Would Microsoft port over IE and Office to Linux if they bought Red Hat? probably not, because if it did, it probably wouldn't be too hard to port it to other distros and Microsoft will lose its "vendor lock-in."
You think Microsoft would have learned after the games they played with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and DR. DOS.
What did Microsoft learn?
DR DOS was a threat to MS-DOS. Using windows 3.11 they put doubt into the minds of users that DR-DOS wasn't truly stable and compatible. Follwing this was a fierce second blow with windows 95 which finished off DR DOS. Eventually, after Microsoft killed DR DOS they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. However this sum could never amount to a pittance compared to the billions that Microsoft made as a monopoly.
Microsoft learned that playing games entrenches their monopoly and earns them billions in the long run.
You can still be innovative while working within an existing academic field
Yes, that is true. However, if Microsoft had truly innovative ideas in these areas they would not be looking for someone else to develop them. Microsoft is looking for someone else to innovate on ideas that they are unwilling to continue developing. Microsoft will then reap the rewards if they are successful.
v. tr. - To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time. v. intr. - To begin or introduce something new.
Face recognition, video conferencing, and language processing are not new ideas. There are other technologies already doing this. Therefore Microsoft still is not innovative.
I agree that the MPAA and RIAA will fail but I find your reasoning flawed.
People have been use to getting free music for decades -- ever since the birth of radio.
Yes and they still get free music over the radio for free. They have always paid when they wanted a copy that they could play at their convience. I know very few people that record from the radio.
People used to feel the money paid on records was mostly in the physical process of making records and distributing them, but now they see with 10 cent CDROMS and 1/10 of a cent per Meg of disk space that playback mediums are now virtually free.
Intelligent people realize that the price of records is more than the physical medium. Distribution, Marketing, Packaging and Artwork, Studio costs, Artist Royalties, RIAA staff costs, and some profit for everyone in the chain including the retail store.
A lot of people feel recorded music is all advertising. Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist and why would you pay for something you've already heard?
What are you talking about? Recorded Music is advertising? Tell me, what does Megadeth advertise? Or Elton John, Wu Tang Clan, or even Britney? This point of yours is idiotic. You listen to artist you have not heard because your friend tells you about the or you hear it on the radio. You pay for it (or pirate it) because you want to listen to it more and at your convienece.
In the past people bought records they heard on the radio only because they didn't have a convenient way to record just the songs they wanted and to index, label, store, and retrieve them.
No, they bought records because they wanted to listen to them. (at their convienence.)
In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free. Let me make the point clearer - even if the RIAA scares someone into not downloading music from the net, the willingness to pay full price will also be diminished because the tantalizing free stuff lies just a wire away.
In the past there were still bootleg tapes from live concerts, and you were still able to tape an album that your friends bought. While it is easier to get free music now thanks to the internet, it did exist before. Also, some people still refrain from d/l from the net because they think it is stealing even if the RIAA is a bigger theif. They believe the artists should be compensated.
Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.
I don't think the artists are over compensated, I think the RIAA is. I am not sure about this figure but I believe even the popular mainstream artists get only 25 cents per CD sold after all other costs. However; I do agree with you that artists lately can't actually perform and must use post processing. The studios have gone from people with real talent to people that are pretty with no talent.
Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.
Creating songs is work. A hit isn't written in ten minutes (usually). They should be compensated. Radio stations make money from advertisers when the encourage people to listen to the music they play. Should the artist not be compensated for that. In a different scenario, I am a programmer; Should I be paid only if my programs are run? or should my employer pay me to write them in the first place.
Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.
So the company that is synonomous with "Blue Screen Of Death" is going to put there software in cars from the company that stands for "Fix Or Repair Daily" to build a car that won't crash?
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs.
While the universe does contain much more than 25 songs, It probably only has about 25 good songs.
Everything they release now are britney and boy band clones. Even the once mighty Metallica has only released crap in recent years.
The state of the industry is thaat even if someone was writing innovative music scores, it would never be financed/promoted and it is doubtful that any large audience will ever hear it.
You may have the first groan, but it definately will not be the last.
And don't forget, while everone here is groaning at hearing there childhood classics being flushed, Lucas is bringing another huge wad of money to the bank.
IBM had been burned by DOS, where they basically paid the R&D for their competitors...
Actually; I don't think Microsoft did much R&D for DOS. They paid someone (I forget the name) that already had a working product (I beleive the name was QDOS) $10,000 for all of the rights. This guy was also shafted by M$, Because he didn't know that M$ was just going to turn around and resell his OS to IBM. If he had known, I'm sure he would have increased the price to M$ or try to go directly to IBM.
Wikipedia shows a slightly different story than what I heard; So you may want to read about QDOS there.
I agree, let Star Wars and Star Trek die. (except if someone other than Lucas wants to bring a few Timothy Zahn novels to the big screen.) To me Star Trek died after Deep Space 9 finished. I thought Voyager stunk and that kept me from watching Enterprise.
Stargate SG1 has been a great replacement, but it is starting to show its age. Stargate Atlantis is ok, but I do not think it is close to the caliber of SG1. Atlantis does have potential and with luck it will improve in the next season.
I am pleasantly surprised at how well Battlestar Galactica has done and I hope it get even better.
Microsoft quit development on OS/2 back at 1.2, IBM did all the development after that.
That sounds about right. I believe that OS/2 Warp was the first version without any of M$'s code (except of course for WIN-OS2). Also, IBM probably can release all of the OS/2 code, even the older stuff originally written by M$. When IBM liscensed DOS and M$ later licensed the code to everyone else that made a box. When IBM had M$ write OS/2, IBM paid to have all of the rights to the code so that M$ couldn't sell OS/2 to other manufacturer's.
Does that mean if I go out and get drunk, then have a "technicolor yawn" while "praying to the porcelin god" that I am infringing on his patents and he can sue more for royalties?
If I take my "technicolor yawn" and send it to his home address am I no longer liable for royalties?
Though I don't believe it's "Goodbye FireFox", you cannot honestly say to me that IE7 doesn't have the potential to disrupt FF's market share.
Of course IE7 has potential to disrupt Firefox's share. However I doubt it will affect share much at all.
In order for Microsoft to steal share from FireFox it needs to improve and innovate to a point that surpasses Firefox. Right now, I believe that IE7 is playing catch-up to FireFox and Microsoft will not introduce anything innovative enough to bring share back to IE7. Microsoft will only be able to slow the tide of people leaving IE.
Remember, people are using FireFox fo the following reasons:
They hate Microsoft
The are not using windows
They liked the features of FireFox
They got fed up with viruses, spyware, and security problems that only hit IE and downloaded FF as an alternative.
In the first two cases, IE will not win back any share. The feature crowd will only return if Microsoft truly innovates(doubtful in my mind.) The last group of people will only return to IE if they can trust Microsoft to fix all of the problems. Considering Microsoft's record since they made "security their number one priority" over a year ago (or has it been 2?) I also doubt this happening.
And remember, the reason IE has the most share is because it was on the computer when the user got it. People resist change. That same fact will keep some user from changing from Firefox back to IE. So, no, Firefox will probably not lose much share unless development stops on it over the next 4 years. (Ooops, who did that before?...)
I will have to try it. I did notice a printer config tool in Mandriva 2005, but I still had problems configuring my Samsung CLP-510N during the initial install. I'll try to configure it with the GUI.
Now I know is off topic, but I think Mandrake was a much better name than Mandriva (IMHO)
Bender only liked Jazz Disks? CDs are a bit to flakey.
During benders upgrade (for 1x compatibility) he pulled out his favorite desert island discs to play. They were cds. However, If I know Bender he burned them himself from Nappster(intentional spelling) and the RIAA is trying to sue him.
Wow you can actually compare a product that has not even been out for a year, and IE6 which has been over for over 3 years...
Actually IE6 has now been out for 4 years. And a person should hope that a 4 year old product that is used by millions of people everday should have the bugs worked out if it by now.
Now as far as how to compare them check out this article. It compares security on a very sound premise: If you keep up-to-date with updates how long are you vulnerable. The answer: IE: 51 weeks during 2004, Firefox: 8 Weeks during 2004.
Lets rephrase that; using firefox I was safe from known exploits 10 months last year. If I was an idiot and used IE, I was only safe from known exploits 1 lousy week during the whole year.
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article...
Actually, this article was for the "Yes Men." Information week is more geared for IT management than it is for IT workers. The management in this case caters to the Microsoft FUD believing excutives and use this article in their brown-nosing the higher-ups.
While the IT professionals working in the trenches can poke holes in this article, CEOs and CIOs will continue to listen to their "yes-man" management team.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it won't happen.
Would Microsoft port over IE and Office to Linux if they bought Red Hat? probably not, because if it did, it probably wouldn't be too hard to port it to other distros and Microsoft will lose its "vendor lock-in."
What did Microsoft learn?
DR DOS was a threat to MS-DOS. Using windows 3.11 they put doubt into the minds of users that DR-DOS wasn't truly stable and compatible. Follwing this was a fierce second blow with windows 95 which finished off DR DOS. Eventually, after Microsoft killed DR DOS they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. However this sum could never amount to a pittance compared to the billions that Microsoft made as a monopoly.
Microsoft learned that playing games entrenches their monopoly and earns them billions in the long run.
Yes, that is true. However, if Microsoft had truly innovative ideas in these areas they would not be looking for someone else to develop them. Microsoft is looking for someone else to innovate on ideas that they are unwilling to continue developing. Microsoft will then reap the rewards if they are successful.
v. tr. - To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v. intr. - To begin or introduce something new.
Face recognition, video conferencing, and language processing are not new ideas. There are other technologies already doing this. Therefore Microsoft still is not innovative.
People have been use to getting free music for decades -- ever since the birth of radio.
Yes and they still get free music over the radio for free. They have always paid when they wanted a copy that they could play at their convience. I know very few people that record from the radio.
People used to feel the money paid on records was mostly in the physical process of making records and distributing them, but now they see with 10 cent CDROMS and 1/10 of a cent per Meg of disk space that playback mediums are now virtually free.
Intelligent people realize that the price of records is more than the physical medium. Distribution, Marketing, Packaging and Artwork, Studio costs, Artist Royalties, RIAA staff costs, and some profit for everyone in the chain including the retail store.
A lot of people feel recorded music is all advertising. Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist and why would you pay for something you've already heard?
What are you talking about? Recorded Music is advertising? Tell me, what does Megadeth advertise? Or Elton John, Wu Tang Clan, or even Britney? This point of yours is idiotic.
You listen to artist you have not heard because your friend tells you about the or you hear it on the radio. You pay for it (or pirate it) because you want to listen to it more and at your convienece.
In the past people bought records they heard on the radio only because they didn't have a convenient way to record just the songs they wanted and to index, label, store, and retrieve them.
No, they bought records because they wanted to listen to them. (at their convienence.)
In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free. Let me make the point clearer - even if the RIAA scares someone into not downloading music from the net, the willingness to pay full price will also be diminished because the tantalizing free stuff lies just a wire away.
In the past there were still bootleg tapes from live concerts, and you were still able to tape an album that your friends bought. While it is easier to get free music now thanks to the internet, it did exist before. Also, some people still refrain from d/l from the net because they think it is stealing even if the RIAA is a bigger theif. They believe the artists should be compensated.
Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.
I don't think the artists are over compensated, I think the RIAA is. I am not sure about this figure but I believe even the popular mainstream artists get only 25 cents per CD sold after all other costs. However; I do agree with you that artists lately can't actually perform and must use post processing. The studios have gone from people with real talent to people that are pretty with no talent.
Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.
Creating songs is work. A hit isn't written in ten minutes (usually). They should be compensated. Radio stations make money from advertisers when the encourage people to listen to the music they play. Should the artist not be compensated for that. In a different scenario, I am a programmer; Should I be paid only if my programs are run? or should my employer pay me to write them in the first place.
Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.
RIAA, yes, some
So the company that is synonomous with "Blue Screen Of Death" is going to put there software in cars from the company that stands for "Fix Or Repair Daily" to build a car that won't crash?
While the universe does contain much more than 25 songs, It probably only has about 25 good songs .
Everything they release now are britney and boy band clones. Even the once mighty Metallica has only released crap in recent years.
The state of the industry is thaat even if someone was writing innovative music scores, it would never be financed/promoted and it is doubtful that any large audience will ever hear it.
Only if the picture does not include, targets, crosshairs, or cream pie.
And don't forget, while everone here is groaning at hearing there childhood classics being flushed, Lucas is bringing another huge wad of money to the bank.
Actually; I don't think Microsoft did much R&D for DOS. They paid someone (I forget the name) that already had a working product (I beleive the name was QDOS) $10,000 for all of the rights. This guy was also shafted by M$, Because he didn't know that M$ was just going to turn around and resell his OS to IBM. If he had known, I'm sure he would have increased the price to M$ or try to go directly to IBM.
Wikipedia shows a slightly different story than what I heard; So you may want to read about QDOS there.
Stargate SG1 has been a great replacement, but it is starting to show its age. Stargate Atlantis is ok, but I do not think it is close to the caliber of SG1. Atlantis does have potential and with luck it will improve in the next season.
I am pleasantly surprised at how well Battlestar Galactica has done and I hope it get even better.
No, I'm sure there are going to be idiots^T^T^T^T fans waiting outside the chinese theater for tickets to the tv show.
Wrong, a Star Wars series will prove that Lucas' franchise was indeed the most powerful force in the universe...
That sounds about right. I believe that OS/2 Warp was the first version without any of M$'s code (except of course for WIN-OS2). Also, IBM probably can release all of the OS/2 code, even the older stuff originally written by M$. When IBM liscensed DOS and M$ later licensed the code to everyone else that made a box. When IBM had M$ write OS/2, IBM paid to have all of the rights to the code so that M$ couldn't sell OS/2 to other manufacturer's.
Does that mean if I go out and get drunk, then have a "technicolor yawn" while "praying to the porcelin god" that I am infringing on his patents and he can sue more for royalties?
If I take my "technicolor yawn" and send it to his home address am I no longer liable for royalties?
Of course IE7 has potential to disrupt Firefox's share. However I doubt it will affect share much at all.
In order for Microsoft to steal share from FireFox it needs to improve and innovate to a point that surpasses Firefox. Right now, I believe that IE7 is playing catch-up to FireFox and Microsoft will not introduce anything innovative enough to bring share back to IE7. Microsoft will only be able to slow the tide of people leaving IE.
Remember, people are using FireFox fo the following reasons:
In the first two cases, IE will not win back any share. The feature crowd will only return if Microsoft truly innovates(doubtful in my mind.) The last group of people will only return to IE if they can trust Microsoft to fix all of the problems. Considering Microsoft's record since they made "security their number one priority" over a year ago (or has it been 2?) I also doubt this happening.
And remember, the reason IE has the most share is because it was on the computer when the user got it. People resist change. That same fact will keep some user from changing from Firefox back to IE. So, no, Firefox will probably not lose much share unless development stops on it over the next 4 years. (Ooops, who did that before?...)
I will have to try it. I did notice a printer config tool in Mandriva 2005, but I still had problems configuring my Samsung CLP-510N during the initial install. I'll try to configure it with the GUI.
Now I know is off topic, but I think Mandrake was a much better name than Mandriva (IMHO)
I would try to contact them through Adult Swim. Maybe they would put a picture of the case up in their promo spots.
Or, you can try to contact Billy West (voice of Fry) through his website at: http://www.billywest.com/
During benders upgrade (for 1x compatibility) he pulled out his favorite desert island discs to play. They were cds. However, If I know Bender he burned them himself from Nappster(intentional spelling) and the RIAA is trying to sue him.
Yes it does have a shiny metal ass. And just like Bender that is were the power cord (and everything else) plugs in.
But can this bender make popcorn and cover it with butter?
You are correct. I remember seeing that in the Slurm episode.
That also means I can program bender. I first learned assembly and machine language on an old commodore vic-20 with a 6502 chip.
Let see the choices are now:
1) your local cable monopoly
2) your local phone monopoly (assuming you are not currently in verizon's market)
3) a different local phone monopoly. (verizon has part of its roots in Bell Atlantic and Nynex RBOC's)
I fail to see why the parent post thinks he is ignorning the monopolies.
Actually IE6 has now been out for 4 years. And a person should hope that a 4 year old product that is used by millions of people everday should have the bugs worked out if it by now.
Now as far as how to compare them check out this article. It compares security on a very sound premise: If you keep up-to-date with updates how long are you vulnerable. The answer: IE: 51 weeks during 2004, Firefox: 8 Weeks during 2004.
Lets rephrase that; using firefox I was safe from known exploits 10 months last year. If I was an idiot and used IE, I was only safe from known exploits 1 lousy week during the whole year.
Which are you going to choose? Get FireFox!
Actually, this article was for the "Yes Men." Information week is more geared for IT management than it is for IT workers. The management in this case caters to the Microsoft FUD believing excutives and use this article in their brown-nosing the higher-ups.
While the IT professionals working in the trenches can poke holes in this article, CEOs and CIOs will continue to listen to their "yes-man" management team.
These announcements have shocked the geek community so bad that highly intelligent virgins all over the world are committing suicide.