M$ will have problem not because of the ISP will replace them, but because people will easily download software, and they will nolonger have as much the distribution advantage as of today (interm of bundling). If downloading OpenOffice takes 3 seconds, then users would much more likely to download it. Ofcourse, computers must also be much faster to have it install in couple seconds, and start up quicker. If not, then M$ stil have the advantage of being more seemingly integrated.
Please explain me this. Another day, a customer ask us if we cover the mysql license. Isn't it free if you don't modify it whatsoever? It says you can only use it for free if it's GPL or something similar, but not commercial. I really don't get this. Please tell me what's going on.
I love VOIP. Also, having free call over the world is great. However, I just cannot understand why VOIP is not a communication medium, and why the FCC has to decide whether to impose rule on it or not. It's is another way to transfer voice right? So, it does not work like a phone, but it does what a phone does - providing a mechanism for 2 people or more talking to each other.
Maybe it should not be regulated because if doing so would slow the adoption of this technolog. But to decide whether it's like a telephone or not, to be fair, I think it's just like telephone or TV, no difference.
If this is ridiculous. Here's the scenario:
1) I create a weird format named "wedir"
2) I store all of my application info into this, which include binary and what not.
3) I then claim that there is no prior art, so this must be patentable.
With the above case, it's obviously absurd. With M$ case, the format is xml, and happen to be known and used by many. Also, there are many prior art. My application that I created uses xml, and store binary and what not.
It's something I always wish Linux does. Give a meaningful names to things, and also dedicate places for different things (like Programs for application folders, Settings for application settings and configureation).
I have a suggestion to add: add a Link/folder/button to the desktop and point it to the root file system. Dont' call that root. Call it somethings like My Computer, or File System.
Long before Sun evaluated the first AMD chip for blade, I was thinking this would be a good idea for them. Regardless of many things, prices is just the tipping point. Using AMD, Sun does not have to put too much effort developing chips. AMD and Intel has quicker CPU cyle because of the Desktop root. This makes Sun's offer more competitive in term of price, publicity, and performance (at whatever cost they charge).
I am surpised that people compares Sparcs, and AMD (interm of its vitality), while they don't bother look at a real life example. IBM sells Intel chips for years, and doing very well with it, but they still sell their power line of chips. Does it really matter if the power line failed and their intel server succeeded? Sounds like a negative impact, but not really since if not supporting x86 line, and their Risk/Unix line is dead, they are worse off.
So, for a company, Sun supporting the AMD and Intel is no brainer. Cost is everything to business. Whether Sparc dies or not is irrelevant as long as you execute things right.
Time change, things change, your business must change, and sometimes your processors must change too.
People don't by Sun's hardware because 3 factors:
1) High cost (compare to the commodity of x86 HW) 2) Close (closed hardware and software environment) 3) Company and industry images (people tends to be nervous if everyone else support linux, and they also fear if Sun goes down).
So, lower the cost, open up with widely support x86 hardware, show that you're more competitive, and you'll survive and thrive.
Re:Java will stay. WAS:Java is dying
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 1
What the heck?
You said most of the stuff I wanted to say.
Java, the mystery force that analysis can not see
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Take this, Java is suck from start. It's slow, buggy, can not do what a great platform does. Not really that platform independent (not really write once run anywhere). Ok, you go on and say it.
Now, Java is suck. It's bad!!! Slow, not as good as.Not (sorry,.Net) in term of architecture. It also does not have the big M$'s marketing money from Sun.
Well, you can go on, but look. If you are a thinker, or at least try to be, and you bought into my argument above, you are a FOOL.
The hidden strength in Java, no matter how bad people think it is, push Java forward to today. It excellerates every day. It still excellerate on server. The desktop app is just a start. If you look out there, java is growing very very fast.
Why so? it's open, and embraced by many. So, the marketing money is big, it's not from Sun, it's from many company including IBM.
The speed, yes, Java is still slow. But, it works great for my desktop app I just release a while ago. It would works great for many desktop apps. For server, there's no question about speed. And computer with 2 gigs will become obsolete soon. Note, I am still running my 550 MHz, and my apps run great. So, java will be faster, but it's much much better shape than before in speed, and the hardware gets faster all the time.
Architecturally, for enterprise, it's great. Maynot be as good as other technology (I am not sure about that), but it's good enough to excel. It dominants the app server area. No question about it, and if you count the market share, it's accelerating. Yes, M$ gain some share, but remember, they start from 0 for.Net, and 100% for desktop, so no question about that, but again, if you look at awhole, I don't think.Net will go that far. Not as far as any successful business M$ is ever in been. I knew long ago that webservice is just a replacement of Corba. Yes, it has its shine, but the hype stop there. I used Corba for a while. I love it, and I hate it. But, despite people complaint and think it's dead, it's used everywhere that needs bridge tech.
One more note before I am done with the app server. news.com has a stupid headline lately. I love news.com if you ask. What is it, it said Java app server suffer from Open source OS. Hey, the JBoss and Tomcat is written in Java. And they are the OSS they talked about. The topic should be changed to soemthing like: commercial java app fears java open source. Or Java app servers as a whole kill.Net. Well enough of it if you read the things.
Good enough for desktop and server. Go to embeded, it's only the begging of Java, and it is doing great. This is thanks to the cell phone manufacturere and symbian (or whatever it is) OS. If M$ dominate the embeded OS, Java would not be there. But look at the future, Java shines here, and quoting one of the article I read (maybe from news.com) microsoft is outside looking-in in the embeded phone market.
Other areas, you can use the same analysis, but if you think, if you're an analysis, first ask yourself, why Java was slow, bad archtitected, not fully write once run anywhere, and it still accell everyday on all fronts.
First, AMD must get their product out. 64, 32, whatever. They have to speed up the chip too. For a same number of model and mhz, I am not sure which is better in term of real speed (AMD vs. Intel), but I have a gut feeling that Intel chip can not be slower (but AMD could). So, that's bad for AMD.
Then, they have to move to more advance manufacturer process quicker. That's how you save cost. Intel has higher mhz chip, has more advance (300mm) fab (translate to lower cost), move to smaller process quicker. What does all this means? In addition, they move faster products out to the market quicker and more frequently.
I would be nervous if I were AMD. They miss the PDA chip space (I may be wrong on this). I think that's where money goes. Create a gig hertz pda then sell it. That's when handheld computer become reality. It's the convegence of wireless phone, pda, multimedia (mp3 player, video player), games, and anything you haven't think of. Ofcourse, it can do messaging, audio conference, and video conference.
Hey, the future is there. Whoever get their first, and make it cheap enough (for all poor comsumer) will win. (technology won't become reality unless they're good enough, but also cheap enough).
AMD is known for its competitive price. Use that war game.
In summary, you can not compete if you can not bring a new, better product out (ok, and enough for us to buy, not just a demo one).
Ok, don't spend too much time analyzize, that time/money already cost you and your company $$$.
Think how much Apache saved over MS$? simple, think of an answer that those IT who used Apache would give you if the question is "would you go back to IIS if you have a choice now?"
Depends on the OS projects, if you have to develop too much, if it's not mature, then it'll cost you, else you save a bunch.
WHy bother think about training, support, etc? Just look at number of critical bugs, between 2 products (open/close), how quickly they can be resolved, how often they're down time, how quick you have to upgrade (another word: how quick to have to pay MS$).
There you go, just some important point. Other points such as ownership to the source code, and all that is a bonus.
In the beginning of a revolution, alot of people ask questions, and some big, intelligent, experience analysis will give you a 50/50 (some this side, some that side), and at the end, no one dispute. JUST THINK.
Slashdot Mirror
M$ will have problem not because of the ISP will replace them, but because people will easily download software, and they will nolonger have as much the distribution advantage as of today (interm of bundling). If downloading OpenOffice takes 3 seconds, then users would much more likely to download it. Ofcourse, computers must also be much faster to have it install in couple seconds, and start up quicker. If not, then M$ stil have the advantage of being more seemingly integrated.
Please explain me this. Another day, a customer ask us if we cover the mysql license. Isn't it free if you don't modify it whatsoever? It says you can only use it for free if it's GPL or something similar, but not commercial. I really don't get this. Please tell me what's going on.
I love VOIP. Also, having free call over the world is great. However, I just cannot understand why VOIP is not a communication medium, and why the FCC has to decide whether to impose rule on it or not. It's is another way to transfer voice right? So, it does not work like a phone, but it does what a phone does - providing a mechanism for 2 people or more talking to each other. Maybe it should not be regulated because if doing so would slow the adoption of this technolog. But to decide whether it's like a telephone or not, to be fair, I think it's just like telephone or TV, no difference.
If this is ridiculous. Here's the scenario: 1) I create a weird format named "wedir" 2) I store all of my application info into this, which include binary and what not. 3) I then claim that there is no prior art, so this must be patentable. With the above case, it's obviously absurd. With M$ case, the format is xml, and happen to be known and used by many. Also, there are many prior art. My application that I created uses xml, and store binary and what not.
It's something I always wish Linux does. Give a meaningful names to things, and also dedicate places for different things (like Programs for application folders, Settings for application settings and configureation).
I have a suggestion to add: add a Link/folder/button to the desktop and point it to the root file system. Dont' call that root. Call it somethings like My Computer, or File System.
Long before Sun evaluated the first AMD chip for blade, I was thinking this would be a good idea for them. Regardless of many things, prices is just the tipping point. Using AMD, Sun does not have to put too much effort developing chips. AMD and Intel has quicker CPU cyle because of the Desktop root. This makes Sun's offer more competitive in term of price, publicity, and performance (at whatever cost they charge).
I am surpised that people compares Sparcs, and AMD (interm of its vitality), while they don't bother look at a real life example. IBM sells Intel chips for years, and doing very well with it, but they still sell their power line of chips. Does it really matter if the power line failed and their intel server succeeded? Sounds like a negative impact, but not really since if not supporting x86 line, and their Risk/Unix line is dead, they are worse off.
So, for a company, Sun supporting the AMD and Intel is no brainer. Cost is everything to business. Whether Sparc dies or not is irrelevant as long as you execute things right.
Time change, things change, your business must change, and sometimes your processors must change too.
People don't by Sun's hardware because 3 factors:
1) High cost (compare to the commodity of x86 HW)
2) Close (closed hardware and software environment)
3) Company and industry images (people tends to be nervous if everyone else support linux, and they also fear if Sun goes down).
So, lower the cost, open up with widely support x86 hardware, show that you're more competitive, and you'll survive and thrive.
What the heck? You said most of the stuff I wanted to say.
Take this, Java is suck from start. It's slow, buggy, can not do what a great platform does. Not really that platform independent (not really write once run anywhere). Ok, you go on and say it. Now, Java is suck. It's bad!!! Slow, not as good as .Not (sorry, .Net) in term of architecture. It also does not have the big M$'s marketing money from Sun.
Well, you can go on, but look. If you are a thinker, or at least try to be, and you bought into my argument above, you are a FOOL.
The hidden strength in Java, no matter how bad people think it is, push Java forward to today. It excellerates every day. It still excellerate on server. The desktop app is just a start. If you look out there, java is growing very very fast.
Why so? it's open, and embraced by many. So, the marketing money is big, it's not from Sun, it's from many company including IBM.
The speed, yes, Java is still slow. But, it works great for my desktop app I just release a while ago. It would works great for many desktop apps. For server, there's no question about speed. And computer with 2 gigs will become obsolete soon. Note, I am still running my 550 MHz, and my apps run great. So, java will be faster, but it's much much better shape than before in speed, and the hardware gets faster all the time.
Architecturally, for enterprise, it's great. Maynot be as good as other technology (I am not sure about that), but it's good enough to excel. It dominants the app server area. No question about it, and if you count the market share, it's accelerating. Yes, M$ gain some share, but remember, they start from 0 for .Net, and 100% for desktop, so no question about that, but again, if you look at awhole, I don't think .Net will go that far. Not as far as any successful business M$ is ever in been. I knew long ago that webservice is just a replacement of Corba. Yes, it has its shine, but the hype stop there. I used Corba for a while. I love it, and I hate it. But, despite people complaint and think it's dead, it's used everywhere that needs bridge tech.
One more note before I am done with the app server. news.com has a stupid headline lately. I love news.com if you ask. What is it, it said Java app server suffer from Open source OS. Hey, the JBoss and Tomcat is written in Java. And they are the OSS they talked about. The topic should be changed to soemthing like: commercial java app fears java open source. Or Java app servers as a whole kill .Net. Well enough of it if you read the things.
Good enough for desktop and server. Go to embeded, it's only the begging of Java, and it is doing great. This is thanks to the cell phone manufacturere and symbian (or whatever it is) OS. If M$ dominate the embeded OS, Java would not be there. But look at the future, Java shines here, and quoting one of the article I read (maybe from news.com) microsoft is outside looking-in in the embeded phone market.
Other areas, you can use the same analysis, but if you think, if you're an analysis, first ask yourself, why Java was slow, bad archtitected, not fully write once run anywhere, and it still accell everyday on all fronts.
First, AMD must get their product out. 64, 32, whatever. They have to speed up the chip too. For a same number of model and mhz, I am not sure which is better in term of real speed (AMD vs. Intel), but I have a gut feeling that Intel chip can not be slower (but AMD could). So, that's bad for AMD.
Then, they have to move to more advance manufacturer process quicker. That's how you save cost. Intel has higher mhz chip, has more advance (300mm) fab (translate to lower cost), move to smaller process quicker. What does all this means? In addition, they move faster products out to the market quicker and more frequently.
I would be nervous if I were AMD. They miss the PDA chip space (I may be wrong on this). I think that's where money goes. Create a gig hertz pda then sell it. That's when handheld computer become reality. It's the convegence of wireless phone, pda, multimedia (mp3 player, video player), games, and anything you haven't think of. Ofcourse, it can do messaging, audio conference, and video conference.
Hey, the future is there. Whoever get their first, and make it cheap enough (for all poor comsumer) will win. (technology won't become reality unless they're good enough, but also cheap enough).
AMD is known for its competitive price. Use that war game.
In summary, you can not compete if you can not bring a new, better product out (ok, and enough for us to buy, not just a demo one).
I wonder why Red Hat and others did not run ad that says:
"How much do you want to pay today?
Monopoly Microsoft or
Free Binary and Source Code
"
Or advertisement like this:
"How dumb do you want to be today?
- Show that you fear Open Office, Linux
- Show that you're smart, eager to learn and
learn quickly.
Tough Job Markets?
********* THINK! ***************
}
NullIE Taking from the theme of NullSoft
Ok, don't spend too much time analyzize, that time/money already cost you and your company $$$. Think how much Apache saved over MS$? simple, think of an answer that those IT who used Apache would give you if the question is "would you go back to IIS if you have a choice now?" Depends on the OS projects, if you have to develop too much, if it's not mature, then it'll cost you, else you save a bunch. WHy bother think about training, support, etc? Just look at number of critical bugs, between 2 products (open/close), how quickly they can be resolved, how often they're down time, how quick you have to upgrade (another word: how quick to have to pay MS$). There you go, just some important point. Other points such as ownership to the source code, and all that is a bonus. In the beginning of a revolution, alot of people ask questions, and some big, intelligent, experience analysis will give you a 50/50 (some this side, some that side), and at the end, no one dispute. JUST THINK.