Yes, it's important to read the author's bias. And with this guy, it's clear that you're getting nothing but pure 100% pro-Linux opinion. Reading about an MS product here is like reading about a new Kernel release on MSNBC.
Everyone is biased, but some more than others. By refusing to even spell the competition correctly, he's doing nothing but hurting his point. How seriously would you take an article that says "Linsucks" or something like that. He's killed any chance he has at making an impact by preaching to the choir.
There's a difference between a free client that comes with the OS that comes with the Dell, and a $100,000 upgrade for every server in the company.
This is a problem that will be dealt with on the server level, and corporate customers, while certainly not beyond being sold by MS' bullshit, are far less sheeplike than their customers. Especially when we're dealing with tons of money.
Also, another factor that I hadn't considered. If a formerly Linux based webservice has to make the switch to IIS, they will likely have to replace or retrain their entire IT department, which in many cases, could be almost the entire company. People cost much more than software, and MS may well be offering struggling e-businesses little more than a chance to go bankrupt.
It's struck me before that what we need is a "rootless" Linux distro.
One of the main obstacles toward using Linux is installing software. Whenever I try to get my friends to switch over to Linux, and I'm talking about experienced computer users with Unix experience, the inevitable huge stumbling block is "well how do I install anything?"
What Desktop Linux needs is a semi-protected mode (no login) similar to the priveledges of the default Windows user, you can change settings, install software, view the whole directory structure, but you can't change anything that would cripple the system to the point where "click here to restore default settings" (another option we need) wouldn't fix everything.
Linux software should be as easy as download to the desktop -> click to install. Right now the learning curve of linux has been pushed back only a few steps, it's easy to setup a default config, and use the web and email and anything setup by the distro, but you still have to learn all sorts of crazy convoluted things to do anything beyond that. The difficulty of a task shouldn't be greater than the task's complexity.
Once that is done, someone needs to write a book/series of visible articles entitled "So, you're tired of paying Microsoft $100 per year"
"Hmmm... these damn kids are trying to make our games compatible with new hardware. That might result in someone PURCHASING OUR PRODUCT!!! Someone get my lawyer"
Oh it's George Lucas? Jeez, that figures. Of all of my old heros that could have died in a plane crash before they came back to haunt me, Mr. Perm has to top the list.
Yes, but we're talking about much more than OSes here, think about how many corporate sites run custom scripts and apps.
Big Biz does NOT want to update their codebase. The Airlines still use traffic control software written in the mid-70s. It is expensive to update custom software.
Secondly, I see a far more likely response to Microsoft's threat of "this site is not safe to visit, tell them to upgrade to IIS" is a massive class-action lawsuit. This tactic amounts to nothing more than a protection racket, and CEOs (once things are explained to them in baby words by IT) won't stand for it.
Regardless, it IS a threat, but only if we roll over and take it. We've got several years to fight this thing, are we men or are we netscape?
The internet wouldn't have changed if netscape had tried.
Nobody trying to make any money on the web will render their services incompatible with user's browsers. Especially if you think about how many corporate surfers (lunchbreak ebay time... why isn't it working?) are using non-Palladium machines to connect. It doesn't matter what's on your desk, it matters what's in the network closet.
I really believe that Microsoft is flushing money down the toilet, or perhaps appeasing investors by saying "ignore those reports of poor security, look at what we're going to do"
They'll need something like a 95% installed base before they can make this into anything other than a "check here to not see this warning again" feature, and that won't happen for at least 5 years, many more if the current slowdown in hardware purchasing is more than a temporary snag (hint: it is, what widely used apps make full use of even two year old systems?)
the hardware upgrade cycle is rapidly moving away from the old 2.5 year average, and that alone will kill any chance of this thing working.
For that to be a relevant comparason, the entire OS community would have to stop putting out meaningful updates and upgrades, make no feature additions ever, decide to scrap their codebase, and refuse to acknowledge that competition is occuring.
Netscape died by their own hand. I wonder at what point the execs said "oh well we can retire on AOL money anyway, who cares?"
I imagine this will be an optional security feature, too.
Since they can't have instant 100% deployment, people will have to be able to turn off the "security" to view a lot of content. If we could somehow setup a big public webserver where rejected traffic is relocated, we could inform people that "1, they should turn that crap off and 2, Microsoft is doing some *VERY* dirty business here and 3, Isn't it time they cut those corporate puppet strings from their arms" it could be a huge PR boon for the OS community.
Also, supposed "journalism" that uses phrases like "Windoze" and "Microsoft's Mark of the Beast" cannot be trusted for accurate, unbiased information. The guy has an interesting opinion, but it's just that: an opinion.
The general thrust of the article is that under the new security system, GPL programs will not be able to be "trusted" by MS' hardware/software security system, so GPL based systems (like Apache web servers) will become unusable with mainstream computers.
I doubt this will happen.
Because, frankly, the invisible success of opensource is too widespread. I haven't looked at server statistics recently, but a significant percentage of webservers run on some manner of opensource program. Microsoft isn't going to be able to force half of the web servers in the world to switch over, and if people know that buying this new board from MS/Intel (which has few tangible benefits) will render half of the internet unusable, nobody is going to go for it. I'm not even beginning to think about the various governments that have begun to standardize around Linux, the opensource core of Apple's OS X, etc. etc.
Frankly opensource is too big. If Microsoft renders its systems incompatible with the GPL, then it will be Microsoft, and not the OS community, that suffers.
Maybe a lot of people edit videos, but $1000 extra bucks for basically the functionality of a $200 Playstation 2, and not even then, because a low-end computer will play all the newest games, just not on the *highest* resolution and at the *maximum* detail.
frankly i think graphics look worse at 1600x1200, the polygons get so big that it completely ruins the illusion. if you're hitting framerates above 30, it doesn't matter how much higher you go, and i usually can't notice too much of a difference.
owning a $3000 computer is a lot like owning a $60,000 car. there really isn't any point, and you could have put the money to a much better use.
actually a Pentium II with 128 Megs of ram and a 2 year old video card will still run almost every game currently on the market. hardware has WAAAAAY outpaced software.
i'm no Dick fan (heheheh) but yeah, most of the movies haven't been that good, Bladerunner was really all I was thinking of.
Though I'd say A.I. was the Dick only movie that was actually worse than the source. man i wish Kubrick had stayed alive for that one. though i guess he lost his marbles sometime between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.
I am, perhaps, the only person in the entire world to disagree with the "read the books" first theory of movies.
for me a movie is all about "what's going to happen next" (well not always, but for wonderful blockbuster kitch like LoTR, that's the whole point)
any good book improves upon multiple readings, and offers far more than the plot. knowing the ending rarely spoils any book worth reading, and i don't have that much of a problem forgetting the images of the movie when reading.
the only time i've ever been "affected" by an alternate form of a book is with the (wonderful) tape of Hitchhikers Guide, with Sir Doug reading. "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" I can't read that book without imagining his version of every single character's voice.
I have to completely disagree with you. What's the point of making a movie if you're going to leave it exactly the same as the book? That can only make a bad movie, since if it was a good book, then the story, as originally told, works best in book form.
The best book movies are either based off of crappy books (any Michael Chriton, Phil Dick, Tom Clancy movie) that were written by authors who may as well have been screenwritiers, or the director took significant liberties with the source material (any Kubrick)
A movie that takes a good book and changes nothing won't be a good movie, it will just be an aid for people with numb imaginations.
Probably the same reason I do: $10 for stupid hollywood crap.
ummm... yeah and uh... something to do with DivX or something like that too...
Last movie I was glad I paid for was The Royal Tennenbaums. Though I missed Amelie, and everyone who knows my tastes said that I would have loved it.
Spider-Man just freaked me out. You could see my dorm window in the background of one of the early shots. Most movies say they're filming at Berkeley or "Ithica" or wherever, but just show some movie set. When Spider-Man said "Columbia," they meant Columbia. Except for the spider lab in Low Library, what was up with that?
I could never sleep my way to the top 'Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up And since my options had been whittled away I struck a bargain with my radio DJ I said I'd like this song to be number one He said "I'd really really like to help you my son" And then I knew that I would have him to thank Because he asked me how much I had in the bank
He said to think long term investment and That all the others had forgiven themselves He said the net reward would justify The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
He said the record wouldn't have to be hot And no one ever seemed to care if it's not It would depend on something else that I've got And that the other ones who'd given it a shot Had seen a modest sum grow geometrically And then they had forgiven themselves Because the net reward had justified The colossal mess they'd made of their lives*
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record" And I thought you said we had a deal
Well, I told you about the world (its address) I wonder when they're gonna clean up the mess You know the rabid child is still tuning in Chess piece face's patience must be wearing thin Because they haven't played this song on the air Not that anyone but me even cared And the Disk Jockey has moved out of town The district courthouse says he's nowhere to be found
He said to think long term investment and That all the others had forgiven themselves He said the net reward would justify The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record" And I thought you said we had a deal
no matter how cool a portable music device is, i really just can't justify a purchase in the multiple hundreds of dollars for what is basically a slightly better discman.
it's like spending an extra $1000 on a PC just to play games and pirate DVDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, immediately after you posted that I changed my sig (no good reason, just wanted to)
But yes, Neutral Milk Hotel's "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is the most increadible album of all time.
Yes, it's important to read the author's bias. And with this guy, it's clear that you're getting nothing but pure 100% pro-Linux opinion. Reading about an MS product here is like reading about a new Kernel release on MSNBC.
Everyone is biased, but some more than others. By refusing to even spell the competition correctly, he's doing nothing but hurting his point. How seriously would you take an article that says "Linsucks" or something like that. He's killed any chance he has at making an impact by preaching to the choir.
you didn't read the article, did you?
There's a difference between a free client that comes with the OS that comes with the Dell, and a $100,000 upgrade for every server in the company.
This is a problem that will be dealt with on the server level, and corporate customers, while certainly not beyond being sold by MS' bullshit, are far less sheeplike than their customers. Especially when we're dealing with tons of money.
Also, another factor that I hadn't considered. If a formerly Linux based webservice has to make the switch to IIS, they will likely have to replace or retrain their entire IT department, which in many cases, could be almost the entire company. People cost much more than software, and MS may well be offering struggling e-businesses little more than a chance to go bankrupt.
It's struck me before that what we need is a "rootless" Linux distro.
One of the main obstacles toward using Linux is installing software. Whenever I try to get my friends to switch over to Linux, and I'm talking about experienced computer users with Unix experience, the inevitable huge stumbling block is "well how do I install anything?"
What Desktop Linux needs is a semi-protected mode (no login) similar to the priveledges of the default Windows user, you can change settings, install software, view the whole directory structure, but you can't change anything that would cripple the system to the point where "click here to restore default settings" (another option we need) wouldn't fix everything.
Linux software should be as easy as download to the desktop -> click to install. Right now the learning curve of linux has been pushed back only a few steps, it's easy to setup a default config, and use the web and email and anything setup by the distro, but you still have to learn all sorts of crazy convoluted things to do anything beyond that. The difficulty of a task shouldn't be greater than the task's complexity.
Once that is done, someone needs to write a book/series of visible articles entitled "So, you're tired of paying Microsoft $100 per year"
"Hmmm... these damn kids are trying to make our games compatible with new hardware. That might result in someone PURCHASING OUR PRODUCT!!! Someone get my lawyer"
Oh it's George Lucas? Jeez, that figures. Of all of my old heros that could have died in a plane crash before they came back to haunt me, Mr. Perm has to top the list.
Yes, but we're talking about much more than OSes here, think about how many corporate sites run custom scripts and apps.
Big Biz does NOT want to update their codebase. The Airlines still use traffic control software written in the mid-70s. It is expensive to update custom software.
Secondly, I see a far more likely response to Microsoft's threat of "this site is not safe to visit, tell them to upgrade to IIS" is a massive class-action lawsuit. This tactic amounts to nothing more than a protection racket, and CEOs (once things are explained to them in baby words by IT) won't stand for it.
Regardless, it IS a threat, but only if we roll over and take it. We've got several years to fight this thing, are we men or are we netscape?
The internet wouldn't have changed if netscape had tried.
Nobody trying to make any money on the web will render their services incompatible with user's browsers. Especially if you think about how many corporate surfers (lunchbreak ebay time... why isn't it working?) are using non-Palladium machines to connect. It doesn't matter what's on your desk, it matters what's in the network closet.
I really believe that Microsoft is flushing money down the toilet, or perhaps appeasing investors by saying "ignore those reports of poor security, look at what we're going to do"
They'll need something like a 95% installed base before they can make this into anything other than a "check here to not see this warning again" feature, and that won't happen for at least 5 years, many more if the current slowdown in hardware purchasing is more than a temporary snag (hint: it is, what widely used apps make full use of even two year old systems?)
the hardware upgrade cycle is rapidly moving away from the old 2.5 year average, and that alone will kill any chance of this thing working.
For that to be a relevant comparason, the entire OS community would have to stop putting out meaningful updates and upgrades, make no feature additions ever, decide to scrap their codebase, and refuse to acknowledge that competition is occuring.
Netscape died by their own hand. I wonder at what point the execs said "oh well we can retire on AOL money anyway, who cares?"
Corporations' purchases are at least partly reviewed by IT professionals who will instantly pick up on this.
"Wait, so if I put one of these boards in a terminal, we have to setup a new $60,000 file server, hmmm... thanks but no thanks"
Heh, here's the link I wanted to put with the parent:
this page from this amazingly funny comic from this amazingly funny website
I imagine this will be an optional security feature, too.
Since they can't have instant 100% deployment, people will have to be able to turn off the "security" to view a lot of content. If we could somehow setup a big public webserver where rejected traffic is relocated, we could inform people that "1, they should turn that crap off and 2, Microsoft is doing some *VERY* dirty business here and 3, Isn't it time they cut those corporate puppet strings from their arms" it could be a huge PR boon for the OS community.
Also, supposed "journalism" that uses phrases like "Windoze" and "Microsoft's Mark of the Beast" cannot be trusted for accurate, unbiased information. The guy has an interesting opinion, but it's just that: an opinion.
The general thrust of the article is that under the new security system, GPL programs will not be able to be "trusted" by MS' hardware/software security system, so GPL based systems (like Apache web servers) will become unusable with mainstream computers.
I doubt this will happen.
Because, frankly, the invisible success of opensource is too widespread. I haven't looked at server statistics recently, but a significant percentage of webservers run on some manner of opensource program. Microsoft isn't going to be able to force half of the web servers in the world to switch over, and if people know that buying this new board from MS/Intel (which has few tangible benefits) will render half of the internet unusable, nobody is going to go for it. I'm not even beginning to think about the various governments that have begun to standardize around Linux, the opensource core of Apple's OS X, etc. etc.
Frankly opensource is too big. If Microsoft renders its systems incompatible with the GPL, then it will be Microsoft, and not the OS community, that suffers.
I say, let 'em try.
Maybe a lot of people edit videos, but $1000 extra bucks for basically the functionality of a $200 Playstation 2, and not even then, because a low-end computer will play all the newest games, just not on the *highest* resolution and at the *maximum* detail.
frankly i think graphics look worse at 1600x1200, the polygons get so big that it completely ruins the illusion. if you're hitting framerates above 30, it doesn't matter how much higher you go, and i usually can't notice too much of a difference.
owning a $3000 computer is a lot like owning a $60,000 car. there really isn't any point, and you could have put the money to a much better use.
actually a Pentium II with 128 Megs of ram and a 2 year old video card will still run almost every game currently on the market. hardware has WAAAAAY outpaced software.
i'm no Dick fan (heheheh) but yeah, most of the movies haven't been that good, Bladerunner was really all I was thinking of.
Though I'd say A.I. was the Dick only movie that was actually worse than the source. man i wish Kubrick had stayed alive for that one. though i guess he lost his marbles sometime between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.
Gandalf and Tyler are the SAME DUDE!!!!
thinking alike...
ah to be 16, driving around in my dad's car, yelling every word off of the first two albums at the top of my lungs.
I don't want the world... I just want your half.
in defense of the spoilers out there, I would say this:
anyone who doesn't want secrets revealed should avoid downloading pirated trailers, and entering online discussion forums about the upcoming movie.
if you're reading this message, you can't want to avoid spoilage that much.
oh and...
THE ONE RING IS A SLED!!!
I am, perhaps, the only person in the entire world to disagree with the "read the books" first theory of movies.
for me a movie is all about "what's going to happen next" (well not always, but for wonderful blockbuster kitch like LoTR, that's the whole point)
any good book improves upon multiple readings, and offers far more than the plot. knowing the ending rarely spoils any book worth reading, and i don't have that much of a problem forgetting the images of the movie when reading.
the only time i've ever been "affected" by an alternate form of a book is with the (wonderful) tape of Hitchhikers Guide, with Sir Doug reading. "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" I can't read that book without imagining his version of every single character's voice.
I have to completely disagree with you. What's the point of making a movie if you're going to leave it exactly the same as the book? That can only make a bad movie, since if it was a good book, then the story, as originally told, works best in book form.
The best book movies are either based off of crappy books (any Michael Chriton, Phil Dick, Tom Clancy movie) that were written by authors who may as well have been screenwritiers, or the director took significant liberties with the source material (any Kubrick)
A movie that takes a good book and changes nothing won't be a good movie, it will just be an aid for people with numb imaginations.
Probably the same reason I do: $10 for stupid hollywood crap.
ummm... yeah and uh... something to do with DivX or something like that too...
Last movie I was glad I paid for was The Royal Tennenbaums. Though I missed Amelie, and everyone who knows my tastes said that I would have loved it.
Spider-Man just freaked me out. You could see my dorm window in the background of one of the early shots. Most movies say they're filming at Berkeley or "Ithica" or wherever, but just show some movie set. When Spider-Man said "Columbia," they meant Columbia. Except for the spider lab in Low Library, what was up with that?
Hey, Mr. DJ, I Thought You Said We Had a Deal:
I could never sleep my way to the top
'Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up
And since my options had been whittled away
I struck a bargain with my radio DJ
I said I'd like this song to be number one
He said "I'd really really like to help you my son"
And then I knew that I would have him to thank
Because he asked me how much I had in the bank
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
He said the record wouldn't have to be hot
And no one ever seemed to care if it's not
It would depend on something else that I've got
And that the other ones who'd given it a shot
Had seen a modest sum grow geometrically
And then they had forgiven themselves
Because the net reward had justified
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives*
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Well, I told you about the world (its address)
I wonder when they're gonna clean up the mess
You know the rabid child is still tuning in
Chess piece face's patience must be wearing thin
Because they haven't played this song on the air
Not that anyone but me even cared
And the Disk Jockey has moved out of town
The district courthouse says he's nowhere to be found
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
I think "gramma" might be the funniest thing I've read all day.
country gramma... heheheheh....
no matter how cool a portable music device is, i really just can't justify a purchase in the multiple hundreds of dollars for what is basically a slightly better discman.
it's like spending an extra $1000 on a PC just to play games and pirate DVDs.
give that cash to something more worthwhile.