The fact that Microsoft's word processor is widely available is irrelevant. The fact that some people have reversed engineered (to some degree) the older Word formats is also irrelevant. This is not about a particular program. What MUST be available is the document format. It must be freely available to the public so that records that are encoded in that format will always belong to the public. This means that it must be unencumbered by patents or restrictive licenses.
If I took my car in for maintenance and when I picked it up they said "Oh, and by the way, we removed the AC and power breaks." there would be real problems. It seems to me if you buy a piece of hardware you do so with the understanding that you are purchasing the functionality of that unit. To reduce its functionality seems a breach of trust.
Q: Some people hold Microsoft most accountable for security problems, even though software flaws are exploited by "bad guys," as you said. Is that a fair criticism?
Gates: Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement.
Because Microsoft is the biggest software company and so successful, we should be held responsible for coming up with those things. We've got to push the state of the art, we've got to be the one to solve those problems.
Microsoft has got to be the one to solve those problems?? Oh Please... Any excuse to take control and give themselves some unfair advantage over their competition. Makes me want to gag.
Let me guess. Microsoft solution: Trusted Computing.
"Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere."
Karma-whoring? Do you really think his position is karma-whoring here on slashdot??
And the fact that he used the common man's verbage and called it stealing is playing word games. Both are breaking the law. Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.
I don't like seeing copyrighted material being shared via P2P but then I also don't like the way the copyright has been extened over and over so that it never runs out.
"Linux *is* too complicated for a good many people but it doesn't have anything to do w/the system design or how it works. It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home."
It's really not all that different. Windows - - Point and click. KDE - - Point and click.
"Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years."
Right.... So no one should/will ever change. Just stay with Microsoft forever... I'm sure Microsoft is relieved that they no longer have to worry about losing their desktop monopoly.
"You know, I consider myself knowledgeable with computers. I run multiple OSs at home and have run many more over the course of my life. You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever."
Really? You have. So probably other people will need to also. It's just that they won't be able to do it. Kind of the author's point don't you think?
"You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a.conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux."
I don't know what _you_ were doing but I don't ever need to edit config files for my Suse desktop.
"I realize that this was a tongue-in-cheek article and I realize that it was mildly humorous but I just really felt that it was just as bad as Microsoft claiming that Linux costs more. This bullshit where Linux users fault non-Linux users for not switching because of the lack of difficulty is just bullshit."
No, this was humor. It was poking fun and Microsoft FUD. Microsoft always claims that Linux is oh so hard. The Microsoft FUD is the bullshit, not this article.
"Linux isn't easy and it does have a learning curve. Most people just don't care to take the time to learn it."
Well I agree with half that statement. Most people are apathetic and don't care what they run as long as it works. And of course Linux has a learning curve. The point of the article is that that curve is no greater than the one to learn Windows. We don't come out of the womb knowing either operating system you know.
if this drug only masks a problem. One can mask the effects of fatigue by taking speed too but burn out will occur. I doubt that this drug is a replacement for sleep. More likely one would just feel great until heart failure occurs.
"Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases that they had already compiled to send out e-mail." i.e. So that businesses could continue to SPAM. "He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past." So if I tell a company that I don't want their penis enlargement ads they can SPAM me with an ad for their latest p0rn and so on and so on and. .." "Though often criticised as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers, he says." Right, that's why my filters catch move SPAM every month than the previous. It's only the filtering technology that keeps email usable.
Is Microsoft really serious about squashing SPAM or just in finding another cow to milk? What was this I heard about Microsoft wanting to buy the company that use to be called Gator? Seems to me that SPAM and AD ware go hand in hand.
"Maybe Congress should just get it over with and change the law to allow EULAs on printed works?"
Right... You may read and memorize the material in this book but you may not use what you have learned in any way.... At least not without owning someone something.
The 21st Century... The Century of unbridled greed. Let the carnage begin!
Making a competitor's product appear inferior when run on their monopoly platform is really an old Microsoft trick. As I remember they did the same thing with MP3s when played on their multi-media player. Made the quality artificially inferior so that their own WMP format would "appear" to be superior.
Having the multimedia player built in means that most people won't bother to download and install an optional media player. So playing a mp3 file is an unpleasant or at least less pleasant experience to playing a music file in Microsoft's file format.
Good ol' Microsoft. Always pushing the legal/ethical envelope.
"And while I agree with the sentiment that Bush is a monkey boy, I think calling him that repeatedly is rather immature and lends weight to any Republican counterargument that you're just a brainwashed Bush-bashing liberal. Always be the civil and mature one in the argument, and you will have the upper hand against anyone who wants to reduce it to name-calling."
It seems to me that the sticking point is the definition of "terrorist." I'm sure that what the Bush administration did has created a breeding ground for hate groups and that we will see more terrorist activity because of it. However, we should not paint every attack with the terrorist brush. Many attacks, if not most, are from angry Iraq citizens who want to kick the infidels out of their holy lands. But Monkey Boy takes every opportunity to call any forces fighting us "terrorists" so that he can morph his evil little war into something that can be justified.
If I have anything to say about it George Bush AKA Monkey Boy is NOT going to warp history. History is going to rightly condemn him for his actions and the actions of everyone who shoved this war down our throats. I also have bitched and warned and told people that there were no WMDs before we attacked Iraq but nothing could have prevented it because the mental midget in the white house had decided to attack no matter what. Also there was profit in it for companies who have connections in the White House. (A bit of an over simplification but more than a grain of truth.)
Before this war started I asked who will be held accountable when we find no WMDs. Apparently I was correct not only in my assertion that there were no WMD but that no one would be held accountable, least of all Monkey Boy.
"As much as you seem to think that sadaam is a fun-loving guy that should be invited to everyone's graduation party..he killed 100's of thousands more than the U.S. invasion. But protesters seem to always forget this part."
That is so much bullshit. NOBODY likes Saddam. What a lot of people are pissed off about is that we were mislead into an unnecessary war. Iraq is NOT about terrorism. It was suppose to be about weapons of mass destruction but the Bush administration takes every opportunity to say that our troops are being attacked by "the terrorists." We invaded their fucking country and a lot of Iraq people are pissed off about that. Those Iraq people who are fighting us are NOT terrorists so let's stop justifying a war that was planned way before 9/11 and impeach the dumb son of a bitch that is the cause of over a thousand of our fine American men and women who faithfully followed the really stupid and evil orders of this administration.
Patent violations are in all or most software. There are too many stupid patents being issued to prevent it. Most of them would be thrown out of court if challenged but the average individual does not have the resources to defend himself. In particular, groups of people who gather in cyberspace to express themselves though software development will not have the resources to do so when facing legal and financial terrorism by monopolistic corporations.
We do have laws that prevent convicted felons from voting in presidential elections. I don't see that it would be too unreasonable to impose extra ordinary restrictions on corporations that are convicted of abusing their monopoly position.
"All it will take is a determined senator to recognize that America needs more Microsofts, and the current Microsoft should be reined in appropriately."
Well, I think it would take more than one congressman to do it. Finding honest representatives of the people isn't easy. Unfortunately the people are no longer represented by the people they elect. It's mostly corporate interests that are being protected a corrupt Congress. Tragically the public is too apathetic to do what is required to force a corrupt Congress to change.
Until enough people get angry enough to come out of apathy and take action Congress will continue to be motivated by special interest money. If enough people do get angry and take action Congress will predictably take token measure in an effort to make the public believe that things are getting better. The measures will likely be little more than a PR campaign that will last just long enough to placate the populous before going back to taking special interest money and returning to business as usual.
I know. I have a very pessimistic view. I wish Congress would prove me wrong at least once before I die.
I would actually rather that SCO be completely gutted AFTER the case has gone to trial and Linux is completely exonerated. If they drop their case before then there may always be a doubt in some people's minds.
Probably not a problem if indeed they did own anything. I'm pretty sure that when people start to line up to take their share of what SCO will owe them, SCO will be forced to sell any assets that they do own. No asset will be allowed to die with SCO.
What part of the picture seems unreasonable? That Microsoft, Intel, RIAA and MPAA could be in bed together? That these corporations are run by greedy bastards that really don't have your best interests at heart? That these powerful corporations could buy congress? That people are fucking sheep too busy with their little lives to pay attention to important issue until it's too late?
The man hit the nail on the head folks. The corporations have done that statistical math as it applies to a population of self centered, apathetic consumer drones. Their formula is based on the fact that although a small percentage of the population is unpredictable, the vast majority are predictable.
John Lennon said it really well in "Working Class Hero"
A working class hero is something to be. Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, And you think you're so clever and classless and free, But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,
So go ahead and ignore all the warnings and mock them as doomsday predictions. After all, you must. The corporate consumer drone formula says so.
I see some people slamming United Linux. However, the standardization of library sets and a predictable directory structure can be a big help to developers. As a developer myself, I find it annoying when my code works find on my Linux box but fails on other distros simply because I can't count on particular libraries being included in all distros or being placed in the same place so that my program can find them.
I'm not saying that every version of Linux need have the exact same library set but at least give me a minimum set of libraries placed in known directories so that I know that the user will be able to run my programs without searching the Internet for that one library that isn't installed.
Also the maker's of these libraries should maintain backward compatibility so that applications don't break with each library upgrade. I've seen library changes that were absolutely trivial in functionality without maintaining backward compatibility with the older API. The benefit to the end user was virtually non-existent but the pain to the developers great.
So to sum it up, I don't see a need to reduce the number of versions of Linux but I think more work in the area of a standard base that developers can count on would be beneficial.
Have you used Linux lately? KDE and Gnome are as easy to use as Windows and most distros are EASIER to install than Windows.
Once installed (Which usually means booting from the install disk and accepting all defaults.) applications are started by pointing to icons with the mouse and clicking. Not rocket science.
"Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better."
It's not what Linux has that attracts me. It's what it has not.
It doesn't have a philosophy of lock in. It doesn't have virus after virus taking my system down if I don't patch it daily. It doesn't have a philosophy of limiting my fair use rights. But most of all it doesn't have Microsoft with their anti competitive practices and their obnoxious licensing agreements.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that Microsoft's word processor is widely available is irrelevant. The fact that some people have reversed engineered (to some degree) the older Word formats is also irrelevant. This is not about a particular program. What MUST be available is the document format. It must be freely available to the public so that records that are encoded in that format will always belong to the public. This means that it must be unencumbered by patents or restrictive licenses.
Pretty damn good reason if you ask me.
If I took my car in for maintenance and when I picked it up they said "Oh, and by the way, we removed the AC and power breaks." there would be real problems. It seems to me if you buy a piece of hardware you do so with the understanding that you are purchasing the functionality of that unit. To reduce its functionality seems a breach of trust.
Q: Some people hold Microsoft most accountable for security problems, even though software flaws are exploited by "bad guys," as you said. Is that a fair criticism?
Gates: Software in general, whether it was from Microsoft or somebody else, was not set up for an environment where all the computers were connected together. So it's not like there was some software that had this security capability and our software did not. As we use the Internet to connect everyone up, then the need to essentially have suspicion and only listen to certain other systems, and if flaws come up to have those updated very quickly, that became a new requirement.
Because Microsoft is the biggest software company and so successful, we should be held responsible for coming up with those things. We've got to push the state of the art, we've got to be the one to solve those problems.
Microsoft has got to be the one to solve those problems?? Oh Please... Any excuse to take control and give themselves some unfair advantage over their competition. Makes me want to gag.
Let me guess. Microsoft solution: Trusted Computing.
Exactly when did hell freeze over?!
"Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere."
Karma-whoring? Do you really think his position is karma-whoring here on slashdot??
And the fact that he used the common man's verbage and called it stealing is playing word games. Both are breaking the law. Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.
I don't like seeing copyrighted material being shared via P2P but then I also don't like the way the copyright has been extened over and over so that it never runs out.
Why? Is copyright infrigement somehow less illegal?
"Linux *is* too complicated for a good many people but it doesn't have anything to do w/the system design or how it works. It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home."
.conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux."
It's really not all that different. Windows - - Point and click. KDE - - Point and click.
"Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years."
Right.... So no one should/will ever change. Just stay with Microsoft forever... I'm sure Microsoft is relieved that they no longer have to worry about losing their desktop monopoly.
"You know, I consider myself knowledgeable with computers. I run multiple OSs at home and have run many more over the course of my life. You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever."
Really? You have. So probably other people will need to also. It's just that they won't be able to do it. Kind of the author's point don't you think?
"You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a
I don't know what _you_ were doing but I don't ever need to edit config files for my Suse desktop.
"I realize that this was a tongue-in-cheek article and I realize that it was mildly humorous but I just really felt that it was just as bad as Microsoft claiming that Linux costs more. This bullshit where Linux users fault non-Linux users for not switching because of the lack of difficulty is just bullshit."
No, this was humor. It was poking fun and Microsoft FUD. Microsoft always claims that Linux is oh so hard. The Microsoft FUD is the bullshit, not this article.
"Linux isn't easy and it does have a learning curve. Most people just don't care to take the time to learn it."
Well I agree with half that statement. Most people are apathetic and don't care what they run as long as it works. And of course Linux has a learning curve. The point of the article is that that curve is no greater than the one to learn Windows. We don't come out of the womb knowing either operating system you know.
if this drug only masks a problem. One can mask the effects of fatigue by taking speed too but burn out will occur. I doubt that this drug is a replacement for sleep. More likely one would just feel great until heart failure occurs.
"Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases that they had already compiled to send out e-mail." ."
i.e. So that businesses could continue to SPAM.
"He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past."
So if I tell a company that I don't want their penis enlargement ads they can SPAM me with an ad for their latest p0rn and so on and so on and. .
"Though often criticised as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers, he says."
Right, that's why my filters catch move SPAM every month than the previous. It's only the filtering technology that keeps email usable.
Is Microsoft really serious about squashing SPAM or just in finding another cow to milk? What was this I heard about Microsoft wanting to buy the company that use to be called Gator? Seems to me that SPAM and AD ware go hand in hand.
"Maybe Congress should just get it over with and change the law to allow EULAs on printed works?"
Right... You may read and memorize the material in this book but you may not use what you have learned in any way.... At least not without owning someone something.
The 21st Century... The Century of unbridled greed. Let the carnage begin!
"If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."
I now understand why George W. Bush is the way he is...
Making a competitor's product appear inferior when run on their monopoly platform is really an old Microsoft trick. As I remember they did the same thing with MP3s when played on their multi-media player. Made the quality artificially inferior so that their own WMP format would "appear" to be superior.
Having the multimedia player built in means that most people won't bother to download and install an optional media player. So playing a mp3 file is an unpleasant or at least less pleasant experience to playing a music file in Microsoft's file format.
Good ol' Microsoft. Always pushing the legal/ethical envelope.
"And while I agree with the sentiment that Bush is a monkey boy, I think calling him that repeatedly is rather immature and lends weight to any Republican counterargument that you're just a brainwashed Bush-bashing liberal. Always be the civil and mature one in the argument, and you will have the upper hand against anyone who wants to reduce it to name-calling."
Born out of pure frustration.
It seems to me that the sticking point is the definition of "terrorist." I'm sure that what the Bush administration did has created a breeding ground for hate groups and that we will see more terrorist activity because of it. However, we should not paint every attack with the terrorist brush. Many attacks, if not most, are from angry Iraq citizens who want to kick the infidels out of their holy lands. But Monkey Boy takes every opportunity to call any forces fighting us "terrorists" so that he can morph his evil little war into something that can be justified.
If I have anything to say about it George Bush AKA Monkey Boy is NOT going to warp history. History is going to rightly condemn him for his actions and the actions of everyone who shoved this war down our throats. I also have bitched and warned and told people that there were no WMDs before we attacked Iraq but nothing could have prevented it because the mental midget in the white house had decided to attack no matter what. Also there was profit in it for companies who have connections in the White House. (A bit of an over simplification but more than a grain of truth.)
Before this war started I asked who will be held accountable when we find no WMDs. Apparently I was correct not only in my assertion that there were no WMD but that no one would be held accountable, least of all Monkey Boy.
"As much as you seem to think that sadaam is a fun-loving guy that should be invited to everyone's graduation party..he killed 100's of thousands more than the U.S. invasion. But protesters seem to always forget this part."
That is so much bullshit. NOBODY likes Saddam. What a lot of people are pissed off about is that we were mislead into an unnecessary war. Iraq is NOT about terrorism. It was suppose to be about weapons of mass destruction but the Bush administration takes every opportunity to say that our troops are being attacked by "the terrorists." We invaded their fucking country and a lot of Iraq people are pissed off about that. Those Iraq people who are fighting us are NOT terrorists so let's stop justifying a war that was planned way before 9/11 and impeach the dumb son of a bitch that is the cause of over a thousand of our fine American men and women who faithfully followed the really stupid and evil orders of this administration.
Patent violations are in all or most software. There are too many stupid patents being issued to prevent it. Most of them would be thrown out of court if challenged but the average individual does not have the resources to defend himself. In particular, groups of people who gather in cyberspace to express themselves though software development will not have the resources to do so when facing legal and financial terrorism by monopolistic corporations.
We do have laws that prevent convicted felons from voting in presidential elections. I don't see that it would be too unreasonable to impose extra ordinary restrictions on corporations that are convicted of abusing their monopoly position.
"All it will take is a determined senator to recognize that America needs more Microsofts, and the current Microsoft should be reined in appropriately."
Well, I think it would take more than one congressman to do it. Finding honest representatives of the people isn't easy. Unfortunately the people are no longer represented by the people they elect. It's mostly corporate interests that are being protected a corrupt Congress. Tragically the public is too apathetic to do what is required to force a corrupt Congress to change.
Until enough people get angry enough to come out of apathy and take action Congress will continue to be motivated by special interest money. If enough people do get angry and take action Congress will predictably take token measure in an effort to make the public believe that things are getting better. The measures will likely be little more than a PR campaign that will last just long enough to placate the populous before going back to taking special interest money and returning to business as usual.
I know. I have a very pessimistic view. I wish Congress would prove me wrong at least once before I die.
I would actually rather that SCO be completely gutted AFTER the case has gone to trial and Linux is completely exonerated. If they drop their case before then there may always be a doubt in some people's minds.
Probably not a problem if indeed they did own anything. I'm pretty sure that when people start to line up to take their share of what SCO will owe them, SCO will be forced to sell any assets that they do own. No asset will be allowed to die with SCO.
"This guy sounds like a doomsday fanatic to me."
Why? Because he paints an unpleasant picture?
What part of the picture seems unreasonable? That Microsoft, Intel, RIAA and MPAA could be in bed together? That these corporations are run by greedy bastards that really don't have your best interests at heart? That these powerful corporations could buy congress? That people are fucking sheep too busy with their little lives to pay attention to important issue until it's too late?
The man hit the nail on the head folks. The corporations have done that statistical math as it applies to a population of self centered, apathetic consumer drones. Their formula is based on the fact that although a small percentage of the population is unpredictable, the vast majority are predictable.
John Lennon said it really well in "Working Class Hero"
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,
So go ahead and ignore all the warnings and mock them as doomsday predictions. After all, you must. The corporate consumer drone formula says so.
I see some people slamming United Linux. However, the standardization of library sets and a predictable directory structure can be a big help to developers. As a developer myself, I find it annoying when my code works find on my Linux box but fails on other distros simply because I can't count on particular libraries being included in all distros or being placed in the same place so that my program can find them.
I'm not saying that every version of Linux need have the exact same library set but at least give me a minimum set of libraries placed in known directories so that I know that the user will be able to run my programs without searching the Internet for that one library that isn't installed.
Also the maker's of these libraries should maintain backward compatibility so that applications don't break with each library upgrade. I've seen library changes that were absolutely trivial in functionality without maintaining backward compatibility with the older API. The benefit to the end user was virtually non-existent but the pain to the developers great.
So to sum it up, I don't see a need to reduce the number of versions of Linux but I think more work in the area of a standard base that developers can count on would be beneficial.
Using Linux does NOT mean using a command line.
Have you used Linux lately? KDE and Gnome are as easy to use as Windows and most distros are EASIER to install than Windows.
Once installed (Which usually means booting from the install disk and accepting all defaults.) applications are started by pointing to icons with the mouse and clicking. Not rocket science.
"Linux is not a bad system, it just doesn't have anything to offer that its competitors don't already do as well or better."
It's not what Linux has that attracts me. It's what it has not.
It doesn't have a philosophy of lock in.
It doesn't have virus after virus taking my system down if I don't patch it daily.
It doesn't have a philosophy of limiting my fair use rights.
But most of all it doesn't have Microsoft with their anti competitive practices and their obnoxious licensing agreements.
oops... make that www.ubuntulinux.org
who are looking to try a Debian look at ubuntu. (www.ubuntu.org)
I just loaded it yesterday. Very stable and looks to be well supported. The multimedia support is somewhat lacking however.
They'll even send you some pressed CDs for free. (They're even paying the shipping.)