Not to mention that the millions of users are only there because they can get stuff for free. When it becomes a pay service it will do no better than Napster did as one.
I'm sure the record/movie companies are smart enough to realize this.
... and they have standardised less than 10% of the.NET APIs (just the CLR and C#). Compare this with what the JCP has standardized (hint: pretty much everything and beyond)
Meanwhile, Mono has almost a full implementation of the.NET framework and Red Hat is just starting to talk about a real Open Source Java effort. There have been attempts in the past like Kaffe, but none of them were ever close to being done and were always a major version (at least) behind the main Java implementation.
So maybe in fairytale land, Sun's process is "more open", but in the real world, open implementations of.NET are working out much better.
Some people withing Sun seem to be scared though that an Open-Source Java standard could be "polluted" by Microsoft.
Newsflash: Microsoft has gone and made a better Java -- C#, and funnily enough they not only standardized it with recognized standards bodies (which Sun has never done with Java), they've also released their own shared source version and have not at all stood in the way of third parties making their own implementations (dotGNU, Mono, etc).
If you really think that Microsoft can easily replicate what Google is doing (using thousands of computers to calculate rankings, all organized in a cluster) with Windows, you look like Bill Gates' bootlicker.
Yeah, I think they can easily replicate that.
Google isn't even doing advanced clustering, it is just fancy load balancing on top of a ton of small cheap servers. You could easily do the same thing with a bunch of Windows 2000, or Windows 2003.Net servers.
The one thing Google DOES get from running Linux is big cost savings. For Microsoft, that's a non-issue though since it's their own software.
No, it's funny because it points out that most Linux-zealot's attitudes about Windows are still stuck in the pre-Windows 2000 days when Microsoft made shit-poor OSes. They don't anymore. The longer it take you to notice this, the dumber you look.
I'm not totally sure that that comment was supposed to be funny. It is possible we have someone from the RIAA here and they were being completely serious.
It is about time a government started taking intellectual property rights seriously. I hope this same attitude will take hold in the US, where we are in danger of the creative people who bring us movies and records going bankrupt due to all of the digital pirating of their content.
Linux in any form is worthless. Especially since SCO will be shutting it down soon. Hopefully they will sue the managers at the company that makes Linux, too -- people shouldn't be able to steal intellactuel property like that.
If this ever comes out in the states, I'll send so many replies to M$ that it won't even be funny. Then their legal team can find the loophole and I can use that same loophole on my own sites.
Microsoft posts a lot of stuff about you on its site, does it?
These people are no smarter than a little kid saying, "I'm a hacker, I can make your computer blow up using the internet."
If this idea becomes a reality, then that skript kiddie was just a visionary! Imagine the aftermath of an Internet worm that sent the 'copyright self destruct' message to a computer a week or so after infecting it (hopefully infected many other computers in the interm). It would make CodeRed look like a pleasant dream.
Excellent question. I would say that they, in fact, might.
It becomes a bit of a thorny issue, but in theory Sun shouldn't be able to distribute Linux. Even though they have the license from SCO, if that copyright license holds it means that all the GPLed parts of Linux can't be used with the SCO-protected parts, whatever those may be.
If you actually look into that whole Rambus issue you'll see Intel was just as duped as everyone else by Rambus' underhanded submarine patent scheme. Just because they got duped (along with most of the rest of the semiconductor industry) doesn't make them evil.
Your reasoning is flawed. To put it in a situation that is easier to understand:
If I buy a counterfeit copy of Windows for $5 at a flea market, I have no legal right to actually use it, even if I bought it in good faith and thought it was a genuine copy and even if it included a nicely printed duplicate of a Windows license.
Don't get me wrong, I think SCO is completely full of it, but if they DO have the authority to block AIX (we'll soon find out I guess) on IP grounds your license won't be worth the paper it is printed on. That's the legal reality of software licenses and not owning the bits.
How will Norton, McAfee, etc. survive this? Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.
So your argument then is that Microsoft should do nothing to make Windows more virus resistant, because these other companies have some inalienable right to make a buck?
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't... I remember lots of people here claiming Microsoft should be sued for not doing enough about CodeRed, Nimda, etc. Now they are doing something about viruses and the VERY SAME people are claiming they should be sued for this too.
I don't think anti-virus software makers have any inalienable right to make & sell their product. At the root, what you're arguing for is essentially that Microsoft purposefully keep Windows insecure, because whether they invent the magic "no viruses" bullet and put it in the next version of Windows or go the more realistic route of integrating an anti-virus program into the OS, the result would be the same: third party anti-virus software developers are screwed.
So, would you REALLY argue the case that Microsoft should keep Windows wide open to viruses because the anti-viruses software companies need to make a buck?
The poster above you has a point. Even if Crossover isn't the only bundled product, most of these products are just replacements for Windows-bundled functionality. I don't think SUSE's price is completely outrageous, but if they want to compete with Windows on the desktop they need to do it by being MUCH CHEAPER. If the prices are just about equal, this won't fly, because Microsoft already has the traction. Who is going to take the risk and the effort to switch over to Linux Desktop if the costs are just about the same? Virtually noone.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the record/movie companies are smart enough to realize this.
Meanwhile, Mono has almost a full implementation of the .NET framework and Red Hat is just starting to talk about a real Open Source Java effort. There have been attempts in the past like Kaffe, but none of them were ever close to being done and were always a major version (at least) behind the main Java implementation.
So maybe in fairytale land, Sun's process is "more open", but in the real world, open implementations of .NET are working out much better.
Newsflash: Microsoft has gone and made a better Java -- C#, and funnily enough they not only standardized it with recognized standards bodies (which Sun has never done with Java), they've also released their own shared source version and have not at all stood in the way of third parties making their own implementations (dotGNU, Mono, etc).
And a gun that he just used to shoot the TV out.
Slashdot is just implicitly helping spread the FUD around by focusing so much coverage here.
Yeah, I think they can easily replicate that.
Google isn't even doing advanced clustering, it is just fancy load balancing on top of a ton of small cheap servers. You could easily do the same thing with a bunch of Windows 2000, or Windows 2003 .Net servers.
The one thing Google DOES get from running Linux is big cost savings. For Microsoft, that's a non-issue though since it's their own software.
No, it's funny because it points out that most Linux-zealot's attitudes about Windows are still stuck in the pre-Windows 2000 days when Microsoft made shit-poor OSes. They don't anymore. The longer it take you to notice this, the dumber you look.
A quick google on this topic (search term: microsoft google slashdot) would have shown that this story is a repeat.
think the parent poster is bitter because he can't afford a space trip? I do.
I haven't really had time to read the article or the writeup above, but I'm against the whole idea of this.
Your momma got a wooden leg with a kickstand.
It is about time a government started taking intellectual property rights seriously. I hope this same attitude will take hold in the US, where we are in danger of the creative people who bring us movies and records going bankrupt due to all of the digital pirating of their content.
Linux in any form is worthless. Especially since SCO will be shutting it down soon. Hopefully they will sue the managers at the company that makes Linux, too -- people shouldn't be able to steal intellactuel property like that.
Microsoft posts a lot of stuff about you on its site, does it?
How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?
Wow, really.. 1xx,xxx range? I bet that helps out a lot with picking up the ladies, eh?
If this idea becomes a reality, then that skript kiddie was just a visionary! Imagine the aftermath of an Internet worm that sent the 'copyright self destruct' message to a computer a week or so after infecting it (hopefully infected many other computers in the interm). It would make CodeRed look like a pleasant dream.
It becomes a bit of a thorny issue, but in theory Sun shouldn't be able to distribute Linux. Even though they have the license from SCO, if that copyright license holds it means that all the GPLed parts of Linux can't be used with the SCO-protected parts, whatever those may be.
There's no free PR/hype to be generated by saying 'ok we're gonna use the same computers we used before'.
The answer is yes.
Please try again.
You should be ashamed of yourself!
If I buy a counterfeit copy of Windows for $5 at a flea market, I have no legal right to actually use it, even if I bought it in good faith and thought it was a genuine copy and even if it included a nicely printed duplicate of a Windows license.
Don't get me wrong, I think SCO is completely full of it, but if they DO have the authority to block AIX (we'll soon find out I guess) on IP grounds your license won't be worth the paper it is printed on. That's the legal reality of software licenses and not owning the bits.
So your argument then is that Microsoft should do nothing to make Windows more virus resistant, because these other companies have some inalienable right to make a buck?
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't... I remember lots of people here claiming Microsoft should be sued for not doing enough about CodeRed, Nimda, etc. Now they are doing something about viruses and the VERY SAME people are claiming they should be sued for this too.
Dorks!
I don't think anti-virus software makers have any inalienable right to make & sell their product. At the root, what you're arguing for is essentially that Microsoft purposefully keep Windows insecure, because whether they invent the magic "no viruses" bullet and put it in the next version of Windows or go the more realistic route of integrating an anti-virus program into the OS, the result would be the same: third party anti-virus software developers are screwed.
So, would you REALLY argue the case that Microsoft should keep Windows wide open to viruses because the anti-viruses software companies need to make a buck?
The poster above you has a point. Even if Crossover isn't the only bundled product, most of these products are just replacements for Windows-bundled functionality. I don't think SUSE's price is completely outrageous, but if they want to compete with Windows on the desktop they need to do it by being MUCH CHEAPER. If the prices are just about equal, this won't fly, because Microsoft already has the traction. Who is going to take the risk and the effort to switch over to Linux Desktop if the costs are just about the same? Virtually noone.