Sorry that's been your experience. Mine has been the opposite. The IT folk I work with only use "hacker" for its original meaning. I certainly believe you, but it hasn't been my experience, and that is why I took the stand I did. In my experience, only those ignorant of computers use "hacker" incorrectly.
If even the IT folk are beginning to give in, you would be right, the battle will have been lost in favor of ignorance and it will be time to move on.
" So if I everyone calls drug addicts "junkies," but casual drug users insist that it's their happy-nice-word to describe themselves affectionately, I'm wrong?"
Hmm...not quite sure what you mean by that as the analogy doesn't quite fit. The word "hacker" has a noble meaning that was used for only one thing once upon a time. Then the media started to catch on to computers, began to use "hacker" to describe something else entirely, and thus we have today's confusion. It's apples and oranges. Your example is different, for you seem to be saying that "junkies" refers to the same thing except that casual drug users admit it cheerfully rather than perjoratively.
" It must be nice living in that little bubble where "computer people" form the authoritative upper elitist caste of all aspects of society."
I don't live there and I implied nothing of the kind. The word "hacker" applies to "computer people," and thus you need to speak of them when defining the term. The upper elitist caste business came from your brain, not mine.
Not quite so simple. When the majority of those for whom the word can apply start using one way, then the language changes. But when the group for whom the word can apply continues to use it the original way, and only clueless outsiders continually misuse the word, the language does not change.
In other words, ignorance doesn't lead to language change, deliberatly using a word in a new way leads to language change. So if computer people start using "hacker" to mean criminal, the meaning can change. Until then, it's just ignorance no matter how large the ignorant group gets.
" Dude, I am as much for MS bashing as the next person, but this is not an inaccuracy. Sure it is a Windows virus, but it is also a computer virus, since all computers that run Windows are still computers - see how it works?"
I do see what you are saying, but my point is that calling it a "computer virus" is too all-encompassing. Lemme see, what examples come to mind?
If SUVs have problems with safety because they have a greater tendency to roll over, would it be accurate to headline the story, "Automobiles Have Roll Over Safety Risk"? It would be too encompassing, to the point of being misleading.
When headline writers get lazy, they perpetuate misunderstandings. If Mom and Pop Mainstream see, "Computer virus" they think all computers get these things. If they see "Windows virus" they begin to see where the problems are actually occuring. Mom and Pop MacUser will then see the headline and realize they don't have to worry this time.
I'm getting sick of mainstream media equating Windows viruses with computer viruses. This was NOT a computer virus. Were any Linux machines at risk? No. Were any Macs at risk? No. How about mainframes? Nope. Those are all computers, and yet none of them were at risk from this virus. So it is inaccurate to call these things "computer" viruses.
Call it what it is: A Microsoft Windows virus. Maybe if the media keeps pointing out what us/.ers already know, the general public will get it through their heads that their choice of OS makes a difference.
I'm very disappointed in my fellower/.ers. Isn't it blatantly obvious that this is not the real Ralph Yarro? Think it through, would the real chairman of Canopy come here to state that his most sought-after achievement is to get an article accepted by/.? Woud the real Ralph Yarro submit a story that totally trashes SCO?
You have all been scammed big time. Still, the humor of it is a lot of fun and I admire what the person did in impersonating Mr. Yarro. And the story submitted was a great one, for Groklaw is covering the SCO story in a way that is unique and very much needed. I'm just shocked that this prankster didn't get called on his prank.
" So all things being equal would you like to invest in a company that always strives to be number one or a company that is willing to be third, fourth, or seven-best in the sectors which they compete. "
Microsoft goes well beyond that example to the far reaches of paranoia. Not only must they be number one in their sectors, they then cannot stand that there are other companies in other sectors doing well and so they feel compelled to go trounce them in that sector too. Then they take a deep breath, look around, and see yet another area that they didn't think of but someone else did and is succeeding at. And the beast rears up to devour yet another good company.
This may make business sense, but it's so off the deep end psychologically that a growing number of people are saying they no longer wish to do business with such a company. Hint: Long term capital appreciation doesn't happen when you are despised in the marketplace and scorned by your potential customers.
Microsoft couldn't be happy just being number one. They had to be the only one, and that's just sick.
Nothing new here. Every now and then Gates does something nice or friendly or inclusive. Maybe it's for humanitarian purposes such as through his foundation. Maybe it's motivated by a need for better PR. Maybe it's motivated by something else. Doesn't matter.
The point is just because he said lots of fuzzy words today it doesn't mean he won't try to "cut off the oxygen supply" of those same groups tomorrow. Is he suddenly buddy-buddy with Linux? Nope, his company is still fighting it tooth and nail around the world, putting out FUD, doing whatever it takes to head it off at the pass.
Good PR moments such as this do not negate the overall approach Gates will take. Do not be fooled, he's the same old monopolist.
That's fine, it can be about the money for some people. All I'm saying is that there are some institutions that now turn away from closed-source out of principle. That's not you? Fine. But it is for some, and Microsoft will never be able to defeat that.
" No, YOU don't get it. You obviously don't run a business. Principles like "free as in freedom" don't come into play when you're talking about the bottom line. That's a very, very naive viewpoint."
Do tell. In fact, you have no idea what I do for a living, and your assumptions are laughable from where I am sitting. In fact, "free as in freedom" is directly applicable to the bottom line when you can control the destiny of the software your business depends on. While Microsoft tells you where you are going today, those who control their own software get to make that business decision themselves.
Microsoft doesn't get it. They can put as much money as they want into their internal "slush" fund in order to match Linux on price. They can fund as many studies as they want that "find" Windows is cheaper. It won't matter. Choosing FOSS is not just about money. In fact, it's mostly NOT about money. It's about a principle: freedom.
Governments want the freedom to set their own technology course, not be dependent upon a proprietary software company that is beholden first of all to its shareholders. Governments want the security of knowing precisely what their machines are running on, by checking the code themselves. Governments want the abililty to set their own upgrade schedule, not wait until a company tells them the new version is ready. Governments want the ability to squash bugs immediately, not just when a company decides that bug is worth fixing instead of just adding new features.
Microsoft is so focused on winning the bottom line that they don't seem to have caught on to the biggest appeal of FOSS: Not free as in cost, but free as in speech. It's a principle that individuals find appealing, and now governments are finding that this freedom works for them as well. So no matter what Microsoft does, they can never compete on those terms. It's a principle now. Game over.
You compared a legal entity (corporation) to an illegal one (mafia). Setting aside your hyperbolic artistic license for a moment... surely you realize that Microsoft hasn't killed anyone while extorting money from them, right? You do get that, don't you?
The legal entity (corporation) does to other legal entities (other corporations) what the illegal one (mafia) does to other people: Threatens to "cut off their oxygen supply." So Microsoft absolutely has killed -- other corporations. Oh, and they did that illegally according to both the original court and the appeals court. You do get that, don't you?
Nevertheless, my point wasn't that Microsoft acts like the mafia. My point was to show how the original poster's logic doesn't hold up, and to demonstrate I used his logic in the exact same way but in a different context so that he could see how his logic was flawed. I wasn't intending anyone to assume I meant Microsoft = the mafia. If I had used an example involving fuzzy bunnies, would that have been clearer? Either way, the original poster didn't understand why people hate Microsoft even when they do something nice. I explained why.
The clueless moderator who marked my comment as Flamebait was misusing his mod powers to knock down something he personally disagreed with. My comment was on target and accurate.
The original poster was defending Microsoft by pointing out some good they were doing, and wondering why people were still showing hatred for them. I took his words and slightly modified them to show how people sometimes say the exact same thing about Mafia members. Look at the good they are doing, they cry! But those who have suffered at their hands do not care about those nice block parties and fireworks shows they throw. They remember all the bad things that are done. And that is why Microsoft is hated.
That isn't flamebait. That is a legitimate, on-target opinion that sought to answer the original posters question. Moderator: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Work for Microsoft, do you?
" How could anyone have any question about this being a good thing? The mob is not building the school nor is it paying for the school to be built. The local school board is building it and the mob is contributing technology and services to the school to see what happens to education when the school is afforded every technological luxury possible."
See what nice guys those gangsters turned out to be? Sure, they knock off businesses and rub out people now and then, but they sure do throw nifty block parties and now they are even helping pay for the new school. How can anyone hate them?
Microsoft is hated for good reason (many of 'em), even if they occasionally decide to do a good PR turn to make themselves look decent and caring.
" Common sense says this is a good thing. I'd rather they took more time, and developed a better product (not sarcasm -- what do you think Microsoft, of all companies, is doing all this time?) rather than released something buggy early."
Please. This is Microsoft. What in the entire history of the company gives you this idea? No, not their words, only their actions count.
They don't care about releasing buggy software. Never have. Why should they? The market never hurts them for doing it. No, they are probably busy putting in new DRM crud that will cause all manners of problems for the end user while coordinating new hardware lock-ins with various manufacturers, and trying to find ways to include code that will break stuff from competitors.
Oh sorry, that's their past history. No, I have no idea what the delay is this time, but for sure it isn't because they are worried about releasing buggy code. Microsoft? ROFL!
" Some people need to play whiny victim. "Poor me, I got hit by Microsoft's hole. But I didn't want to download their evil patch that fixed the hole. Pity me."
Or, since that post was directed at mine, and as I explained before you made your post, and as I will explain now a second time, some of us do not run Windows. I was merely pointing out that when you run Windows, which I don't, you are caught between two bad choices: Run software that can be exploited, or let MS exploit your vulnerability by agreeing to let them change the EULA on you when you have little choice but to agree to their new, draconian terms.
That's not a whine from a victim. I'm no victim of Microsoft. I took a better course. But it is an accurate description of what people who are stuck with Windows have to go through.
"If you choose not to install it then you should not be complaining about a hole."
Great. So my choice is to remain vulnerable to a hole in Windows, or install a patch that brings a draconian EULA that allows MS to do whatever it wants with my machine. Remind me again why Windows is a good choice...
Slashdot Mirror
If even the IT folk are beginning to give in, you would be right, the battle will have been lost in favor of ignorance and it will be time to move on.
Hmm...not quite sure what you mean by that as the analogy doesn't quite fit. The word "hacker" has a noble meaning that was used for only one thing once upon a time. Then the media started to catch on to computers, began to use "hacker" to describe something else entirely, and thus we have today's confusion. It's apples and oranges. Your example is different, for you seem to be saying that "junkies" refers to the same thing except that casual drug users admit it cheerfully rather than perjoratively.
I don't live there and I implied nothing of the kind. The word "hacker" applies to "computer people," and thus you need to speak of them when defining the term. The upper elitist caste business came from your brain, not mine.
Not quite so simple. When the majority of those for whom the word can apply start using one way, then the language changes. But when the group for whom the word can apply continues to use it the original way, and only clueless outsiders continually misuse the word, the language does not change.
In other words, ignorance doesn't lead to language change, deliberatly using a word in a new way leads to language change. So if computer people start using "hacker" to mean criminal, the meaning can change. Until then, it's just ignorance no matter how large the ignorant group gets.
Windows has nothing close to 97% OS market share, the limited approach to statistics on that web site notwithstanding.
I do see what you are saying, but my point is that calling it a "computer virus" is too all-encompassing. Lemme see, what examples come to mind?
If SUVs have problems with safety because they have a greater tendency to roll over, would it be accurate to headline the story, "Automobiles Have Roll Over Safety Risk"? It would be too encompassing, to the point of being misleading.
When headline writers get lazy, they perpetuate misunderstandings. If Mom and Pop Mainstream see, "Computer virus" they think all computers get these things. If they see "Windows virus" they begin to see where the problems are actually occuring. Mom and Pop MacUser will then see the headline and realize they don't have to worry this time.
Call it what it is: A Microsoft Windows virus. Maybe if the media keeps pointing out what us /.ers already know, the general public will get it through their heads that their choice of OS makes a difference.
Aha! But as I notice you should have said, "hoisted with your own petard," I must be the real FunWithHeadlines after all.
Touche! :)
You have all been scammed big time. Still, the humor of it is a lot of fun and I admire what the person did in impersonating Mr. Yarro. And the story submitted was a great one, for Groklaw is covering the SCO story in a way that is unique and very much needed. I'm just shocked that this prankster didn't get called on his prank.
Microsoft goes well beyond that example to the far reaches of paranoia. Not only must they be number one in their sectors, they then cannot stand that there are other companies in other sectors doing well and so they feel compelled to go trounce them in that sector too. Then they take a deep breath, look around, and see yet another area that they didn't think of but someone else did and is succeeding at. And the beast rears up to devour yet another good company.
This may make business sense, but it's so off the deep end psychologically that a growing number of people are saying they no longer wish to do business with such a company. Hint: Long term capital appreciation doesn't happen when you are despised in the marketplace and scorned by your potential customers.
Microsoft couldn't be happy just being number one. They had to be the only one, and that's just sick.
The point is just because he said lots of fuzzy words today it doesn't mean he won't try to "cut off the oxygen supply" of those same groups tomorrow. Is he suddenly buddy-buddy with Linux? Nope, his company is still fighting it tooth and nail around the world, putting out FUD, doing whatever it takes to head it off at the pass.
Good PR moments such as this do not negate the overall approach Gates will take. Do not be fooled, he's the same old monopolist.
Do tell. In fact, you have no idea what I do for a living, and your assumptions are laughable from where I am sitting. In fact, "free as in freedom" is directly applicable to the bottom line when you can control the destiny of the software your business depends on. While Microsoft tells you where you are going today, those who control their own software get to make that business decision themselves.
And THAT is what helps you pay your bills.
Governments want the freedom to set their own technology course, not be dependent upon a proprietary software company that is beholden first of all to its shareholders. Governments want the security of knowing precisely what their machines are running on, by checking the code themselves. Governments want the abililty to set their own upgrade schedule, not wait until a company tells them the new version is ready. Governments want the ability to squash bugs immediately, not just when a company decides that bug is worth fixing instead of just adding new features.
Microsoft is so focused on winning the bottom line that they don't seem to have caught on to the biggest appeal of FOSS: Not free as in cost, but free as in speech. It's a principle that individuals find appealing, and now governments are finding that this freedom works for them as well. So no matter what Microsoft does, they can never compete on those terms. It's a principle now. Game over.
The legal entity (corporation) does to other legal entities (other corporations) what the illegal one (mafia) does to other people: Threatens to "cut off their oxygen supply." So Microsoft absolutely has killed -- other corporations. Oh, and they did that illegally according to both the original court and the appeals court. You do get that, don't you?
Nevertheless, my point wasn't that Microsoft acts like the mafia. My point was to show how the original poster's logic doesn't hold up, and to demonstrate I used his logic in the exact same way but in a different context so that he could see how his logic was flawed. I wasn't intending anyone to assume I meant Microsoft = the mafia. If I had used an example involving fuzzy bunnies, would that have been clearer? Either way, the original poster didn't understand why people hate Microsoft even when they do something nice. I explained why.
The original poster was defending Microsoft by pointing out some good they were doing, and wondering why people were still showing hatred for them. I took his words and slightly modified them to show how people sometimes say the exact same thing about Mafia members. Look at the good they are doing, they cry! But those who have suffered at their hands do not care about those nice block parties and fireworks shows they throw. They remember all the bad things that are done. And that is why Microsoft is hated.
That isn't flamebait. That is a legitimate, on-target opinion that sought to answer the original posters question. Moderator: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. Work for Microsoft, do you?
See what nice guys those gangsters turned out to be? Sure, they knock off businesses and rub out people now and then, but they sure do throw nifty block parties and now they are even helping pay for the new school. How can anyone hate them?
Microsoft is hated for good reason (many of 'em), even if they occasionally decide to do a good PR turn to make themselves look decent and caring.
Please. This is Microsoft. What in the entire history of the company gives you this idea? No, not their words, only their actions count.
They don't care about releasing buggy software. Never have. Why should they? The market never hurts them for doing it. No, they are probably busy putting in new DRM crud that will cause all manners of problems for the end user while coordinating new hardware lock-ins with various manufacturers, and trying to find ways to include code that will break stuff from competitors.
Oh sorry, that's their past history. No, I have no idea what the delay is this time, but for sure it isn't because they are worried about releasing buggy code. Microsoft? ROFL!
Or, since that post was directed at mine, and as I explained before you made your post, and as I will explain now a second time, some of us do not run Windows. I was merely pointing out that when you run Windows, which I don't, you are caught between two bad choices: Run software that can be exploited, or let MS exploit your vulnerability by agreeing to let them change the EULA on you when you have little choice but to agree to their new, draconian terms.
That's not a whine from a victim. I'm no victim of Microsoft. I took a better course. But it is an accurate description of what people who are stuck with Windows have to go through.
I'm not. I was making a point.
Great. So my choice is to remain vulnerable to a hole in Windows, or install a patch that brings a draconian EULA that allows MS to do whatever it wants with my machine. Remind me again why Windows is a good choice...