In every movie I see Tom Cruise in, I don't see the character he's portraying, I see Tom Cruise playing the character. I'm not sure why that is; not necessarily because he's a bad actor (but I bet that's part of it). Whatever the case, it makes it harder to enjoy the movie. Looks like it's not just me, either, from all the comments.
I agree that they could have chopped about five minutes of those final overly-long, sappy shots of Frodo. I've always thought his eyes are kind of creepy-looking, and the long close-ups of him holding back the tears nearly made me throw up....
I get the impression you missed his point. Sure, Dell can sell complete systems. No one's debating that. Dell is just one of many companies that will sell you a complete system. The problem is that one of the parts suppliers for a critical piece of these complete systems is bundling/integrating more and more of the desktop environment functionality into their part. Whether you're Dell (a big customer) or a consumer (a small customer building from scratch), if you want Windows, you're obligated to buy their complete package. (And let's not get into "Then don't buy Windows!"; there's a reason they were declared a monopoly.)
As the previous poster said, would you be outraged if Intel was in MS's monpoly position, but with processors, and could bundle Intel-brand hard drives and motherboards and cases with their chips? (Yes, yes, I know; then we'd call them "Apple".) Sure, you wouldn't have to think about those things as a consumer and they would all likely work well together, but that's not a healthy market. That's similar to what MS is doing with software.
If MS designed and offered a stripped-down OS that was able to run Windows software and hardware and cost less (less than half, say) alongside their "deluxe" version, many people and OEMs would purchase it, and MS would have saved a lot of money on legal bills the last five years. MS is under no pressure to give their customers what they want, unfortunately.
I'll bet it's related to one of my Windows peeves: I can't backup a directory of source code to cd with the windows explorer if I have Visual C++ open to that project. It complains that some file (or files) is in use and barfs. WTF.
If we're beefing about Windows, I also don't like how it manages windows. If a window is wedged, there doesn't appear to be any way to move it or iconify it. I much prefer the unix window manager style, where a separate window manager application handles all that.
No, but making $50-100 on almost every PC sold in the world over the last ten years will do it. And being in that position involved an awful lot of marketing and good fortune.
Of course M$ will do everything in its power to bury linux, what's the news here ?
The news is that for once, and on a fairly large scale, their power wasn't enough to seal the deal. It's certainly interesting to read the details of how the deal went down, too. And to read this in such a mainstream publication!
Thanks to you and bramcohen for the answers. I figured it wasn't an obvious thing like 2:1. In practice, it seems to work pretty well, because I'm pushing about 75% of both download and upload speeds. Now if only I knew firewalling well enough to change packet priorities like the AC suggested....
I really have tried to find the answer to this on the BitTorrent site.... What's the precise relationship between download and upload speeds? Is download speed limited to a function of upload? For awhile, I was getting both 40k down and up on my 1.5/384 DSL line, but it's since changed to about 80k down. Just curious.... I'm getting about 2k from Red Hat's servers, so no complaining here. (Yes, I'm a RHN subscriber, I like to help the cause.)
To be a good Desktop OS you need ease of use, at this moment X11 doesnt fit that description.
Other than the configuration issue, you're comparing apples and oranges. X11 is a protocol; the ease of use is a function of whatever applications are developed on top of it. Your beef is with KDE or GNOME or whatever. Scrapping X11 would not help at all.
As for performance issues, I run a 1 Ghz athlon, and before that a 450 Mhz K3, and I don't remember having any problems with graphics speed. Granted, I run fvwm2, but even when I've played with KDE or GNOME, they seemed fine, too. Maybe 3D games are an issue, but I don't have much experience there.
On a side note, what's really annoying is the way Windows won't allow you to do anything with a window if it's "stuck" for whatever reason. I'm not all that familiar with Windows, but it seems like the model is to let the window manage itself, which can be a big pain sometimes.
Are there any Linux clients for musicbrainz? I snooped around their site and found only a Windows one. Is freeamp dead? I thought they were working on a plugin.
But it's not too much of a problem, as you can still get such services over Cable TV wires.
Maybe you can, but it's not a given in the US that anyone who gets DSL can get cable internet access.
Non-issue? Sounds like it.
Hardly. I'm currently a Speakeasy-via-Covad customer, and I've been very happy with their service and policies. If Covad is given the boot, I have to either hope my telco offers Speakeasy as an ISP option with the same speeds (1.5 down, 384 up) or use my telco as my DSL provider. The only benefit to the latter is cheaper prices, and without competition in my area, they could start jacking them up. Or, I can go without and wait for my cable company to offer internet access in my area, but even then there are restrictions compared to my current DSL (upload speed, server policies).
Bottom line, I don't see how removing a competitor from a market that already has few providers is going to help consumers.
I worked on a project about 8 years ago that did something similar to that. It was a separate application built on top of a homegrown GUI graph library that communicated with Mosaic. Every time the user clicked on a link, it created a new node in a tree and updated the display in its own window. The idea was to have both windows up side-by-side; the user could click in the tree to return to any previously visited page. I think it might have used something called CCI to do the client interaction, but this is getting to be a dim memory....
Unfortunately, this never really got finished and I don't even know where the code is now.
Too bad Walter Matthau's dead; I could see him playing Haddock. I hope they don't water down Haddock's less politically correct side like I think they did in the cartoon!
I read it like that at first, too. But then I thought that maybe it was just poorly worded, and the "bars any payment" part really meant that GPL software precludes the possibility of paying a royalty for the protocols. It does make a bit of sense in the context of the sentence right before it, but it is easy to miscontrue. Or I could be wrong and they don't understand the GPL!
Of course most everyone would prefer multiple monitors over virtual desktops, but for those who can't afford or justify it, virtual desktops are a good way to group related windows and tasks. If I can't have a separate monitor for my email, then a different desktop is much better than nothing. When I have to use Windows, my desktop quickly turns into a confusing mess.
Besides, if more space is the point, then as you've proven, this is nothing new.
Sure, it's nice, but it probably costs ten times the price of the corresponding number of separate monitors. How about for a start they just offer virtual desktops like most Unix window managers have had for nearly ten years?
And what's with the name? Sounds like something an illiterate engineer would come up with....
Re:Journalism has never been a hard science.
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
People seem to use the term "desktop" pretty loosely. It sounds like you're referring to Joe Sixblogg who wants to surf the web, run Quicken, and play a few games at home. Until Linux gains more than 10% or so marketshare, you're probably right.
But what about business desktops? In those situations, you often have an IT department to manage things, so that's not a problem. Employees shouldn't be playing a lot of games. The required software often amounts to email and a word processor, which open software has fairly well covered these days. Free is a huge plus, saving on up-front costs as well as the headaches of managing licenses. Seems to me there's a great case to be made for the business desktop in many situations (not all, some businesses [or portions thereof] are more tied to Windows-only applications). And if Linux can make inroads there, it'll increase mindshare and familiarity, speeding adoption with consumers....
The important thing at this point is that MS has already been judged to have a monopoly. That's why the original poster came across as such an idiot.
You may disagree that MS has a monopoly, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the finding: overwhelming marketshare (much higher than the generally understood monopoly minimum of 70%), very high profit margins, high hurdles to adopting a substitute (software and hardware support, restrictive OEM contracts). I don't recall many experts being at all surprised with that finding.
Linux would probably satisfy at least 20% of the market's needs today. It does the Web, email, chat, and word processing quite well. On top of that, it's FREE, for god's sake. Despite that, it's going to take years to overcome the barriers mentioned above and reach that 20% level. Smells like a monopoly to me....
(I set things up to email me when I get a reply, but I'm not sure how much point there is to continuing....)
Yes, MS made it appear they thought there was no merit to the case. Whether that was sincere or just a PR show, who knows.
You claim that since MS had been the underdog in their earlier days they had no idea they may have had a monopoly. (Note I said may! If they had even a notion that it might be true, then they should have consulted their lawyers and acted accordingly.) Two points are relevent:
- As I stated earlier, they had already been investigated for antitrust issues. It was impossible for them not to be aware of the potential for problems.
- Ignorance is not much of a defense even in antitrust cases.
As for when MS became a monopoly, you completely missed my point. I explicitly said that there are gray areas in law. MS was clearly heading full steam ahead into one of those gray areas in the 90's. I don't know when Windows became a monopoly, and maybe MS management themselves didn't, but a competent lawyer would have pointed it out and advised caution. Since they proceeded anyway with an impressive display of self-righteousness and arrogance, I have no sympathy for them.
Yes, what a memory to dredge up! I vaguely remember loving that show, though I was only ten at the time. It'd be interesting to see it again. Probably ruin the fond memory....
I watched it based on the hype here, and I was not all that impressed. It felt like bits and pieces from several other shows and movies. The cliched bar scene, Empire-ish stormtroopers, Han Solo-wannabe captain.... Eh. Maybe it just needs to find its groove. No season pass for you!
The previous poster implied that the existence of options is all it takes to disprove a monopoly. That may be true if you're going by the dictionary definition, but the legal definition is different. So no, it wasn't "intelligent", just plain wrong (not to mention insulting).
You may think the court made a mistake, but a heck of a lot of informed people disagree. I'm with them.
Slashdot Mirror
In every movie I see Tom Cruise in, I don't see the character he's portraying, I see Tom Cruise playing the character. I'm not sure why that is; not necessarily because he's a bad actor (but I bet that's part of it). Whatever the case, it makes it harder to enjoy the movie. Looks like it's not just me, either, from all the comments.
You'd probably get a +5, Informative if you actually gave details about the card, monitor, and option....
You won't be laughing in 20 years!
I agree that they could have chopped about five minutes of those final overly-long, sappy shots of Frodo. I've always thought his eyes are kind of creepy-looking, and the long close-ups of him holding back the tears nearly made me throw up....
I get the impression you missed his point. Sure, Dell can sell complete systems. No one's debating that. Dell is just one of many companies that will sell you a complete system. The problem is that one of the parts suppliers for a critical piece of these complete systems is bundling/integrating more and more of the desktop environment functionality into their part. Whether you're Dell (a big customer) or a consumer (a small customer building from scratch), if you want Windows, you're obligated to buy their complete package. (And let's not get into "Then don't buy Windows!"; there's a reason they were declared a monopoly.)
As the previous poster said, would you be outraged if Intel was in MS's monpoly position, but with processors, and could bundle Intel-brand hard drives and motherboards and cases with their chips? (Yes, yes, I know; then we'd call them "Apple".) Sure, you wouldn't have to think about those things as a consumer and they would all likely work well together, but that's not a healthy market. That's similar to what MS is doing with software.
If MS designed and offered a stripped-down OS that was able to run Windows software and hardware and cost less (less than half, say) alongside their "deluxe" version, many people and OEMs would purchase it, and MS would have saved a lot of money on legal bills the last five years. MS is under no pressure to give their customers what they want, unfortunately.
I'll bet it's related to one of my Windows peeves: I can't backup a directory of source code to cd with the windows explorer if I have Visual C++ open to that project. It complains that some file (or files) is in use and barfs. WTF.
If we're beefing about Windows, I also don't like how it manages windows. If a window is wedged, there doesn't appear to be any way to move it or iconify it. I much prefer the unix window manager style, where a separate window manager application handles all that.
No, but making $50-100 on almost every PC sold in the world over the last ten years will do it. And being in that position involved an awful lot of marketing and good fortune.
The news is that for once, and on a fairly large scale, their power wasn't enough to seal the deal. It's certainly interesting to read the details of how the deal went down, too. And to read this in such a mainstream publication!
Thanks to you and bramcohen for the answers. I figured it wasn't an obvious thing like 2:1. In practice, it seems to work pretty well, because I'm pushing about 75% of both download and upload speeds. Now if only I knew firewalling well enough to change packet priorities like the AC suggested....
I really have tried to find the answer to this on the BitTorrent site.... What's the precise relationship between download and upload speeds? Is download speed limited to a function of upload? For awhile, I was getting both 40k down and up on my 1.5/384 DSL line, but it's since changed to about 80k down. Just curious.... I'm getting about 2k from Red Hat's servers, so no complaining here.
(Yes, I'm a RHN subscriber, I like to help the cause.)
Other than the configuration issue, you're comparing apples and oranges. X11 is a protocol; the ease of use is a function of whatever applications are developed on top of it. Your beef is with KDE or GNOME or whatever. Scrapping X11 would not help at all.
As for performance issues, I run a 1 Ghz athlon, and before that a 450 Mhz K3, and I don't remember having any problems with graphics speed. Granted, I run fvwm2, but even when I've played with KDE or GNOME, they seemed fine, too. Maybe 3D games are an issue, but I don't have much experience there.
On a side note, what's really annoying is the way Windows won't allow you to do anything with a window if it's "stuck" for whatever reason. I'm not all that familiar with Windows, but it seems like the model is to let the window manage itself, which can be a big pain sometimes.
Yes, more off-topic blather....
Are there any Linux clients for musicbrainz? I snooped around their site and found only a Windows one. Is freeamp dead? I thought they were working on a plugin.
Maybe you can, but it's not a given in the US that anyone who gets DSL can get cable internet access.
Non-issue? Sounds like it.Hardly. I'm currently a Speakeasy-via-Covad customer, and I've been very happy with their service and policies. If Covad is given the boot, I have to either hope my telco offers Speakeasy as an ISP option with the same speeds (1.5 down, 384 up) or use my telco as my DSL provider. The only benefit to the latter is cheaper prices, and without competition in my area, they could start jacking them up. Or, I can go without and wait for my cable company to offer internet access in my area, but even then there are restrictions compared to my current DSL (upload speed, server policies).
Bottom line, I don't see how removing a competitor from a market that already has few providers is going to help consumers.
I worked on a project about 8 years ago that did something similar to that. It was a separate application built on top of a homegrown GUI graph library that communicated with Mosaic. Every time the user clicked on a link, it created a new node in a tree and updated the display in its own window. The idea was to have both windows up side-by-side; the user could click in the tree to return to any previously visited page. I think it might have used something called CCI to do the client interaction, but this is getting to be a dim memory....
Unfortunately, this never really got finished and I don't even know where the code is now.
Too bad Walter Matthau's dead; I could see him playing Haddock. I hope they don't water down Haddock's less politically correct side like I think they did in the cartoon!
I read it like that at first, too. But then I thought that maybe it was just poorly worded, and the "bars any payment" part really meant that GPL software precludes the possibility of paying a royalty for the protocols. It does make a bit of sense in the context of the sentence right before it, but it is easy to miscontrue. Or I could be wrong and they don't understand the GPL!
Of course most everyone would prefer multiple monitors over virtual desktops, but for those who can't afford or justify it, virtual desktops are a good way to group related windows and tasks. If I can't have a separate monitor for my email, then a different desktop is much better than nothing. When I have to use Windows, my desktop quickly turns into a confusing mess.
Besides, if more space is the point, then as you've proven, this is nothing new.
About time, I should have criticized them sooner! Anyway, I haven't used XP yet, so glad to hear they finally added 'em.
Sure, it's nice, but it probably costs ten times the price of the corresponding number of separate monitors. How about for a start they just offer virtual desktops like most Unix window managers have had for nearly ten years?
And what's with the name? Sounds like something an illiterate engineer would come up with....
People seem to use the term "desktop" pretty loosely. It sounds like you're referring to Joe Sixblogg who wants to surf the web, run Quicken, and play a few games at home. Until Linux gains more than 10% or so marketshare, you're probably right.
But what about business desktops? In those situations, you often have an IT department to manage things, so that's not a problem. Employees shouldn't be playing a lot of games. The required software often amounts to email and a word processor, which open software has fairly well covered these days. Free is a huge plus, saving on up-front costs as well as the headaches of managing licenses. Seems to me there's a great case to be made for the business desktop in many situations (not all, some businesses [or portions thereof] are more tied to Windows-only applications). And if Linux can make inroads there, it'll increase mindshare and familiarity, speeding adoption with consumers....
The important thing at this point is that MS has already been judged to have a monopoly. That's why the original poster came across as such an idiot.
You may disagree that MS has a monopoly, but there is a great deal of evidence to support the finding: overwhelming marketshare (much higher than the generally understood monopoly minimum of 70%), very high profit margins, high hurdles to adopting a substitute (software and hardware support, restrictive OEM contracts). I don't recall many experts being at all surprised with that finding.
Linux would probably satisfy at least 20% of the market's needs today. It does the Web, email, chat, and word processing quite well. On top of that, it's FREE, for god's sake. Despite that, it's going to take years to overcome the barriers mentioned above and reach that 20% level. Smells like a monopoly to me....
(I set things up to email me when I get a reply, but I'm not sure how much point there is to continuing....)
Yes, MS made it appear they thought there was no merit to the case. Whether that was sincere or just a PR show, who knows.
You claim that since MS had been the underdog in their earlier days they had no idea they may have had a monopoly. (Note I said may! If they had even a notion that it might be true, then they should have consulted their lawyers and acted accordingly.) Two points are relevent:
- As I stated earlier, they had already been investigated for antitrust issues. It was impossible for them not to be aware of the potential for problems.
- Ignorance is not much of a defense even in antitrust cases.
As for when MS became a monopoly, you completely missed my point. I explicitly said that there are gray areas in law. MS was clearly heading full steam ahead into one of those gray areas in the 90's. I don't know when Windows became a monopoly, and maybe MS management themselves didn't, but a competent lawyer would have pointed it out and advised caution. Since they proceeded anyway with an impressive display of self-righteousness and arrogance, I have no sympathy for them.
Yes, what a memory to dredge up! I vaguely remember loving that show, though I was only ten at the time. It'd be interesting to see it again. Probably ruin the fond memory....
I watched it based on the hype here, and I was not all that impressed. It felt like bits and pieces from several other shows and movies. The cliched bar scene, Empire-ish stormtroopers, Han Solo-wannabe captain.... Eh. Maybe it just needs to find its groove. No season pass for you!
The previous poster implied that the existence of options is all it takes to disprove a monopoly. That may be true if you're going by the dictionary definition, but the legal definition is different. So no, it wasn't "intelligent", just plain wrong (not to mention insulting).
You may think the court made a mistake, but a heck of a lot of informed people disagree. I'm with them.