How exactly can Microsoft make Vista a compelling upgrade other than releasing new game titles that will not run on Windows XP?
They could follow Apple's lead; with each 0.1 incremental OS update, Apple releases a new version of iLife and iWork that (artificially) require the new OS.
And how do file formats matter to a company like Intel; they shouldn't care what office suite someone's using, as long as it running on their CPUs, yes?
Maybe a group's having members that have no apparent vested interest (i.e. no financial stake or political agenda) adds credibility to the group.
You make good points, but your arguments would carry more weight if they weren't so MS-centric. "Microsoft would argue...", the "MS business model", etc. Microsoft isn't the only closed-source software company, and doesn't even produce the majority of closed-source software, not by a long shot.
Apple is a slashdot favorite, why not use them in your argument? Maybe Apple wouldn't like government subsidizing open source competition to iLife and the like. How about Adobe? I doubt Adobe wants government to subsidize GIMP. Microsoft isn't the only company with something at stake here, and they would likely survive more easily than the smaller companies.
Yea, everyone wants to spend their hard earned money on $400 of software on a machine that cost $350 to build. Im sure of that.
Slashdotters insist on devaluing software just because it consists of bits rather than atoms. Generally, software is always more valuable than the hardware that "plays" it. My DVD collection is worth far more than my DVD player. My video game collection is worth far more than my game console. My CD collection is worth more than my CD player. In the 80's my cassette collection was worth more than my cassette player, and my VHS collection was worth more than my VCR. So what's so terrible that computer programs would be worth more than the hardware that runs them?
If I may borrow from Malcolm X, this is a case of "the chickens coming home to roost". Many MS-haters begged for big government to stick its nose into the tech industry in order to bring down Microsoft. Well, now those very same government forces that were unleashed to bring down Microsoft are going after one of the MS-haters' own pet companies. To quote another saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
BTW, Apple could end this by simply licensing its DRM to other digital audio hardware/software players, as the "evil" Microsoft does.
I don't know whether Microsoft would be covered by this law or not, but Microsoft alreadly licenses its DRM to anyone that wants to use it (which would include Apple, if Apple wanted to add support of DRM WMAs to iPods). Apple is different since they don't allow their iTMS DRM to be used by anyone except themselves (specifically iTunes apps on Mac and Windows, and iPods).
So, Microsoft allows any manufacturer of portable digital music players to use its DRM while Apple does not.
Petreley is obsessed with Microsoft, which clouds his analytical abilities. It would behoove OSS devs to ignore him.
OSS devs shouldn't define themselves in terms of "Microsoft". They should do whatever they want or whatever they think is best. If some of that happens to be similar to something Microsoft already did, so be it. If it happens to be different than what Microsoft has done, then so be it. But doing things simply for the purpose of imitating Microsoft or simply for the purpose of being different than Microsoft leads to inferior software because it allows a political agenda to intrude into the software development process.
Petreley has made his carreer based on promoting tech that he thinks will destroy Microsoft (OS/2, SOM, Java, Network Computers, and now Linux). He doesn't give a damn about OSS other than its potential to destroy a company he hates. OSS devs, on the other hand, have actual skill and can create things without having to worry about whether it harms Microsoft, strengthens Microsoft (e.g. Firefox actually improves the Windows platform), or does neither.
P.S. Petreley's rant claims that OLE doesn't support links, which is either ignorance or a lie; just one more example of his buffoonery.
Apple hasn't even acknowledged that the OSX privilege escalation exists, let alone patched it.
I agree with you regarding the different attitudes regarding this hole and the OS X holes. But I believe the recent OS X holes were indeed patched with Apple's March 2006 Security Update (though some websites are questioning whether the patches really fixed the underlying problems or merely placed band-aids on them). http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 382
Not to mention the fact that in TFA it states that a company hired to reverse engineer some of the MS code in order to validate the documentation they DID provide found the documentation to be "self-contradictory".
You've been developing software for ten years, yet you've never run into specs with errors or self-contradictions? When such errors are found you either deal with them, or report the problems to the company that issued the documentation so they can fix it. I've programmed Windows and Mac for years, and found errors/self-contradictions in both API specs. Why? These are humans that are writing the specs! That's why specs are continually updated, refined, and fixed, but it's an interactive process that involves actually reporting the errors to the company. If you don't tell the company of the problems, how can they fix it? And by "reporting the problems" I mean reporting the *exact* problems, if you can identify them, not just saying "there are problems, find them yourself".
The company that you refer to claims to have found self-contradictory documentation. Did they bother to report the self-contradictions to Microsoft so they could be fixed, or did they merely report it to the EU so they could sit on it and claim it as evidence that the docs are insufficient without telling Microsoft what the problem is?
Think about this. What would Microsoft's motivation be for intentionally providing poor documentation? To hide something, or make the devs' task impossible? If that were the case, then they wouldn't be providing 500 hours of free tech support and the source code. So tell me what Microsoft's motivation would be to provide poor docs?
This is a money grabbing shakedown that would've made Kafka proud. Don't tell the accused why he is "not compliant" just declare that he isn't. No matter what Microsoft provides, the EU will say that they're not complying. To ensure this, they don't even bother to tell Microsoft what's wrong with what they've provided because they don't want Microsoft to be able to comply.
EU: We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines.
MS: OK, here's 12000 pages of documentation.
EU: It's not good enough.
MS: What's wrong with it? What parts are unclear?
EU: That's for us to know and you to find out. You're still facing massive fines.
MS: OK, we don't know what your problem is with the documents, but we'll now offer 500 free hours of tech support to any dev that doesn't understand the documents.
EU: Not good enough. You're still facing massive fines.
MS: OK, we still don't now why you can't understand the documents, but we now offer the source code to those devs that can't get this stuff to work even after reading the documents and getting 500 free hours of tech support.
EU: Not good enough. You're still facing fines.
MS:How about telling us exactly what's wrong with the documents so we can address the problems?
EU (with euro-signs dancing in their eyes): As we said before, the problems with the documents are for us to know and you to find out. Prepare to be fined.
So many of you are coming out to defend a company not providing any guidance leads me to believe that you own no stock. A public company, particularly one that doesn't pay dividends, has a responsibility to its shareholders and potential would-be shareholders to provide some info so they can determine whether to buy or sell. A stock that doesn't pay dividends is worthless in practical terms until it's actually sold. Investors need info so they can make buy/sell decisions.
Some of you are saying, "screw the (short-term) investors, some buy stock not to make money, but because they believe in the company's ideals". That is lala-land talk. What percentage of GOOG shareholders today own that stock simply because it's "cool" or "righteous" and don't give a damn about loosing money? Yes some people buy a handful of shares in a company just because they like it, and since it's only a handful of shares they don't care whether the stock goes up or down because it's not a big deal. But GOOG's price ranges from $300-$500 per share on any given day. So it's very expensive to buy a handful of shares of GOOG just because you like the company. No, most of GOOG's shareholders do care about the stock price (particularly since GOOG doesn't pay dividends) and therefore the real financial state of the company.
The funny thing is that if this same article were written about MSFT rather than GOOG, the Google sycophants around here would be taking the exact opposite stance.
How do you expect Apple to dismiss security reports as "a FUD campaign" to be fought with PR when they just released a security update that patched 20 holes and in 2005 released security updates nearly every month (nearly as often as Microsoft)? Apple didn't have to release any from Dec 2005-Feb2006, but the massive March 2006 Security Update makes up for those three months.;-))
Apple needs to treat their holes as real problems, not just as a PR problem. And they're actually doing just that by releasing fixes and not spouting PR. Spouting PR would only make them a bigger target for hackers, just as appointing a "Security Czar" would. The latter would also undermine confidence of the general public ("If Mac is so secure, why do they need a 'Security Czar'?")
The hypocrasy of the whole matter is that if google had done it..o slashdot would bow down and worship.
Truer words have never been spoken (or posted).;-) Seriously, I think Microsoft did nice job with this beta but there's some things they need to work on (as would be expected). I hope the feedback they get is legit rather than from a bunch of anti-MSFT fanboys that would say that Live sucked regardless, so they can work on fixing genuine problems. Anyway, I think Microsoft is off to a good start here.
I am in my late 20's, and watch all those companies that had foosball tables in the lobby go under.
Interesting point, but Microsoft also has foosball tables, arcade games, Xboxes in the hallways. The problem with those internet bubble companies that you speak of wasn't that they had foosball tables, it was that they never actually did anything that earned revenue, let alone profit.
If you want to learn the *fundamentals* of programming, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is the best book I've seen, and it deals not at all with "memory management", "efficient use of resources", or other archane crap (since it uses Scheme:p). The issues that you're talking about are becoming more and more irrelevant, just as machine-language programming did (for 99.9999% of source code).
Not that Scheme itself is used much beyond the academic. But a lot if its ideas are showing up in modern programming platforms that are much in use (memory management, closures, etc). I wouldn't tout scheme as a "beginning programming language" but I'd tout it as a "programming language to learn the fundamentals of programs for a potential CS major". I'd tout C for neither.
No, it doesn't say that anything would be announced on March 2. March 2 was merely the date for the "week 2" teaser to be shown, which it was. That teaser says that the "week 3" teaser will be released March 9. There's still no announcment of a launch date.
BTW, this thread is about Apple. It's funny that Apple fanboys are so obsessed with Microsoft that they can't resist steering a thread about a negative Apple article into an attempt to bash Microsoft. Talk about insecure!! LOL
Apple overhyped this "launch" because they launched them with a CEO-hosted press event. What company needs a CEO-hosted press event to announce a boom box? Or leather case? Or computer upgrade? Seriously, when's the last time a company held a press event to announce a boom box? Apple has themselves to blame. They could've introduced these products without the fanfare, just like any other company.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Microsoft bother to co-ordintate announcements to mitigate a 3% 1-day stock fluctuation?
How exactly can Microsoft make Vista a compelling upgrade other than releasing new game titles that will not run on Windows XP?
They could follow Apple's lead; with each 0.1 incremental OS update, Apple releases a new version of iLife and iWork that (artificially) require the new OS.
And how do file formats matter to a company like Intel; they shouldn't care what office suite someone's using, as long as it running on their CPUs, yes?
Maybe a group's having members that have no apparent vested interest (i.e. no financial stake or political agenda) adds credibility to the group.
You make good points, but your arguments would carry more weight if they weren't so MS-centric. "Microsoft would argue...", the "MS business model", etc. Microsoft isn't the only closed-source software company, and doesn't even produce the majority of closed-source software, not by a long shot.
Apple is a slashdot favorite, why not use them in your argument? Maybe Apple wouldn't like government subsidizing open source competition to iLife and the like. How about Adobe? I doubt Adobe wants government to subsidize GIMP. Microsoft isn't the only company with something at stake here, and they would likely survive more easily than the smaller companies.
They are advanced programmers which reads slashdot, post to usenet etc too.
Since when did reading slashdot or posting to usenet have any relation to being an "advanced programmer"?
Yea, everyone wants to spend their hard earned money on $400 of software on a machine that cost $350 to build. Im sure of that.
Slashdotters insist on devaluing software just because it consists of bits rather than atoms.
Generally, software is always more valuable than the hardware that "plays" it. My DVD collection is worth far more than my DVD player. My video game collection is worth far more than my game console. My CD collection is worth more than my CD player. In the 80's my cassette collection was worth more than my cassette player, and my VHS collection was worth more than my VCR. So what's so terrible that computer programs would be worth more than the hardware that runs them?
If I may borrow from Malcolm X, this is a case of "the chickens coming home to roost". Many MS-haters begged for big government to stick its nose into the tech industry in order to bring down Microsoft. Well, now those very same government forces that were unleashed to bring down Microsoft are going after one of the MS-haters' own pet companies. To quote another saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
BTW, Apple could end this by simply licensing its DRM to other digital audio hardware/software players, as the "evil" Microsoft does.
Once again, wishful thinking passing as objective analysis. LOL
I don't know whether Microsoft would be covered by this law or not, but Microsoft alreadly licenses its DRM to anyone that wants to use it (which would include Apple, if Apple wanted to add support of DRM WMAs to iPods). Apple is different since they don't allow their iTMS DRM to be used by anyone except themselves (specifically iTunes apps on Mac and Windows, and iPods).
So, Microsoft allows any manufacturer of portable digital music players to use its DRM while Apple does not.
Petreley is obsessed with Microsoft, which clouds his analytical abilities. It would behoove OSS devs to ignore him.
OSS devs shouldn't define themselves in terms of "Microsoft". They should do whatever they want or whatever they think is best. If some of that happens to be similar to something Microsoft already did, so be it. If it happens to be different than what Microsoft has done, then so be it. But doing things simply for the purpose of imitating Microsoft or simply for the purpose of being different than Microsoft leads to inferior software because it allows a political agenda to intrude into the software development process.
Petreley has made his carreer based on promoting tech that he thinks will destroy Microsoft (OS/2, SOM, Java, Network Computers, and now Linux). He doesn't give a damn about OSS other than its potential to destroy a company he hates. OSS devs, on the other hand, have actual skill and can create things without having to worry about whether it harms Microsoft, strengthens Microsoft (e.g. Firefox actually improves the Windows platform), or does neither.
P.S. Petreley's rant claims that OLE doesn't support links, which is either ignorance or a lie; just one more example of his buffoonery.
Apple hasn't even acknowledged that the OSX privilege escalation exists, let alone patched it.
3 382
I agree with you regarding the different attitudes regarding this hole and the OS X holes. But I believe the recent OS X holes were indeed patched with Apple's March 2006 Security Update (though some websites are questioning whether the patches really fixed the underlying problems or merely placed band-aids on them).
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
Not to mention the fact that in TFA it states that a company hired to reverse engineer some of the MS code in order to validate the documentation they DID provide found the documentation to be "self-contradictory".
You've been developing software for ten years, yet you've never run into specs with errors or self-contradictions? When such errors are found you either deal with them, or report the problems to the company that issued the documentation so they can fix it. I've programmed Windows and Mac for years, and found errors/self-contradictions in both API specs. Why? These are humans that are writing the specs! That's why specs are continually updated, refined, and fixed, but it's an interactive process that involves actually reporting the errors to the company. If you don't tell the company of the problems, how can they fix it? And by "reporting the problems" I mean reporting the *exact* problems, if you can identify them, not just saying "there are problems, find them yourself".
The company that you refer to claims to have found self-contradictory documentation. Did they bother to report the self-contradictions to Microsoft so they could be fixed, or did they merely report it to the EU so they could sit on it and claim it as evidence that the docs are insufficient without telling Microsoft what the problem is?
Think about this. What would Microsoft's motivation be for intentionally providing poor documentation? To hide something, or make the devs' task impossible? If that were the case, then they wouldn't be providing 500 hours of free tech support and the source code. So tell me what Microsoft's motivation would be to provide poor docs?
This is a money grabbing shakedown that would've made Kafka proud. Don't tell the accused why he is "not compliant" just declare that he isn't. No matter what Microsoft provides, the EU will say that they're not complying. To ensure this, they don't even bother to tell Microsoft what's wrong with what they've provided because they don't want Microsoft to be able to comply.
EU: We order you to provide documentation specifying how to let non-Windows clients work with Windows servers just as well as Windows clients can, or else face massive fines.
MS: OK, here's 12000 pages of documentation.
EU: It's not good enough.
MS: What's wrong with it? What parts are unclear?
EU: That's for us to know and you to find out. You're still facing massive fines.
MS: OK, we don't know what your problem is with the documents, but we'll now offer 500 free hours of tech support to any dev that doesn't understand the documents.
EU: Not good enough. You're still facing massive fines.
MS: OK, we still don't now why you can't understand the documents, but we now offer the source code to those devs that can't get this stuff to work even after reading the documents and getting 500 free hours of tech support.
EU: Not good enough. You're still facing fines.
MS:How about telling us exactly what's wrong with the documents so we can address the problems?
EU (with euro-signs dancing in their eyes): As we said before, the problems with the documents are for us to know and you to find out. Prepare to be fined.
So many of you are coming out to defend a company not providing any guidance leads me to believe that you own no stock. A public company, particularly one that doesn't pay dividends, has a responsibility to its shareholders and potential would-be shareholders to provide some info so they can determine whether to buy or sell. A stock that doesn't pay dividends is worthless in practical terms until it's actually sold. Investors need info so they can make buy/sell decisions.
Some of you are saying, "screw the (short-term) investors, some buy stock not to make money, but because they believe in the company's ideals". That is lala-land talk. What percentage of GOOG shareholders today own that stock simply because it's "cool" or "righteous" and don't give a damn about loosing money? Yes some people buy a handful of shares in a company just because they like it, and since it's only a handful of shares they don't care whether the stock goes up or down because it's not a big deal. But GOOG's price ranges from $300-$500 per share on any given day. So it's very expensive to buy a handful of shares of GOOG just because you like the company. No, most of GOOG's shareholders do care about the stock price (particularly since GOOG doesn't pay dividends) and therefore the real financial state of the company.
The funny thing is that if this same article were written about MSFT rather than GOOG, the Google sycophants around here would be taking the exact opposite stance.
How do you expect Apple to dismiss security reports as "a FUD campaign" to be fought with PR when they just released a security update that patched 20 holes and in 2005 released security updates nearly every month (nearly as often as Microsoft)? Apple didn't have to release any from Dec 2005-Feb2006, but the massive March 2006 Security Update makes up for those three months. ;-))
Apple needs to treat their holes as real problems, not just as a PR problem. And they're actually doing just that by releasing fixes and not spouting PR. Spouting PR would only make them a bigger target for hackers, just as appointing a "Security Czar" would. The latter would also undermine confidence of the general public ("If Mac is so secure, why do they need a 'Security Czar'?")
I'm pretty sure that FF "stole" the infobar concept from IE SP2 beta.
What has IE7 "stolen" from FF? Tabs? FF "stole" tabs from Safari, Opera, etc.
(I put "stolen" in quotes because I really mean "adopted". "Stolen" is used by fanboys in pissing contests. LOL)
The hypocrasy of the whole matter is that if google had done it..o slashdot would bow down and worship.
;-)
Truer words have never been spoken (or posted).
Seriously, I think Microsoft did nice job with this beta but there's some things they need to work on (as would be expected). I hope the feedback they get is legit rather than from a bunch of anti-MSFT fanboys that would say that Live sucked regardless, so they can work on fixing genuine problems. Anyway, I think Microsoft is off to a good start here.
no, they copied if from Apple's iSync.
Actually, MSN Premium had this for years.
I am in my late 20's, and watch all those companies that had foosball tables in the lobby go under.
Interesting point, but Microsoft also has foosball tables, arcade games, Xboxes in the hallways. The problem with those internet bubble companies that you speak of wasn't that they had foosball tables, it was that they never actually did anything that earned revenue, let alone profit.
by a judge and everyone can compete on equal footing again. Also hurts the EU's argument that Microsoft has a monopoly in anything.
C?? Pleas...
:p). The issues that you're talking about are becoming more and more irrelevant, just as machine-language programming did (for 99.9999% of source code).
If you want to learn the *fundamentals* of programming, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is the best book I've seen, and it deals not at all with "memory management", "efficient use of resources", or other archane crap (since it uses Scheme
Not that Scheme itself is used much beyond the academic. But a lot if its ideas are showing up in modern programming platforms that are much in use (memory management, closures, etc). I wouldn't tout scheme as a "beginning programming language" but I'd tout it as a "programming language to learn the fundamentals of programs for a potential CS major". I'd tout C for neither.
Although Microsoft grants you a license, you are not permitted to sublicense.
Assuming this is true, so what? The party to whom you wanted to "sublicense" can just get a license directly from Microsoft.
Both yours and the GP's scenarios would lead to Apple gradually losing its dominance in the portable digital music player market.
No, it doesn't say that anything would be announced on March 2. March 2 was merely the date for the "week 2" teaser to be shown, which it was. That teaser says that the "week 3" teaser will be released March 9. There's still no announcment of a launch date.
BTW, this thread is about Apple. It's funny that Apple fanboys are so obsessed with Microsoft that they can't resist steering a thread about a negative Apple article into an attempt to bash Microsoft. Talk about insecure!! LOL
Apple overhyped this "launch" because they launched them with a CEO-hosted press event.
What company needs a CEO-hosted press event to announce a boom box?
Or leather case? Or computer upgrade?
Seriously, when's the last time a company held a press event to announce a boom box?
Apple has themselves to blame. They could've introduced these products without the fanfare, just like any other company.