This is true. I agree. I don't think I will ever vote for the top guys in any of the two parties ever again because the guys with the best ads will never have the regular man/woman's interest at heart. The regular man/woman could not afford an advertisement on TV. We have become very lazy in our pursuit of political matters as a society. I am willing to "waste my vote" as some people say in the hopes that others will start thinking about who they are voting for instead of just trying to vote for one of the two people that "matter".
The advantage for Linux programmers is their program can be developed for both platforms in order to facilitate the move from Windows to Linux.
That is probably the main reason that MS develops software for Macs. MacUser, "Oh, I can use the same office applications that I have been using on a 'Wintel' box?" I don't know many Mac users that haven't at least used MS Office for Macintosh.
If you really want to get a piece of the Windows market and you are a major ISV, then you can make your program run in both OS's but provide the majority of the support, best features, etc. for the platform that is your main target (ie. Linux).
That is what has been going on in reverse:
Superduper corp writes an app.
Writes it for Windows because it has marketshare.
Writes it for Linux because a growing number of its market is using Linux for reliability and security.
Provides good support on MS, crappy support on Linux.
If you want to compete with MS, then you turn this around:
Superduper corp writes an app.
Writes it for Linux for reliability and security.
Writes it for Windows because it has marketshare.
Provides good support, extended features, and better claims of reliability and security on Linux. Provides crappy support, limited features, and no claims of reliability and security for Windows.
Provides both versions on the same license or provides the preferred OS version for a small fraction of the cost if you have purchased the Windows version. This cost will be made up in the future by support revenue/upgrade programs.
I think this would work. Windows programs are going to be more broken because of the OS. Linux programs should be made more reliable, but they also need to have that "finished" look that people expect from a Windows app.
Hopefully the "Three Stooges" will have more say in the execution of the final judgment than seems to be expected in this forum (like helping to determing "reasonable" licensing fees).
The Assistant Attorney General stated that these three people who will work on site at Microsoft will be comprised of
1 person chosen by Microsoft,
1 person chosen by DOJ,
and 1 person chosen by the 2 previous people.
Now I know some people will probably think that all 3 of these people will be paid off by MS and will end up not carrying out the Final Judgment in the spirit of the law. I hope that these 2 people will act in the "interest of the consumer", since this was pointed out several times in the press conference this morning.
This is true. And cable companies usually offer a basic basic version of cable that only allows you to receive the normal channels (and maybe a few others like History Channel, C-SPAN, NASA channel).
The cost for this is usually under $10 (as opposed to $30+ for basic cable) for those that can't get their rabbit ears to work.
The main effects from the judgment will not occur for some time, yet. What we should look for in the next year or so is Middleware that exists in multiple OS's that make it easier to transition from MS to Linux, BeOS, OSX, etc.
If this does not happen, we will be in a sad state of affairs. On the other hand, this judgment may encourage other software companies to pursue the middleware market and that would cause other companies to begin developing and marketing successful (and reliable) OS's.
The perception of this judgment is more important in some cases than the enforcement of this judgment. What I mean is, if companies do not pursue the Middleware and then the OS market, then MS will stay where it is no matter what happens next. If companies are allowed to show up on the MS platform successfully and then show up on this other OS, then people will have a reason to migrate to another OS. This might also give people an incentive to start releasing software for multiple OS's on one license. That is another hindering factor for moving from one OS to another. I have a license for product x on MS OS and I need to buy a new (not even an upgrade version) license for Linux. That mindset needs to change, and the people who do this will end up making more money (even if they only provide limited support on certain OS's) in the long run.
One of the main things I am concerned with are the loopholes that have been pointed out in this forum, and what the price will be to "license" the middleware API's (I wouldn't mind working for a company that had licensed those API's).
Slashdot Mirror
I am assuming you are renting them 'cheep'?
This is true. I agree. I don't think I will ever vote for the top guys in any of the two parties ever again because the guys with the best ads will never have the regular man/woman's interest at heart. The regular man/woman could not afford an advertisement on TV. We have become very lazy in our pursuit of political matters as a society. I am willing to "waste my vote" as some people say in the hopes that others will start thinking about who they are voting for instead of just trying to vote for one of the two people that "matter".
That is probably the main reason that MS develops software for Macs. MacUser, "Oh, I can use the same office applications that I have been using on a 'Wintel' box?" I don't know many Mac users that haven't at least used MS Office for Macintosh.
If you really want to get a piece of the Windows market and you are a major ISV, then you can make your program run in both OS's but provide the majority of the support, best features, etc. for the platform that is your main target (ie. Linux).
That is what has been going on in reverse:
If you want to compete with MS, then you turn this around:
I think this would work. Windows programs are going to be more broken because of the OS. Linux programs should be made more reliable, but they also need to have that "finished" look that people expect from a Windows app.
The Assistant Attorney General stated that these three people who will work on site at Microsoft will be comprised of
Now I know some people will probably think that all 3 of these people will be paid off by MS and will end up not carrying out the Final Judgment in the spirit of the law. I hope that these 2 people will act in the "interest of the consumer", since this was pointed out several times in the press conference this morning.
This is true. And cable companies usually offer a basic basic version of cable that only allows you to receive the normal channels (and maybe a few others like History Channel, C-SPAN, NASA channel).
The cost for this is usually under $10 (as opposed to $30+ for basic cable) for those that can't get their rabbit ears to work.
The main effects from the judgment will not occur for some time, yet. What we should look for in the next year or so is Middleware that exists in multiple OS's that make it easier to transition from MS to Linux, BeOS, OSX, etc.
If this does not happen, we will be in a sad state of affairs. On the other hand, this judgment may encourage other software companies to pursue the middleware market and that would cause other companies to begin developing and marketing successful (and reliable) OS's.
The perception of this judgment is more important in some cases than the enforcement of this judgment. What I mean is, if companies do not pursue the Middleware and then the OS market, then MS will stay where it is no matter what happens next. If companies are allowed to show up on the MS platform successfully and then show up on this other OS, then people will have a reason to migrate to another OS. This might also give people an incentive to start releasing software for multiple OS's on one license. That is another hindering factor for moving from one OS to another. I have a license for product x on MS OS and I need to buy a new (not even an upgrade version) license for Linux. That mindset needs to change, and the people who do this will end up making more money (even if they only provide limited support on certain OS's) in the long run.
One of the main things I am concerned with are the loopholes that have been pointed out in this forum, and what the price will be to "license" the middleware API's (I wouldn't mind working for a company that had licensed those API's).
That's a little more than my 2 cents worth.