients are Win98, since the database front end is also a Win-based product. I have reliable backups and rock solid machines. I have been trying to get our only internet machine to switch over to Windows, but since Windows is supposedly so easy, it has been a frustrating no sale. I have been working for some time to move the clients to Linux using some of the free/low cost tool available but it is the UI that is the primary barrier to moving in that direction.
At home I run a webserver and an SMB server for storaing files (I could never trust Windows again to store files after my work experience) for wargaming and I use Windows as my primary surfing machine precisely because of wargaming. But I also used 98Lite to rid myself of the awful software that installs by default for internet; This machine runs a lot better without IE and other Windows products. I use Mozilla, Miranda, OpenSSH and a variety of other open source tools, all of which work very well for my purposes.
If Transgaming ever got Talonsoft games to run well under Linux I would chuck this Windows box so fast, it would make my cats choke from the vacuum. But for now, I have to use a Win98 product.
Why shouldn't the Australian government block web sites that encourage crime? In the US, it is a felony to talk about committing any illegal acts even if it is in furtherance of a cause. Were I to put up a site which tells protestors to break windows in a city to show 'da man' that I mean business, inasmuch as that may be the resultant act is a petty crime of vandalism, I am using federally regulated means of inciting riots, a felony itself in addition to the crime of conspiracy.
The question that should be asked is really simple. Is the Australian government using prior restraint to prevent ANY protest from taking place? It doesn't seem likely since the Australian left is merrily still blaming Australians and Americans for the acts of Al Qaeda against Australians; and those remarks are still being publish there and in the USA, all signs of a healthy and free press.
The article doesn't make the distinction whether healtlhy and vigorus public debate is left alone in Australia or if they are preventing people from conspiring to commit crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
It is just sound business practice that when the going gets tough, you RAISE prices, cut costs and ride out the hard times. MS followed this axoim to the letter.
Now, MS realizes that IT is coming close to a recovery phase, but also realizes that competition in the server market is much sharper than before.
When you are recovering in any market, it is sound business practice the cut prices in an effort to grow sales against your perceived competition. Of course this will be an uncertain time for them. A recovery is a very dangerous time for companies who have survived the shakeout. MS CFO probably well knows this. Who really knows at this point how sales will break for them?
This was a public warning they expect some trouble on the horizon. They chose to mention OSS, since the concept is a signifigant boil on their butt. They could have just as easily mentioned Sun, or Apple, or even IBM, but they didn't. It is possible they realize (read: they have data that suggests} they are facing tough competition in the smalll business market as some small firms are offering OSS as a part of their product mix which includes development support.
It appeals to me to be able to have an operating system that is fully programmable and configurable to my specific needs than to rely on Remond's concept of what I should be doing with my data. I don't think I am alone in this either.
Maybe they are running scared. Who knows? If they are, they bloody well should be. But with their huge pocketbook, it kinda defies logic.
Seems to me that this new IT security person appeals to MS and that is it. So, why lump the rest of us into that paradigm?
Don't get me wrong: I help run a company's IT and whatever pronouncements this new guy will make will have all the impact of a stale cocktail.
I find jokes like these as funny as the concepts they profess to support.
I am also janitor, parts puller, shipping clerk, invoicing clerk and waterboy.
I think it is necessary to show the term of the ceasefire signed by Iraqi Armed Forces 12 years, which they have cnsistently broken and which gives us all the reason we need to wreck the Iraqi mobocracy using military force.
Judges rule that x-wives aren't human either.
There was no indication of how any of this precious data would be transmitted: the issue of faxes of drawings and the like. Should they send specifications via electronic means, are we liable if someone hacks into our computer, or intercepts e-mail, or burglarizes the computer? The agreement said nothing about what constututed disclosure, no guidance on electronic documents and no 'material support' to ensure their IP rights. No provision for contacting our vendors to service this account. Are we liable if they fail to honor a third party's trade secrets concerns? The answer to me was a resounding yes.
In addition, it has a funny clause they stated that we could disclose their data, if it was already in the public domain. Since we deal in public standards, I could see a whole host of scenarios where we could be induced into inadvertently disclosing their 'trade secrets.'
A PUMP MANUFACTURER!
I came to the conclusion after reading this gem that signing the document would open us up to a legal snake pit. It would cost us more to impliment the agreement for the ONE customer than all of our others combined.
After doing some research and discovering they had done something on the order of $26.00 USD worth of business in the passed two years, I threw the agreement away. Wasn't even gonna spend a stoopid postage stamp on this NDA.
In Redhat Linux I use Gnome for a desktop, but I use the CLI far more than any other element of Redhat. Adminstering a tiny server in Redhat is sooo easy using the CLI, far more so than any of the GUI. Understand, it is not a matter of being elite: Using the Linux CLI is faster.
What a dickhead you are!
I have to get a postgresql server running, so my timem off is somewhat truncated.
But I didn't see the X-windows motto: Where the hell did you think they were taking you?
I think the NY Times failed to mention you must register to access their web site to read news about Big Brother.
You're new to slashdot, aren't you?
DirectvInternet was my first experience with DSL service. I was very pleased with their service. I went for it mainly becuase of the static IP. The service was soo reliable, the tech help was knowledgable and professional, and the service itself was sweetly Linux friendly. Too bad to see them go, but I already have a replacement DSLISP ready to go Monday morning. 30 days my ass. Watch me go!
I think you need a course in marketing and economics to understand what goes on in advertsing product is absolutely harmless and in fact beneficial.
Will Gates have enough time to sleep with 15,000 different women the way Chamberlain boasted he has?
The thing is with Linux, they can customize their own Linux distro for banks and make some money distributing it.
How's about add a touch of class and call it Scottsdale, or maybe Tempe
Open source software, the way it is marketed is perfect for DoD work simply because the software itself is tweakable. The IT people in govement departmenrs have a large degree of control over how software is used should they choose open source; they are not as reliant on MS's vision of how their software is used, nor should they be.
Should open source be required? I used to say yes, but then I realize, that is not choice. So of course no, but then neither should closed source be. It all comes down to what it will do for you. On one hand you get a product that MS does not warrent for any particular purpose, nor allow themselves to be held liable for any such use, versus a software product that does the same thing but at least allows the purchaser to to alter the code to suit their own preference, but retaining the decision as to whether to distribute it, under some liberal conditions.
Many of the open source arguments fail to mention, from what I have seen, is that every Rehat Linux distro comes with no fewer than two programming languages, and if you want it all, there are many many other languages which come with a typical Linux distro, MS would be loathe to load upon thier own OS distro.
Those languages are already there ready to rock and roll, for those who want to fully customize their computer using shells sripts and the like; and I am talking only about bash commands and perl, not some of the other languages such as gawk and the like. Of course many like me have seen their fair share of glazed over eyes when you look into those eyes to tell them these as reasons for using Linux.
These are fantastic, wonderfully flexible mechanisms for people to make their computers do what they want when they want in the manner they desire, in a secure and stable manner. Last time I looked, I had to rely on MS's thinking on the subject, which is basically, we know better than you and what works well for you, so no perl for you.
Now, I will grant you not every human being on the face of the earth would like to learn programming, and I believe that a simpler Redhat distro targeted towards those who want an inexpensive OS so they can do internet stuff would probably be a better in for the Linux community to expand Linux for the average user.
So I guess the answer would be, Linux will probably not become mainstream for the average computer user. MS with their Xbox and this coming concept of a universal household computer appliance (all running MS products exclusively of course) will see to that soon enough. But Linux's existance has been demonstrated not to be tied to MS's concept of what computing will be, but rather what it should be: the freedom and the absolute right to tell your CPU which code to run and under which language.
I happen to be the tech person at my family's company and I am sold on Linux and open source solutions to business matters, and am moving our business computing towards Linux and away from MS for our basic tasks.
I guess I have rambled on about all this. But every chance I get I try to get people to try Linux, frustratingly to little avail, not, albeit, owing to the quality of Linux product, but to the deviously simplicity of MS products.
Jeez, probably shoulda shut up. Oh well...
Microsoft is the world's largest software maker, a maker of an OS and applications nearly ubiquitous in the computing world; a financial behemoth. Your remark would imply they wish to occupy some space up my ass in addition to 90 percent of all desktops.
The ONLY reason I even log on to /. is to read crticism of this 800 pound gorilla. Just because we can't ignore it doesn't mean we have to let them have their way with the rest of us.
I swear some of you Microsoft followers would have your heads fully planted up Microsoft's ass should they ever suddenly decide to stop moving for a minute.
Microsoft is considered a manufacturer and as such is forbidden by federal law to offer discounts only to certain customers. Any discounts they offer must be to all or they cannot offer them
Then, you install Phoenix or Opera, or whatever you want and be all happy.
But Wine/Winex was simply not up to the task of running Talonsoft games (East Front II and Operational Art of War) which I use for wargaming.
Now at work I run a tiny network with a Redhat SMB file server and a storage server. Most of the tasks used to maintain these two machines are automated bash scripts using cron, the file system, as I learned, was far and away more reliable than anything windows could do. The clients are Win98, since the database front end is also a Win-based product. I have reliable backups and rock solid machines. I have been trying to get our only internet machine to switch over to Windows, but since Windows is supposedly so easy, it has been a frustrating no sale. I have been working for some time to move the clients to Linux using some of the free/low cost tool available but it is the UI that is the primary barrier to moving in that direction.
At home I run a webserver and an SMB server for storaing files (I could never trust Windows again to store files after my work experience) for wargaming and I use Windows as my primary surfing machine precisely because of wargaming. But I also used 98Lite to rid myself of the awful software that installs by default for internet; This machine runs a lot better without IE and other Windows products. I use Mozilla, Miranda, OpenSSH and a variety of other open source tools, all of which work very well for my purposes.
If Transgaming ever got Talonsoft games to run well under Linux I would chuck this Windows box so fast, it would make my cats choke from the vacuum. But for now, I have to use a Win98 product.
1) See story about Microsoft. 2) Post it to Slashdot. 3) ???? 4) Profit!!
The question that should be asked is really simple. Is the Australian government using prior restraint to prevent ANY protest from taking place? It doesn't seem likely since the Australian left is merrily still blaming Australians and Americans for the acts of Al Qaeda against Australians; and those remarks are still being publish there and in the USA, all signs of a healthy and free press.
The article doesn't make the distinction whether healtlhy and vigorus public debate is left alone in Australia or if they are preventing people from conspiring to commit crimes.