"But, maybe we are all wrong, maybe there ain't enough job for us all, not enough place, not enough ressources... Want to drive a SUV ? Eat super maxi menu ? We can't go on like this, it is time to slow down, relax and live a better life."
Absolutely correct. If there aren't enough jobs, more businesses need to be created. If there isn't a market for more businesses, we as a society need to consume more. Perhaps our current problem is that this 50-60 hour work week ethic is causing us to output more than we take in. Some people just need to slow down.;)
Then again, this assumes that more businesses are only limited by market demand, and with all the regulations on the books (have any of you actually looked at this stuff? It's amazing...) I don't know that that is the case.
Only if you feel that corporations should be treated the same way people are.
The sticking point here is that you are wrapping up the concept of a corporation as its own entity and ignoring the people which make it up. Yes, by my logic, a lamp does have rights, indirectly given by its owner: it has the right to not be taken away or tampered with or regulated by the government because it is the sole property of a human being.
When you regulate a corporation, you're not regularing a concept or a null-entity, you're regulating actual people who make up the corporation. People. If you want to classify an employee or owner as less than a person between the hours of 9-5 we can just agree to disagree, but be clear about it.
Thanks for the condescending reply, maybe you'd care to discuss this like an adult in your next.
A corporation is not just some abstract idea either. You're talking about someone else's blood, sweat, tears, late nights, stressed families, etc. A corporation is the result of a group of people (which in many, many cases is fewer than a few hundred) working together and it belongs to its owners. It's hypocritical to have no problems with regulating a "corporation" and to scream when someone suggests regulating the individual.
When you regulate corporations, you're regulating people and property. "Clean" abstractions and the "evil" and "greedy" connotations of the word "corporation" do not change this.
I actually recommend Tight VNC as it's a bit faster than standard VNC and an extension (fork) of the original source IIRC. I use it here at work.
That said, if you're ISP tech support, getting a user to install a VNC client is not only painfully difficult, but a security risk as well. In the case of VNC coming with the ISP software, I'd actually be extremely ticked off (e.g. cancel my service) if a VNC client was installed with any ISP software I installed.
It depends on where you live. I'm in the Austin, TX area and have been on RR since late '98. The first couple years saw 1-4 hours of downtime a few times a year, a couple times since I've had them it was down for a day or three. But in all honesty, they're rarely down when I'm home and on my computer (often), especially the last few years.
I hate huge companies and Time Warner is not necessarily any different, but I give them kudos for their road runner service.
One would hope that tech support reps would already know the tech and would be training in the product. For instance, someone doing support for an ISP would know basic networking, email, software, etc., and then would be trained on what applications users use and what comprises the ISP's side of things.
If you're training phone reps on both the tech and the product, either you're looking for know-nothing meatbags to talk to customers who will accept low wages, or you're looking for employees with "people skills" to do more Public Relations than tech support. Either way, something is wrong.
But, alas, until everyone starts demanding to speak with managers (thousands of squeaky wheels) and flocking to companies with decent support... until there is some buzz about it, until the customer exercises his rights, we'll always have to put up with this crap.
The analogy would be good if the tech could take control of the user's computer or even better see it in person. Since a tech support rep has to diagnose the computer through the luser, things generally take time and are quite stressful.
I think many folks here have done phone tech support for family and know what I'm talking about.
Social engineering-based cracking can't be stopped. Not by Windows, not by Linux.
Most people treat computers as appliances. What we need is an OS which is so tightly locked down and has integrated secure auto-updates if a network is available to serve as an applicance.
If you're downloading applications and add-ons and managing your software, you are no longer an appliance user but a real user who should be responsible for maintaining your system at a basic level.
I think most of the problem computers we have online are families with computers who use them for email, surfing, etc. If they do download stuff, it's mostly just program's they've heard about but never end up using.
You don't get into a car and just drive. You actually go to a class. A computer is not just one tool but a gateway to an insane number of tools, many dangerous. If you're going to use a computer for more than an appliance, if you plan to utilize its functionality as a platform, then you're responsible for knowing a little about it. If not, a locked down box is for you.
I love the PO box analogy. The IP is the street address of an apartment complex, each apartment is a program and each has a PO box (port).
Hacking, viruses, worms, trojans, etc. all send letters to the PO box in hopes that the apartment resident will read the letter and go crazy and start setting things on fire or letting masked men with crowbars in the back-gate.
When people grasp the analogy and the concept that all of these security problems boil down to tricking an application or the OS into doing something it shouldn't, shocked expressions and frustration are pretty common. Most people have no clue and attribute the problems to the mysterious, unknown world of computers. When they see how simple some of these things are and how widespread the issues are in Windows, they get a better idea of why Windows takes so much heat.
"US troops on police duty that have had ZERO police training"
While I'm sure some folks didn't get this training, I'm remembering a documentary on troop training and how our units (active service at least) were going through urban warfare training which included segments on dealing with civilians, riots, police duty, peacekeeping, etc. I seem to recall that this was standard training.
Anyone with more time able to back me up or refute my memory?
Your hypothetical situation assumes two things, I think:
"My scenario puts you in Iraq, with a wife and children, and a foreign superpower dropping bombs on your house" "You wouldn't be dying for a cause. You would be dying because of simple aggression."
I'm seeing two things implied here, please correct me if I'm wrong: 1) The Iraqi is a bystander and has no part in causing the US to bomb Iraq (whatever the reason). 2) The US has no real cause to drop bombs on Iraq.
Assuming you are implying those two things, I'd like to contest them. I really shouldn't get into a discussion at work, so I'll try to make this short.
In response to #2, the reasoning behind the US's motives are quite long. Saddam is bad is one of them but is really meaningless in my opinion, it's just icing on the cake. I'll summarize what I believe is the main reason: Rouge nations are the only viable sources for high-end WMD (nukes, etc.) for terrorists. Rouge nations are the only real, material threat to the world community (key assumption) and the threat is not insignificant (key assumption). By not enforcing previously stated rules (cease-fire in Gulf War) and other resolutions with regard to rouge nations, the world community is allowing rouge nations to become more defiant and some are beginning to position themselves to pose a real danger. In the interest of national security, the US is interested in holding rouge nations responsible. Several rouge nations are reconsidering their foreign policy after Iraq.
In response to #1, I disagree with that idea if it is indeed yours. The people as a whole of a nation are responsible for its actions. An individual is responsible to the extent that he or she only becomes unassociated with an action of the nation if he or she publicly opposes it. If this isn't possible in Iraq, it's the people's job to revolt en masse and see that it is. A minority regime cannot hold back an entire nation.
I'd be interested in your general feelings towards these matters.
I think it also might be helpful to point out that I am not a Republican or a Democrat (nor a moderate, actually).
"The problem with liberals is that you don't understand the real world and you can't make tough choices. I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men."
In the realm of ideas, I completely disagree with the anti-war crowd, the anti-America crowd, and liberals in general. That said, I would be a little hesitant to call ratamacue a liberal -- notice his.sig.
You also are exhibiting the "holier than thou" mentality with "I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men" with a little generalization to boot. Be careful when calling the pot black.
In response to your comment about group think, I'd like to point out that there is a lot of pride to be had in thinking you have the moral and mental high ground compared to those around you.
Find yourself surrounded by idiots who can't see or don't care? Find yourself mostly alone? Find that the people who outright oppose you are so driven by blind passion they can't see straight?
The other guy feels the same way. Considering yourself to have the moral and mental high ground is a very blinding pride and words like "group think" when applied to your opponents show what you think of yourself compared to them. In the end, claiming the high ground is worthless and self-denigrating.
If you find yourself on the highground, perhaps you should reflect for a little while and focus less on what your and his motivations are and more on the actual facts and history.
Putting your elitism asside;) I agree that a lot of folks here at/. bash MS just to bash MS.
I think my point is more in regard to MS doing something nice to its customers as a business and not to social groups as a charity (writing off the donations, I would assume).
I try to keep a pretty level-headed view of the company and if anyone would like to point out something they've done for the customer which can be explained as "going beyond the call" I would gladly recant my post.
You're right and that's what I was getting at. The problem to OSS software in the Linux/BSD realm is just that -- Microsoft pulling more developers into the Windows OSS group. That was my point.
In the end, though, there is a lot more to the Linux/BSD/etc. open source community than this. A large portion of its people just want to use a good system that they have control over and right now we have just that. Microsoft can surely steal much of the OSS market and grow theirs from developers not contributing to OSS, but to claim that it can wipe out OSS as a way of doing things or wipe out the Linux/BSD realm is far fetched, I think, unless Microsoft turns Windows into a much superior product than it is now and makes the whole system a bit more hacker friendly.
I'm in complete agreement with what you said. I was merely attempting to point out that Microsoft cannot kill "OSS" as a concept, technique, philosophy, whathaveyou.
What you're describing falls into the "Microsoft creates a good operating system" alternative. I honestly think it could and probably will happen once Linux eats up a little more marketshare. Microsoft is known for adapting, albeit often late, to stay alive and I think OSS will eventually become at least some part of Microsoft's daily life.
It will take time before they grow up, but it will eventually happen or the monopoly will fall. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme (Mark Twain?).
Don't you find it interesting how many pro-Microsoft comments are currently moderated at 4 or higher?
The Slashdot crowd has a lot of old, hardcore Linux folks and I think that group is still the majority, but with Slashdot's popularity as a geek site in general, there is a lot greater support here for Microsoft than some of the "QUIT BASHING MS!!" types want to admit.
Nobody likes unfounded comments or trolling, which is why some of us get so upset over comments against Linux, but to claim that Slashdot as a whole is lacking MS support (NOT what you said -- don't want to put words into your mouth) is a bit silly.
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup. A little too serious of an attitude towards MS? Oh yeah. But with that said, MS deserves a lot of skepticism and concern and if you want to avoid skepticism and concern (which isn't what you said, don't mean to put words in your mouth) I humbly suggest that you avoid websites filled with people who ran screaming from the Microsoft house.
But this will not "kill" OSS. Best case scenario for Microsoft:
1) Develop a Windows OSS community to rival Linux/BSD/etc. 2) Create/Improve OSS Windows applications. 3) Gain marketshare for OSS Windows applications. 4) Due to sneaky license clause, begin reeling in user's rights to your OSS software (this is where the definition of OSS becomes tricky).
The problem here is that this is extending open source applications. All those people who switched to Linux for more control and cool apps? They just might switch to Windows if the new software is good (extended) enough. Microsoft can kill OSS applications.
But killing OSS itself is another thing entirely. If you wrap up what was once OSS code (step #4), people will once again leave you and the code may possibly fork. OSS still lives. If Microsoft doesn't go through with step #4, then the software is still OSS and OSS still lives.
The OSS community today is getting along fine without any support from Microsoft and little support from other hardware/software vendors. Microsoft cannot kill OSS as a concept and it likely cannot pull enough developers away from Linux/BSD/etc. OSS unless Windows truely becomes a good operating system.
Do I think this will happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But they'll try -- and fail because they do not understand how deeply the motivations for OSS go, at least I don't think so.
It's kinda fun to think about, isn't it? All of these applications working between many operating systems including Windows?
This is embrace and extend at it's best. Use free and in some instances (Mozilla) better products on Windows (EMBRACE) and then switch to Linux/etc. for more functionality and integration (EXTEND). Then, if you want to be evil, drop Windows support, but I don't see that happening from the OSS side.
About 50% of the developers for my company (software company/Linux shop) run Linux as their primary desktop, a handful of others run it secondary, and all our new back-end stuff is Linux. We're actually in the process of moving to Exchange as we speak, and this is very welcome news as it makes things just that much easier.
We're just one company in a sea of others, but I'm sure we're not an isolated incident.
"Mmmm, yeah... I'm going to need you to come in on Sunday, too. We lost some people this week and sorta need to play a little catch-up."
I can bet that the few tech-monkies left around there are having a hard time keeping up with everything. I feel sorry for any of them who have been looking for another job.
It's not that cut and dry. Normal companies out there (those without large development staff working on algorithms) need lots of good planning and optimization. For the normal IT department in a large corporation developing middle-ware for a non-gigantic-size company, Computer Science isn't worth much but on paper. But in any company implementing a large system (multi-tiered or many users or distributed, etc.), optimizations and good design come into play which often require a mind for thinking about these kind of problems.
THAT is where Computer Science comes in handy.
Now math specific computer science? That's where the 10% comes in. Math is surely handy in doing optimizations, but depending on your application, isn't always necessary. I don't really expect math types to get where I'm coming from -- it all involves the way you think about a problem.
> By increasing the cost of sending spam, in the form of seized bond funds, Microsoft can make it infeasible for spammers who post bonds to profitably send unsolicited spam.
But once spammers are turned off from the scheme we are right back where we started.
To make something more expensive, you have to raise the price without changing the 'something' or change the 'something' and force people to buy it. People won't pay more unless you make them.
But this is not raising the price of what they're doing now (sending a bazillion spams a day) and it is not forcing them to move to the new plan.
So, in the end, you're not increasing the cost of spam, you're just giving spammers who can follow a few small rules a guaranteed way of getting their email through.
Slashdot Mirror
"But, maybe we are all wrong, maybe there ain't enough job for us all, not enough place, not enough ressources... Want to drive a SUV ? Eat super maxi menu ? We can't go on like this, it is time to slow down, relax and live a better life."
;)
Absolutely correct. If there aren't enough jobs, more businesses need to be created. If there isn't a market for more businesses, we as a society need to consume more. Perhaps our current problem is that this 50-60 hour work week ethic is causing us to output more than we take in. Some people just need to slow down.
Then again, this assumes that more businesses are only limited by market demand, and with all the regulations on the books (have any of you actually looked at this stuff? It's amazing...) I don't know that that is the case.
Cheers
Only if you feel that corporations should be treated the same way people are.
The sticking point here is that you are wrapping up the concept of a corporation as its own entity and ignoring the people which make it up. Yes, by my logic, a lamp does have rights, indirectly given by its owner: it has the right to not be taken away or tampered with or regulated by the government because it is the sole property of a human being.
When you regulate a corporation, you're not regularing a concept or a null-entity, you're regulating actual people who make up the corporation. People. If you want to classify an employee or owner as less than a person between the hours of 9-5 we can just agree to disagree, but be clear about it.
Thanks for the condescending reply, maybe you'd care to discuss this like an adult in your next.
Cheers
Corporations are not people
A corporation is not just some abstract idea either. You're talking about someone else's blood, sweat, tears, late nights, stressed families, etc. A corporation is the result of a group of people (which in many, many cases is fewer than a few hundred) working together and it belongs to its owners. It's hypocritical to have no problems with regulating a "corporation" and to scream when someone suggests regulating the individual.
When you regulate corporations, you're regulating people and property. "Clean" abstractions and the "evil" and "greedy" connotations of the word "corporation" do not change this.
I actually recommend Tight VNC as it's a bit faster than standard VNC and an extension (fork) of the original source IIRC. I use it here at work.
That said, if you're ISP tech support, getting a user to install a VNC client is not only painfully difficult, but a security risk as well. In the case of VNC coming with the ISP software, I'd actually be extremely ticked off (e.g. cancel my service) if a VNC client was installed with any ISP software I installed.
Cheers
It depends on where you live. I'm in the Austin, TX area and have been on RR since late '98. The first couple years saw 1-4 hours of downtime a few times a year, a couple times since I've had them it was down for a day or three. But in all honesty, they're rarely down when I'm home and on my computer (often), especially the last few years.
I hate huge companies and Time Warner is not necessarily any different, but I give them kudos for their road runner service.
I have no affiliation with the company.
Cheers
"At issue is the level of training provided."
One would hope that tech support reps would already know the tech and would be training in the product. For instance, someone doing support for an ISP would know basic networking, email, software, etc., and then would be trained on what applications users use and what comprises the ISP's side of things.
If you're training phone reps on both the tech and the product, either you're looking for know-nothing meatbags to talk to customers who will accept low wages, or you're looking for employees with "people skills" to do more Public Relations than tech support. Either way, something is wrong.
But, alas, until everyone starts demanding to speak with managers (thousands of squeaky wheels) and flocking to companies with decent support... until there is some buzz about it, until the customer exercises his rights, we'll always have to put up with this crap.
Cheers
The analogy would be good if the tech could take control of the user's computer or even better see it in person. Since a tech support rep has to diagnose the computer through the luser, things generally take time and are quite stressful.
I think many folks here have done phone tech support for family and know what I'm talking about.
Cheers
Highlighted are the words key to understanding what he said:
"If you are measuring bits/sec of traffic vs. bytes/sec of data."
Traffic = transfer including TCP headers, data = data the computer/application is processing after the headers are stripped off and processed.
Social engineering-based cracking can't be stopped. Not by Windows, not by Linux.
Most people treat computers as appliances. What we need is an OS which is so tightly locked down and has integrated secure auto-updates if a network is available to serve as an applicance.
If you're downloading applications and add-ons and managing your software, you are no longer an appliance user but a real user who should be responsible for maintaining your system at a basic level.
I think most of the problem computers we have online are families with computers who use them for email, surfing, etc. If they do download stuff, it's mostly just program's they've heard about but never end up using.
You don't get into a car and just drive. You actually go to a class. A computer is not just one tool but a gateway to an insane number of tools, many dangerous. If you're going to use a computer for more than an appliance, if you plan to utilize its functionality as a platform, then you're responsible for knowing a little about it. If not, a locked down box is for you.
Cheers
I love the PO box analogy. The IP is the street address of an apartment complex, each apartment is a program and each has a PO box (port).
Hacking, viruses, worms, trojans, etc. all send letters to the PO box in hopes that the apartment resident will read the letter and go crazy and start setting things on fire or letting masked men with crowbars in the back-gate.
When people grasp the analogy and the concept that all of these security problems boil down to tricking an application or the OS into doing something it shouldn't, shocked expressions and frustration are pretty common. Most people have no clue and attribute the problems to the mysterious, unknown world of computers. When they see how simple some of these things are and how widespread the issues are in Windows, they get a better idea of why Windows takes so much heat.
Cheers
In general I'm in 100% agreement here, however:
"US troops on police duty that have had ZERO police training"
While I'm sure some folks didn't get this training, I'm remembering a documentary on troop training and how our units (active service at least) were going through urban warfare training which included segments on dealing with civilians, riots, police duty, peacekeeping, etc. I seem to recall that this was standard training.
Anyone with more time able to back me up or refute my memory?
Cheers
Your hypothetical situation assumes two things, I think:
"My scenario puts you in Iraq, with a wife and children, and a foreign superpower dropping bombs on your house"
"You wouldn't be dying for a cause. You would be dying because of simple aggression."
I'm seeing two things implied here, please correct me if I'm wrong:
1) The Iraqi is a bystander and has no part in causing the US to bomb Iraq (whatever the reason).
2) The US has no real cause to drop bombs on Iraq.
Assuming you are implying those two things, I'd like to contest them. I really shouldn't get into a discussion at work, so I'll try to make this short.
In response to #2, the reasoning behind the US's motives are quite long. Saddam is bad is one of them but is really meaningless in my opinion, it's just icing on the cake. I'll summarize what I believe is the main reason:
Rouge nations are the only viable sources for high-end WMD (nukes, etc.) for terrorists. Rouge nations are the only real, material threat to the world community (key assumption) and the threat is not insignificant (key assumption). By not enforcing previously stated rules (cease-fire in Gulf War) and other resolutions with regard to rouge nations, the world community is allowing rouge nations to become more defiant and some are beginning to position themselves to pose a real danger. In the interest of national security, the US is interested in holding rouge nations responsible. Several rouge nations are reconsidering their foreign policy after Iraq.
In response to #1, I disagree with that idea if it is indeed yours. The people as a whole of a nation are responsible for its actions. An individual is responsible to the extent that he or she only becomes unassociated with an action of the nation if he or she publicly opposes it. If this isn't possible in Iraq, it's the people's job to revolt en masse and see that it is. A minority regime cannot hold back an entire nation.
I'd be interested in your general feelings towards these matters.
I think it also might be helpful to point out that I am not a Republican or a Democrat (nor a moderate, actually).
Cheers
"The problem with liberals is that you don't understand the real world and you can't make tough choices. I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men."
.sig.
In the realm of ideas, I completely disagree with the anti-war crowd, the anti-America crowd, and liberals in general. That said, I would be a little hesitant to call ratamacue a liberal -- notice his
You also are exhibiting the "holier than thou" mentality with "I guess that is why most liberals are women and gay men" with a little generalization to boot. Be careful when calling the pot black.
No insult or injury intended
In response to your comment about group think, I'd like to point out that there is a lot of pride to be had in thinking you have the moral and mental high ground compared to those around you.
Find yourself surrounded by idiots who can't see or don't care? Find yourself mostly alone? Find that the people who outright oppose you are so driven by blind passion they can't see straight?
The other guy feels the same way. Considering yourself to have the moral and mental high ground is a very blinding pride and words like "group think" when applied to your opponents show what you think of yourself compared to them. In the end, claiming the high ground is worthless and self-denigrating.
If you find yourself on the highground, perhaps you should reflect for a little while and focus less on what your and his motivations are and more on the actual facts and history.
Cheers
Putting your elitism asside ;) I agree that a lot of folks here at /. bash MS just to bash MS.
I think my point is more in regard to MS doing something nice to its customers as a business and not to social groups as a charity (writing off the donations, I would assume).
I try to keep a pretty level-headed view of the company and if anyone would like to point out something they've done for the customer which can be explained as "going beyond the call" I would gladly recant my post.
Cheers
You're right and that's what I was getting at. The problem to OSS software in the Linux/BSD realm is just that -- Microsoft pulling more developers into the Windows OSS group. That was my point.
In the end, though, there is a lot more to the Linux/BSD/etc. open source community than this. A large portion of its people just want to use a good system that they have control over and right now we have just that. Microsoft can surely steal much of the OSS market and grow theirs from developers not contributing to OSS, but to claim that it can wipe out OSS as a way of doing things or wipe out the Linux/BSD realm is far fetched, I think, unless Microsoft turns Windows into a much superior product than it is now and makes the whole system a bit more hacker friendly.
Cheers
I'm in complete agreement with what you said. I was merely attempting to point out that Microsoft cannot kill "OSS" as a concept, technique, philosophy, whathaveyou.
What you're describing falls into the "Microsoft creates a good operating system" alternative. I honestly think it could and probably will happen once Linux eats up a little more marketshare. Microsoft is known for adapting, albeit often late, to stay alive and I think OSS will eventually become at least some part of Microsoft's daily life.
It will take time before they grow up, but it will eventually happen or the monopoly will fall. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme (Mark Twain?).
Cheers
Don't you find it interesting how many pro-Microsoft comments are currently moderated at 4 or higher?
The Slashdot crowd has a lot of old, hardcore Linux folks and I think that group is still the majority, but with Slashdot's popularity as a geek site in general, there is a lot greater support here for Microsoft than some of the "QUIT BASHING MS!!" types want to admit.
Nobody likes unfounded comments or trolling, which is why some of us get so upset over comments against Linux, but to claim that Slashdot as a whole is lacking MS support (NOT what you said -- don't want to put words into your mouth) is a bit silly.
Cheers!
I agree.
:)
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup. A little too serious of an attitude towards MS? Oh yeah. But with that said, MS deserves a lot of skepticism and concern and if you want to avoid skepticism and concern (which isn't what you said, don't mean to put words in your mouth) I humbly suggest that you avoid websites filled with people who ran screaming from the Microsoft house.
Cheers
But this will not "kill" OSS. Best case scenario for Microsoft:
1) Develop a Windows OSS community to rival Linux/BSD/etc.
2) Create/Improve OSS Windows applications.
3) Gain marketshare for OSS Windows applications.
4) Due to sneaky license clause, begin reeling in user's rights to your OSS software (this is where the definition of OSS becomes tricky).
The problem here is that this is extending open source applications. All those people who switched to Linux for more control and cool apps? They just might switch to Windows if the new software is good (extended) enough. Microsoft can kill OSS applications.
But killing OSS itself is another thing entirely. If you wrap up what was once OSS code (step #4), people will once again leave you and the code may possibly fork. OSS still lives. If Microsoft doesn't go through with step #4, then the software is still OSS and OSS still lives.
The OSS community today is getting along fine without any support from Microsoft and little support from other hardware/software vendors. Microsoft cannot kill OSS as a concept and it likely cannot pull enough developers away from Linux/BSD/etc. OSS unless Windows truely becomes a good operating system.
Do I think this will happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But they'll try -- and fail because they do not understand how deeply the motivations for OSS go, at least I don't think so.
Cheers
It's kinda fun to think about, isn't it? All of these applications working between many operating systems including Windows?
:)
This is embrace and extend at it's best. Use free and in some instances (Mozilla) better products on Windows (EMBRACE) and then switch to Linux/etc. for more functionality and integration (EXTEND). Then, if you want to be evil, drop Windows support, but I don't see that happening from the OSS side.
Right back at you, Bill and Steve.
Cheers
About 50% of the developers for my company (software company/Linux shop) run Linux as their primary desktop, a handful of others run it secondary, and all our new back-end stuff is Linux. We're actually in the process of moving to Exchange as we speak, and this is very welcome news as it makes things just that much easier.
We're just one company in a sea of others, but I'm sure we're not an isolated incident.
Cheers
"Mmmm, yeah... I'm going to need you to come in on Sunday, too. We lost some people this week and sorta need to play a little catch-up."
I can bet that the few tech-monkies left around there are having a hard time keeping up with everything. I feel sorry for any of them who have been looking for another job.
It's not that cut and dry. Normal companies out there (those without large development staff working on algorithms) need lots of good planning and optimization. For the normal IT department in a large corporation developing middle-ware for a non-gigantic-size company, Computer Science isn't worth much but on paper. But in any company implementing a large system (multi-tiered or many users or distributed, etc.), optimizations and good design come into play which often require a mind for thinking about these kind of problems.
THAT is where Computer Science comes in handy.
Now math specific computer science? That's where the 10% comes in. Math is surely handy in doing optimizations, but depending on your application, isn't always necessary. I don't really expect math types to get where I'm coming from -- it all involves the way you think about a problem.
Cheers
> By increasing the cost of sending spam, in the form of seized bond funds, Microsoft can make it infeasible for spammers who post bonds to profitably send unsolicited spam.
But once spammers are turned off from the scheme we are right back where we started.
To make something more expensive, you have to raise the price without changing the 'something' or change the 'something' and force people to buy it. People won't pay more unless you make them.
But this is not raising the price of what they're doing now (sending a bazillion spams a day) and it is not forcing them to move to the new plan.
So, in the end, you're not increasing the cost of spam, you're just giving spammers who can follow a few small rules a guaranteed way of getting their email through.
Cheers