"Put a CDROM next to a computer and tell my what one looks more valuable."
WTF are you talking about? My CD collection is much more valuable than my CD player, same for my DVDs vs DVD player, video games vs Xbox/GameCube, LPs vs turntable, software vs computer.
Software is inherantly more valuable than hardware.
>>>" It is because Linux admins, although slightly more expensive, can handle a significantly larger number of systems than their Windows counterparts."
As Linux increases in popularity (God help us if it does), the number of Linux admins will grow, as "mediocre" admins fill the ranks, which will take away the advantage cited above.
It's amazing that you Linux folks were so wrapped up in this case, yet don't know the history of the case. After the "faked" demo incident, MS was allowed to redo the demo, completely legit, and the legit demo showed the exact same results as the "faked" demo. Now, move on.
Bork is one who opposed voting rights for Blacks in Arizona, and carried out Nixon's request to fire those investigating Watergate. Do a Google search on "Saturday Night Massacre". In fact, I'll provide you with a link right here:
Saturday Night Massacre "Nixon then named Solicitor General Robert Bork the new attorney general, and it was he who carried out Nixon's order to fire Cox."
As for Starr, he is one who believes in impeaching officials for lying about getting blow jobs.
The antitrust suit is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Violations of civil law are not "crimes" and those found guilty of such are not "criminals".
In fact, MS would have been better off if the antitrust case was a criminal rather than civil case, because the burden of proof would have been much higher ("beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "preponderence of evidence") and would have required a unanimous jury in order for MS to have been found guilty. The DOJ's case would have met neither burden, and MS would have gotten off scott free.
"There's a reason the Microsoft topic icon is bill gates with borg implants."
Indeed there is a reason: The childishness of those running this site.
Finally, an intelligent statement
on
LinuXbox Boots
·
· Score: 1
This is one of the few intelligent statement I've seen on this topic. Most of the posters applaud the LinXBox effort because they see it as a means to hurt MS (any harm done would have virtually zero effect). But the idea that this is a fun engineering project is a much more solid and reasonable motivation for the LinXbox effort.
Re:This is NOT a good thing.
on
LinuXbox Boots
·
· Score: 1
"If enough people don't buy MS software, though, I think we'll be okay."
You guys *claim* that you want to buy Xboxes and use them as cheap linux pcs. But at the same time you want nobody to buy Xbox games so that MS loses money (why you care about this, I know not). But if that happens, Xbox will be dropped, and your supply of cheap linux pcs goes *poof*.
But anyway, I think it's time for a reality check: The number of Xboxes purchased with the purpose of using them as cheap linux pcs will be insiginficant when compared to the total number of Xboxes purchased. The money lost due to linux Xbox pcs won't even be noticed by MS.
So, let's say that Company A has a "monopoly" product.
Your law forces the government to use alternatives to that product. But, if the government can actually do this, then Company A's product is not really a "monopoly" product. Therfore, the government is free to use Company A's product.
QED.;-)
What you're describing is source disclosure, not open source. It's one thing to require that when selling software to a government, the company must provide the source. It's quite another to be required to "open source" the product so that its source can be freely copied and distributed by anyone that wants to.
Laws mandating open source require that companies that want to do business with government give up all copyright protection, which goes beyond what is required to just allow examination of the source.
(Not that such examination would do much good; software is so complicated that one that is unfamiliar with the code can't really tell what the code does by looking at the source).
Slashdot Mirror
"Put a CDROM next to a computer and tell my what one looks more valuable."
WTF are you talking about?
My CD collection is much more valuable than my CD player, same for my DVDs vs DVD player, video games vs Xbox/GameCube, LPs vs turntable, software vs computer.
Software is inherantly more valuable than hardware.
Too bad those that defend music piracy are the same as those that defend game (and general software) piracy.
This site gets worse and worse with the constant trival drivel that passes for news.
>>>" It is because Linux admins, although slightly more expensive, can handle a significantly larger number of systems than their Windows counterparts."
As Linux increases in popularity (God help us if it does), the number of Linux admins will grow, as "mediocre" admins fill the ranks, which will take away the advantage cited above.
Why is the article not titled "Nintendo leverages its handheld games monopoly to boost console sales"?
We'll see what the DOJ and EU have to say about it.
wow, are you stupid.
did you ever take a civics class?
idiot
Eat that, suckers!!!
This is the best post on this entire story.
Three Cheers!!
What moranic mod classified this as "Informative"?
You stupid idiot.
Outlook Express doesn't support Exchange.
Outlook does.
Damn, the ignorance on this site is unreal.
It's amazing that you Linux folks were so wrapped up in this case, yet don't know the history of the case. After the "faked" demo incident, MS was allowed to redo the demo, completely legit, and the legit demo showed the exact same results as the "faked" demo.
Now, move on.
Who cares what Bork and Starr have to say?
Bork is one who opposed voting rights for Blacks in Arizona, and carried out Nixon's request to fire those investigating Watergate. Do a Google search on "Saturday Night Massacre". In fact, I'll provide you with a link right here: Saturday Night Massacre
"Nixon then named Solicitor General Robert Bork the new attorney general, and it was he who carried out Nixon's order to fire Cox."
As for Starr, he is one who believes in impeaching officials for lying about getting blow jobs.
Neither one has an ounce of credibility.
Two words: byte swapping.
Besides that, any code written in assembler would have to be redone.
The antitrust suit is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Violations of civil law are not "crimes" and those found guilty of such are not "criminals".
In fact, MS would have been better off if the antitrust case was a criminal rather than civil case, because the burden of proof would have been much higher ("beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "preponderence of evidence") and would have required a unanimous jury in order for MS to have been found guilty. The DOJ's case would have met neither burden, and MS would have gotten off scott free.
"There's a reason the Microsoft topic icon is bill gates with borg implants."
Indeed there is a reason: The childishness of those running this site.
This is one of the few intelligent statement I've seen on this topic. Most of the posters applaud the LinXBox effort because they see it as a means to hurt MS (any harm done would have virtually zero effect). But the idea that this is a fun engineering project is a much more solid and reasonable motivation for the LinXbox effort.
"If enough people don't buy MS software, though, I think we'll be okay."
You guys *claim* that you want to buy Xboxes and use them as cheap linux pcs. But at the same time you want nobody to buy Xbox games so that MS loses money (why you care about this, I know not). But if that happens, Xbox will be dropped, and your supply of cheap linux pcs goes *poof*.
But anyway, I think it's time for a reality check: The number of Xboxes purchased with the purpose of using them as cheap linux pcs will be insiginficant when compared to the total number of Xboxes purchased. The money lost due to linux Xbox pcs won't even be noticed by MS.
"I'm not sure what it takes to ask for a signing but it would provide interesting fodder for the Dept of [in]Justice."
Why would the DOJ care? Xbox is not a monopoly product in any market, so MS is free to do what they want with it without worrying about antitrust bs.
So, let's say that Company A has a "monopoly" product. Your law forces the government to use alternatives to that product. But, if the government can actually do this, then Company A's product is not really a "monopoly" product. Therfore, the government is free to use Company A's product. QED. ;-)
What you're describing is source disclosure, not open source. It's one thing to require that when selling software to a government, the company must provide the source. It's quite another to be required to "open source" the product so that its source can be freely copied and distributed by anyone that wants to. Laws mandating open source require that companies that want to do business with government give up all copyright protection, which goes beyond what is required to just allow examination of the source. (Not that such examination would do much good; software is so complicated that one that is unfamiliar with the code can't really tell what the code does by looking at the source).