I tell the Windows haters I know to get a Lindows box. I also tell them to keep their Windows PC for all the esoteric programs they have. I would never tell someone to convert their PC to Linux, since I know they will be SOL when they can't find equivalent s/w or get some piece of hardware to work with it. (My parents are fine w/windows and a Mac, no need to mess with success. If I thought it mattered, I would help them make a conversion.)
I'm more interested in seeing what happens with the dual-user population - the people who want to switch because they are supposed to hate M$. Will they learn to love Linux, or at least not hate it? Knowing this population, I would guess challenging them with multiple desktops, among other things, will lead them to hate Linux more than M$, so I tell them to go with the pre-packaged solution.
To Sun, Linux is as much as a threat as Microsoft, and their strategy is the same: make the OS irrelevant by replacing it with a Sun-controlled platform that runs on top of the OS. The Linux community should be as paranoid about that occurring as Microsoft management is. Sun is, ultimately, not a friend of Linux
Now I get to ask my other favorite tech-biz question:
What exactly is Sun's business model?
Sun does not make money from Java, it's an expense. They support it because it provides an alternative to Windows in terms of availability, and.Net as a comprehensive framework. But for this to work to Sun's advantage, the message has to be "Java is everywhere, but for best results, you really should run it on a Sun platform. All those other platforms are just there so you can have a common codebase." How will opening the source benefit Sun? Seems that will allow others to make optimized versions for non-Sun hardware or OSes. Sun has to pretend "We're all in this together against big bad M$", while at the same time wondering how to undermine Linux - a nightmare for them.
So far, every promise of opening up Java by Sun has turned out to be a smokescreen and a distraction.
The GPL would allow the Government to release source-code for any changes to GPL'ed software made under constract. But it wouldn't require the Government to do this... unless the Government then supplies the modified software to a third party.
IANAL either, but the highlighted part of your comment creates a big problem, I think. My guess is that a gov atty will tell the gov that they will probably have to provide the software to a third party (another contractor) for follow-up work or actual use. The gov may also want to get some offset $$$ for it to recover initial costs, at which time the GPL will cause havoc. Guess I will have to invite some sharp IP attys I know out for beers (!=free) to get their view. Sure seems like a worthwhile question. The GPL incurs a hidden cost - that of having counsel define how GPL based software can be used/distributed, it seems.
I should given a bit more detail: Imagine that they modify the kernel to enable some specialized piece of hardware or accommodate some new IO scheme, either of which make military system modelling possible. Theoretically this would have to be released under the GPL. Not that they would, or that anyone could really enforce it, but the in-house counsel would probably have a fit anyway.
While government procurement policy should be neutral to ensure that governments do not introduce market distortions into the world economy, there should be an appreciation of the social benefits of fostering Open Source software development in a proper Open Source Government Policy plan
Wonder what functions I will find in the "Social Benefit" API.
This is industrial policy writ large... If we want to see the software industry go down the same path as the steel industry, this is the map to use.
I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns
Then you have forgotten that Novell is HQed in Utah. I'm beginning to think that Sen. Hatch would prefer we go back to that simple time before personal computers and the record industry could still use payola...
A friend's daughter was complaining that a dashboard light in her car would not go off, even though the car seemed fine. Daddy-O took it to the dealer for analysis. The service rep told him that if the car goes over 100 mph twice or more, the light comes on and stays on until reset. (This supposedly warns the mechanic to look for some other kind potential problem caused by high speed.)
Needless to say, there was a father-daughter talk. That's not necessarily an invasion of privacy, although some courts might consider it so. What would be of concern, though, is if the dealer is obligated to report this metric to the police when they encounter it, generating a retroactive ticket.
Imagine the potential for good and bad GPS units provide... A car is no longer a car, it is an info-platform in ways most people are not considering.
The data file has an (inhouse) standard, which needs to be specified
= Cost
A "standard" definition like it's the way our properitary software creates it right now is very poor
Maybe so, but the cost of definition is included in the cost of the license.
but you can install a software department, that maintains the software for your system
= BIG Cost!
if it is security relevant software you are putting your national security in the hands of an another country
Well..., I would guess the security umbrella the US has provided to Europe to fend off the commies, for example, was acceptable. American troops in S. Korea do the same. My guess is that the precieved risk of buying proprietary software from IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc, is pretty low on the list of security concerns in comparison. I think native hardware development capability is more important. That's why China tried (is trying) to build their own CPU, 'cuz of that...other... monopoly: Intel
- that the customer can change it as they se fit -
Hmmm, doesn't this sound like it has the potential for creating huge problems? The boon and bane of OSS is its flexibility. I will be absolutely the first to note the desirabilty of OSS in terms of making modifications and understanding source. But imagine someone in the water department decides to tweak some app they use, which modifies a data file used occasionally by some other dept(s). Imagine the reaction when the modded data file no longer works the way it used to. It could work the other way, too. Someone in the tax dept mods an app such that it no longer can read the water dept file. This happens because the tax developer hasn't seen the water dept file before. If I were in a gov IT department, I would make sure no one could mod anything w/o approval. In other words, governments and other large orgs are getting into the software librarian business with OSS, though I'm not sure they recognize that fact, especially in terms of cost. That's one important reason customers have been buying proprietary software for years - they don't have to manage the code base.
Mandating the change, as opposed to an incremental evaluation and changeover could do OSS much more harm than good if not done carefully. Wonder which window manager Brazil will choose...
Another way of looking at something I have been wondering about for a while... M$ has not been doing a good job managing its corporate image lately. Who is ultimately responsible for that? Ballmer. (The DOJ fiasco happened on Gates' watch, and I think it fair to suggest that he resigned the CEO spot because of it) I think Ballmer is an admirable person in many ways, but he doesn't seem to be cutting it as the CEO.
This is part of what they got for putting Steve Ballmer in charge
You have pointed to what I think is the key problem at M$ today, though others are recycling the usual M$ complaints.
Ballmer is a smart guy. He has a marketing background, has been with M$ almost since the beginning and therefore should be a great CEO. But, IMHO, I don't think he is. Gates was a great CEO, until he tangled with the DOJ. Big Mistake, but he had a pretty good run until then. To his credit, he recognized this and resigned from the CEO job.
Under Ballmer:
".Net is everything you ever wanted! Imagine your blender as a web service!"
XBox - Technically superior, ugly plastic box sold by people who only know titles. This from a marketing guy?
"Linux = BAD! GPL = BAD! OSS = BAD!" OK, why?
"OK, Linux ~ BAD, but we have to compete with it." (Pretty confusing if I am a customer.)
MSN - Money loser
First to market with popular consumer music service - Apple
As suggested in the parent, M$ did great job with.Net, but the message was totally garbled. I think it's time for M$ to look for a new CEO... Wouldn't be the first time someone who looked perfect on paper didn't work out in the CEO spot.
I hear Justin Frankel is available.;-]
But seriously folks, they need some new thinking up there.
I've read not too encouraging things about the construction of the dam. Guess I would much rather be one of the people displaced upstream of the thing than live downstream after the water fills in the reservoir. I also read that the weight of the water will likely cause earthquakes. One H*** of an experiment they are running...
Nothing illegal about an OS-less whitebox PC. There are plenty of stores that will assemble one for you, or just sell you the parts. Nothing requires the store to sell you an OS. Most of the universities buy from these vendors for just that reason.
Yeah you could. And I could too. Is Grandma going to though, even though she would save money or use a potentially better product? No... because when it comes to the uninformed, there is no choice.
That's not a valid argument, though a lot of people use it. In fact, it's kind of Stalinist logic. "The state must protect the people from themselves." Think about the implications of this.
BTW, plenty of companies and institutions can buy whitebox PCs, and they do. Just might have something to do with the success of Linux.
Right, which is why I used it. M$ supposedly spent $100MM developing IE, which no doubt made it better. One can argue about the source of the money, but it isn't illegal to use company profits to develop new products. I think M$ was too agressive about many things, but that doesn't make them a monopoly. I am much more concerned about capricious use of the courts, in this instance and in non-tech areas. The SCO nonsense is a perfect example. If they prevail, well...
If Netscape is so great, why doesn't AOL use it? Up until NS 4, it was my browser of choice. But the bugs in the thing convinced me to switch to IE at the time. I suspect I wasn't the only one with this experience.
As for Hearst, did you know that he had Hitler and Mussolini on the payroll? Apparently Mussolini was paid more since he was a dictator, something Hitler complained about. Hearst eventually fired Hitler because he didn't meet his deadlines. Hearst regretted his association with Hitler later, for obvious reasons.
How about you go ask IBM, Lotus, Novel, Be, Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, AOL, Netscape, Sun and Real what they think about Microsoft?
IBM? Not exactly Champion of the little guy. Once got sued on anti-trust grounds. Suit was dismissed, as they had better lawyers than M$ (been dealing w/the gov a lot longer), and happened to disregard the demand for an PC. Remember uChannel licensing? Just wait to see what they do with Linux.
Lotus? The company that sued Borland over look-and-feel?
Gateway, HP? Dell? Last I checked, all offer hardware perfectly capable of running Linux.
Novell? How much were those Netware licenses? How hard was it to network Win3.11 boxes compared to setting up Novell?
AOL? Don't recall them shipping out CDs loaded with *nix software, or Apple software, or Be software... Windows market presence was hardly a bad thing for them.
Be? You are telling me that w/o M$, Be would be a force today?
Sun? The company that sold $5,000 workstations and $1,500 compiler licenses when PCs w/compilers cost less than $2,000? The Company that kept pushing AGs to sue M$?
Real, the company founded by an ex-M$ employee? Wonder where he got his seed money? BTW, ever notice what RP does to your box?
Netscape? I always used Netscape, until I found it crashed more than IE.
Apple? Closed hardware and high prices might have something to do with their marketshare decline in the 90s.
As for Office compatibility, The only way you can be certain every application will be able to read your files is to use ASCII.
If computer manufactors are threatened to lose their precious Windows rebates if they sell computers with other operating systems, thats an illegal monopoly
As I said, I have always been able to buy a PC w/o an OS. If you are talking about restrictive licensing deals, that is not a monopoly. Ever been to a Honda/Toyota dealer? You might want to check out how Coke and Pepsi negotiate for shelf space at your local store as well.
When Microsoft pays the game stores to plaster customers with XBOX stuff, thats also bad.
What exactly do you see on stadiums? 3Com Field? Qualcomm Stadium? What is on the side of stock cars? The Goodyear blimp?
For someone who knows about Standard Oil and Hearst and his paper empire, you sure are clueless when it comes to Microsoft.
When Standard Oil was big, what was the most important "tech" then? Industry and more importantly Oil.
If you want to imagine a company on the scale of Standard Oil, imagine this: IBM, Sun, Intel, M$, Apple, Oracle, Cisco, AT&T, MCI, Sprint openly one company. Covertly you have to throw in Versign, HP/Compaq and Dell. Now were talking about something on the scale of Standard Oil.
Now what is the most important industry? Now what company over the last 20 years has been the most influencial in said industry?
Now what is the current state of that industry?
Interestingly enough, I would say "Oil." The economy would continue w/o computers. Shut off the oil, we wouldn't have any juice to run the computers anyway. Note also that the oil industry has been around for over 100 years. As for the last 20 years in the computer industry, think of the period 1980-1992. Two of the most influencial companies were IBM and Apple. 1992-1994: M$. 1995, Netscape. Rest of the 90s: M$ again. Not exactly a long period of dominance. As for the state of the oil industry, it appears to be robust. Cynics will claim both Iraq wars were fought on its behalf, though I would disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things are fucked because of Microsoft.
Sure sounds like it, though!
But they do play a key role and the illegal monopoly charge was very deserved.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like I don't help people at work who have problems with Windows even though I am an expert.
Which makes your co-workers think exactly what of Linux advocates...?
I tell the Windows haters I know to get a Lindows box. I also tell them to keep their Windows PC for all the esoteric programs they have. I would never tell someone to convert their PC to Linux, since I know they will be SOL when they can't find equivalent s/w or get some piece of hardware to work with it. (My parents are fine w/windows and a Mac, no need to mess with success. If I thought it mattered, I would help them make a conversion.)
I'm more interested in seeing what happens with the dual-user population - the people who want to switch because they are supposed to hate M$. Will they learn to love Linux, or at least not hate it? Knowing this population, I would guess challenging them with multiple desktops, among other things, will lead them to hate Linux more than M$, so I tell them to go with the pre-packaged solution.
To Sun, Linux is as much as a threat as Microsoft, and their strategy is the same: make the OS irrelevant by replacing it with a Sun-controlled platform that runs on top of the OS. The Linux community should be as paranoid about that occurring as Microsoft management is. Sun is, ultimately, not a friend of Linux
Now I get to ask my other favorite tech-biz question:
What exactly is Sun's business model?
Sun does not make money from Java, it's an expense. They support it because it provides an alternative to Windows in terms of availability, and .Net as a comprehensive framework. But for this to work to Sun's advantage, the message has to be "Java is everywhere, but for best results, you really should run it on a Sun platform. All those other platforms are just there so you can have a common codebase." How will opening the source benefit Sun? Seems that will allow others to make optimized versions for non-Sun hardware or OSes. Sun has to pretend "We're all in this together against big bad M$", while at the same time wondering how to undermine Linux - a nightmare for them.
So far, every promise of opening up Java by Sun has turned out to be a smokescreen and a distraction.
For what seems to be a clear reason.
Well Bill, you and Steve must be having a grand time watching the *nix community frag itself again, just like in the 90s.
Maybe that's how WinXX got on all those machines.
The GPL would allow the Government to release source-code for any changes to GPL'ed software made under constract. But it wouldn't require the Government to do this
IANAL either, but the highlighted part of your comment creates a big problem, I think. My guess is that a gov atty will tell the gov that they will probably have to provide the software to a third party (another contractor) for follow-up work or actual use. The gov may also want to get some offset $$$ for it to recover initial costs, at which time the GPL will cause havoc. Guess I will have to invite some sharp IP attys I know out for beers (!=free) to get their view. Sure seems like a worthwhile question. The GPL incurs a hidden cost - that of having counsel define how GPL based software can be used/distributed, it seems.
I should given a bit more detail: Imagine that they modify the kernel to enable some specialized piece of hardware or accommodate some new IO scheme, either of which make military system modelling possible. Theoretically this would have to be released under the GPL. Not that they would, or that anyone could really enforce it, but the in-house counsel would probably have a fit anyway.
Do you really want weapons design software in the public domain?
While government procurement policy should be neutral to ensure that governments do not introduce market distortions into the world economy, there should be an appreciation of the social benefits of fostering Open Source software development in a proper Open Source Government Policy plan
Wonder what functions I will find in the "Social Benefit" API.
This is industrial policy writ large... If we want to see the software industry go down the same path as the steel industry, this is the map to use.
I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns
Then you have forgotten that Novell is HQed in Utah. I'm beginning to think that Sen. Hatch would prefer we go back to that simple time before personal computers and the record industry could still use payola...
Communists support Linux and OSS
Ah-Haa! Linux is a Communist Plot! Must be part of Torvald's plan to take over Finland!
A friend's daughter was complaining that a dashboard light in her car would not go off, even though the car seemed fine. Daddy-O took it to the dealer for analysis. The service rep told him that if the car goes over 100 mph twice or more, the light comes on and stays on until reset. (This supposedly warns the mechanic to look for some other kind potential problem caused by high speed.)
Needless to say, there was a father-daughter talk. That's not necessarily an invasion of privacy, although some courts might consider it so. What would be of concern, though, is if the dealer is obligated to report this metric to the police when they encounter it, generating a retroactive ticket.
Imagine the potential for good and bad GPS units provide... A car is no longer a car, it is an info-platform in ways most people are not considering.
The data file has an (inhouse) standard, which needs to be specified
= Cost
A "standard" definition like it's the way our properitary software creates it right now is very poor
Maybe so, but the cost of definition is included in the cost of the license.
but you can install a software department, that maintains the software for your system
= BIG Cost!
if it is security relevant software you are putting your national security in the hands of an another country
Well..., I would guess the security umbrella the US has provided to Europe to fend off the commies, for example, was acceptable. American troops in S. Korea do the same. My guess is that the precieved risk of buying proprietary software from IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc, is pretty low on the list of security concerns in comparison. I think native hardware development capability is more important. That's why China tried (is trying) to build their own CPU, 'cuz of that ...other... monopoly: Intel
- that the customer can change it as they se fit -
Hmmm, doesn't this sound like it has the potential for creating huge problems? The boon and bane of OSS is its flexibility. I will be absolutely the first to note the desirabilty of OSS in terms of making modifications and understanding source. But imagine someone in the water department decides to tweak some app they use, which modifies a data file used occasionally by some other dept(s). Imagine the reaction when the modded data file no longer works the way it used to. It could work the other way, too. Someone in the tax dept mods an app such that it no longer can read the water dept file. This happens because the tax developer hasn't seen the water dept file before. If I were in a gov IT department, I would make sure no one could mod anything w/o approval. In other words, governments and other large orgs are getting into the software librarian business with OSS, though I'm not sure they recognize that fact, especially in terms of cost. That's one important reason customers have been buying proprietary software for years - they don't have to manage the code base.
Mandating the change, as opposed to an incremental evaluation and changeover could do OSS much more harm than good if not done carefully. Wonder which window manager Brazil will choose...
Another way of looking at something I have been wondering about for a while... M$ has not been doing a good job managing its corporate image lately. Who is ultimately responsible for that? Ballmer. (The DOJ fiasco happened on Gates' watch, and I think it fair to suggest that he resigned the CEO spot because of it) I think Ballmer is an admirable person in many ways, but he doesn't seem to be cutting it as the CEO.
I never have a problem with these worms. I downloaded Windows Robin(TM) a long time ago!
This is part of what they got for putting Steve Ballmer in charge
You have pointed to what I think is the key problem at M$ today, though others are recycling the usual M$ complaints.
Ballmer is a smart guy. He has a marketing background, has been with M$ almost since the beginning and therefore should be a great CEO. But, IMHO, I don't think he is. Gates was a great CEO, until he tangled with the DOJ. Big Mistake, but he had a pretty good run until then. To his credit, he recognized this and resigned from the CEO job.
Under Ballmer:
As suggested in the parent, M$ did great job with .Net, but the message was totally garbled. I think it's time for M$ to look for a new CEO... Wouldn't be the first time someone who looked perfect on paper didn't work out in the CEO spot.
I hear Justin Frankel is available. ;-]
But seriously folks, they need some new thinking up there.
I've read not too encouraging things about the construction of the dam. Guess I would much rather be one of the people displaced upstream of the thing than live downstream after the water fills in the reservoir. I also read that the weight of the water will likely cause earthquakes. One H*** of an experiment they are running...
...but judging from the presentation, it looks like you have to be a hot babe to use it.
Nothing illegal about an OS-less whitebox PC. There are plenty of stores that will assemble one for you, or just sell you the parts. Nothing requires the store to sell you an OS. Most of the universities buy from these vendors for just that reason.
Yeah you could. And I could too. Is Grandma going to though, even though she would save money or use a potentially better product? No... because when it comes to the uninformed, there is no choice.
That's not a valid argument, though a lot of people use it. In fact, it's kind of Stalinist logic. "The state must protect the people from themselves." Think about the implications of this.
BTW, plenty of companies and institutions can buy whitebox PCs, and they do. Just might have something to do with the success of Linux.
Fun on /.!
Prior to IE 4, Netscape clearly *was* superior
Right, which is why I used it. M$ supposedly spent $100MM developing IE, which no doubt made it better. One can argue about the source of the money, but it isn't illegal to use company profits to develop new products. I think M$ was too agressive about many things, but that doesn't make them a monopoly. I am much more concerned about capricious use of the courts, in this instance and in non-tech areas. The SCO nonsense is a perfect example. If they prevail, well...
I think I heard it in an interview with the author of "The Chief"
If Netscape is so great, why doesn't AOL use it? Up until NS 4, it was my browser of choice. But the bugs in the thing convinced me to switch to IE at the time. I suspect I wasn't the only one with this experience.
As for Hearst, did you know that he had Hitler and Mussolini on the payroll? Apparently Mussolini was paid more since he was a dictator, something Hitler complained about. Hearst eventually fired Hitler because he didn't meet his deadlines. Hearst regretted his association with Hitler later, for obvious reasons.
How about you go ask IBM, Lotus, Novel, Be, Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, AOL, Netscape, Sun and Real what they think about Microsoft?
IBM? Not exactly Champion of the little guy. Once got sued on anti-trust grounds. Suit was dismissed, as they had better lawyers than M$ (been dealing w/the gov a lot longer), and happened to disregard the demand for an PC. Remember uChannel licensing? Just wait to see what they do with Linux.
Lotus? The company that sued Borland over look-and-feel?
Gateway, HP? Dell? Last I checked, all offer hardware perfectly capable of running Linux.
Novell? How much were those Netware licenses? How hard was it to network Win3.11 boxes compared to setting up Novell?
AOL? Don't recall them shipping out CDs loaded with *nix software, or Apple software, or Be software... Windows market presence was hardly a bad thing for them.
Be? You are telling me that w/o M$, Be would be a force today?
Sun? The company that sold $5,000 workstations and $1,500 compiler licenses when PCs w/compilers cost less than $2,000? The Company that kept pushing AGs to sue M$?
Real, the company founded by an ex-M$ employee? Wonder where he got his seed money? BTW, ever notice what RP does to your box?
Netscape? I always used Netscape, until I found it crashed more than IE.
Apple? Closed hardware and high prices might have something to do with their marketshare decline in the 90s.
As for Office compatibility, The only way you can be certain every application will be able to read your files is to use ASCII.
If computer manufactors are threatened to lose their precious Windows rebates if they sell computers with other operating systems, thats an illegal monopoly
As I said, I have always been able to buy a PC w/o an OS. If you are talking about restrictive licensing deals, that is not a monopoly. Ever been to a Honda/Toyota dealer? You might want to check out how Coke and Pepsi negotiate for shelf space at your local store as well.
When Microsoft pays the game stores to plaster customers with XBOX stuff, thats also bad.
What exactly do you see on stadiums? 3Com Field? Qualcomm Stadium? What is on the side of stock cars? The Goodyear blimp?
For someone who knows about Standard Oil and Hearst and his paper empire, you sure are clueless when it comes to Microsoft. When Standard Oil was big, what was the most important "tech" then? Industry and more importantly Oil.
If you want to imagine a company on the scale of Standard Oil, imagine this: IBM, Sun, Intel, M$, Apple, Oracle, Cisco, AT&T, MCI, Sprint openly one company. Covertly you have to throw in Versign, HP/Compaq and Dell. Now were talking about something on the scale of Standard Oil.
Now what is the most important industry? Now what company over the last 20 years has been the most influencial in said industry? Now what is the current state of that industry?
Interestingly enough, I would say "Oil." The economy would continue w/o computers. Shut off the oil, we wouldn't have any juice to run the computers anyway. Note also that the oil industry has been around for over 100 years. As for the last 20 years in the computer industry, think of the period 1980-1992. Two of the most influencial companies were IBM and Apple. 1992-1994: M$. 1995, Netscape. Rest of the 90s: M$ again. Not exactly a long period of dominance. As for the state of the oil industry, it appears to be robust. Cynics will claim both Iraq wars were fought on its behalf, though I would disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying things are fucked because of Microsoft.
Sure sounds like it, though!
But they do play a key role and the illegal monopoly charge was very deserved.
Fair enough, we disagree.