First Hatch's son is one of the lawyers pursuing the SCO case, now Orrin is talking smack about filesharing...
Will someone please investigation campaign contributions made to Orrin? I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns.
Is the fact that, while the entire OS was mapped around Dennis Ritchie's involvement, he died halfway through the making of the OS.
Eventually, a bad double - in the form of the CEO's dentist - was brought in to replace Ritchie - the result being that the first half of the Plan9 OS is decent, but the last half is just terrible.
Oh, and it turns out that the CEO is a cross-dressing lunatic, whose obsession with C-grade OSes (like BeOS, NetBSD, NeXT, Apple OS9, OS2 Warp, etc) eventually led to him living out the rest of his life if relative obscurity and poverty. Sad, really... but, it might make a decent movie... nah.
What if MS purchased SCO, instead of IBM? Whats to stop them from doing it? IANAL(BIPOOSD), but would the DOJ step in to prevent an aquisition?
If IBM is going to acquire SCO, would they release the UNIX source code, or continue to license it as controlled IP? Whats to stop a future CEO @ IBM from pulling the same legal manuver in the future if the UNIX source remains closed?
And, finally: If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX? FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO. AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS. AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM w/ it's supposed IP - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM.
Good points. The word I heard on the rumor mill was that Jobs was really pushing hard on the 64-bit 10.3 OS as well as the XServe, in order to migrate his other CEO gig - Pixar - to use XServes instead of the Racksaver Intel/Linux boxen.
I think your list is totally correct, I just think Jobs might be looking to finish your #6 closer to the top of that list. In any event, its great to hear that the 970 is finally coming into production, bringing the release dates closer still...
PC manufacturers are leaving cash on the table by not offering OpenOffice as an alternative office suite.
Regardless of its zero-cost to the manufacturer, any PC maker could easily include an 'installation fee' to add a small - but significant - margin to the MSRP of their product. FWIW, a PC manufacturer who installed OO and charged a small fee (which would still be much less expensive than office suites by Corel, MS, etc) could theoretically make better margins on the open-source office than their proprietary counterparts. They would also be able to offer an even more cost-effective PC solution for their clientele. I can see Dell jumping on this in a heartbeat.
Plus, if the PC maker is really savvy, they could also sell support contracts for OO, thus increasing their revenue even more.
I think if Microsoft wanted to kill Apple, they would have simply purchased the company back in '97 , rather than cutting an investment-for-software deal. If MS killed Office on Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world - there are other office/productivity suites for the Mac (Open Office, Apple Works, etc).
Actually, if RAV works on Mac, I would think MS would have every reason to keep it going - and, if it doesn't run on Mac, they would probably try to make a port of it. MS is in the business of selling software. Apple is just another platform in which to do that - and, given the fact that their respective OS' run on different chip architecture, there isn't the same direct competition for MS as there is with Linux.
Regarding Connectix, there's no reason for MS to kill the Mac version there either - actually, it gives MS a chance to let Mac owners run an MS OS on their Macs (which they have to purchase). MS sells software - selling a VirtualPC app w/ a copy of WinXP is a *good thing* to them.
The Linux version of RAV probably is doomed, however... unless MS wants to begin infiltrating the Linux market w/ its software (which seems unlikely) - keeping an anti-virus app around w/ the RAV logo on it would be a low-impact way of delving into the Linux market, while staying slightly under the radar screen.
His reasoning is fairly sanguine as well - Virus updating over the web gives MS a perfect excuse to connect to your Windows PC and - along with updating your virus software (perhaps daily!) - sniff around to see what apps you have installed, check out any illegal software/music/etc, look for that Linux partition (and corrupt it?)... pretty scary.
MS connecting to your PC daily... Dvorak was right about something... its all just too much at once. Perhaps this article should be under 'Further signs of the apocalypse'?
> Adobe's inDesign has effectively gobbled up all of
> the old Quark marketshare, since it has had OSX
> presence for over a year now...
You're failing to account for all the older prepress houses that pretty much cut their teeth using quark, and are still lagging behind using older installs that the last version ran on.
It's been years since I've had any contact with this industry but I know these people, this is how they work. Once they fixate on a given piece of software, that's all they use. The arguments of the virtues between pagemaker and quark got downright nasty sometimes.. a lot like the unix vi/emacs debate.
I think this new release will do just fine. Yeah the impact won't be as big as it could have been, but it's hardly to the point that quark is doomed.
You're absolutely right. Print houses do standardize, and are generally loathe to change from their positions. What I should have stated was that new potential Quark clients purchased inDesign in Quark's stead, as there was no Quark/OSX option at the time they needed to make their purchases... at least, that was the experience I had twice in a row, at 2 completely separate companies, not to mention conversations w/ associates in the print industry who had adopted inDesign in favor of Quark...
At my school? I probably have kids your age, boy. Don't presume to know my age based on a single post, just as I won't presume to know the level of inDesign requests at your print shop, or your age, or your background... the less you assume, the better off you are. I have worked at TWO major companies whose entire print operations moved to inDesign on OSX, due to the lack of a Quark option - I speak from real-world experience, not from the bubble environment of a univerisity.
Adobe's inDesign has effectively gobbled up all of the old Quark marketshare, since it has had OSX presence for over a year now... Quark is going to have to play *serious* catch-up. inDesign also incorporates all of the key Photoshop filters - drop shadows, transparency... making it a very simple thing to keep your design all in one app, w/o having to switch back & forth to Photoshop to get your filters. Quark made a *huge* mistake by taking this long to get to OSX.
This development is significantly more serious than the lawsuits currently filed against P2P software developers, such as the one against Streamcast. First, there is a set precedent of the RIAA winning suits against individual persons - take the university students that were sued earlier this year, for example. Regardless of if the P2P suits are won - after all, there can always be another P2P app developed and posted online somewhere (just ask Justin from Nullsoft about that) - if individuals themselves are faced with the threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits by the RIAA for swapping music files, who is going to take the risk? Is the threat of settling out of court for tens of thousands really worth risking an illegal download of a song that could be purchased for.99 cents from a 'legitimate' provider?
Does this mean that so-called 'legitimate' music file services, such as those provided by Apple and RealNetwork, will become the preferred method of obtaining music online?
What does this mean for ISPs who provide broadband? How many of you have seen the Comcast commercial, where they pitch the fact that you can quickly download music files as part of the reason to switch to cable internet access? (the ad is of a guy burning a CD for some girl he just went on a date w/...) I know for a fact many consummers are moving to broadband simply because they can download music, movies, videos - for "free". While I doubt that there would be an exodus of cable/dsl subscribers leaving their service to return to dialup, if file sharing were no longer 'safe', so to speak, what impact would this have on future sales of broadband internet service? On some level, Verizon has to understand that file sharing's survival has an impact on sales of their DSL service - while I'm sure they are trying to protect the rights of their customers, they have to also be aware that the elimination of P2P as one of the broadband 'perks' is a blow to the appeal of their product.
Should ISPs include some kind of 'legitimate' file sharing service as part of their broadband plan?
If the RIAA believes these kind of injunctions are going to somehow stimulate sales of CDs, they are sorely mistaken - removing the on-demand, popular method of previewing an artist's recorded work prior to purchasing will only hurt CD sales, not strengthen them. The best thing the RIAA could do to stimulate music sales is to prevent crappy music from getting recorded in the first place...
Justin first releases Gnutella on his/AOL's site, then WASTE... now that he's no longer going to be working under AOL's thumb, I wonder what kind of P2P file swapping/sharing/pirating marvels he'll unleash upon the world? Maybe the RIAA should just go ahead and begin their lawsuit now...
You are completely ignoring the options of re-purposing workers to prevent redundancies, reducing product prices while maintaining production levels, modifying production techniques to reduce prices, changing parts vendors for less expensive materials, using existing product lines as OEM products for 3rd-party companies... the list goes on and on. When you are restructuring a company, the only limit is one's imagination. The only thing you've proven by your statements is that you lack one.
I'm sorry, but who gives a shit? There is a glut in the handheld market right now - the reduction of products represented in both the Palm and Handspring product lines is beside the point.
The real question is - How many tech workers are going to be losing their jobs as a result of this merger?
According the article on ZDNet, Palm will lay off 125 people - not a huge amount, but after the killing spree that merged tech companies have wielded against their workforce, thats 125 too many.
There are always alternatives to taking jobs away from hard-working people. Why can't management take a pay cut instead? Or, if management is too greedy to indulge in self-sacrifice, perhaps allow everyone the option to take a 5% or 10% reduction in their pay - if they know there will be pink slips in Friday's check if they don't, I can't imagine people not doing it.
The tech industry as a whole has its priorities in the wrong place - the quote I posted from this/. article spells that out. Can't we get some kind of co-ordinated outcry from the rest of the tech sector about these kind of layoffs? Why don't we boycott Palm and PalmOS products, until Palm/Handspring management get their heads out of their asses and think about the employees that have been keeping their companies afloat, instead of their own pocket books.
I say, F*** Palm and PalmOS, until they rescind their decision to lay off 125 workers. Anyone else out there have some backbone? Lets show some solidarity here. Who's with me?
BeOS was turned down as MacOS10, because the Be staff became greedy, and wanted more $$$ from Apple. Instead, they went under, and were bought out by Palm for less than one tenth of what Apple was willing to pay for them.
There are essentially two security models developing in the world of computing right now: Microsoft's.NET/Palladium/Hardware based model, which is Windows-specific; and Sun/IBM/Etc.'s Java/Liberty/Software based model, which in theory should be OS-independent, but ultimately MS will try their best to prevent it from working on Windows, and so will likely only function in the Linux/Unix realm.
Each passing day, MS brings the world closer to their MS-specific security model. As much as all of us want to avoid having to pay the Microsoft tax when we use technology, if left to their own devices, MS will attempt to erect a virtual toll-booth within as much aspects of technology as possible - be that the internet, PC's, or digital devices.
As developers, hardware specialists, what have you, we need to do our best to adopt, promote, and develop open-source technologies today, to prevent MS front owning what is now public domain tomorrow. "If we don't take action now, we'll settle for nothing later; if we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later." RATM. It might sound trite, but it applies to what is happening in tech right now.
Yes, you're completely correct. The government does not think that the system they implemented w/ the breakup of AT&T is a monopoly, as there are currently 3 Baby Bell conglomerates which provide local telephone service.
However, it essentially is a monopoly, as there really is only one baby bell local phone provider per geographic region. So, for consummers in that region, there is only 1 choice; a monopolistic, predatory, price-fixed phone provider.
The best thing that could happen would be for BellSouth, Verizon, and SBC to spin off their phone service sales departments into different companies, and make the network infrastructure a separate company. This same concept would also work for DSL, Cable, etc.
Unfortunately, it seems as though it would take an act of Congress or the DOJ to make this happen, on any telecom front.
There is an inherant flaw in the concept that any of the 'Baby Bells' actually built their networks.
Keep in mind that once upon a time, the Federal Government controlled all telephony.
The Fed deregulated their telephone infrastructure, creating a monopoly - AT&T.
Eventually, a Fed antitrust suit via the DOJ broke AT&T into several 'Baby Bell' phone companies; each taking with them the network infrastructure for their specific geographical location.
However, as the original network was built by the Federal Government, the funding for that network could only come from one source - taxpayer dollars.
The networks have obviously been rebuilt several times since then; however, the point remains that the US telephony infrastructure had its genesis throught public funding.
The current system does not work. Why? Because phone companies - which inherited their networks from the breakup of AT&T - are running their business with an inherant conflict of interest. Each Baby Bell has been asked to both provide telephony service, as well as to allow 3rd party companies access to their networks, in order to provide competitive telephony service.
The model needs to be changed.
In order to be completely impartial and competitive, a separate company or companies should be established, which manage only the network infrastructure for the phone system.
Then, any company which wished to 'lease' or 'rent' the network for the purpose of providing telephony service to consummers would be able to do so.
In this way, there would be a two-stage system, with a central governing body which controls the infrastructure, and separate service providers which charge consummers access to that infrastructure. This would eliminate the conflict of interest that is present in the current system, where the owner of the network is also a service provider to consummers, and therefore in direct competition with others who wish to sell telephony service.
The idea that more companies should invest in additional infrastructure does not make sense for local telephone service. This concept, if carried out, could have dire consequences on the environment (ie, imagine a 10-fold increase in the number of telephone polls and wires across a city!). A network already exists in each city in the US - the problem is the way control of the network has been established.
This same concept could theoretically be applied to all communications systems. Cable lines, cell towers, long distance satelites - all of these could have a controlling body, which impartially allows any number of resellers to use their infrastructure to offer services to consummers.
I work for a NPO. We already use Microsoft products - Windows 2000, Office 2000, and Exchange would be the major apps. Due to budgetary constraints, we've decided not to upgrade until the Windows/Office version after the Longhorn release in 2005 (whatever that release may be... ); we started setting aside money for that upgrade in 2001. Budget is the #1 thing on the minds of every executive/manager at an NPO.
FWIW, at an NPO, any $ used comes out of a donation from a charitable person, institution, or corporation, who probably envisioned their donated $ going toward the benefit of whatever community the NPO services; I doubt seriously that most people envision their dontations going straight to Bill Gates & Co. when they sign their names on the check, be it for AIDS research, building homes for the homeless, etc. If MS is willing to provide NPO's with or reduced cost software, the end benefit is that the NPO will have more funds available to help their constituencies.
Mainframes were the locomotives of their day. Large, all-purpose, all-powerful machines. Computation centralized to one location.
And, just as the locomotive was eventually replaced by the automobile, so to have Mainframes been replaced by the PC and the Server - computing which is self-contained, user-driven, cheaper to own and operate, easier to repair and replace. In both cases, it is the will of the marketplace that makes this determination. If locomotives or mainframes were really integral to the world, they would still be important, pervasive, and in widespread use.
Let the Mainframes, and their admins, die off gracefully. Mainframes should be put out to pasture as admins become unavailable for them. Simple as that. The alternatives to mainframe operation are simply too attractive from a TCO standpoint for it to be any other way.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn - either MS is way down on the list, or I owe someone a doughnut!
First Hatch's son is one of the lawyers pursuing the SCO case, now Orrin is talking smack about filesharing...
Will someone please investigation campaign contributions made to Orrin? I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns.
Is the fact that, while the entire OS was mapped around Dennis Ritchie's involvement, he died halfway through the making of the OS.
Eventually, a bad double - in the form of the CEO's dentist - was brought in to replace Ritchie - the result being that the first half of the Plan9 OS is decent, but the last half is just terrible.
Oh, and it turns out that the CEO is a cross-dressing lunatic, whose obsession with C-grade OSes (like BeOS, NetBSD, NeXT, Apple OS9, OS2 Warp, etc) eventually led to him living out the rest of his life if relative obscurity and poverty. Sad, really... but, it might make a decent movie... nah.
What if MS purchased SCO, instead of IBM? Whats to stop them from doing it? IANAL(BIPOOSD), but would the DOJ step in to prevent an aquisition?
If IBM is going to acquire SCO, would they release the UNIX source code, or continue to license it as controlled IP? Whats to stop a future CEO @ IBM from pulling the same legal manuver in the future if the UNIX source remains closed?
And, finally: If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX? FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO. AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS. AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM w/ it's supposed IP - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM.
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
Good points. The word I heard on the rumor mill was that Jobs was really pushing hard on the 64-bit 10.3 OS as well as the XServe, in order to migrate his other CEO gig - Pixar - to use XServes instead of the Racksaver Intel/Linux boxen.
x ar/
Here's the PR on the SGI-to-Racksaver migration:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/02/09/pi
I think your list is totally correct, I just think Jobs might be looking to finish your #6 closer to the top of that list. In any event, its great to hear that the 970 is finally coming into production, bringing the release dates closer still...
What's next!? Eminem ringtones?
PC manufacturers are leaving cash on the table by not offering OpenOffice as an alternative office suite.
Regardless of its zero-cost to the manufacturer, any PC maker could easily include an 'installation fee' to add a small - but significant - margin to the MSRP of their product. FWIW, a PC manufacturer who installed OO and charged a small fee (which would still be much less expensive than office suites by Corel, MS, etc) could theoretically make better margins on the open-source office than their proprietary counterparts. They would also be able to offer an even more cost-effective PC solution for their clientele. I can see Dell jumping on this in a heartbeat.
Plus, if the PC maker is really savvy, they could also sell support contracts for OO, thus increasing their revenue even more.
I think if Microsoft wanted to kill Apple, they would have simply purchased the company back in '97 , rather than cutting an investment-for-software deal. If MS killed Office on Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world - there are other office/productivity suites for the Mac (Open Office, Apple Works, etc).
Actually, if RAV works on Mac, I would think MS would have every reason to keep it going - and, if it doesn't run on Mac, they would probably try to make a port of it. MS is in the business of selling software. Apple is just another platform in which to do that - and, given the fact that their respective OS' run on different chip architecture, there isn't the same direct competition for MS as there is with Linux.
Regarding Connectix, there's no reason for MS to kill the Mac version there either - actually, it gives MS a chance to let Mac owners run an MS OS on their Macs (which they have to purchase). MS sells software - selling a VirtualPC app w/ a copy of WinXP is a *good thing* to them.
The Linux version of RAV probably is doomed, however... unless MS wants to begin infiltrating the Linux market w/ its software (which seems unlikely) - keeping an anti-virus app around w/ the RAV logo on it would be a low-impact way of delving into the Linux market, while staying slightly under the radar screen.
Dvorak predicted this would happen in a PCMag editorial back in 2001:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,6271,00.asp
His reasoning is fairly sanguine as well - Virus updating over the web gives MS a perfect excuse to connect to your Windows PC and - along with updating your virus software (perhaps daily!) - sniff around to see what apps you have installed, check out any illegal software/music/etc, look for that Linux partition (and corrupt it?)... pretty scary.
MS connecting to your PC daily... Dvorak was right about something... its all just too much at once. Perhaps this article should be under 'Further signs of the apocalypse'?
> Adobe's inDesign has effectively gobbled up all of > the old Quark marketshare, since it has had OSX > presence for over a year now... You're failing to account for all the older prepress houses that pretty much cut their teeth using quark, and are still lagging behind using older installs that the last version ran on. It's been years since I've had any contact with this industry but I know these people, this is how they work. Once they fixate on a given piece of software, that's all they use. The arguments of the virtues between pagemaker and quark got downright nasty sometimes.. a lot like the unix vi/emacs debate. I think this new release will do just fine. Yeah the impact won't be as big as it could have been, but it's hardly to the point that quark is doomed.
You're absolutely right. Print houses do standardize, and are generally loathe to change from their positions. What I should have stated was that new potential Quark clients purchased inDesign in Quark's stead, as there was no Quark/OSX option at the time they needed to make their purchases... at least, that was the experience I had twice in a row, at 2 completely separate companies, not to mention conversations w/ associates in the print industry who had adopted inDesign in favor of Quark...
At my school? I probably have kids your age, boy. Don't presume to know my age based on a single post, just as I won't presume to know the level of inDesign requests at your print shop, or your age, or your background... the less you assume, the better off you are. I have worked at TWO major companies whose entire print operations moved to inDesign on OSX, due to the lack of a Quark option - I speak from real-world experience, not from the bubble environment of a univerisity.
Adobe's inDesign has effectively gobbled up all of the old Quark marketshare, since it has had OSX presence for over a year now... Quark is going to have to play *serious* catch-up. inDesign also incorporates all of the key Photoshop filters - drop shadows, transparency... making it a very simple thing to keep your design all in one app, w/o having to switch back & forth to Photoshop to get your filters. Quark made a *huge* mistake by taking this long to get to OSX.
Yes - NASA is using Beowulf clusters.
Beowulf at NASA/GSFC - Earth and Space Sciences Project - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
http://beowulf.gsfc.nasa.gov/
This development is significantly more serious than the lawsuits currently filed against P2P software developers, such as the one against Streamcast. First, there is a set precedent of the RIAA winning suits against individual persons - take the university students that were sued earlier this year, for example. Regardless of if the P2P suits are won - after all, there can always be another P2P app developed and posted online somewhere (just ask Justin from Nullsoft about that) - if individuals themselves are faced with the threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits by the RIAA for swapping music files, who is going to take the risk? Is the threat of settling out of court for tens of thousands really worth risking an illegal download of a song that could be purchased for .99 cents from a 'legitimate' provider?
Does this mean that so-called 'legitimate' music file services, such as those provided by Apple and RealNetwork, will become the preferred method of obtaining music online?
What does this mean for ISPs who provide broadband? How many of you have seen the Comcast commercial, where they pitch the fact that you can quickly download music files as part of the reason to switch to cable internet access? (the ad is of a guy burning a CD for some girl he just went on a date w/...) I know for a fact many consummers are moving to broadband simply because they can download music, movies, videos - for "free". While I doubt that there would be an exodus of cable/dsl subscribers leaving their service to return to dialup, if file sharing were no longer 'safe', so to speak, what impact would this have on future sales of broadband internet service? On some level, Verizon has to understand that file sharing's survival has an impact on sales of their DSL service - while I'm sure they are trying to protect the rights of their customers, they have to also be aware that the elimination of P2P as one of the broadband 'perks' is a blow to the appeal of their product.
Should ISPs include some kind of 'legitimate' file sharing service as part of their broadband plan?
If the RIAA believes these kind of injunctions are going to somehow stimulate sales of CDs, they are sorely mistaken - removing the on-demand, popular method of previewing an artist's recorded work prior to purchasing will only hurt CD sales, not strengthen them. The best thing the RIAA could do to stimulate music sales is to prevent crappy music from getting recorded in the first place...
Justin first releases Gnutella on his/AOL's site, then WASTE... now that he's no longer going to be working under AOL's thumb, I wonder what kind of P2P file swapping/sharing/pirating marvels he'll unleash upon the world? Maybe the RIAA should just go ahead and begin their lawsuit now...
You are completely ignoring the options of re-purposing workers to prevent redundancies, reducing product prices while maintaining production levels, modifying production techniques to reduce prices, changing parts vendors for less expensive materials, using existing product lines as OEM products for 3rd-party companies... the list goes on and on. When you are restructuring a company, the only limit is one's imagination. The only thing you've proven by your statements is that you lack one.
... is completely wrong.
/. article spells that out. Can't we get some kind of co-ordinated outcry from the rest of the tech sector about these kind of layoffs? Why don't we boycott Palm and PalmOS products, until Palm/Handspring management get their heads out of their asses and think about the employees that have been keeping their companies afloat, instead of their own pocket books.
"Any merger spells elimination of product lines."
I'm sorry, but who gives a shit? There is a glut in the handheld market right now - the reduction of products represented in both the Palm and Handspring product lines is beside the point.
The real question is - How many tech workers are going to be losing their jobs as a result of this merger?
According the article on ZDNet, Palm will lay off 125 people - not a huge amount, but after the killing spree that merged tech companies have wielded against their workforce, thats 125 too many.
There are always alternatives to taking jobs away from hard-working people. Why can't management take a pay cut instead? Or, if management is too greedy to indulge in self-sacrifice, perhaps allow everyone the option to take a 5% or 10% reduction in their pay - if they know there will be pink slips in Friday's check if they don't, I can't imagine people not doing it.
The tech industry as a whole has its priorities in the wrong place - the quote I posted from this
I say, F*** Palm and PalmOS, until they rescind their decision to lay off 125 workers. Anyone else out there have some backbone? Lets show some solidarity here. Who's with me?
BeOS was turned down as MacOS10, because the Be staff became greedy, and wanted more $$$ from Apple. Instead, they went under, and were bought out by Palm for less than one tenth of what Apple was willing to pay for them.
There are essentially two security models developing in the world of computing right now: Microsoft's .NET/Palladium/Hardware based model, which is Windows-specific; and Sun/IBM/Etc.'s Java/Liberty/Software based model, which in theory should be OS-independent, but ultimately MS will try their best to prevent it from working on Windows, and so will likely only function in the Linux/Unix realm.
Each passing day, MS brings the world closer to their MS-specific security model. As much as all of us want to avoid having to pay the Microsoft tax when we use technology, if left to their own devices, MS will attempt to erect a virtual toll-booth within as much aspects of technology as possible - be that the internet, PC's, or digital devices.
As developers, hardware specialists, what have you, we need to do our best to adopt, promote, and develop open-source technologies today, to prevent MS front owning what is now public domain tomorrow. "If we don't take action now, we'll settle for nothing later; if we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later." RATM. It might sound trite, but it applies to what is happening in tech right now.
Yes, you're completely correct. The government does not think that the system they implemented w/ the breakup of AT&T is a monopoly, as there are currently 3 Baby Bell conglomerates which provide local telephone service.
However, it essentially is a monopoly, as there really is only one baby bell local phone provider per geographic region. So, for consummers in that region, there is only 1 choice; a monopolistic, predatory, price-fixed phone provider.
The best thing that could happen would be for BellSouth, Verizon, and SBC to spin off their phone service sales departments into different companies, and make the network infrastructure a separate company. This same concept would also work for DSL, Cable, etc.
Unfortunately, it seems as though it would take an act of Congress or the DOJ to make this happen, on any telecom front.
There is an inherant flaw in the concept that any of the 'Baby Bells' actually built their networks.
Keep in mind that once upon a time, the Federal Government controlled all telephony.
The Fed deregulated their telephone infrastructure, creating a monopoly - AT&T.
Eventually, a Fed antitrust suit via the DOJ broke AT&T into several 'Baby Bell' phone companies; each taking with them the network infrastructure for their specific geographical location.
However, as the original network was built by the Federal Government, the funding for that network could only come from one source - taxpayer dollars.
The networks have obviously been rebuilt several times since then; however, the point remains that the US telephony infrastructure had its genesis throught public funding.
The current system does not work. Why? Because phone companies - which inherited their networks from the breakup of AT&T - are running their business with an inherant conflict of interest. Each Baby Bell has been asked to both provide telephony service, as well as to allow 3rd party companies access to their networks, in order to provide competitive telephony service.
The model needs to be changed.
In order to be completely impartial and competitive, a separate company or companies should be established, which manage only the network infrastructure for the phone system.
Then, any company which wished to 'lease' or 'rent' the network for the purpose of providing telephony service to consummers would be able to do so.
In this way, there would be a two-stage system, with a central governing body which controls the infrastructure, and separate service providers which charge consummers access to that infrastructure. This would eliminate the conflict of interest that is present in the current system, where the owner of the network is also a service provider to consummers, and therefore in direct competition with others who wish to sell telephony service.
The idea that more companies should invest in additional infrastructure does not make sense for local telephone service. This concept, if carried out, could have dire consequences on the environment (ie, imagine a 10-fold increase in the number of telephone polls and wires across a city!). A network already exists in each city in the US - the problem is the way control of the network has been established.
This same concept could theoretically be applied to all communications systems. Cable lines, cell towers, long distance satelites - all of these could have a controlling body, which impartially allows any number of resellers to use their infrastructure to offer services to consummers.
These guys really could use all of the help they can get!
I work for a NPO. We already use Microsoft products - Windows 2000, Office 2000, and Exchange would be the major apps. Due to budgetary constraints, we've decided not to upgrade until the Windows/Office version after the Longhorn release in 2005 (whatever that release may be... ); we started setting aside money for that upgrade in 2001. Budget is the #1 thing on the minds of every executive/manager at an NPO.
FWIW, at an NPO, any $ used comes out of a donation from a charitable person, institution, or corporation, who probably envisioned their donated $ going toward the benefit of whatever community the NPO services; I doubt seriously that most people envision their dontations going straight to Bill Gates & Co. when they sign their names on the check, be it for AIDS research, building homes for the homeless, etc. If MS is willing to provide NPO's with or reduced cost software, the end benefit is that the NPO will have more funds available to help their constituencies.
Somebody had better warn Winnie the Pooh about this. He could really get himself into a lot of trouble.
Mainframes were the locomotives of their day. Large, all-purpose, all-powerful machines. Computation centralized to one location.
And, just as the locomotive was eventually replaced by the automobile, so to have Mainframes been replaced by the PC and the Server - computing which is self-contained, user-driven, cheaper to own and operate, easier to repair and replace. In both cases, it is the will of the marketplace that makes this determination. If locomotives or mainframes were really integral to the world, they would still be important, pervasive, and in widespread use.
Let the Mainframes, and their admins, die off gracefully. Mainframes should be put out to pasture as admins become unavailable for them. Simple as that. The alternatives to mainframe operation are simply too attractive from a TCO standpoint for it to be any other way.