wow, when i was at school every CS course had a class mailing list where students were _encouraged_ to ask questions to each other.
if GT knows anything about CS they should recognize that the majority of programming involves building on someone elses work, either as part of a team or maintaining a previous coders work.
being able to discuss your code/ideas effectively is probably one of the most important workplace skills i can imagine gaining.
i know it happens to me every day where me/fellow employee each have our own way of approaching a problem and need to (gasp) discuss it to find what we consider the best solution.
[AMD] would no longer be able to rely upon the existence of particular software code in Windows or the APIs
correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't MS software run on AMD products and not visa-versa.
he's acting like changes in the windows code will change the way chips are built.
while i'm sure bill would like to believe it, not even MS has this much power...
Re:Let's stick to the facts and prepare our strate
on
Microsoft And The GPL/LGPL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Unfortunately it's not the legality of the claims that makes the difference.
It's the long drawn out trials, threats and general FUD that can go on for years (as MS has just proved), all the while effectively making it impossible for the coders to code.
tell me, do you have the money and resources to prove them wrong in a court of law?
regardless, are you supremely confident enough in your claims to start coding tomorrow? would you get nervous when you get your daily cease and desist letter, knowing you don't have the legal power to stand up to them? what if they go ahead and arrest you? sure, you could get released b/c they have no real legal claim, but is it really worth it? ask Sklarikov(sp?) if he would rather have the software or the jail time.
the real issues, unfortunately, have nothing to do with 'reality' and MS knows this just as well as us.
Microsoft and Apple spend millions of dollars when developing new operating systems or UIs in order to ensure that their product is easy to use
ok, one thing i am sick of...
people constantly bitch how gnome/kde seem to just rip off Apple/MS for interfaces. but then we see things like this.
if these companies took millions of dollars to figure it out, then what do you expect? is it stealing? is it tainted by the beast? no, it's the natural progression of product development in a competitive market place (offering what your competitor offers).
it's like people who won't use a task bar b/c it's associated w/ MS. if it's a good idea then what difference does it make?
also, if you ask me gnome is already super useable b/c it's so customizable. want it to work like windows? no problem. some other OS? not a problem either... in fact, i would like to know what problems you are having using gnome or kde that you feel research needs to be done
if there is some specific feature that you find hard to use, talk about that. don't just say 'make it easier and i don't know how'.
yeah, yeah, whatever, mod me down, someone had to say it...
yes, this and configuring software before and after you install it. i remember one of my hardest hurdles to get over was that windows had gotten me used to the installer always asking me questions.
'would you like XYZ support?'
'would you like the ABC option?'
where as installing under *nix is a self motivated process, i.e. if you want it, type it into the conf file yourself or pass it in as a param when you make.
the windows culture is one where you wait for the program to point and prod you, whereas under *nix you have to know what you can do before hand and then choose accordingly.
I disagree. Your mistake is that you're talking about the end user win-desktop type.
These are protocols that are aimed at/only understandable by hardcore techies, meaning we _do_ know better and _can_ do something about it.
Honestly, when an exec at your company clicks a button on a web page and expects it to do something does he care if it's SOAP driven etc.?
No, as long as it does what he expects he doesn't care, meaning _you_ make the decision about how the back end works. So if MS/IBM pisses you off, as long as you can produce the same results using some other technology then nothing is stopping you from switching.
personally i'm very happy about this.
no, this is not THE linux for the masses, someone hasn't finally 'figured it out' but what it shows is that enough people are trying, enough to finally start to generate some significant interest. Or maybe it's that there's significant enough interest for companies to start trying to make a real business from desktop linux (yes, of course Mandrake and RH but unfortunately their idealism exempts them from what I mean).
either way it's a good sign, and while it may be a few years before there's any major desktop inroads at least we can see the seeds starting to grow a little...
i say more power to them! scientology is playing super dirty and i see nothing more fitting then using their own money to strike back against them.
besides, how many clicks does that link get a day? 5? I hardly doubt that's going to put much of a dent in Travolta's wallet...
ummm, my guess is that they knew _exactly_ how much this would piss people off, that's why the user isn't made expressly aware.
it's the basic first rule of business: if the user will like it, give it lots of hype, if they won't, hush it up.
their actions here speak volumes about how they expected this to be recieved.
MS knows just as well as you and me that nobody reads those privacy policies.
anyone catch the link in one of the info windows to emusic?
apparently this is one of gateways 'partners' and a 'good place to download music legally' or something like that.
anyone know anything about them?
Aside from the obvious consumer objections, it should have been obvious to Microsoft from the get-go that other companies aren't going to trust them to keep track of userdata.
I hate to say it, but the real reason this failed is because the potential client companies were being just as greedy and selfish as MS or any other large corporation.
Proprietary customer data is the lifeblood of these companies. Why? Mostly for marketing purposes. Ideally, AmEx wants your data to be _only_ in their files so that they are the sole company you hear about promotions from, which makes you much more primed to buy.
This is the same reason a global internet shopping cart will never fly. As an advertiser, why would I want to give my competitors equal placement in the consumer's decision making process? Similarily, why would I want MS to be able to market to you just as easily after I went through all that trouble to get your data?
I know we would all like to think this is a result of privacy issues/general distrust of MS, but unfortunately it's just another case of corporate greed accidentally working out for the little guy...
i said this the first time this story was here, and i'll say it again. this product is not targetted toward/. geeks!
that's like if slashcars.org was reviewing a new car and all the mechanics we're like "doy, i could just build this myself so why would anyone buy it?".
we're all happy that you, me and 90% of the other people here could build one, but you act like it's a flaw in zapmedia's business model which it most definitely is not.
whether your average consumer will bite or not is a whole other story, but please, don't blame them for not making something you want.
if these are the same coders who made the mistakes the first time... why should i believe they all suddenly became security experts in under 3 months?
'no, i _knew_ about buffer overflows i just was too lazy to type the extra lines'. come on...
here's what i've never understood: the mandrake club advertises benefits like access to commercial software not available in all distros.
that being the case, isn't this really just the closed source model all over again?
they have software you can't get... so they charge you for it.
if they want to be a closed source vendor that's fine with me, i just wonder if they're really making money with 'free' software.
p.s. i'm not trying to troll, i really am curious about this
you are a consumer just by being alive.
seriously, where would you draw the line? are you a consumer just because you watch tv? are you a consumer just because you read a magazine?
you can't write off the entire advertising industry as unfarily profiling you just because you don't like pop-ups.
it just goes to show that 99% of the work in creating software is in the design.
you have to try to map out not only what you will need but what you might need in the future.
yes, it's a near impossible task but it's the only way to avoid automatically commiting yourself to an endless cycle of patches and hacks.
the good part is, if you can plan the project well enough then the actual coding becomes nearly trivial.
the problem arises when the boss says 'i don't care about scalability or flexibility, i just want code now' and i have to try to explaining that i'm trying to save his ass 8 months down the line when clients (and not to mention, the boss himself) bombard us with feature requests, etc.
As I understand it, SETI etc. are clients that download/upload data only, where as these auto-updates actually d/l executable code (and even cause it to be run).
1) Do you know what you're paying for? Do I get to see the script before I watch the show? If I pay for a sitcom and don't laugh, do I get my money back?
2) I still haven't seen any guarantee there _won't_ be advertising anyways. But regardless, when I see advertising the company in question is trying to convince me to buy their product: I have agreed to listen to their pitch in exchange for free content. The key is I am in control of if and when I spend my money. Sometimes an advertisers pitch works, sometimes it doesn't, but we have a mutual understanding to this effect, not a relationship in where one party controls all the resources and drops little morsels if I'm lucky.
3) I don't have a lot of money. Maybe it's just me personally, but with the economy the way it is, it simply doesn't make economic sense for me to pay to watch a Seinfeld re-run. When I already have a system in place that works seamlessly and has benefitted both viewers and advertisers for decades I get upset when they try to coerce my money from me.
All in all, pay per view would most likely only have restrictive effects without offering anything new to the consumer.
i hope you have another company with an equal or better shot at challenging the DMCA.
if you can't have the one you love, love the one you're with, b/c unfortunately supporting one spammer is worth the millions of people this could benefit, whether we approve of their business or not.
any of us who work in a small company and have some direct experience with the product you made going to market have learned the hard way that often gui's and gimmicks are the #1 selling point.
yes, it's depressing but incredibly true.
this is largely what the open source movement is missing right now. decent gui/interface designers/coders. whether it's:
a) b/c it's not as interesting as the guts
b) b/c they don't feel as l33t
there really don't seem to be enough (any) people who will step up to a project and volunteer to make a lot of buttons etc. i would love to say i was a GUI coder (it's just that i can't draw and am told that my ideas of an intuitive interface suck) but if open source _ever_ wants to compete seriously w/ MS this is what we need. after all it's really MS's real product, how it works doesn't matter to most people but it's fun to click on and looks pretty.
the point is i made more headway with my boss/the sales staff with one transparent terminal than a whole month of preaching about MS evils...
Slashdot Mirror
wow, when i was at school every CS course had a class mailing list where students were _encouraged_ to ask questions to each other.
if GT knows anything about CS they should recognize that the majority of programming involves building on someone elses work, either as part of a team or maintaining a previous coders work.
being able to discuss your code/ideas effectively is probably one of the most important workplace skills i can imagine gaining.
i know it happens to me every day where me/fellow employee each have our own way of approaching a problem and need to (gasp) discuss it to find what we consider the best solution.
correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't MS software run on AMD products and not visa-versa.
he's acting like changes in the windows code will change the way chips are built.
while i'm sure bill would like to believe it, not even MS has this much power...
Unfortunately it's not the legality of the claims that makes the difference.
It's the long drawn out trials, threats and general FUD that can go on for years (as MS has just proved), all the while effectively making it impossible for the coders to code.
tell me, do you have the money and resources to prove them wrong in a court of law?
regardless, are you supremely confident enough in your claims to start coding tomorrow? would you get nervous when you get your daily cease and desist letter, knowing you don't have the legal power to stand up to them? what if they go ahead and arrest you? sure, you could get released b/c they have no real legal claim, but is it really worth it? ask Sklarikov(sp?) if he would rather have the software or the jail time.
the real issues, unfortunately, have nothing to do with 'reality' and MS knows this just as well as us.
ok, one thing i am sick of...
people constantly bitch how gnome/kde seem to just rip off Apple/MS for interfaces. but then we see things like this.
if these companies took millions of dollars to figure it out, then what do you expect? is it stealing? is it tainted by the beast? no, it's the natural progression of product development in a competitive market place (offering what your competitor offers).
it's like people who won't use a task bar b/c it's associated w/ MS. if it's a good idea then what difference does it make?
also, if you ask me gnome is already super useable b/c it's so customizable. want it to work like windows? no problem. some other OS? not a problem either... in fact, i would like to know what problems you are having using gnome or kde that you feel research needs to be done
if there is some specific feature that you find hard to use, talk about that. don't just say 'make it easier and i don't know how'.
yeah, yeah, whatever, mod me down, someone had to say it...
yes, this and configuring software before and after you install it. i remember one of my hardest hurdles to get over was that windows had gotten me used to the installer always asking me questions.
'would you like XYZ support?'
'would you like the ABC option?'
where as installing under *nix is a self motivated process, i.e. if you want it, type it into the conf file yourself or pass it in as a param when you make.
the windows culture is one where you wait for the program to point and prod you, whereas under *nix you have to know what you can do before hand and then choose accordingly.
I disagree. Your mistake is that you're talking about the end user win-desktop type.
These are protocols that are aimed at/only understandable by hardcore techies, meaning we _do_ know better and _can_ do something about it.
Honestly, when an exec at your company clicks a button on a web page and expects it to do something does he care if it's SOAP driven etc.?
No, as long as it does what he expects he doesn't care, meaning _you_ make the decision about how the back end works. So if MS/IBM pisses you off, as long as you can produce the same results using some other technology then nothing is stopping you from switching.
personally i'm very happy about this.
no, this is not THE linux for the masses, someone hasn't finally 'figured it out' but what it shows is that enough people are trying, enough to finally start to generate some significant interest. Or maybe it's that there's significant enough interest for companies to start trying to make a real business from desktop linux (yes, of course Mandrake and RH but unfortunately their idealism exempts them from what I mean).
either way it's a good sign, and while it may be a few years before there's any major desktop inroads at least we can see the seeds starting to grow a little...
damn.
when i read the title i thought it meant they were going to outlaw outlook:)
i say more power to them! scientology is playing super dirty and i see nothing more fitting then using their own money to strike back against them.
besides, how many clicks does that link get a day? 5? I hardly doubt that's going to put much of a dent in Travolta's wallet...
ummm, my guess is that they knew _exactly_ how much this would piss people off, that's why the user isn't made expressly aware.
it's the basic first rule of business: if the user will like it, give it lots of hype, if they won't, hush it up.
their actions here speak volumes about how they expected this to be recieved.
MS knows just as well as you and me that nobody reads those privacy policies.
lol, the true sign of a techie: taking new metaphors and forcing them back on the old world which has existed much much longer.
try 'email: just another medium', then maybe you can see where the advertisers are coming from.
anyone catch the link in one of the info windows to emusic?
apparently this is one of gateways 'partners' and a 'good place to download music legally' or something like that.
anyone know anything about them?
I hate to say it, but the real reason this failed is because the potential client companies were being just as greedy and selfish as MS or any other large corporation.
Proprietary customer data is the lifeblood of these companies. Why? Mostly for marketing purposes. Ideally, AmEx wants your data to be _only_ in their files so that they are the sole company you hear about promotions from, which makes you much more primed to buy.
This is the same reason a global internet shopping cart will never fly. As an advertiser, why would I want to give my competitors equal placement in the consumer's decision making process? Similarily, why would I want MS to be able to market to you just as easily after I went through all that trouble to get your data?
I know we would all like to think this is a result of privacy issues/general distrust of MS, but unfortunately it's just another case of corporate greed accidentally working out for the little guy...
i said this the first time this story was here, and i'll say it again. /. geeks!
this product is not targetted toward
that's like if slashcars.org was reviewing a new car and all the mechanics we're like "doy, i could just build this myself so why would anyone buy it?".
we're all happy that you, me and 90% of the other people here could build one, but you act like it's a flaw in zapmedia's business model which it most definitely is not.
whether your average consumer will bite or not is a whole other story, but please, don't blame them for not making something you want.
if these are the same coders who made the mistakes the first time... why should i believe they all suddenly became security experts in under 3 months?
'no, i _knew_ about buffer overflows i just was too lazy to type the extra lines'. come on...
that being the case, isn't this really just the closed source model all over again?
they have software you can't get... so they charge you for it.
if they want to be a closed source vendor that's fine with me, i just wonder if they're really making money with 'free' software.
p.s. i'm not trying to troll, i really am curious about this
seriously, where would you draw the line? are you a consumer just because you watch tv? are you a consumer just because you read a magazine?
you can't write off the entire advertising industry as unfarily profiling you just because you don't like pop-ups.
it just goes to show that 99% of the work in creating software is in the design.
you have to try to map out not only what you will need but what you might need in the future.
yes, it's a near impossible task but it's the only way to avoid automatically commiting yourself to an endless cycle of patches and hacks.
the good part is, if you can plan the project well enough then the actual coding becomes nearly trivial.
the problem arises when the boss says 'i don't care about scalability or flexibility, i just want code now' and i have to try to explaining that i'm trying to save his ass 8 months down the line when clients (and not to mention, the boss himself) bombard us with feature requests, etc.
As I understand it, SETI etc. are clients that download/upload data only, where as these auto-updates actually d/l executable code (and even cause it to be run).
1) Do you know what you're paying for? Do I get to see the script before I watch the show? If I pay for a sitcom and don't laugh, do I get my money back?
2) I still haven't seen any guarantee there _won't_ be advertising anyways. But regardless, when I see advertising the company in question is trying to convince me to buy their product: I have agreed to listen to their pitch in exchange for free content. The key is I am in control of if and when I spend my money. Sometimes an advertisers pitch works, sometimes it doesn't, but we have a mutual understanding to this effect, not a relationship in where one party controls all the resources and drops little morsels if I'm lucky.
3) I don't have a lot of money. Maybe it's just me personally, but with the economy the way it is, it simply doesn't make economic sense for me to pay to watch a Seinfeld re-run. When I already have a system in place that works seamlessly and has benefitted both viewers and advertisers for decades I get upset when they try to coerce my money from me.
All in all, pay per view would most likely only have restrictive effects without offering anything new to the consumer.
wtf?
if you can't have the one you love, love the one you're with, b/c unfortunately supporting one spammer is worth the millions of people this could benefit, whether we approve of their business or not.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the fun of karaoke was laughing at your friends when they suck.
how will this help?
yes, it's depressing but incredibly true.
this is largely what the open source movement is missing right now. decent gui/interface designers/coders. whether it's:
a) b/c it's not as interesting as the guts
b) b/c they don't feel as l33t
there really don't seem to be enough (any) people who will step up to a project and volunteer to make a lot of buttons etc. i would love to say i was a GUI coder (it's just that i can't draw and am told that my ideas of an intuitive interface suck) but if open source _ever_ wants to compete seriously w/ MS this is what we need. after all it's really MS's real product, how it works doesn't matter to most people but it's fun to click on and looks pretty.
the point is i made more headway with my boss/the sales staff with one transparent terminal than a whole month of preaching about MS evils...
apparently pigeons are all scientologists.