"Also remember that IE is preinstalled on virtually every computer sold. You have to go out of your way to get and install Firefox"
In which case, the OEM will decide what the default search engine will be. Google has oodles of cash to pay the OEMs to make Google the default. Also, OEMs don't even have to have IE be the default browser to begin with. XP has the "Set Program Access and Defaults" feature (imposed on it by the govt) allowing users/OEMs to set the default browser (and media player and email client and IM app) to whatever they want.
This is a "virus" as much as Windows malware is labeled as such. In addition to infecting a system by visiting a website (I'm not sure if the user has to explicity download and run the malware), it also propagates itself via Instant Messaging. This is no different than Windows "email viruses" and "IM viruses".
From the article:
Benjamin Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links that promised pictures of an unreleased update to his computer's operating system. Instead, a window opened on the screen and strange commands ran as if the machine was under the control of someone -- or something -- else. Daines was the victim of a computer virus.... In Daines' infection, a bug in the virus' code prevented it from doing much damage. Still, several of his operating system files were deleted, several new files were created and several applications, including a program for recording audio, were crippled. Behind the scenes, the virus also managed to hijack his instant messaging program so the rogue file was blasted to 10 people on his buddy list.
It's on msnbc, cnn, and foxnews (as well as newspaper sites like sfgate.com, mercurynews.com, sandiegowhatever.com) because it's an AP story. Those that are saying this is MSNBC propaganda are just the type of Mac users that the article describes as being "in denial".
"By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers."
And your incorrect argument is brought up at least every week on slashdot (Apache is used more, but IIS is attacked more because it has more holes!), it's corrected almost every week by one of the respondents, yet it's *always* moderated as "Insightful". Mods, just because a piece of thought is part of the slashdot groupthink doesn't mean that it's insightful. Like many pieces of docrtring, it just might be totally wrong!
"very often, in the software world, the "cost" includes things like support - now would you rather get support from the authors of the software, or from some noname giving away the same software for free?"
Many developers are good at programming but poor at tech support. Others are better at tech support than programming. Under your utopia, those that program are less valued than those that provide tech support, so the latter can more easily charge for their services. Under your utopia, a small dev team might write a GPL program but suck at tech support (because they lack the infrastructure, or are unfriendly on the phone, or whatever). But because the program is GPL, the dev team can't make money from the software itself. Meanwhile, a large company that *specializes* in tech support can make millions charging to support the program written by that small dev team, while the dev team gets nothing.
Case in point: People would sooner go to RedHat for Linux support than Linus or any of his community of free labor contributing programmers. So people *would* rather go to someone that specializes in support rather than the original authors. The Red Hat execs are much richer than Linus and even more so than the community of free labor contributors to Linux.
"No one's forcing you to write GPL code. If you don't like its terms, don't agree to it and don't use it."
That's fine. Just don't turn around and call me evil, immoral, unethical, robbing people of their freedoms for having the gall to release non-GPL software.
The fact is, RMS and his followers do accuse writers of non-GPL software for the masses as immoral, etc. You say nobody's forcing one to write GPL code, but you guys are indeed trying to lay on a guilt trip on software devs to shame them into following the GPL party line.
Oh I know, because Microsoft really just doesn't get it.
Or maybe you're just another narrow-minded unix geek who's under the delusion that unix and its "isms" are the be-all and end-all. Why don't you actually do some research on Monad before spouting more ignorance?
I agree with the renting option. But sadly, many here are saying that "DVD prices are too high, especially since I only watch them once". Well, rent the thing! That's what rentals are for: a legal way to watch a movie one time for a low fee. But most piracy justifiers here are too cheap even to rent the DVD for $2.50. Even though they only watch the movie once, they do want the *option* of watching the movie multiple times without paying multiple rental fees, so they pirate.
"$200+ dollars for an operating system? Why? There is something seriously wrong when a peice of easily replicated digital information (ie. ludicrously cheap) costs as much or more than full system hardware."
I don't know about you, but I value my digital content more than the hardware the "plays" it. My DVD collection is worth more than my DVD player, and rightfully so. I could care less about someone stealing my DVD player, but would be quite pissed if they stole my DVDs. Same goes for CDs vs CD player, games vs Xbox, LPs vs record player, etc.
Computers are a slightly different case, since the hardware is more expensive. But the software is more valued than the hardware. But I don't see anything wrong with programs being worth more than the hardware the runs them just like the typical CD collection is worth more than the CD player the plays them.
As for your example of an OS being worth more than the hardware, OSes are also a bit different than other software, since an OS is required to make a computer run, so one could look at the OS as part of the overall computer package, and therefore regard the OS's price as part of the overall computer package's price. Besides that, the OS is a significant part of the package, regardless of how cheap it is to "replicate" a copy of it. For example, what makes a Mac a Mac these days is the OS far more than the hardware. And there's nothing wrong with Apple charging for the OS or upgrades to the OS if they want to. Other OS providers can give their OS away for free, that's fine too (they, like you, feel that the OS they provide isn't worth much compared to the hardware).
Even if Apple does have access to the source, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the right to distribute binaries based on that code. Cringely (a moron, BTW) suggests that Apple has the right to simply take the Windows code, compile it into the Windows dlls, and distribute those dlls. (Apple would merely add some tweaks so that their built dlls interact well with OSX). Would that not be essentially equivalent to distributing Windows itself (since Apple's dlls would be built from the actual Windows source code (or, at least code derived from the actual Windows code))? I don't see this happening against Microsoft wishes.
The other problem is that the version of Windows api that Apple distributed will be outdated very quickly (Apple's implementation will be out of date with both Vista and XP, when those certain Vista features slated to be backported to XP are released for XP) so what's the point?
Now, if Apple and Microsoft are together on this, with Apple paying a licensing fee to MS for the right to actually distribute binaries based on the Windows code that Cringely claims Apple has access to, as well as the right to use the code in future versions of Windows in the same way so that Apple can keep its Windows api up to date, then this could work. (But in order to be fair to the regular windows OEMs, such a license fee would be comparable to the price of OEM Windows.)
"The whole thing smells like PR crap designed to make Microsoft look like a major developer of Mac software, when in truth all they really work on these days is Office."
So you're contending that Microsoft's Mac lab doesn't actually exist?
You must have missed the stories last year where Microsoft said in multiple interviews that their development process for Windows was so screwed up that they had to do what they called a "reset" and start over from the Windows Server 2003 code base. So, yeah, a lot of time was lost, and Micrsosoft admitted that.
Also during those "6 years", XP SP2 was being developed as was.NET 2.0, MCE2005, TabletPC Windows. Those have all been released but will be also included in Vista (the Home Premium version), so it's not like they were doing nothing regarding things that will be in Vista.
Actual OS flaws will still be fixed for free via Windows Update. Spyware and other malware (virus, trojans, etc, which can be installed even without OS flaws (e.g. user installs some shareware that has a spyware component)), will still be dealt with via an anti-spyware and anti-virus program, which will be available from MS, McAfee, Symentec, etc, on equal footing.
Actually, MSN paying subscribers already have their MSN storage space appear in Window's "Network Neighborhood" as a virtual network volume (well this was the case a few years ago, at least; I think it's still the case).
The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.
Yep; Kafka knew of which he wrote.
But actually, I've read that while the European Commission does not provide due process in its rulings, one can appeal those rulings to a real court and get a real trial rather than edicts. (But I don't know how fair even that appeal trial is.)
Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly!
Interesting sentence that shows how stupid this "Windows = Monopoly" stuff is. Read it slowly and see if it makes any sense or is consistent even with itself.
I don't really read the blogs on Word, PowerPoint, Access, Outlook, SharePoint, OneNote, etc, but there are links to those blogs in the Office UI blog cited above.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also remember that IE is preinstalled on virtually every computer sold. You have to go out of your way to get and install Firefox"
In which case, the OEM will decide what the default search engine will be. Google has oodles of cash to pay the OEMs to make Google the default. Also, OEMs don't even have to have IE be the default browser to begin with. XP has the "Set Program Access and Defaults" feature (imposed on it by the govt) allowing users/OEMs to set the default browser (and media player and email client and IM app) to whatever they want.
From the article:
It's on msnbc, cnn, and foxnews (as well as newspaper sites like sfgate.com, mercurynews.com, sandiegowhatever.com) because it's an AP story. Those that are saying this is MSNBC propaganda are just the type of Mac users that the article describes as being "in denial".
This AP story is all over the press, not just MSNBC
l / 04/21/financial/f080720D78.DTLo cal/states/california/northern_california/14397469 .htm0 012-ca-applesecurity.htmlR ITY?SITE=KFWB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME= 2006-04-30-15-15-12
For example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193749,00.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/l
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20060424-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APPLE_SECU
"Open Source projects go into a state that is called a "feature-freeze" in preparation for the next release of the core product."
Please tell me that you don't really believe that this is unique to "Open Source projects".
"By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers."
Your argument might hold water if IIS were less secure than Apache, but IIS is more secure than Apache, and it's not even close, as these secunia reports show:
Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Apache 2.0.x
Secunia - Vulnerability Report - Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6
And your incorrect argument is brought up at least every week on slashdot (Apache is used more, but IIS is attacked more because it has more holes!), it's corrected almost every week by one of the respondents, yet it's *always* moderated as "Insightful". Mods, just because a piece of thought is part of the slashdot groupthink doesn't mean that it's insightful. Like many pieces of docrtring, it just might be totally wrong!
"very often, in the software world, the "cost" includes things like support - now would you rather get support from the authors of the software, or from some noname giving away the same software for free?"
Many developers are good at programming but poor at tech support. Others are better at tech support than programming. Under your utopia, those that program are less valued than those that provide tech support, so the latter can more easily charge for their services. Under your utopia, a small dev team might write a GPL program but suck at tech support (because they lack the infrastructure, or are unfriendly on the phone, or whatever). But because the program is GPL, the dev team can't make money from the software itself. Meanwhile, a large company that *specializes* in tech support can make millions charging to support the program written by that small dev team, while the dev team gets nothing.
Case in point: People would sooner go to RedHat for Linux support than Linus or any of his community of free labor contributing programmers. So people *would* rather go to someone that specializes in support rather than the original authors. The Red Hat execs are much richer than Linus and even more so than the community of free labor contributors to Linux.
"No one's forcing you to write GPL code. If you don't like its terms, don't agree to it and don't use it."
That's fine. Just don't turn around and call me evil, immoral, unethical, robbing people of their freedoms for having the gall to release non-GPL software.
The fact is, RMS and his followers do accuse writers of non-GPL software for the masses as immoral, etc. You say nobody's forcing one to write GPL code, but you guys are indeed trying to lay on a guilt trip on software devs to shame them into following the GPL party line.
An Anon posted the link to the interview, not a Microsoft guy (as far as we know). So you were an arrogant ass for no reason at all.
"OK, I could have expressed my point more profesionally without the snide attitude."
Somehow, I doubt that.
not only shipped separately, but bundled with the Exchange mail server only!
No, it'll also be available as a free download. Hell, the "article" that is the impetus of this thread is the download page for RC1.
Oh I know, because Microsoft really just doesn't get it.
Or maybe you're just another narrow-minded unix geek who's under the delusion that unix and its "isms" are the be-all and end-all. Why don't you actually do some research on Monad before spouting more ignorance?
I agree with the renting option. But sadly, many here are saying that "DVD prices are too high, especially since I only watch them once". Well, rent the thing! That's what rentals are for: a legal way to watch a movie one time for a low fee. But most piracy justifiers here are too cheap even to rent the DVD for $2.50. Even though they only watch the movie once, they do want the *option* of watching the movie multiple times without paying multiple rental fees, so they pirate.
"$200+ dollars for an operating system? Why? There is something seriously wrong when a peice of easily replicated digital information (ie. ludicrously cheap) costs as much or more than full system hardware."
I don't know about you, but I value my digital content more than the hardware the "plays" it.
My DVD collection is worth more than my DVD player, and rightfully so. I could care less about someone stealing my DVD player, but would be quite pissed if they stole my DVDs. Same goes for CDs vs CD player, games vs Xbox, LPs vs record player, etc.
Computers are a slightly different case, since the hardware is more expensive. But the software is more valued than the hardware. But I don't see anything wrong with programs being worth more than the hardware the runs them just like the typical CD collection is worth more than the CD player the plays them.
As for your example of an OS being worth more than the hardware, OSes are also a bit different than other software, since an OS is required to make a computer run, so one could look at the OS as part of the overall computer package, and therefore regard the OS's price as part of the overall computer package's price. Besides that, the OS is a significant part of the package, regardless of how cheap it is to "replicate" a copy of it. For example, what makes a Mac a Mac these days is the OS far more than the hardware. And there's nothing wrong with Apple charging for the OS or upgrades to the OS if they want to. Other OS providers can give their OS away for free, that's fine too (they, like you, feel that the OS they provide isn't worth much compared to the hardware).
Even if Apple does have access to the source, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the right to distribute binaries based on that code. Cringely (a moron, BTW) suggests that Apple has the right to simply take the Windows code, compile it into the Windows dlls, and distribute those dlls. (Apple would merely add some tweaks so that their built dlls interact well with OSX). Would that not be essentially equivalent to distributing Windows itself (since Apple's dlls would be built from the actual Windows source code (or, at least code derived from the actual Windows code))? I don't see this happening against Microsoft wishes.
The other problem is that the version of Windows api that Apple distributed will be outdated very quickly (Apple's implementation will be out of date with both Vista and XP, when those certain Vista features slated to be backported to XP are released for XP) so what's the point?
Now, if Apple and Microsoft are together on this, with Apple paying a licensing fee to MS for the right to actually distribute binaries based on the Windows code that Cringely claims Apple has access to, as well as the right to use the code in future versions of Windows in the same way so that Apple can keep its Windows api up to date, then this could work. (But in order to be fair to the regular windows OEMs, such a license fee would be comparable to the price of OEM Windows.)
"The whole thing smells like PR crap designed to make Microsoft look like a major developer of Mac software, when in truth all they really work on these days is Office."
So you're contending that Microsoft's Mac lab doesn't actually exist?
WTF have they been doing for 6 years?
.NET 2.0, MCE2005, TabletPC Windows. Those have all been released but will be also included in Vista (the Home Premium version), so it's not like they were doing nothing regarding things that will be in Vista.
You must have missed the stories last year where Microsoft said in multiple interviews that their development process for Windows was so screwed up that they had to do what they called a "reset" and start over from the Windows Server 2003 code base. So, yeah, a lot of time was lost, and Micrsosoft admitted that.
Also during those "6 years", XP SP2 was being developed as was
Actual OS flaws will still be fixed for free via Windows Update.
Spyware and other malware (virus, trojans, etc, which can be installed even without OS flaws (e.g. user installs some shareware that has a spyware component)), will still be dealt with via an anti-spyware and anti-virus program, which will be available from MS, McAfee, Symentec, etc, on equal footing.
"I see all these startups raising rediculous amounts of money and everytime I have to wonder what exactly is the money spent on? Does anyone know? "
They spend the money on VA Linux servers.
Um, Google's "GDrive" hasn't been announced; it's just speculation. So how can you accuse Microsoft of copying Google on this?
Actually, MSN paying subscribers already have their MSN storage space appear in Window's "Network Neighborhood" as a virtual network volume (well this was the case a few years ago, at least; I think it's still the case).
The EU justice system does not allow a defendant the ability to defend themselves against anonymous charges and secret evidence. If you are innocent, you must prove your innocence. Microsoft finds itself backed into a corner in which they are bombarded by name-less competitors and the evidence against them is kept secret from them.
Yep; Kafka knew of which he wrote.
But actually, I've read that while the European Commission does not provide due process in its rulings, one can appeal those rulings to a real court and get a real trial rather than edicts. (But I don't know how fair even that appeal trial is.)
Yeah, but unlike Windows, every other OS is not a monopoly!
Interesting sentence that shows how stupid this "Windows = Monopoly" stuff is.
Read it slowly and see if it makes any sense or is consistent even with itself.
If you're really interested, then view the Office 2007 videos at http://channel9.msdn.com/ and read the Office 2007 blogs. The sites I frequently read are:
Channel 9 (the Office 2007 videos are great)
Office 2007 Blog concerning the new UI
Office 2007 blog concerning new default file format (OpenXML)
OpenXMLDeveloper.org, the site of the group pushing OpenXML as an EMCA/ISO standard This group contains MS, Apple, Intel, researchers, businesses, some gov entities, etc). The site already has Java code samples showing how to manipulate OpenXML documents without requiring any MS Office software.
Excel blog Excel has a lot of good stuff, like multithreaded calculations for machines with multiple processors or cores, many business logic enhancements, exponentially larger spreadsheet capacity, Excel server, etc.
I don't really read the blogs on Word, PowerPoint, Access, Outlook, SharePoint, OneNote, etc, but there are links to those blogs in the Office UI blog cited above.
There's also a great video demo'ing features of Office 2007 at the March 21 2006 Office Dev Conference
Yet you probably came all over your monitor when reading the enhancements to the latest Linux 0.01 upgrade or the latest OSX 0.1 upgrade.