The question to ask is, what does 'technical support' mean?
Does it mean 'fix it for meeeeee! wah!'? If so, Microsoft stomps the hell out of Linux. Their whole _concept_, including for developers (see Visual Basic), is for there to be inner circles and outer circles, in a centralised authority structure. You can have teams of Microsoft insiders working themselves into ulcers for you if you need it- you do NOT get control, ownership of the product, or the final say. Guys like Ballmer expend HUGE effort into making sure the MS insiders ARE still willing to sweat blood to assist J. Random Developer (i.e. hold their hand, wipe their nose, fix their problem). If not for this huge effort ('developers developers developers developers!'), you would be unimaginably screwed dealing with them. The dependency relationship is based on an immense effort on Microsoft's behalf to be the caretaker.
They could stop at any time (Ballmer dies, new CEO is bean counter or something) and it's worth considering just HOW hard Ballmer tries to keep the monolith centered on the needs of certain customers. HE knows that the natural reaction is to screw the customer, get lazy and stop providing good service since you've got them locked down anyhow.
By comparison, if 'technical support' means 'give me the power to do it myself', it's tough to beat Linux, simply because you can get ownership of so much (for all practical coding purposes). For many projects it's easy to get full disclosure of source code. You get to fork off versions if you have a need- you get to incorporate other people's stuff into yours if you follow the licensing rules- there's no 'inner circle' to it at all, and so people get snippy if asked to behave like they are an inner circle. It's 'RTFM' because they know you have just as much capacity to fully acquaint yourself with the situation as they have- and they are not hired to help you, they produce things and you can TAKE them and HAVE them to do with as you will, again with full disclosure. The idea is to take advantage of that.
The interesting comparison here is that this time, if anything drastic happens to Linux, your ownership of your parts of it, and your access to information and your effectiveness, are quite unchanged. It's not a dependency relationship, more like a forced self-sufficiency relationship. You get no support in dependency, but you get resources for self-sufficiency (including legal ones- the licensing) that you flat cannot get from Microsoft.
The question becomes, what sorts of programmers are more relevant and useful to the world? Ones that seek dependency relationships, or ones that seek self-sufficiency relationships? I think there's something to be said for each, but you're a hell of a lot more likely to find cutting edge stuff in the latter camp- which will be pretty unpolished, but that's normal for innovation.
You'll find less innovative software coming out of the dependency camp.
Damn, I identify _so_ strongly with the story you tell in that first account you told in Sweden. So much of it echoes my own experience- in particular, you touch on something that periodically affects me- the "For me, especially when several unpredictable things happen one after the other, I feel like my understanding of the world is collapsing... as if I am trying to hold onto something very important and it is becoming slippery in my hands." That describes what I go through very well. It's like a 'little things go wrong and all of a sudden I'm fighting off huge amounts of upsetness' thing, seemingly not justified by the situation- generally this comes on if I have to seriously re-adjust some part of my plans. For instance, I do digital audio recording and need a new sound input card, as what I've got isn't capable enough. I thought it was, started working with it, started having problems, and got WAY upset at the delay and failure of this first card to do what it's advertised as doing. It seemed way bigger than 'I got ripped off, my work's on hold until January when I can buy my way out of the problem'.
I have to wonder- how much of this is autism/asperger's, and how much is simply hangover from years of feeling compelled to have 'all your shit together'? If I get to a point where I'm really very confident and secure, will this tendency go away, or is it something I just need to learn to cope with because it's part of how my mind works? It's damn unpleasant, I can tell you that. It sucks to have to deal with 'inappropriate' emotional hysterics, even though I can avoid acting out on 'em I still have to feel them and it's frustrating to consider that NTs may not get hit with that kind of thing. I don't know how to describe it- people say oh, everyone has bad days or whatever, but it's peculiarly frustrating to fight off MASSIVE panic and 'wrongness' over something that you logically know isn't all that major.
Anyhow- thanks for telling a little about yourself- it's spooky how similar your story is to mine:)
Yeah, but it's possible to survive ignored Asperger's. Sounds harsh, I know, but people do. I did. I grew up with full-on blatantly obvious Asperger's to the point of actively fleeing classes and social groupings, sometimes having sensory hypersensitivities more akin to autism proper, I actually failed to complete the normal social procedure called 'college', and I still survived. I tried to commit suicide, but not terribly hard- I got mixed up in drugs and survived that too (don't use anymore)- and now, at 33, I am glad to be alive, and I have a life that's nothing extravagant but which fits me at last.
I got through all this years before people even _heard_ of autism or Asperger's, way before it was 'popular' to make such diagnoses right and left. I don't think any sort of backlash can hurt people like me. Sometimes it's just freaking obvious what's going on. It really wouldn't have taken much to improve my childhood and adolescence- even the HINT of a possible reason why I was so hopelessly, meaninglessly out of place in society would have helped a lot. And now, nobody need _ever_ go through what I went through. Now people have a clue. Let 'em label away, and then backlash, whatever. At least The Clue Is Out There.
Hey, I have Asperger's too, but I'd like to point out- you can't breed from autistic people if feedback sets in, Sparky. Some master race! It's just as well.
In my opinion if there's anything to be learned from all this, it's that self-acceptance and other-acceptance are equally important. I too suffered from attempts to conform me to society, but I am looking for a NICHE for myself in society, not to proclaim myself the new freaking ubermensch when I can't even drive a damn car without dropping into 'processing mode' and not being able to pay attention to the damn road.
There is VALUE in all types of person and don't you forget it...
This is a _good_ article. It covers all the bases- has the guts to see that people on the spectrum are capable of things that stun and astonish NT humans- and isn't afraid to also confront the fact that this comes at a price- if we breed as if we were some superior race, we are FSCKED, producing children who... well, if we are 'overclocked' then our potential kids can be 'thermal meltdown', virtually incapable of functioning. A daunting thought... and we are the LEAST capable of humans, as far as dealing with heavy personal needs of others.
We've always been around. The whole stereotype of the Eccentric German Professor is pure autism. Albert Einstein dealt with this sort of thing- for instance, he couldn't remember his own phone number. "Why should I when I can write it down?" People say that what he could remember, most people couldn't even imagine- at the same time, the guy couldn't remember his own phone number! It's not simple eccentricity or wilful decision to flout the expectations of society. It's NOT just PR.
My favorite way of describing it is subroutines. Most people are more pre-emptive- those of us who are far out along the spectrum can hit amazing peaks of 'processing' but don't necessarily have the control over when it's happening. If that happens to me, I might go and get something and immediately not know what I was getting. At the same time, I also don't know what my mind is processing- it's in a subroutine, doing something that I don't know what it is. Solving some problem I might think of another day. In the immediate moment, I'm standing there looking like a fool. If it was just going to the fridge or whatever this would be less of a problem. I don't drive anymore- it took me too long to figure out that I dropped into subroutines even at the wheel- and five seconds between 'interrupts' isn't enough for driving. Fortunately I never hurt anybody- I'm not risking it any longer, license expired of old age and I'm not getting a new one.
What do I get to balance out these problems? Some stuff that's paid off a lot of the stress of getting this far. Some things that are subjective, some that are objective. Thankfully, self-awareness: we're as capable of self-awareness and wisdom as anybody, given the right information. I'm 33, so for most of my life the information I was given was 'you're just not trying to get along!' or some such crap. Better to know the truth with its curses AND blessings.
Nothing like a personal interest... anyhow, I think this is a really good article.
Marriage? Children? Not my problem- I ended up failing at being heterosexual, and discovering I could be gay just as easily, even be considered a hottie (most unexpected!). I've ended up mated with a guy, no desire to produce or raise children- if it wasn't for that I'd doubtless be a bachelor until I died. My 'line' will die with me.
...except: I release code under the GPL. I also share my ideas- have a serious hangup about withholding them, charging for them etc. This puts a real damper on my prospects of ever being rich- but my ideas DON'T have to die with me.
I wonder how many of the important Free Software people are autistic? Is it that a level of autism ironically helps people understand and see deeper social benefit precisely BECAUSE we don't have the whirl of normal social interaction to distract us from what we're really doing? For a Bill Gates, this turns him to the dark side and he responds by rejecting it- 'OK, all the toys must be mine!' and doesn't have normal social restraints to suggest to him that this is bad. For a Richard Stallman, this turns him towards dedicated, unyielding determination to maximize social benefit at all costs- at the expense of his day-to-day social contacts, and the patience of those around him. Either way it's more focus than most people ever see, and that's the secret of it... a lot of people seem ready to make all sorts of compromises in their lives, that an autistic person may not be able to make. Which is a weakness and a strength- look at what RMS has been able to do by being singleminded..
mp3.com? They died. They tried to grab mindshare, brought in a lot of money-oriented features like payback-for-playback for artists, allowed them to be widely cheated and conned, acted as a haven for notorious spammers, burned through all their money while provoking sarcastic articles on 'porn music' in Salon, and finally got bought up by Vivendi, which is trying to chase away the remaining artists. mp3.com is not trustworthy, kicks artists off for reasons that are never explained and refuses to pay monies due to the artist, and has one of the nastiest user agreements out here.
You wouldn't have so much if you were upgrading from MacOS system 7 to MacOS 9 (much less 8).
Mind you, there could be some difficulty running the system 7 stuff on OSX, considering the WHOLE OS is removed and replaced with a Unix-based system- and still- Classic layer, anyone?
Graymalkin, to some extent you are making excuses for the Windows environment and trying to pass them off as standard operating procedure. You're correct in that domain, but why should anyone have to deal with that 'sunset' garbage? Apple has repeatedly proven that it's not necessary (and that choosing to NOT rape your customers is not the winningest of business decisions)
So which side are you on? Your vendor's- or your own?
"Ho ho... ooooh, that margarine! It makes me laugh, hee hee hee!"
That's a 'funny' example 'cos 'funny' commercials actually suck at persuading anyone to buy anything. It's not about whether you like the commercial, it's about whether you like the product...
Well, I hope that this does represent something of a new development- you're absolutely right but interestingly I may be seeing it happen in my own hometown with ONE supermarket available.
I am a Coke-drinking slashdot geek, but will also tolerate Code Red and Mtn. Dew. I like to consume mass quantities of soda pop;)
Recently the local store hiked prices of 2 liter bottles of Coke to $1.39 in an effort to see if they could. I shit a brick, and swore I'd simply not buy it at that price. Loaded up on Code Red instead, cashiers remarking 'what, no Coca-Cola?', and that only when it was on sale for 99 or 89 cents. If there wasn't anything for 99 or 89 cents, I'd drink tea, or water. I was _not_ about to get jerked around on what I considered a staple beverage (shudder).
Suddenly- either Coke or Dew are _always_ on sale now, to card holders- and often at 89 cents- and O could float a raft with how much I bought, stocking up while it was cheap.
It seems that some types of tight consumer monitoring ARE beneficial, granting only one key point: you've GOT to be willing to refuse to buy what you don't like! I seem to have personally put a big 'don't even think about it' into the data for hiking the price of Coke- other people reacted the same as they mistrust this supermarket anyhow, and the result was, sales got SO hammered and people were SO prone to hunt down only the sale items that the store quickly learned to offer competitive prices, even with stores in larger towns with actual competition. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's happening.
One key point there is, this particular area is the subject of direct competition between Coke and Pepsi, even in this store that's alone in the town. The store could price everything at $1.50 and still sell vaguely well due to location- but it sets up a situation where Pepsi can run a sale at 99 cents and _hammer_ the _crap_ out of Coke sales for that week. The additional price pressure makes the effect even more striking. Coke's only recourse is- another sale! So they alternate weeks at 99 cents or 89 cents, and you need only wait.
I wonder how a similar effect can be made to happen in the computer industry, or other industries that seem to be wedged into a non-price-sensitive mode? If we had two Microsofts we could play them off against each other like that. People have been doing this for PC vendors for a long time...
OK, so I went straight to the claims (never pay attention to the abstract) and tried to work out exactly what Microsoft has patented and will be enforcing.
Trouble is, the claims are tangled with each other and amazingly general, it seems- but the gist of it seems fairly clear. It's just a little hard to believe.
Has Microsoft successfully patented the _concept_ of 'trusted client', daft though that concept is?
I couldn't even begin to tell you whether that is good or bad (I mean, apart from the 'being able to not let any non-MS programs run on Windows' part). Any lawyers in the house care to give their interpretation on what MS actually got for themselves here?
Very good point, but way harder than you think, because 'Free' is one of the very best sales words to tack onto something. I don't care how hard someone tries to spin it 'free = illegal', there will still be lots of New Video Card With 3 Great Free Game Titles, Scanner With Free Scanning Software, New Digital Camera With $200 Worth Of Free Software, Buy This MSN Subscription And Get Lots Of Free Software etc etc etc.
So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over _this_ one. If anyone's trying to spin it like you say, they'll just fail- it is NOT like 'hacker', a fairly uncommon word with no strong positive connotations.
"Leverage the OS monopoly to gain total control of both servers and the sole means of electronic communications- set up new networks, like that satellite network they were talking about putting up- and start charging toll fees. Then you can put the screws on and nobody will even notice because it's too widespread! When you pay MS one cent every time you click the channel switch on your MSTV, or start up a Free Application on your MSPC, then you are tied to a profit mechanism that dwarfs the most ruthless and
predatory machinations in the desktop computing area.
How, exactly, are they going to move toward this profit model, a profit model that could easily make them more influential and
powerful than any government... if they are not allowed to destroy all other means of accessing the Internet? Where is the path to this
quiet and total assimilation of all life into the MS 'free with some service charges' universe, if the mere Internet isn't something they can
depend on completely owning?"
I wrote that in the summer of 1998.
Welcome to the world of.NET, X-Box ('soon to develop greatly expanded usefulness!') and 90% and up Internet Explorer, everywhere.
I'll repeat that: I wrote that in 1998.
Now I am saying, Microsoft do want security problems on the Internet to position for the future selling of their own entirely MS-controlled version- and the taking away of the original Internet, and yes, I think if things go their way they will try to make unauthorized networking illegal, for 'security reasons'.
Germany's Third Reich was just a bunch of Europeans 'running scared' because they'd been hammered in the Versailles Treaty and were determined to never again be weak. It was just a bunch of people- and things got out of hand- and a lot of people at the time said, 'but- they've done good things for the economy!' and 'is that really any of our business?'.
Quit downplaying our current reality! Your Pollyanna (or Quisling?) behavior is not appropriate when reasonable people are _trying_ to figure out how to outmaneuver a very major world power that is a very real threat to freedoms and civil liberties.
I realise you don't want to 'project outcomes' but damn- can't you even see patterns, count money, read news, see what's going on around you?
I think it speaks very well of you, if you're determined to refuse to believe Microsoft would ever hurt anybody or restrain their liberties- it's very 'nice'- but I have no intentions of going down the tubes with you so you can have the luxury of going 'Oh my! Oh dear! Imagine, it turned out we couldn't trust them after all!'. And I am totally uninterested in extending Microsoft any benefit of the doubt at this point.
What did _you_ predict for Microsoft in 1998? Did you predict product activation,.NET, the desire to hijack all e-commerce?
The trouble with you (and many like you) is that you have difficulty in separating fantasy from reality. The difficulty I am speaking of is that you can't do anything BUT separate fantasy from reality. If someone imagines it and expresses a dsytopian view of it, you can't accept that it could ever ACTUALLY be true...
How many spots in London are NOT monitored by hidden surveillance cameras?
How many people have been thrown in prison so far because they learned the secret computer program of a commercial company which is not itself the government?
If you can't accept these realities _as_ realities, we certainly _will_ have to agree to disagree- which does not imply that there is any justification for your position!
If we expect to compete on equal terms with Microsoft which is known to use all possible attacks on an enemy, right down to 'astroturfing' through paid MS employees arguing the pro-MS side as if they were arguing as public citizens only, not revealing their affiliation...
...then maybe we too need to use ALL possible attacks, including developing the 'as good or better' alternative software, AND tearing hell out of the known weaknesses of the Microsoft stuff.
It does take strategic thinking- for instance, in my opinion Microsoft wants horrible security problems on the Internet, because their long range plans involve outright replacing it with a MS-only net, and possibly having the original Internet outlawed if necessary (on grounds of hacker risks). Tearing hell out of Microsoft stuff now does them damage now but also positions them better for this future goal- it's a question of whether they can implement such a plan, and how quickly. It's possible that now would be better than later, because they don't work well when rushed, and are likely to screw up their concept for a replacement Internet if they have to scramble to offer it quickly. Wait too long, and they'll have a more solid proposal- which would be a bad thing.
Another aspect is remembering to keep PR pressure on, by specifying how these Microsoft vulnerabilities are Microsoft vulnerabilities, rather than 'internet' security problems as MS will be spinning it. They have a lot of money to throw behind that spin- but rather low trustworthiness, so it's a fairly even fight.
I daresay fighting by ALL means necessary is the proper course of action. After all, we are attempting to fight an entity that is more powerful than the United States Government.
Are you joking, 'foobar'? How is it that at this point in time, you are still saying 'Please leave off with the talk of how the government must stop Microsoft. That's ridiculous.' when the real question is, can EVEN the government stop Microsoft?
I'm not sure how old you are, but when you argue Microsoft (collectively) is not 'evil' in the 'Hitler-Darth Vader-Satan' sense, you're talking like a high school kid who's just discovered Ayn Rand. Is Union Carbide evil, after Bhopal? What makes you class the leader of the Nazi Party with a fictional character and an archetype? It may have escaped your memory but one of those guys was REAL- and after power, just like Microsoft- and didn't think in terms of playing nice with others, just like Microsoft- where do you get off drawing a line in the sand and saying 'OK, this is evil and this is not'?
The rules of the open market ARE at fault here- at least in practice, because as practiced by Microsoft they are cancerous. In completely denying the concept of 'benefit of society' or 'commons' and operating only on the value of maximized local profit they are suboptimal to the point that, taken far enough, they can _ruin_ society, reduce it to a state that resembles totalitarian states. Instead of a government mandating only one overpriced, defective solution for everything, you get no government control- and the same pitiable failure of the market, but this time because any smaller entrant is so easily crushed that there is no sense in underwriting such an effort.
Don't believe me? Write a better word processor than Word, and get someone to underwrite your IPO.
You can't beat a cheater. This would seem obvious, but clearly it's not obvious to you. Your definition of 'business right' strongly resembles racketeering and organized crime- using ALL the possible 'incentives' to seize total control. You seem to be supporting this because it clearly returns the most profit of any business method. However, it's a scorched-earth policy: it destroys the very market you claim to revere! And THAT is why we need government to set rules: in this context rules are like bricks, used to make buildings instead of tents. You can say they're in the way, inflexible, limiting- but you can't build up multiple stories, keep out the cold, resist hurricanes etc. without 'em.
I guess I am just wondering- WHY do you hate rules so? You are over two years old, I trust? Is your sense of morals and ethics also over two?
To round it off, why not make it bilateral? No possibility of Microsoft bringing any kind of suit for any reason for five years, no possibility of anybody suing Microsoft for any reason for five years.
If you complained about this it would imply that you thought Microsoft could be sued in the first place, and that they are not effectively above the law through ability to manipulate the system.
But if you figure that Microsoft can do _anything_ and get away with it through abusing the legal system, you conclude things like: the only reason they're not stealing Linux is because they don't want it, they are already taking action to seize still further power and control in the world, and they already take no consideration of legalities in doing so, except as a weapon.
This would be one hell of an interesting trial balloon. It'd be very revealing to see whether they'd take the 'un-sue-able' aspect as an opportunity, or freak out and refuse to deal on such terms. It would reveal the extent to which they abuse the legal system as a weapon but are themselves exempt from it.
More plausibly, B-list artists (and even some A-list artists) will now be repeatedly sued by intellectual property holders because their creations are 'like' some previous creation 'owned' by the suits.
I actually kinda like this, in a sick way, because it's another step towards making corporate art utterly impossible, and where not impossible, complete pablum with no distinguishing qualities (all distinguishing qualities worth anything are 'like' something that's been previously done).
The thing to hope for is that the mainstream becomes a creative wasteland bad enough to force bored consumers to explore, say, the Internet for their entertainment- BEFORE IP holders have any success at obliterating the distribution channels for said Internet entertainment.
It's easy to sue any one indie artist in any field, but there are so many of them- and it would be an uphill battle to successfully ban communication by unauthorized persons simply on the grounds that they _could_ violate IP laws. That would be tantamount to requiring an 'Internet License' and is so direct and blatant an assault on free speech that it'd be very hard to do. It's a lot easier to attack a specific person for actually posting a derivative song to the Internet- though even this would be a potential PR disaster- but almost impossible to spin "You may not speak/sing/create without clearing it with central authorities" in any useful way. Too obvious, and too personal.
Absolutely. I don't know what field lysurgon works in, but I'm a musician and sound engineer, and even as I type this I'm remastering some older works to go onto a website where they can be heard.
And I can tell you this- perhaps sometimes I'd like to be able to afford better tools, but that is toward an end- I can IMAGINE. Bits of other people's music leave flaming trails across my imagination, leave me wanting more, wanting to say, "OK, give me something like THAT- but MORE SO!" It could be a serene beautiful melody or it could be a wall of brutal overloaded guitar, bass and drums hitting like a hammer to the head- but I'll hear it and go WHOA! Did you hear THAT? Play it again!
And in my own music I'll want to not simply copy THAT, but to take it a step or two beyond, make it my own, as always unsatisfied with what seemed wonderful yesterday.
It's about having an insatiable hunger for pictures in sound (or pictures in pictures, for visual artists), being able to imagine a thing and determined that the imagined thing MUST exist. Sometimes when you create it, it's not as good as you'd hoped, but so what? On to the next thing.
Explain why I would be less hungry for the next picture in sound should there be no prospect of other people paying me to do it.
Got a reference on this? It sounds urbanlegendish.
If only that _were_ true! It would only really apply to major label, record industry sessions expected to produce a lot of money- it would be an interesting sideshow to the spectacle of an industry devouring itself.
People often behave as though the record industry, being a big-money cartel, is the only game in town- and to an extent that's true, but developing the habit of playing IP hardball so much is a self-destructive action. Wouldn't it be interesting if you _couldn't_ produce real serious art for the record industry because the only music you could record anymore was written by committee and run through gauntlets of lawyers before release?
Every good story has been told thousands of times, every good bit of melody echoes through history- it's HOW you tell it, HOW you play it that matters. But if every story and note is cordoned off with barbed-wire fences put up and massive lawyer onslaughts made on 'copiers', the only possible result is that the 'legal' music will just absolutely suck... because GOOD music has been done, over and over, and increasingly IP holders are gaining the ability to effectively prohibit 'copiers' from building on that foundation.
Seriously, I'd love to see some reference on your claim about jazz musicians being stopped during sessions. Do you mean stopped from making derivative songs, or even more insanely, actually interrupted during soloing? Please follow up with some kind of confirmation that you're not just making this up- it is actually quite important, with huge implications for the future of the record industry. Sort of 'live by the lawyer, die by the lawyer' kind of thing. If you're correct, they'll be LEGALLY incapable of holding on to their cartel as their product quality inevitably drops to below indie-garage-musician levels. It's not that indies will get so much better- the majors will continue to get worse!
No no- it IS good capitalism, BECAUSE straight uncut winner-take-all capitalism is not good for society.
What you're seeing there _is_ capitalism- it just happens to be 'laissez-faire'. Under current conditions, those guys are the only ones who survive, because they 'eat the lunch' of everybody else and make sure there's no choice to resort to, by hook or by crook. In strict laissez-faire as it's practiced in the modern world, there is no concept of 'society' at all. It's 100% Union Carbide and there is no such place as Bhopal...
Now, it's important to remember that there are OTHER types of capitalism, but to claim laissez-faire isn't capitalism seems a bit wrong. The trouble here is that you are aware of society and things like consequences to actions, perhaps you are aware of stuff like game theory that proves 'best doesn't always win' and you object to the rules of the game being virtually nonexistent, because you see what happens and you don't like it.
However, to do something about it you'll have to encourage a different sort of capitalism than the laissez-faire one we live with, and until then it will be about 'eating lunch' and to hell with society, customers, or even basic fitness to the task.
...which explains why a lot of people like you are resorting to Linux or otherwise building and maintaining their own cyber 'tools'! One failure mode of this laissez-faire is that there will always be a certain number of people who find it easier to actually do the work themselves, than to struggle with crap every day. 'Eating their lunch' only matters to an accountant- if you're talking about a tool you need, and it's an IMPORTANT tool, then you may be forced to place a much higher value on its quality than a laissez-faire marketplace would ever support.
And pass up the possibility of "stopping a variety of antivirus and security applications and deleting all the files in the folders containing those applications. Kaspersky Lab's AVP, Zone Labs' ZoneAlarm, and Internet Security Systems' Black Ice are among the programs affected."? (CNet)
Those ARE all Microsoft competitors, are they not?
Microsoft DOES have an inferior product bundled with XP that they wish to prevail against this technically superior (and two-way: no spyware-friendliness like with MS's version) competition, do they not?
Let me say that I don't know whether Microsoft has spread this worm themselves to take out their competitors, because I don't know where it came from in the first place and I won't have to deal with it except shoveling it out of my Mac/Eudora Light inbox. But you have to ask, 'who benefits?'. And you can't seriously expect Microsoft to get rid of their scripting, when they can use it in so many ways to damage their competitors- and their competitors are not only 'any other software company' but the fundamental technologies of the Internet itself, which they don't own. They _want_ this to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it mean 'fix it for meeeeee! wah!'? If so, Microsoft stomps the hell out of Linux. Their whole _concept_, including for developers (see Visual Basic), is for there to be inner circles and outer circles, in a centralised authority structure. You can have teams of Microsoft insiders working themselves into ulcers for you if you need it- you do NOT get control, ownership of the product, or the final say. Guys like Ballmer expend HUGE effort into making sure the MS insiders ARE still willing to sweat blood to assist J. Random Developer (i.e. hold their hand, wipe their nose, fix their problem). If not for this huge effort ('developers developers developers developers!'), you would be unimaginably screwed dealing with them. The dependency relationship is based on an immense effort on Microsoft's behalf to be the caretaker.
They could stop at any time (Ballmer dies, new CEO is bean counter or something) and it's worth considering just HOW hard Ballmer tries to keep the monolith centered on the needs of certain customers. HE knows that the natural reaction is to screw the customer, get lazy and stop providing good service since you've got them locked down anyhow.
By comparison, if 'technical support' means 'give me the power to do it myself', it's tough to beat Linux, simply because you can get ownership of so much (for all practical coding purposes). For many projects it's easy to get full disclosure of source code. You get to fork off versions if you have a need- you get to incorporate other people's stuff into yours if you follow the licensing rules- there's no 'inner circle' to it at all, and so people get snippy if asked to behave like they are an inner circle. It's 'RTFM' because they know you have just as much capacity to fully acquaint yourself with the situation as they have- and they are not hired to help you, they produce things and you can TAKE them and HAVE them to do with as you will, again with full disclosure. The idea is to take advantage of that.
The interesting comparison here is that this time, if anything drastic happens to Linux, your ownership of your parts of it, and your access to information and your effectiveness, are quite unchanged. It's not a dependency relationship, more like a forced self-sufficiency relationship. You get no support in dependency, but you get resources for self-sufficiency (including legal ones- the licensing) that you flat cannot get from Microsoft.
The question becomes, what sorts of programmers are more relevant and useful to the world? Ones that seek dependency relationships, or ones that seek self-sufficiency relationships? I think there's something to be said for each, but you're a hell of a lot more likely to find cutting edge stuff in the latter camp- which will be pretty unpolished, but that's normal for innovation.
You'll find less innovative software coming out of the dependency camp.
I have to wonder- how much of this is autism/asperger's, and how much is simply hangover from years of feeling compelled to have 'all your shit together'? If I get to a point where I'm really very confident and secure, will this tendency go away, or is it something I just need to learn to cope with because it's part of how my mind works? It's damn unpleasant, I can tell you that. It sucks to have to deal with 'inappropriate' emotional hysterics, even though I can avoid acting out on 'em I still have to feel them and it's frustrating to consider that NTs may not get hit with that kind of thing. I don't know how to describe it- people say oh, everyone has bad days or whatever, but it's peculiarly frustrating to fight off MASSIVE panic and 'wrongness' over something that you logically know isn't all that major.
Anyhow- thanks for telling a little about yourself- it's spooky how similar your story is to mine :)
I got through all this years before people even _heard_ of autism or Asperger's, way before it was 'popular' to make such diagnoses right and left. I don't think any sort of backlash can hurt people like me. Sometimes it's just freaking obvious what's going on. It really wouldn't have taken much to improve my childhood and adolescence- even the HINT of a possible reason why I was so hopelessly, meaninglessly out of place in society would have helped a lot. And now, nobody need _ever_ go through what I went through. Now people have a clue. Let 'em label away, and then backlash, whatever. At least The Clue Is Out There.
In my opinion if there's anything to be learned from all this, it's that self-acceptance and other-acceptance are equally important. I too suffered from attempts to conform me to society, but I am looking for a NICHE for myself in society, not to proclaim myself the new freaking ubermensch when I can't even drive a damn car without dropping into 'processing mode' and not being able to pay attention to the damn road.
There is VALUE in all types of person and don't you forget it...
This is a _good_ article. It covers all the bases- has the guts to see that people on the spectrum are capable of things that stun and astonish NT humans- and isn't afraid to also confront the fact that this comes at a price- if we breed as if we were some superior race, we are FSCKED, producing children who... well, if we are 'overclocked' then our potential kids can be 'thermal meltdown', virtually incapable of functioning. A daunting thought... and we are the LEAST capable of humans, as far as dealing with heavy personal needs of others.
We've always been around. The whole stereotype of the Eccentric German Professor is pure autism. Albert Einstein dealt with this sort of thing- for instance, he couldn't remember his own phone number. "Why should I when I can write it down?" People say that what he could remember, most people couldn't even imagine- at the same time, the guy couldn't remember his own phone number! It's not simple eccentricity or wilful decision to flout the expectations of society. It's NOT just PR.
My favorite way of describing it is subroutines. Most people are more pre-emptive- those of us who are far out along the spectrum can hit amazing peaks of 'processing' but don't necessarily have the control over when it's happening. If that happens to me, I might go and get something and immediately not know what I was getting. At the same time, I also don't know what my mind is processing- it's in a subroutine, doing something that I don't know what it is. Solving some problem I might think of another day. In the immediate moment, I'm standing there looking like a fool. If it was just going to the fridge or whatever this would be less of a problem. I don't drive anymore- it took me too long to figure out that I dropped into subroutines even at the wheel- and five seconds between 'interrupts' isn't enough for driving. Fortunately I never hurt anybody- I'm not risking it any longer, license expired of old age and I'm not getting a new one.
What do I get to balance out these problems? Some stuff that's paid off a lot of the stress of getting this far. Some things that are subjective, some that are objective. Thankfully, self-awareness: we're as capable of self-awareness and wisdom as anybody, given the right information. I'm 33, so for most of my life the information I was given was 'you're just not trying to get along!' or some such crap. Better to know the truth with its curses AND blessings.
Nothing like a personal interest... anyhow, I think this is a really good article.
Marriage? Children? Not my problem- I ended up failing at being heterosexual, and discovering I could be gay just as easily, even be considered a hottie (most unexpected!). I've ended up mated with a guy, no desire to produce or raise children- if it wasn't for that I'd doubtless be a bachelor until I died. My 'line' will die with me.
I wonder how many of the important Free Software people are autistic? Is it that a level of autism ironically helps people understand and see deeper social benefit precisely BECAUSE we don't have the whirl of normal social interaction to distract us from what we're really doing? For a Bill Gates, this turns him to the dark side and he responds by rejecting it- 'OK, all the toys must be mine!' and doesn't have normal social restraints to suggest to him that this is bad. For a Richard Stallman, this turns him towards dedicated, unyielding determination to maximize social benefit at all costs- at the expense of his day-to-day social contacts, and the patience of those around him. Either way it's more focus than most people ever see, and that's the secret of it... a lot of people seem ready to make all sorts of compromises in their lives, that an autistic person may not be able to make. Which is a weakness and a strength- look at what RMS has been able to do by being singleminded..
Gee, bet Lindows is going to be great! ;P
They haven't got the bugs worked out of the Magic Lantern code yet :D
Mind you, there could be some difficulty running the system 7 stuff on OSX, considering the WHOLE OS is removed and replaced with a Unix-based system- and still- Classic layer, anyone?
Graymalkin, to some extent you are making excuses for the Windows environment and trying to pass them off as standard operating procedure. You're correct in that domain, but why should anyone have to deal with that 'sunset' garbage? Apple has repeatedly proven that it's not necessary (and that choosing to NOT rape your customers is not the winningest of business decisions)
So which side are you on? Your vendor's- or your own?
Those come in concrete! :D
That's a 'funny' example 'cos 'funny' commercials actually suck at persuading anyone to buy anything. It's not about whether you like the commercial, it's about whether you like the product...
I am a Coke-drinking slashdot geek, but will also tolerate Code Red and Mtn. Dew. I like to consume mass quantities of soda pop ;)
Recently the local store hiked prices of 2 liter bottles of Coke to $1.39 in an effort to see if they could. I shit a brick, and swore I'd simply not buy it at that price. Loaded up on Code Red instead, cashiers remarking 'what, no Coca-Cola?', and that only when it was on sale for 99 or 89 cents. If there wasn't anything for 99 or 89 cents, I'd drink tea, or water. I was _not_ about to get jerked around on what I considered a staple beverage (shudder).
Suddenly- either Coke or Dew are _always_ on sale now, to card holders- and often at 89 cents- and O could float a raft with how much I bought, stocking up while it was cheap.
It seems that some types of tight consumer monitoring ARE beneficial, granting only one key point: you've GOT to be willing to refuse to buy what you don't like! I seem to have personally put a big 'don't even think about it' into the data for hiking the price of Coke- other people reacted the same as they mistrust this supermarket anyhow, and the result was, sales got SO hammered and people were SO prone to hunt down only the sale items that the store quickly learned to offer competitive prices, even with stores in larger towns with actual competition. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's happening.
One key point there is, this particular area is the subject of direct competition between Coke and Pepsi, even in this store that's alone in the town. The store could price everything at $1.50 and still sell vaguely well due to location- but it sets up a situation where Pepsi can run a sale at 99 cents and _hammer_ the _crap_ out of Coke sales for that week. The additional price pressure makes the effect even more striking. Coke's only recourse is- another sale! So they alternate weeks at 99 cents or 89 cents, and you need only wait.
I wonder how a similar effect can be made to happen in the computer industry, or other industries that seem to be wedged into a non-price-sensitive mode? If we had two Microsofts we could play them off against each other like that. People have been doing this for PC vendors for a long time...
Trouble is, the claims are tangled with each other and amazingly general, it seems- but the gist of it seems fairly clear. It's just a little hard to believe.
Has Microsoft successfully patented the _concept_ of 'trusted client', daft though that concept is?
I couldn't even begin to tell you whether that is good or bad (I mean, apart from the 'being able to not let any non-MS programs run on Windows' part). Any lawyers in the house care to give their interpretation on what MS actually got for themselves here?
Not any more!
So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over _this_ one. If anyone's trying to spin it like you say, they'll just fail- it is NOT like 'hacker', a fairly uncommon word with no strong positive connotations.
I wrote that in the summer of 1998.
Welcome to the world of .NET, X-Box ('soon to develop greatly expanded usefulness!') and 90% and up Internet Explorer, everywhere.
I'll repeat that: I wrote that in 1998.
Now I am saying, Microsoft do want security problems on the Internet to position for the future selling of their own entirely MS-controlled version- and the taking away of the original Internet, and yes, I think if things go their way they will try to make unauthorized networking illegal, for 'security reasons'.
Germany's Third Reich was just a bunch of Europeans 'running scared' because they'd been hammered in the Versailles Treaty and were determined to never again be weak. It was just a bunch of people- and things got out of hand- and a lot of people at the time said, 'but- they've done good things for the economy!' and 'is that really any of our business?'.
Quit downplaying our current reality! Your Pollyanna (or Quisling?) behavior is not appropriate when reasonable people are _trying_ to figure out how to outmaneuver a very major world power that is a very real threat to freedoms and civil liberties.
I realise you don't want to 'project outcomes' but damn- can't you even see patterns, count money, read news, see what's going on around you?
I think it speaks very well of you, if you're determined to refuse to believe Microsoft would ever hurt anybody or restrain their liberties- it's very 'nice'- but I have no intentions of going down the tubes with you so you can have the luxury of going 'Oh my! Oh dear! Imagine, it turned out we couldn't trust them after all!'. And I am totally uninterested in extending Microsoft any benefit of the doubt at this point.
What did _you_ predict for Microsoft in 1998? Did you predict product activation, .NET, the desire to hijack all e-commerce?
The trouble with you (and many like you) is that you have difficulty in separating fantasy from reality. The difficulty I am speaking of is that you can't do anything BUT separate fantasy from reality. If someone imagines it and expresses a dsytopian view of it, you can't accept that it could ever ACTUALLY be true...
How many spots in London are NOT monitored by hidden surveillance cameras?
How many people have been thrown in prison so far because they learned the secret computer program of a commercial company which is not itself the government?
If you can't accept these realities _as_ realities, we certainly _will_ have to agree to disagree- which does not imply that there is any justification for your position!
It does take strategic thinking- for instance, in my opinion Microsoft wants horrible security problems on the Internet, because their long range plans involve outright replacing it with a MS-only net, and possibly having the original Internet outlawed if necessary (on grounds of hacker risks). Tearing hell out of Microsoft stuff now does them damage now but also positions them better for this future goal- it's a question of whether they can implement such a plan, and how quickly. It's possible that now would be better than later, because they don't work well when rushed, and are likely to screw up their concept for a replacement Internet if they have to scramble to offer it quickly. Wait too long, and they'll have a more solid proposal- which would be a bad thing.
Another aspect is remembering to keep PR pressure on, by specifying how these Microsoft vulnerabilities are Microsoft vulnerabilities, rather than 'internet' security problems as MS will be spinning it. They have a lot of money to throw behind that spin- but rather low trustworthiness, so it's a fairly even fight.
I daresay fighting by ALL means necessary is the proper course of action. After all, we are attempting to fight an entity that is more powerful than the United States Government.
Are you joking, 'foobar'? How is it that at this point in time, you are still saying 'Please leave off with the talk of how the government must stop Microsoft. That's ridiculous.' when the real question is, can EVEN the government stop Microsoft?
I'm not sure how old you are, but when you argue Microsoft (collectively) is not 'evil' in the 'Hitler-Darth Vader-Satan' sense, you're talking like a high school kid who's just discovered Ayn Rand. Is Union Carbide evil, after Bhopal? What makes you class the leader of the Nazi Party with a fictional character and an archetype? It may have escaped your memory but one of those guys was REAL- and after power, just like Microsoft- and didn't think in terms of playing nice with others, just like Microsoft- where do you get off drawing a line in the sand and saying 'OK, this is evil and this is not'?
The rules of the open market ARE at fault here- at least in practice, because as practiced by Microsoft they are cancerous. In completely denying the concept of 'benefit of society' or 'commons' and operating only on the value of maximized local profit they are suboptimal to the point that, taken far enough, they can _ruin_ society, reduce it to a state that resembles totalitarian states. Instead of a government mandating only one overpriced, defective solution for everything, you get no government control- and the same pitiable failure of the market, but this time because any smaller entrant is so easily crushed that there is no sense in underwriting such an effort.
Don't believe me? Write a better word processor than Word, and get someone to underwrite your IPO.
You can't beat a cheater. This would seem obvious, but clearly it's not obvious to you. Your definition of 'business right' strongly resembles racketeering and organized crime- using ALL the possible 'incentives' to seize total control. You seem to be supporting this because it clearly returns the most profit of any business method. However, it's a scorched-earth policy: it destroys the very market you claim to revere! And THAT is why we need government to set rules: in this context rules are like bricks, used to make buildings instead of tents. You can say they're in the way, inflexible, limiting- but you can't build up multiple stories, keep out the cold, resist hurricanes etc. without 'em.
I guess I am just wondering- WHY do you hate rules so? You are over two years old, I trust? Is your sense of morals and ethics also over two?
To round it off, why not make it bilateral? No possibility of Microsoft bringing any kind of suit for any reason for five years, no possibility of anybody suing Microsoft for any reason for five years.
If you complained about this it would imply that you thought Microsoft could be sued in the first place, and that they are not effectively above the law through ability to manipulate the system.
But if you figure that Microsoft can do _anything_ and get away with it through abusing the legal system, you conclude things like: the only reason they're not stealing Linux is because they don't want it, they are already taking action to seize still further power and control in the world, and they already take no consideration of legalities in doing so, except as a weapon.
This would be one hell of an interesting trial balloon. It'd be very revealing to see whether they'd take the 'un-sue-able' aspect as an opportunity, or freak out and refuse to deal on such terms. It would reveal the extent to which they abuse the legal system as a weapon but are themselves exempt from it.
Look! It's a time warp from 1999, back when these arguments seemed plausible!
More plausibly, B-list artists (and even some A-list artists) will now be repeatedly sued by intellectual property holders because their creations are 'like' some previous creation 'owned' by the suits.
I actually kinda like this, in a sick way, because it's another step towards making corporate art utterly impossible, and where not impossible, complete pablum with no distinguishing qualities (all distinguishing qualities worth anything are 'like' something that's been previously done).
The thing to hope for is that the mainstream becomes a creative wasteland bad enough to force bored consumers to explore, say, the Internet for their entertainment- BEFORE IP holders have any success at obliterating the distribution channels for said Internet entertainment.
It's easy to sue any one indie artist in any field, but there are so many of them- and it would be an uphill battle to successfully ban communication by unauthorized persons simply on the grounds that they _could_ violate IP laws. That would be tantamount to requiring an 'Internet License' and is so direct and blatant an assault on free speech that it'd be very hard to do. It's a lot easier to attack a specific person for actually posting a derivative song to the Internet- though even this would be a potential PR disaster- but almost impossible to spin "You may not speak/sing/create without clearing it with central authorities" in any useful way. Too obvious, and too personal.
And I can tell you this- perhaps sometimes I'd like to be able to afford better tools, but that is toward an end- I can IMAGINE. Bits of other people's music leave flaming trails across my imagination, leave me wanting more, wanting to say, "OK, give me something like THAT- but MORE SO!" It could be a serene beautiful melody or it could be a wall of brutal overloaded guitar, bass and drums hitting like a hammer to the head- but I'll hear it and go WHOA! Did you hear THAT? Play it again!
And in my own music I'll want to not simply copy THAT, but to take it a step or two beyond, make it my own, as always unsatisfied with what seemed wonderful yesterday.
It's about having an insatiable hunger for pictures in sound (or pictures in pictures, for visual artists), being able to imagine a thing and determined that the imagined thing MUST exist. Sometimes when you create it, it's not as good as you'd hoped, but so what? On to the next thing.
Explain why I would be less hungry for the next picture in sound should there be no prospect of other people paying me to do it.
furrfu.
If only that _were_ true! It would only really apply to major label, record industry sessions expected to produce a lot of money- it would be an interesting sideshow to the spectacle of an industry devouring itself.
People often behave as though the record industry, being a big-money cartel, is the only game in town- and to an extent that's true, but developing the habit of playing IP hardball so much is a self-destructive action. Wouldn't it be interesting if you _couldn't_ produce real serious art for the record industry because the only music you could record anymore was written by committee and run through gauntlets of lawyers before release?
Every good story has been told thousands of times, every good bit of melody echoes through history- it's HOW you tell it, HOW you play it that matters. But if every story and note is cordoned off with barbed-wire fences put up and massive lawyer onslaughts made on 'copiers', the only possible result is that the 'legal' music will just absolutely suck... because GOOD music has been done, over and over, and increasingly IP holders are gaining the ability to effectively prohibit 'copiers' from building on that foundation. Seriously, I'd love to see some reference on your claim about jazz musicians being stopped during sessions. Do you mean stopped from making derivative songs, or even more insanely, actually interrupted during soloing? Please follow up with some kind of confirmation that you're not just making this up- it is actually quite important, with huge implications for the future of the record industry. Sort of 'live by the lawyer, die by the lawyer' kind of thing. If you're correct, they'll be LEGALLY incapable of holding on to their cartel as their product quality inevitably drops to below indie-garage-musician levels. It's not that indies will get so much better- the majors will continue to get worse!
What you're seeing there _is_ capitalism- it just happens to be 'laissez-faire'. Under current conditions, those guys are the only ones who survive, because they 'eat the lunch' of everybody else and make sure there's no choice to resort to, by hook or by crook. In strict laissez-faire as it's practiced in the modern world, there is no concept of 'society' at all. It's 100% Union Carbide and there is no such place as Bhopal...
Now, it's important to remember that there are OTHER types of capitalism, but to claim laissez-faire isn't capitalism seems a bit wrong. The trouble here is that you are aware of society and things like consequences to actions, perhaps you are aware of stuff like game theory that proves 'best doesn't always win' and you object to the rules of the game being virtually nonexistent, because you see what happens and you don't like it.
However, to do something about it you'll have to encourage a different sort of capitalism than the laissez-faire one we live with, and until then it will be about 'eating lunch' and to hell with society, customers, or even basic fitness to the task.
And- how many Microsoft operating systems have been released since the patch was made public- with the vulnerability intact?
This is not an oversight. This is policy.
Those ARE all Microsoft competitors, are they not?
Microsoft DOES have an inferior product bundled with XP that they wish to prevail against this technically superior (and two-way: no spyware-friendliness like with MS's version) competition, do they not?
Let me say that I don't know whether Microsoft has spread this worm themselves to take out their competitors, because I don't know where it came from in the first place and I won't have to deal with it except shoveling it out of my Mac/Eudora Light inbox. But you have to ask, 'who benefits?'. And you can't seriously expect Microsoft to get rid of their scripting, when they can use it in so many ways to damage their competitors- and their competitors are not only 'any other software company' but the fundamental technologies of the Internet itself, which they don't own. They _want_ this to happen.