A bean counter wants to know if the admin staff is "worth it." You can quantify some of the value of the admin staff. First, downtime. How much does that admin staff save the company by fixing problems? plot downtime & lost revenue or wasted time vs. admin staff hours spent preventing and repairing such events. The idea here is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Backups, patches, log files... everything. These activities prevent or reduce company losses due to downtime or similar failures.
Second, calculate lost productivity in the company while waiting for admin staff to carry out a requested task vs. the number of admin hours it takes to accomplish the task. The idea here is that reducing the admin staff head count will increase the time others have to wait for admin tasks to be completed.
Someone thinks that russian kids have 250 Billion dollars that they would spend on Hollywood creations? Even if their counts are close, those copies are floating around because they are (relatively) cost free. If Hollywood managed to obliterate every pirated copy of everything they created, they would not end up with one additional dollar. People do not have 250 billion extra dollars in their pockets. They will just never see another Hollywood movie and not care when one comes to thei movie theaters.
For the current matter, I would guess that some domestic PC maker is trying to take advantage of the situation, *cough*Dell*cough*HP*cough, pardon me!
Does anyone really think that these PCs are "domestic?" They may not be made in mainland China, but they are certainly not made in the United states either.
When I read the Ballmer quotes, the first thing I thought was, he is saying that there is no room in the industry for anyone but Microsoft.
All these other companies make products that other people use to be innovative. There relly isn't a lot of innovative room in relational databases for Oracle. They make databases, and very good databases and very popular databases, and they make a lot of money doing just that. THEIR CUSTOMERS are the ones who put those databases to good use.
IBM make a lot of stuff. Most of it is pretty good stuff, and they make a lot of money selling that stuff. It is IBM's CUSTOMERS who make good use of it.
"The open source guys..." Well, they make a lot of stuff too. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO USE OPEN SOURCE software who put it to good use and who are innovative. Open source allows people a little more room to be innovative. They can aquire it at a lower cost. They can alter it to better meet their specific requirements...
Steve Ballmer believes that computers are a platform for software companies to restrict and dictate what happens there. In that model, customers do not decide what computers do, but software vendors. That's why Microsoft feels the need to compete in every single little corner of the software industry. For Microsoft to (almost literally) control the world, they have to be the sole supplier of software to everyone.
It doesn't really matter. In the courts, Microsoft loses every legal battle yet wins every war. DR-DOS - Did Microsoft win or lose? Stacker - Did Microsoft win or lose? Netscape - Did Microsoft win or lose? Wine - Will Microsoft win or lose?
Microsoft's first defense would be that Microsoft does not live in California. Their second defense would be that it wasn't they that provided the illegal software, it was Dell and IBM and HPaq. Microsoft knew not what they were doing with it...
Further, IE has spawned such a gigantic aftermarket of virus writers, virus researchers, virus eliminators, virus host OS reinstallers, etc., that microsoft has to tread very carefully to avoid upsetting the entire industry economic apple cart.
Its also the first time Microsoft has ever acknowledged virus scanners. Up until now, that would have required admitting that the OS is easily compromised. I guess these days, its pretty common knowledge.
SCO likes to trot out the indemnification card. Microsoft is eventually going to take legal action against Samba and people who use Samba... like SCO customers. I don't recall SCO offering any protection to their customers. Indeed, SCO threatens their customers more often than not. Its too bad that a reporter somewhere doesn't go a little farther than just transposing SCO's press release from 1st person to 3rd person when writing their story.
With proprietary software, forking generally does not take place since development is centralized within a firm and disciplined by market forces
Forking occurs all the time in proprietary products.
The public simply cannot see both forks.
When a Microsoft product changes strategy - like office file formats, or Windows networking - that is a fork. There is the old way, and the new way.
If M$ still wants Google, it is still available, though maybe not at as good a price. M$ has enough money to just buy up all of Google's IPO shares. Maybe not enough to be a majority stockholder, but enough to threaten to dump their shares and run the stock price into the ground.
I wonder if Microsoft would want to rank sites based on which server software they were running? It would be an incentive for independent publishers to use the right software.
If its not about copyright, then SCO has no claim against anyone (other than IBM) concerning IBM's code. If IBM did breach its contract with SCO, then IBM is libel for damages. The end. If SCO has no contract claim against IBM then they'll get nothing.
Either way, SCO has no claim to IBM's code which is in Linux.
Not too many years ago, widely distributing recorded music took expensive equipment and cost a lot of money. Only a large record company could do it. Artists had little choice but to sign their life away to a major record company.
Today, distributing recorded music costs next-to-nothing. Yet the price of recorded music has never been higher.
What does a record company offer an artist today? What can a record company do for an artist that the artist can't do herself? Are artists beginning to realize this on their own?
I don't think that the patent holders were gunning for the little guys. They're gunning for Apple and Microsoft. "How many iPods are you producing this year?" and "How many Windows Media Player Service Packs have been downloaded this year?"
They'll be able to pocket a bit o' cash before they've driven MP3s into extinction. Most likely replaced by Microsoft Windows media format. Bill is not gonna cough up 100 million license fees on a regular basis. Windows will stop supporting MP3s as soon as possible.
This is actually a problem for commercial, private sector entities as well. The "problem" is not software licensing, though the ever increasing cost of such licenses should be a factor. The long term problem is data file storage format.
Consider the current trend toward shorter, more restrictive, time-limited software licensing. also consider the deliberate limited backward compatibility designed to "encourage" upgrades. Consider the backup and archive files we all burn onto CDs every day.
In the not-too-distant future, we will need to access some old file from July of 2003 created with Microsoft Word XP/03. We will all be using Microsoft Word XP/07 by then. Microsoft WordXP/07 was able to read all of the/06 files though it wouldn't write them. We all had to upgrade when our annual 06 lease expired anyway. Not a big deal - Microsoft licence fees have been a separate corperate budget line item for a few years now.
How do we access that old file from 2003? The curent version of Microsoft Word doesn't include backward compatibility from that long ago... The old XP/03 disks won't install anymore because the license to use it has expired... Attempting to circumvent the XP/03 DRM'ed DMCA'ed installer would be a crime... How do we access those old files? The secret proprietary file format includes DRM facilities to be sure that no one can copy my files. The DRM mechanism itself is secret and prorietary and any attempt to circumvent it would be DMCA violation. Attempting to decrypt the file itself would also violate the DMCA.
Without standard, documented, accessable data file storage formats, it will soon be illegal to access our own archived files. Another entire I.T. department will be required to migrate archives from "old" formats to "current" formats before the license to use the old software expires.
Open source software might not save the world, but the data files it generates will never ever be locked away in a secret proprietary encrypted, DRM'ed DMCA'ed file.
I'm a one-man-band at a small organization. I have a lot of machines set up over a three city block area. Some of these machines are important, some are not. They are all running for a reason. If they stop running, I have to interrupt whatever other useful thing I'm doing, and fix the problem. Sometimes I'm doing something important, sometimes not, but I'm always doing something. My to-do list never seems to get any shorter.
So reliability, in my case, is not a commercial transactions lost per minute scenario. None of my machines are in a life support position where failure would endanger anyone's life. Reliability, in my case, means that my phone doesn't ring and other projects are interrupted less often. Some of my machines have been running for years with no unexpected down time. Others, uhhhh, less.
Its all about my convenience. I like high-reliability systems.
A group of cable companies and ISPs might get together and write the Federal Trade Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice, complaining that Microsoft limits and impedes what broadband customers are allowed to do with their computers connected to their networks...
This whole affair strikes me as the proverbial "good cop, bad cop" play. First, throw a wholy outrageous demand out there. Then apologize. Apologize for the outrageousness, not for the demand itself. Now the original demand seems like a compromise.
DON'T BE FOOLED!
No one from Microsoft has said, "Nevermind." The only ground they are giving up is the time frame. You still have to do your audit. You still have to pay for your software twice. Microsoft still wants all of your money. All of it.
Twice? Yes twice. Once, when you bought it the first time, and once again, when Microsoft demands that you enter into a site license agreement for machines which already have the software, plus machines which will never have the software. Actually you are paying more than twice...
Also, there is no reason to think that this same thing will not happen again in a couple of years...
Here is my sugestion to any institution and/or business who fears that they might be the next to be blackmailed...
Don't bother paying for Microsoft products. Microsoft is going to assume you are a criminal, and if Microsoft is going to demand that you pay for the same licensces again and again, then just don't pay for them the first time.
When you aquire a Microsoft product, install it freely on a wide number of machines. When Microsoft demands an audit, then you comply with a head count (which is all they really want anyway), and pay the ransom for the licences that you have had all along. Since you didn't pay for them the first time, you're even, and will have little to complain about.
In the end, you have software and licences that you've paid for... just not right away...
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible that Cosmos is on Fox to satisfy the demands of those who wanted equal time on Fox News.
A bean counter wants to know if the admin staff is "worth it." You can quantify some of the value of the admin staff. First, downtime. How much does that admin staff save the company by fixing problems? plot downtime & lost revenue or wasted time vs. admin staff hours spent preventing and repairing such events. The idea here is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Backups, patches, log files... everything. These activities prevent or reduce company losses due to downtime or similar failures.
Second, calculate lost productivity in the company while waiting for admin staff to carry out a requested task vs. the number of admin hours it takes to accomplish the task. The idea here is that reducing the admin staff head count will increase the time others have to wait for admin tasks to be completed.
Someone thinks that russian kids have 250 Billion dollars that they would spend on Hollywood creations? Even if their counts are close, those copies are floating around because they are (relatively) cost free. If Hollywood managed to obliterate every pirated copy of everything they created, they would not end up with one additional dollar. People do not have 250 billion extra dollars in their pockets. They will just never see another Hollywood movie and not care when one comes to thei movie theaters.
Does anyone really think that these PCs are "domestic?" They may not be made in mainland China, but they are certainly not made in the United states either.
Yeah... I've really noticed Microsoft's market position crumbling because of the public's perception of their products' reliability and security...
When I read the Ballmer quotes, the first thing I thought was, he is saying that there is no room in the industry for anyone but Microsoft.
All these other companies make products that other people use to be innovative. There relly isn't a lot of innovative room in relational databases for Oracle. They make databases, and very good databases and very popular databases, and they make a lot of money doing just that. THEIR CUSTOMERS are the ones who put those databases to good use.
IBM make a lot of stuff. Most of it is pretty good stuff, and they make a lot of money selling that stuff. It is IBM's CUSTOMERS who make good use of it.
"The open source guys..." Well, they make a lot of stuff too. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO USE OPEN SOURCE software who put it to good use and who are innovative. Open source allows people a little more room to be innovative. They can aquire it at a lower cost. They can alter it to better meet their specific requirements...
Steve Ballmer believes that computers are a platform for software companies to restrict and dictate what happens there. In that model, customers do not decide what computers do, but software vendors. That's why Microsoft feels the need to compete in every single little corner of the software industry. For Microsoft to (almost literally) control the world, they have to be the sole supplier of software to everyone.
"The open source guys" have a different view.
...and who's money does it monetize?
It doesn't really matter. In the courts, Microsoft loses every legal battle yet wins every war. DR-DOS - Did Microsoft win or lose? Stacker - Did Microsoft win or lose? Netscape - Did Microsoft win or lose? Wine - Will Microsoft win or lose?
Microsoft's first defense would be that Microsoft does not live in California. Their second defense would be that it wasn't they that provided the illegal software, it was Dell and IBM and HPaq. Microsoft knew not what they were doing with it...
If I remember my high school algebra, wouldn't this be more optimally coded as...
CHR$(23)
Just curious.
I wonder how many of these patents were used in the old TV show "Wild Wild West?"
Further, IE has spawned such a gigantic aftermarket of virus writers, virus researchers, virus eliminators, virus host OS reinstallers, etc., that microsoft has to tread very carefully to avoid upsetting the entire industry economic apple cart.
Its also the first time Microsoft has ever acknowledged virus scanners. Up until now, that would have required admitting that the OS is easily compromised. I guess these days, its pretty common knowledge.
SCO likes to trot out the indemnification card. Microsoft is eventually going to take legal action against Samba and people who use Samba... like SCO customers. I don't recall SCO offering any protection to their customers. Indeed, SCO threatens their customers more often than not. Its too bad that a reporter somewhere doesn't go a little farther than just transposing SCO's press release from 1st person to 3rd person when writing their story.
Forking occurs all the time in proprietary products. The public simply cannot see both forks. When a Microsoft product changes strategy - like office file formats, or Windows networking - that is a fork. There is the old way, and the new way.
If M$ still wants Google, it is still available, though maybe not at as good a price. M$ has enough money to just buy up all of Google's IPO shares. Maybe not enough to be a majority stockholder, but enough to threaten to dump their shares and run the stock price into the ground.
I wonder if Microsoft would want to rank sites based on which server software they were running? It would be an incentive for independent publishers to use the right software.
If its not about copyright, then SCO has no claim against anyone (other than IBM) concerning IBM's code. If IBM did breach its contract with SCO, then IBM is libel for damages. The end. If SCO has no contract claim against IBM then they'll get nothing.
Either way, SCO has no claim to IBM's code which is in Linux.
I think I would ask the BSA...
1) Why should a falsly accused University refrain from taking BSA to court for damages?
2) What is involved in becoming a BSA member?
3) What influence would such a member have in setting the standards by which BSA operates?
Today, distributing recorded music costs next-to-nothing. Yet the price of recorded music has never been higher.
What does a record company offer an artist today? What can a record company do for an artist that the artist can't do herself? Are artists beginning to realize this on their own?
Thanks / Jeff
I don't think that the patent holders were gunning for the little guys. They're gunning for Apple and Microsoft. "How many iPods are you producing this year?" and "How many Windows Media Player Service Packs have been downloaded this year?"
They'll be able to pocket a bit o' cash before they've driven MP3s into extinction. Most likely replaced by Microsoft Windows media format. Bill is not gonna cough up 100 million license fees on a regular basis. Windows will stop supporting MP3s as soon as possible.
This is actually a problem for commercial, private sector entities as well. The "problem" is not software licensing, though the ever increasing cost of such licenses should be a factor. The long term problem is data file storage format.
/06 files though it wouldn't write them. We all had to upgrade when our annual 06 lease expired anyway. Not a big deal - Microsoft licence fees have been a separate corperate budget line item for a few years now.
Consider the current trend toward shorter, more restrictive, time-limited software licensing. also consider the deliberate limited backward compatibility designed to "encourage" upgrades. Consider the backup and archive files we all burn onto CDs every day.
In the not-too-distant future, we will need to access some old file from July of 2003 created with Microsoft Word XP/03. We will all be using Microsoft Word XP/07 by then. Microsoft WordXP/07 was able to read all of the
How do we access that old file from 2003? The curent version of Microsoft Word doesn't include backward compatibility from that long ago... The old XP/03 disks won't install anymore because the license to use it has expired... Attempting to circumvent the XP/03 DRM'ed DMCA'ed installer would be a crime... How do we access those old files? The secret proprietary file format includes DRM facilities to be sure that no one can copy my files. The DRM mechanism itself is secret and prorietary and any attempt to circumvent it would be DMCA violation. Attempting to decrypt the file itself would also violate the DMCA.
Without standard, documented, accessable data file storage formats, it will soon be illegal to access our own archived files. Another entire I.T. department will be required to migrate archives from "old" formats to "current" formats before the license to use the old software expires.
Open source software might not save the world, but the data files it generates will never ever be locked away in a secret proprietary encrypted, DRM'ed DMCA'ed file.
I'm a one-man-band at a small organization. I have a lot of machines set up over a three city block area. Some of these machines are important, some are not. They are all running for a reason. If they stop running, I have to interrupt whatever other useful thing I'm doing, and fix the problem. Sometimes I'm doing something important, sometimes not, but I'm always doing something. My to-do list never seems to get any shorter.
So reliability, in my case, is not a commercial transactions lost per minute scenario. None of my machines are in a life support position where failure would endanger anyone's life. Reliability, in my case, means that my phone doesn't ring and other projects are interrupted less often. Some of my machines have been running for years with no unexpected down time. Others, uhhhh, less.
Its all about my convenience. I like high-reliability systems.
A group of cable companies and ISPs might get together and write the Federal Trade Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice, complaining that Microsoft limits and impedes what broadband customers are allowed to do with their computers connected to their networks...
This whole affair strikes me as the proverbial "good cop, bad cop" play. First, throw a wholy outrageous demand out there. Then apologize. Apologize for the outrageousness, not for the demand itself. Now the original demand seems like a compromise.
DON'T BE FOOLED!
No one from Microsoft has said, "Nevermind." The only ground they are giving up is the time frame. You still have to do your audit. You still have to pay for your software twice. Microsoft still wants all of your money. All of it.
Twice? Yes twice. Once, when you bought it the first time, and once again, when Microsoft demands that you enter into a site license agreement for machines which already have the software, plus machines which will never have the software. Actually you are paying more than twice...
Also, there is no reason to think that this same thing will not happen again in a couple of years...
Here is my sugestion to any institution and/or business who fears that they might be the next to be blackmailed...
Don't bother paying for Microsoft products. Microsoft is going to assume you are a criminal, and if Microsoft is going to demand that you pay for the same licensces again and again, then just don't pay for them the first time.
When you aquire a Microsoft product, install it freely on a wide number of machines. When Microsoft demands an audit, then you comply with a head count (which is all they really want anyway), and pay the ransom for the licences that you have had all along. Since you didn't pay for them the first time, you're even, and will have little to complain about.
In the end, you have software and licences that you've paid for... just not right away...