People, seriously, to beat M$ is going to require....
I think to beat MS all you have to do is to have efficient distribution channels and be "cheaper."
Being "free" we have 1/2 of the problem licked. And every time MS tries to claim they are cheaper, IS management... that just spent $25 million "upgrading"... HAS to think to themselves...yea...right...cheaper.
Why MOZ, Open Office, latest JRE, et. al. are not part of the oem standard image is the question I would like to see answered.
It's takes a powerful monopoly that can keep equivalent free software off of a new PC.
I spent a few years working on realtime target tracking systems for various aircraft and I would suggest that even more than software being hard generally, working on embedded systems which must perform complex analysis in realtime is especially difficult.
As an example, realtime embedded signal processing systems require specialized processors with instruction sets optimized for signal processing algorithms. They require pipelined floating point processes which are often supported directly in hardware. Programming this requires specialized programming skills.
Systems like this are also very data intensive. For example, realtime image processing algorithms are often required to process large frames of pixels in a very short period of time...usually at the scan rate of the imaging device. So I/O operations are optimized in hardware with multi-ported memories and with arrays of processors arranged in SIMD architecture. This isn't the kind of stuff you pick up working on a website or a payroll system.
I'm not saying it takes any special kind of brains to do this stuff...just that is a specialized platform. This just adds fact that software is hard...especially this kind of software.
I would add that another problem Microsoft faces is that there is not a lot of innovative new PC technology for them to copy because they have squashed it with their oppressive monopoly.
What's the point of risking it when you know that if you develop a new profitable market, Microsoft will cherry-pick it away from you once it is established?
"As I said before, it will be difficult if not impossible for SCO to prove where their code came from, the dates on it, etc; whereas proving those things will be easy for FOSS.
It seems to me that SCO must be capable of producing the source that was originally transferred to IBM. I would expect that they should also be able to produce other engineering documents - meeting notes, presentations, status reports - whatever - that lead up to the release of the "offending" software.
My understanding is that these documents need to have been maintained in such a manner that IBM can not object to their being offered into evidence. I would imagine that there will be lots of legal activity just in determining what documents will be allowed to be entered into the record because there is no way to ensure that they are real.
The point I thought the author made was that there are applications and services which have become commodity products. Because they are commodities, the the market will be driven by the lowest price. This is what happed in the PC market...so your Apple example seems to work against your position. Same with Netscape...MS reduced the price to zero. Once again, the cheapest product won a large share.
Despite Mr. Gates' constant references to how innovative his technology is, in a commodity market, the innovation comes from reducing product cost and converging on interoperable standards. MS business model assumes the exact opposite conditions and so ther author concludes that they are going to have to either change the conditions to their favor (i.e. ensure that MS product markets do not become commodity markets) or change their business model to adapt to the market situation. The author points out directly that, in a time of IS budget pressure, MS adding "frivolous" features - or "innovation" as Mr. Gates refers to it - is less attractive to IS management than lower TCO -especially when they see these loaded-up desktops with many MS Office features that nobody uses and Open Office does what they need for a much lower cost with open file formats based on industry standards.
...it's called increasing shareholder value. That and obeying the law are the only responsibility corporations have. Corporations only take the public good as a secondary objective - if they believe in some instance that it will increase shareholder value they will say thay are doing something in the public good.
There is nothing wrong with this. We just have to remember that corporations are not people. They don't love your children and they are not obligated to "do the right thing." That's why we have markets - and when they fail or will take too long to take effect - government regulation.
Is it possible for MS to make their file formats compatible with Open Office? If they want to impact MS would it not be better for IBM to build something like this that works with open office?
It's unfortunate when sombody posts baseless remarks like this and even more unfortunate when it gets modded up. I agree that Bush is harming public education but the issues you are having with the math department at your son's middle school do not amount to a condemnation of public education or it's ability to produce individuals who go on to pursue advanced degrees and, further, go on to do research and development.
Texas has been in the middle of the education debate because of it's dependence on extensive standardized testing of children to assess the quality of their education. This forces the schools to spend large proportions of the school year doing nothing except preparing for the standardized test. Some feel that this is just fine. Many feel that this is a terribly ineffective and inefficient way to learn.
Much of the criticism of public schools is, I believe, politically motivated. So be careful in how you interpret the rhetoric. Don't let your frustration with your son's math class cause you to make generalizations like this. Besides, how can you claim that his class is not sufficiently advanced if, at the same time, he is getting a "C"?
Having said that, please let me wish you the best of luck with your son and commend you for taking an active interest in his education. If my dad did that, maybe I'd have been a doctor instead of a programmer;^]
The post does not whine about opening up the source to China it simply points out that Allchin clearly lied under oath - yet another indication of the character of Microsoft's executive management.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if the BSA is working on behalf of the "copyright owners listed above" then the University should sue the "copyright owners listed above" not the BSA. It's up to the "copyright owners listed above" to sue the BSA.
The only way they'll survive is if they can consistantly innovate new, useful features at a reasonable price to stay ahead of the curve, something which MS has *never* been able to do.
I thought ODBC was a good idea. Of course at the time, MS was pushing VB in the emerging client-server arena. The server was some database on the back-end. A back-end which MS did not control i.e. had to compete. So along comes ODBC.
Capitalism actually works when sellers must compete for buyers. MS is a victim of 2 things, it's own success and a lack of faith in Capitalism.
On the other hand, OSS is a wonderful example of what people can accomplish when they cooperate.
People in manufacturing, aircraft design, the pharmaceutical business, etc. don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft or.net or any of that crap. Their work is highly specialized and directed. It's focused on budgets, schedules, resources...not happy rounded-corner windows.
If Gates wants to help the economy, why is he shoving expensive useless upgrades down everyones's throats.
It took a while, but I think businnes has gotten the message on Microsoft. This last upgrade fiasco was it. With 45 Billion in the bank and software on our desktops that is functionally equivalent to Windows 95 I think everyone now knows the story.
What do we OWE MS and Sun?
on
The Linux Uprising
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The computer industry has been built on a simple premise: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more.
Building more what? That's the really big question. Since when do consumers OWE it to their suppliers to figure out how they can continue to be billionaires? We have already made Gates the richest man on earth. Now - because his business model and current products have a limited future - what are we supposed to do - continue to buy inferior products at a more expensive price so that his business as it is will continue to survive?
What's ironic is that the OSS developement is often labeled as communistic and it's developers as dirty hippies who can't make it in the real world.
Consider the cell phone industry. Originally the phones were considered new technology and commanded a very high price for the phone itself. Now, the standard phones are basically given away because we know what the phones have to do and we can make them cheaply. Companies make their money on the monthly cell-phone service charges. I don't see articles being written about the demise of the cell-phone manufacturers because thier phones are being given away - or the end of cell-phone innovation because the one I got for $300 5 years ago now is free.
So you accept genetic mutations and you accept natural selection...but "people I know who don't believe in biological macroevolution" do not believe that any of the genetic mutations have ever been useful?
I wonder about these people.Are they creationists instead? Do they believe in Adam and Eve? Do they believe that humans came from them? Or are their opinions scientifically-based?
The simple fact that you can even POSE the questions in your post - pointing them directly at evolutionary theory is the WHOLE point.
The proposal that mankind evolved from lower forms of life is a scientific theory supported by some evidence and perhaps hurt by other evidence...but that is exactly the nature of science. Theories attempt to explain facts with testable hypotheisis.
So the fact that YOU can not accept the proposal that evolution is a good description of how we got here based on YOUR analysis and interpretation of the data is what science is all about.
In fact, you are free to come up with your own interpretation of the data if you wish.
If your suggestion is based upon testable hypotheisis then you can join the community of scientists proposing explanations for reality.
If your explanations are NOT based upon testable hypotheisis (for example if your explanation is "God did it like in the Bible.") then I suggest you go to either a church or a bar where such proposals are often discussed with equally remorseless vigor and certainty.
...it has been observed in nature and in the lab. A quick example are London moths who changed color on their own as the trees they lived on were affected by the increasing smoke/soot from the increased use of coal to power industry.
What is a theory is that mankind evolved to its present state over time from "lower" forms of life. It is a theory that attempts to explain (to some extent) how we got here.
Here's another theory on how we got here...God made us.
Both are theories on how we got here. One is testable, the other is not. The one that is testable we call "scientific." The one that is not testable we call "religion."
Both theories require faith.
The scientific theory requires faith in the sence that we know that all of this type of objective knowlege is an "slow-speed" approximation of reality. The scientific theory can never fully explain anything because each phenomonon contains an infinite number of parameters. So we know objective knowlege has limits and deep down this troubling - especially for scientists - dedicated essentially to task explaining things.
The religious theory also requires faith. Usually this is expressed as faith in some kind of Diety suitably anthropomorphized for mass-consumption. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Since science has to leave-off somewhere, the door is left wide-open for an important question...is there transendental knowlege? If so, then science can progress. But this just begs the question...is there a limit to this transendental knowlege?
You are left with nothing more than that situation you often find yourself in... where a feeling comes over you... in a particular situation and you think to yourself...this is remarkable.
First of all, if Linux is cheaper than Windows, that means all the money that MS is NOT making is staying in the pockets of the companies that are using Linux. Why is that a BAD thing?
Second, how can someone make the case that cheap alternatives to a Microsoft product is somehow not "cricket?" Didn't MS run Netscape out of the browser market by giving away IE?
I have been seeing lots of European pride lately - not just here on Slashdot but also on some news sites that I hang out at. Personally, I think it's well earned. The examples described briefly here make the case nicely. And the way Bush is working out...geeze.
The notion of cooperation is critical - both in the free software movement and in politics. Europe seems to get it.
An important treatment on the nature and value of cooperation can be found in "The Origins of Virtue..Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation" by Matt Ridley.
Slashdot Mirror
People, seriously, to beat M$ is going to require ....
I think to beat MS all you have to do is to have efficient distribution channels and be "cheaper."
Being "free" we have 1/2 of the problem licked. And every time MS tries to claim they are cheaper, IS management... that just spent $25 million "upgrading"... HAS to think to themselves...yea...right...cheaper.
Why MOZ, Open Office, latest JRE, et. al. are not part of the oem standard image is the question I would like to see answered.
It's takes a powerful monopoly that can keep equivalent free software off of a new PC.
I spent a few years working on realtime target tracking systems for various aircraft and I would suggest that even more than software being hard generally, working on embedded systems which must perform complex analysis in realtime is especially difficult.
As an example, realtime embedded signal processing systems require specialized processors with instruction sets optimized for signal processing algorithms. They require pipelined floating point processes which are often supported directly in hardware. Programming this requires specialized programming skills.
Systems like this are also very data intensive. For example, realtime image processing algorithms are often required to process large frames of pixels in a very short period of time...usually at the scan rate of the imaging device. So I/O operations are optimized in hardware with multi-ported memories and with arrays of processors arranged in SIMD architecture. This isn't the kind of stuff you pick up working on a website or a payroll system.
I'm not saying it takes any special kind of brains to do this stuff...just that is a specialized platform. This just adds fact that software is hard...especially this kind of software.
I would add that another problem Microsoft faces is that there is not a lot of innovative new PC technology for them to copy because they have squashed it with their oppressive monopoly.
What's the point of risking it when you know that if you develop a new profitable market, Microsoft will cherry-pick it away from you once it is established?
"As I said before, it will be difficult if not impossible for SCO to prove where their code came from, the dates on it, etc; whereas proving those things will be easy for FOSS.
It seems to me that SCO must be capable of producing the source that was originally transferred to IBM. I would expect that they should also be able to produce other engineering documents - meeting notes, presentations, status reports - whatever - that lead up to the release of the "offending" software.
My understanding is that these documents need to have been maintained in such a manner that IBM can not object to their being offered into evidence. I would imagine that there will be lots of legal activity just in determining what documents will be allowed to be entered into the record because there is no way to ensure that they are real.
First off, MS if a brilliantly run company
Yup...in Bush's America crime does pay. And it pays Microsoft very well.
Of course one could argue that "crime" is not "business"...unless you are the mafia.
May I suggest not "big business" as such...rather, big-time campaign contributors.
I know it's a small distinction, but it's an important one.
The point I thought the author made was that there are applications and services which have become commodity products. Because they are commodities, the the market will be driven by the lowest price. This is what happed in the PC market...so your Apple example seems to work against your position. Same with Netscape...MS reduced the price to zero. Once again, the cheapest product won a large share.
Despite Mr. Gates' constant references to how innovative his technology is, in a commodity market, the innovation comes from reducing product cost and converging on interoperable standards. MS business model assumes the exact opposite conditions and so ther author concludes that they are going to have to either change the conditions to their favor (i.e. ensure that MS product markets do not become commodity markets) or change their business model to adapt to the market situation. The author points out directly that, in a time of IS budget pressure, MS adding "frivolous" features - or "innovation" as Mr. Gates refers to it - is less attractive to IS management than lower TCO -especially when they see these loaded-up desktops with many MS Office features that nobody uses and Open Office does what they need for a much lower cost with open file formats based on industry standards.
...it's called increasing shareholder value. That and obeying the law are the only responsibility corporations have. Corporations only take the public good as a secondary objective - if they believe in some instance that it will increase shareholder value they will say thay are doing something in the public good.
There is nothing wrong with this. We just have to remember that corporations are not people. They don't love your children and they are not obligated to "do the right thing." That's why we have markets - and when they fail or will take too long to take effect - government regulation.
Is it possible for MS to make their file formats compatible with Open Office? If they want to impact MS would it not be better for IBM to build something like this that works with open office?
It's unfortunate when sombody posts baseless remarks like this and even more unfortunate when it gets modded up. I agree that Bush is harming public education but the issues you are having with the math department at your son's middle school do not amount to a condemnation of public education or it's ability to produce individuals who go on to pursue advanced degrees and, further, go on to do research and development.
;^]
Texas has been in the middle of the education debate because of it's dependence on extensive standardized testing of children to assess the quality of their education. This forces the schools to spend large proportions of the school year doing nothing except preparing for the standardized test. Some feel that this is just fine. Many feel that this is a terribly ineffective and inefficient way to learn.
Much of the criticism of public schools is, I believe, politically motivated. So be careful in how you interpret the rhetoric. Don't let your frustration with your son's math class cause you to make generalizations like this. Besides, how can you claim that his class is not sufficiently advanced if, at the same time, he is getting a "C"?
Having said that, please let me wish you the best of luck with your son and commend you for taking an active interest in his education. If my dad did that, maybe I'd have been a doctor instead of a programmer
Under Bush? or under a real President. Big difference!
The post does not whine about opening up the source to China it simply points out that Allchin clearly lied under oath - yet another indication of the character of Microsoft's executive management.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if the BSA is working on behalf of the "copyright owners listed above" then the University should sue the "copyright owners listed above" not the BSA. It's up to the "copyright owners listed above" to sue the BSA.
You know, you may be the person who can help me with this magnesium deficiency I'm trying to deal with right now.
The only way they'll survive is if they can consistantly innovate new, useful features at a reasonable price to stay ahead of the curve, something which MS has *never* been able to do.
I thought ODBC was a good idea. Of course at the time, MS was pushing VB in the emerging client-server arena. The server was some database on the back-end. A back-end which MS did not control i.e. had to compete. So along comes ODBC.
Capitalism actually works when sellers must compete for buyers. MS is a victim of 2 things, it's own success and a lack of faith in Capitalism.
On the other hand, OSS is a wonderful example of what people can accomplish when they cooperate.
People in manufacturing, aircraft design, the pharmaceutical business, etc. don't give a rat's ass about Microsoft or .net or any of that crap. Their work is highly specialized and directed. It's focused on budgets, schedules, resources...not happy rounded-corner windows.
If Gates wants to help the economy, why is he shoving expensive useless upgrades down everyones's throats.
It took a while, but I think businnes has gotten the message on Microsoft. This last upgrade fiasco was it. With 45 Billion in the bank and software on our desktops that is functionally equivalent to Windows 95 I think everyone now knows the story.
The computer industry has been built on a simple premise: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more.
Building more what? That's the really big question. Since when do consumers OWE it to their suppliers to figure out how they can continue to be billionaires? We have already made Gates the richest man on earth. Now - because his business model and current products have a limited future - what are we supposed to do - continue to buy inferior products at a more expensive price so that his business as it is will continue to survive?
What's ironic is that the OSS developement is often labeled as communistic and it's developers as dirty hippies who can't make it in the real world.
Consider the cell phone industry. Originally the phones were considered new technology and commanded a very high price for the phone itself. Now, the standard phones are basically given away because we know what the phones have to do and we can make them cheaply. Companies make their money on the monthly cell-phone service charges. I don't see articles being written about the demise of the cell-phone manufacturers because thier phones are being given away - or the end of cell-phone innovation because the one I got for $300 5 years ago now is free.
So you accept genetic mutations and you accept natural selection...but "people I know who don't believe in biological macroevolution" do not believe that any of the genetic mutations have ever been useful?
I wonder about these people.Are they creationists instead? Do they believe in Adam and Eve? Do they believe that humans came from them? Or are their opinions scientifically-based?
The simple fact that you can even POSE the questions in your post - pointing them directly at evolutionary theory is the WHOLE point.
The proposal that mankind evolved from lower forms of life is a scientific theory supported by some evidence and perhaps hurt by other evidence...but that is exactly the nature of science. Theories attempt to explain facts with testable hypotheisis.
So the fact that YOU can not accept the proposal that evolution is a good description of how we got here based on YOUR analysis and interpretation of the data is what science is all about.
In fact, you are free to come up with your own interpretation of the data if you wish.
If your suggestion is based upon testable hypotheisis then you can join the community of scientists proposing explanations for reality.
If your explanations are NOT based upon testable hypotheisis (for example if your explanation is "God did it like in the Bible.") then I suggest you go to either a church or a bar where such proposals are often discussed with equally remorseless vigor and certainty.
...it has been observed in nature and in the lab. A quick example are London moths who changed color on their own as the trees they lived on were affected by the increasing smoke/soot from the increased use of coal to power industry.
What is a theory is that mankind evolved to its present state over time from "lower" forms of life. It is a theory that attempts to explain (to some extent) how we got here.
Here's another theory on how we got here...God made us.
Both are theories on how we got here. One is testable, the other is not. The one that is testable we call "scientific." The one that is not testable we call "religion."
Both theories require faith.
The scientific theory requires faith in the sence that we know that all of this type of objective knowlege is an "slow-speed" approximation of reality. The scientific theory can never fully explain anything because each phenomonon contains an infinite number of parameters. So we know objective knowlege has limits and deep down this troubling - especially for scientists - dedicated essentially to task explaining things.
The religious theory also requires faith. Usually this is expressed as faith in some kind of Diety suitably anthropomorphized for mass-consumption. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Since science has to leave-off somewhere, the door is left wide-open for an important question...is there transendental knowlege? If so, then science can progress. But this just begs the question...is there a limit to this transendental knowlege?
You are left with nothing more than that situation you often find yourself in... where a feeling comes over you... in a particular situation and you think to yourself...this is remarkable.
Except that MS does not pay taxes....
First of all, if Linux is cheaper than Windows, that means all the money that MS is NOT making is staying in the pockets of the companies that are using Linux. Why is that a BAD thing?
Second, how can someone make the case that cheap alternatives to a Microsoft product is somehow not "cricket?" Didn't MS run Netscape out of the browser market by giving away IE?
...now we gotta "un-fuck" what you fucked-up.
Yea - we have Wizards...we go fast now...
I have been seeing lots of European pride lately - not just here on Slashdot but also on some news sites that I hang out at. Personally, I think it's well earned. The examples described briefly here make the case nicely. And the way Bush is working out...geeze.
The notion of cooperation is critical - both in the free software movement and in politics. Europe seems to get it.
An important treatment on the nature and value of cooperation can be found in "The Origins of Virtue..Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation" by Matt Ridley.