TFA mentions Linux only very briefly, yet the summary and the heading would have us believe No Win98 Means More Linux. More and more, it appears these Flamebait and Troll articles are a mechanism for MS to get free and vital feedback from the user / pirating communities.
Some examples: 1. WGA to turn off your PC - source: A Blog! - 800 replies - Subsequent Slashback - Subsequent Denial through a PR firm! 2. Why Vista keeps getting delayed..... atleast a dozen articles! 3. ODF support in Office 2007. 4. WinFS to be dropped.. again, not an authentic source, and no real content whatsoever. 5. UK schools to examine MS school licensing. 6. Vista to boost Linux adoption. 7. Virtualization to boost Linux, kill Windows. 8. And now, No Support for Win98 to boost Linux!
Looks like the MS "Get The FUD" policy has backfired. Every day, the Linux Fear seems to be growing on the giant firm. Rather than getting revenue from new licenses through superior products and tech., MS now appears to have given up.. instead they seem to be hell bent on extracting revenue from the faithful pirates.
Why not create a separate section microsoft.ask.slashdot.org and quit pretending that such articles are "News Items" that "Matter to Nerds"? Alternatively, MS could send a few $$ for every meaningful feedback post to such non-articles.
Personally, I upgraded my home PC from Windows XP Pro (my office's license) to Windows 98SE last week. WinXP needed a lot of support.. the WGA started grumbling moment I took the office PC home.., so I fixed it with Win98 and Opera, de-installed IE, reconfigured my 'hosts' file, and routed all phone-home packets to localhost.
I don't think I neeed any support for Win98, so thanks MS for dropping it.
as if they bought too many office chairs and sold the ones they never used. Non-evil, but IANAL. Thoughts?...
Under the terms of the EULA, any unused chairs cannot be sold.... instead, they have to be sent to the Chair-Man's office at Redmond. Think a company like Microsoft would leave loopholes like this in the EULA???!!
Microsoft has not yet finalised plans to make the most commercial success out of WinFS. Making it part of a highly pirated OS doesn't make commercial sense. Lack of features in a rebranded OS doesn't imply loss of sales / profits either. Improved features doesn't imply more profits from the OS business as well.
And so, until MS dcides whether to package WinFS as part of SQL or.Net or Active Directory or the Aero interface or BSOD... we'll have to wait and see.
Virtualisation is a disruptive technology... in that it requires a lot of intellectual investment on the part of the sysadmin. The reason Unix and Windows Servers have gotten by without adding much features, yet retaining market share is simple... admin lethargy and apathy.
Microsoft does not seem to like virtualisation.. hell, they didn't like Terminal Services.. so they crippled it in NT4, made extra licensing restrictions with Win2K, and made the WinXP / Metaframe XP combn. a non-starter. In microsoft's world, users must only license MS's servers and everything needs a separate server/client.
Now that the virtualisation market has grown IN SPITE OF the apathy of these s/w vendors... and the tremendous mindshare with Open Source technologies, these old chaps are trying to make money without doing anything themselves.. witness the recent MS licenmsing options in virtual segments, acquisition of IP, Intel's hypervisor efforts, AMDs efforts etc.
If virtualisation succeeds, it could spell the end for DRM and Treacherous Computing initiatives... since these need collective collusion by all parties involved. Looks like the firms mentioned will try their damnedest to sidetrack virtualisation.. just like terminal servics and thin clients never reached their full potential. Open Source firms and nerdy sysadmins might well have the last laugh...
1. That 1.35 billion $$$ "fine" will be paid by people buying Microsoft Products. People buying... er licensing MS products have paid several billions already, primarily due to lack of competition... which is what this ruling is trying to promote.. COMPETITION. Competition in the segment will lower prices, and better pricing for the customer.
2. It goes into the coffers of the EU, yet another level of leeches that are taking away
even more money from people who already have to contend with their greedy national
"governments" Greedy national governments can be voted out of power. Most governments in the EU have a social responsibilty, and many people get welfare measures from their respective governments. A corporation driven by shareholders does not have these responsibilities... which is why it is fair to ensure competition in any industry.
So roughly that's a year plus 7 months is ~575 days * 2.51 million, that's ONE BILLION DOLLARS! (1,443,250,000) Who let Dr. Evil run Europe?
1. Maybe the judges reckon that MS made much more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS with their anti-competitive practices...
2. Maybe they felt that the fine should be high enough to deter continued violation, but lower than MS's profits in the EU... thus MS would consider compliance the better policy?
3. Maybe the judges aren't so happy to let the Corporate Mr. Evil run unchecked in Europe?
You appear to have good karma, so I'll assume you're not trolling...
What's wrong with killing people who jaywalk?
The EU isn't killing MS, merely fining them for mis-conduct. What's unfair about that? Would it be fair that the EU simply watched dumbfounded as if nothing happened?
I'm all in favor of Microsoft opening some of their interfaces, but let's face it -- there is NOTHING that Microsoft can do with their apps that a third party can't...
The fact that MS is a monopoly IMPLIES that they have to open up their protocols and interfaces to competition. This is a fact of law, no need to be so condescending about it.
Which third party can write a better client for MS Exchange than the bloated buggy Outlook? Which third party can write into NTFS in a reliable manner?
Use the fine money to fund a public reverse-engineering project for all the APIs and communications protocols. Nullify any patents held by Microsoft which would prevent competitors from re-implimenting the OS and/or bundled software.
I thought the EU does not permit software patents, as on date. Any MS patents are null and void in the EU as it is.
Before all the Microsoft hating Microsoft users that actually depend on their products....
People use software, not the Microsoft brand. Were they better informed / educated, they might explore some better choices. That does not mean one can accuse them harshly.
That money then goes straight to the glorious EU your Ubergovernment in Brussels and Strasbourg that is also living off of your back right alongside your respective national government leeches.
Is it fair to accuse the government and the people when the Justice system delivers a verdict against a mere company? And assuming the Justice system instead left erring companies off the hook, what does that say of the people and the goverment?
Honest question, not trolling... I'm wondering what they should really be doing, besides forcing Microsoft to stop doing business in member states as long as they remain noncompliant, perhaps.
What's wrong with forcing non-compliant businesses from operating?
We should be wondering what Microsoft should really be doing, besides non-complying with anti-trust, anti-competitive laws, and stonewalling progress and crippling the competition. What'd be your honest answer to this question?
From TFA: "I can assure you that we are continuing to work day and night with our 300 dedicated engineers to create documentation which is complete and accurate to satisfy the European Commission."
No wonder then! If it takes 300 engineers, several nights and days to document the protocols of an obsolete OS..... we should be surprised if Vista ships before 2010!
Hardware is where DRM resides and operates. Why would Google buy DRM from HP, IBM or Dell? With all that talent at their disposal, Google would design their own brand of DRM... hell, even the chips and architecture... weeding out useless buses, registers and stuff.
We already know they use a modified Linux kernel... what better than using proprietary hardware as well? That way, they are free from the cluctches of Intel, AMD, ATI, NVidia, HP, IBM etc., besides Microsoft, Oracle and the software gorillas.
Let's make the PEOPLE pass a test in order to be granted the right to vote!
Won't work. People don't vote senators ONLY to debate on things like net neutrality. More likely, illiterate people have problems other than net neutrality... hunger, medicare, welfare etc.
My suggestion was "Those senators voting either FOR or AGAINST a particular bill should pass an aptitude test.... "
The sad part here is that this guy feels qualified to stand up and lecture everyone on why he voted like he did...
That's the BAD part.. not the sad part. The sad part is, he was VOTED to power by people like us, to stand up and lecture... The corrective action would be.. Have a set of tests to determine which senator(s) can lecture / vote on a given topic. Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
this guy seems to have developed a strong opinion on the subject..
Or maybe he has been subjected to a strong influence, to lecture the way he did. Or maybe no one else listening knew enought o call the bluff. Or maybe the rest were lobbied to remain mute as well.. Or maybe all of the above.
The problem with ICANN is that it seems to cater to the needs, whims, fancies, monpoloies, viewpoints of a ver few entities based in the US.. whereas the internet, in reality, is World Encompassing. Every nation should have representation based on the number of servers hosted in it's soil, amount of bandwidth generated, etc.
He wants to liberate Cyberspace! Such lofty ideals should resonate with the present administration!!
How would Cringely's model work?
on
Own the Last Mile
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A model in which the infrastructure is paid for as infrastructure -- privately, locally, nationally, and internationally can create a true marketplace in which the incentives are aligned...
Despite the availability of Free software -- both as in beer, and in freedom... the software marketplace remains skewed in favour of corporate giants, patent trolls etc. What incentive would the bandwidth providers have... for practising a transparent and 'fair' bisiness model? How many 'consumers' are technically capable / informed to take up this task? Can't see this model working on either side of the equation...
1. JBoss gains widespread acceptance, and threatens Sun's Java model, dominance. 2. Despite Sun introducing new enhancements, developers are switching to the JBoss architecture and portal in droves. 3. RedHat acquires JBoss, gets sued, and loses - 'tainting' JBoss in the process. 4. Sun wins - one big competitor tainted and gone.... MS wins - open source apps around JBoss fall away. Sound plausible?
until they prove it on these (currently) toothless specimens: 1. The Justice dept. (SCO vs IBM) 2. The anti-trust dept. (MS vs US) 3. Other suggestions welcome...
And Workgroup is a Microsoft term for describing a group of upto 10 people who can share files and printing without buying their server product. Hardly usable in legal terminology.
peers communicate directly, without intervention. What intervention is required when a client talks to a server? Authentication? That can also be implemented in a so-called peer-to-peer network.
Client/server is the function of a domain (intra/Internet) in that you, the client, are requesting access to someone else's server.
Again... domain is a Microsoft concoction, just like workgroup, workstation etc. No relation to the structure of the internet, which is technically, and in reality, a Web. There are horizontal (peer-to-peer) as well as vertical (what you call client-server) strands in a web. Unless Spain wants to outlaw the internet, P2P cannot be outlawed.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA mentions Linux only very briefly, yet the summary and the heading would have us believe No Win98 Means More Linux. More and more, it appears these Flamebait and Troll articles are a mechanism for MS to get free and vital feedback from the user / pirating communities.
Some examples:
1. WGA to turn off your PC - source: A Blog! - 800 replies - Subsequent Slashback - Subsequent Denial through a PR firm!
2. Why Vista keeps getting delayed..... atleast a dozen articles!
3. ODF support in Office 2007.
4. WinFS to be dropped.. again, not an authentic source, and no real content whatsoever.
5. UK schools to examine MS school licensing.
6. Vista to boost Linux adoption.
7. Virtualization to boost Linux, kill Windows.
8. And now, No Support for Win98 to boost Linux!
Looks like the MS "Get The FUD" policy has backfired. Every day, the Linux Fear seems to be growing on the giant firm. Rather than getting revenue from new licenses through superior products and tech., MS now appears to have given up.. instead they seem to be hell bent on extracting revenue from the faithful pirates.
Why not create a separate section microsoft.ask.slashdot.org and quit pretending that such articles are "News Items" that "Matter to Nerds"? Alternatively, MS could send a few $$ for every meaningful feedback post to such non-articles.
Personally, I upgraded my home PC from Windows XP Pro (my office's license) to Windows 98SE last week. WinXP needed a lot of support.. the WGA started grumbling moment I took the office PC home.., so I fixed it with Win98 and Opera, de-installed IE, reconfigured my 'hosts' file, and routed all phone-home packets to localhost.
I don't think I neeed any support for Win98, so thanks MS for dropping it.
as if they bought too many office chairs and sold the ones they never used. Non-evil, but IANAL.
Thoughts?...
Under the terms of the EULA, any unused chairs cannot be sold.... instead, they have to be sent to the Chair-Man's office at Redmond. Think a company like Microsoft would leave loopholes like this in the EULA???!!
Microsoft has not yet finalised plans to make the most commercial success out of WinFS. Making it part of a highly pirated OS doesn't make commercial sense. Lack of features in a rebranded OS doesn't imply loss of sales / profits either. Improved features doesn't imply more profits from the OS business as well.
.Net or Active Directory or the Aero interface or BSOD... we'll have to wait and see.
And so, until MS dcides whether to package WinFS as part of SQL or
What happened to the CowboyNeal option?
OMFG!! Isn't one CowboyNeal enough already?? Do we need an army of virutal CowboyNeals, posting Dupes in a Beowulf Cluster of Virtual Slashdots?
Virtualisation is a disruptive technology... in that it requires a lot of intellectual investment on the part of the sysadmin. The reason Unix and Windows Servers have gotten by without adding much features, yet retaining market share is simple... admin lethargy and apathy.
/client.
Microsoft does not seem to like virtualisation.. hell, they didn't like Terminal Services.. so they crippled it in NT4, made extra licensing restrictions with Win2K, and made the WinXP / Metaframe XP combn. a non-starter. In microsoft's world, users must only license MS's servers and everything needs a separate server
Now that the virtualisation market has grown IN SPITE OF the apathy of these s/w vendors... and the tremendous mindshare with Open Source technologies, these old chaps are trying to make money without doing anything themselves.. witness the recent MS licenmsing options in virtual segments, acquisition of IP, Intel's hypervisor efforts, AMDs efforts etc.
If virtualisation succeeds, it could spell the end for DRM and Treacherous Computing initiatives... since these need collective collusion by all parties involved. Looks like the firms mentioned will try their damnedest to sidetrack virtualisation.. just like terminal servics and thin clients never reached their full potential. Open Source firms and nerdy sysadmins might well have the last laugh...
1. That 1.35 billion $$$ "fine" will be paid by people buying Microsoft Products.
People buying... er licensing MS products have paid several billions already, primarily due to lack of competition... which is what this ruling is trying to promote.. COMPETITION. Competition in the segment will lower prices, and better pricing for the customer.
2. It goes into the coffers of the EU, yet another level of leeches that are taking away
even more money from people who already have to contend with their greedy national
"governments"
Greedy national governments can be voted out of power. Most governments in the EU have a social responsibilty, and many people get welfare measures from their respective governments. A corporation driven by shareholders does not have these responsibilities... which is why it is fair to ensure competition in any industry.
So roughly that's a year plus 7 months is ~575 days * 2.51 million, that's ONE BILLION DOLLARS! (1,443,250,000) Who let Dr. Evil run Europe?
1. Maybe the judges reckon that MS made much more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS with their anti-competitive practices...
2. Maybe they felt that the fine should be high enough to deter continued violation, but lower than MS's profits in the EU... thus MS would consider compliance the better policy?
3. Maybe the judges aren't so happy to let the Corporate Mr. Evil run unchecked in Europe?
You appear to have good karma, so I'll assume you're not trolling...
What's wrong with killing people who jaywalk?
The EU isn't killing MS, merely fining them for mis-conduct. What's unfair about that? Would it be fair that the EU simply watched dumbfounded as if nothing happened?
I'm all in favor of Microsoft opening some of their interfaces, but let's face it -- there is NOTHING that Microsoft can do with their apps that a third party can't...
The fact that MS is a monopoly IMPLIES that they have to open up their protocols and interfaces to competition. This is a fact of law, no need to be so condescending about it.
Which third party can write a better client for MS Exchange than the bloated buggy Outlook?
Which third party can write into NTFS in a reliable manner?
Use the fine money to fund a public reverse-engineering project for all the APIs and communications protocols. Nullify any patents held by Microsoft which would prevent competitors from re-implimenting the OS and/or bundled software.
I thought the EU does not permit software patents, as on date. Any MS patents are null and void in the EU as it is.
you can't just say "Sorry, you can't do business here" when 95% of your PCs being used every day need them.
I don't think that's what is being said. MS is only being fined for mis-conduct... they have not... so far at least, been told to get out of the EU.
Before all the Microsoft hating Microsoft users that actually depend on their products....
People use software, not the Microsoft brand. Were they better informed / educated, they might explore some better choices. That does not mean one can accuse them harshly.
That money then goes straight to the glorious EU your
Ubergovernment in Brussels and Strasbourg that is also living off of your back right alongside
your respective national government leeches.
Is it fair to accuse the government and the people when the Justice system delivers a verdict against a mere company?
And assuming the Justice system instead left erring companies off the hook, what does that say of the people and the goverment?
Honest question, not trolling... I'm wondering what they should really be doing, besides forcing Microsoft to stop doing business in member states as long as they remain noncompliant, perhaps.
What's wrong with forcing non-compliant businesses from operating?
We should be wondering what Microsoft should really be doing, besides non-complying with anti-trust, anti-competitive laws, and stonewalling progress and crippling the competition. What'd be your honest answer to this question?
From TFA: "I can assure you that we are continuing to work day and night with our 300 dedicated engineers to create documentation which is complete and accurate to satisfy the European Commission."
No wonder then! If it takes 300 engineers, several nights and days to document the protocols of an obsolete OS..... we should be surprised if Vista ships before 2010!
Hardware is where DRM resides and operates. Why would Google buy DRM from HP, IBM or Dell? With all that talent at their disposal, Google would design their own brand of DRM... hell, even the chips and architecture... weeding out useless buses, registers and stuff.
We already know they use a modified Linux kernel... what better than using proprietary hardware as well? That way, they are free from the cluctches of Intel, AMD, ATI, NVidia, HP, IBM etc., besides Microsoft, Oracle and the software gorillas.
Let's make the PEOPLE pass a test in order to be granted the right to vote!
Won't work. People don't vote senators ONLY to debate on things like net neutrality. More likely, illiterate people have problems other than net neutrality... hunger, medicare, welfare etc.
My suggestion was "Those senators voting either FOR or AGAINST a particular bill should pass an aptitude test.... "
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday..
Thanks for clearing up that bit, Mr. Senator... I was wondering why I couldn't get any internet over the weekend!
The sad part here is that this guy feels qualified to stand up and lecture everyone on why he voted like he did...
That's the BAD part.. not the sad part. The sad part is, he was VOTED to power by people like us, to stand up and lecture... The corrective action would be.. Have a set of tests to determine which senator(s) can lecture / vote on a given topic. Those who fail the test lose their voting rights...
this guy seems to have developed a strong opinion on the subject..
Or maybe he has been subjected to a strong influence, to lecture the way he did. Or maybe no one else listening knew enought o call the bluff. Or maybe the rest were lobbied to remain mute as well.. Or maybe all of the above.
World Encompassing Corporation....
The problem with ICANN is that it seems to cater to the needs, whims, fancies, monpoloies, viewpoints of a ver few entities based in the US.. whereas the internet, in reality, is World Encompassing. Every nation should have representation based on the number of servers hosted in it's soil, amount of bandwidth generated, etc.
He wants to liberate Cyberspace! Such lofty ideals should resonate with the present administration!!
A model in which the infrastructure is paid for as infrastructure -- privately, locally, nationally, and internationally can create a true marketplace in which the incentives are aligned...
Despite the availability of Free software -- both as in beer, and in freedom... the software marketplace remains skewed in favour of corporate giants, patent trolls etc. What incentive would the bandwidth providers have... for practising a transparent and 'fair' bisiness model? How many 'consumers' are technically capable / informed to take up this task? Can't see this model working on either side of the equation...
1. JBoss gains widespread acceptance, and threatens Sun's Java model, dominance.
2. Despite Sun introducing new enhancements, developers are switching to the JBoss architecture and portal in droves.
3. RedHat acquires JBoss, gets sued, and loses - 'tainting' JBoss in the process.
4. Sun wins - one big competitor tainted and gone.... MS wins - open source apps around JBoss fall away.
Sound plausible?
They'll find a hack for Windows, they'll buy Windows, or more than likely they'll just buy a new PC that comes with Windows legally bundled
More likely, they'll upgrade to pirated Windows 98 SE. Problem solved.
From Windows XP to Windows 98-SE.....
BTW, I've got a Home PC running my office's license of XP. I get some crazy messages at home from the WGA.... strangely the office PCs hardly grumble.
No wonder Gates is leaving the party...
until they prove it on these (currently) toothless specimens:
1. The Justice dept. (SCO vs IBM)
2. The anti-trust dept. (MS vs US)
3. Other suggestions welcome...
Peer-to-peer is more or less a workgroup
And Workgroup is a Microsoft term for describing a group of upto 10 people who can share files and printing without buying their server product. Hardly usable in legal terminology.
peers communicate directly, without intervention.
What intervention is required when a client talks to a server? Authentication? That can also be implemented in a so-called peer-to-peer network.
Client/server is the function of a domain (intra/Internet) in that you, the client, are requesting access to someone else's server.
Again... domain is a Microsoft concoction, just like workgroup, workstation etc. No relation to the structure of the internet, which is technically, and in reality, a Web. There are horizontal (peer-to-peer) as well as vertical (what you call client-server) strands in a web. Unless Spain wants to outlaw the internet, P2P cannot be outlawed.