My personal advice is to just sit by and allow him to do it. Reply to one of his post (probably his most recent) and explain your side of the story but let him know you're not going to waste time with his endless tirade of complaints. Let him know that, if he wants help, email your support team privately and you'll try to resolve his problem but you're done with him publicly.
By allowing him to continue to post unhindered, your other visitors will see through his crap and it won't have any power and, eventually, when he realizes he isn't getting your ire up like he wants, he's going to either go away or bring up a legitimate concern.
You're also going to demonstrate to your visitors that you're open to criticism and don't try to stifle your critics. It's a win-win situation.
...I like the idea. It's really no different than the Taser guns being used right not in police agencies all around the world. I think few would argue that *many* potentially hazardous confrontations with police and the public have been averted by the user of these non-lethal weapons.
Some people say that another hijacking is "unlikely" to happen because we've learned from 9/11. Interesting that pre-9-11, many were saying hijackings in this country were unlikely to happen because we learned from other terrorist hijackings in other countries. Yes, it's unlikely but there is a big difference between unlikely and impossible.
Granted, these bracelets wouldn't guarantee that another terrorists attack wouldn't happen. But these, combined with biometric technologies and better trained airline staff, could mean it's just about impossible for them to use planes in a second attack.
The Linux developers are selfish dickheads who have exactly the same
monopolistic mindset as Microsoft -- who also signs NDAs with vendors.
Can you point to some of these NDA's you speak of? Because, I have to wonder how you can have an NDA on something that anyone can go to your website and download the source code for.
Remember when the Slammer worm hit the net a few years ago? There was an article in some defense newspaper I saw that mentioned that they were concerned about power generation and management facilities being hit by the worm. So, from that, I would say it's a reasonable assumption that the facility was running some version of Microsoft Windows (probably NT4 or 2000).
I'm sorry that you're so confused about Microsoft's business strategy. I'll try to explain. It's fairly simple: they prevent consumers from having choices in software. Put another way, they're a monopoly.
I'm not a Microsoft fan-boy. In fact, our company is totally run on FOSS and we've never looked back at MS for anything other than pointing out to people how much freer we were without the Beast of Redmond on our backs. But I'm always left a little confused by the monopoly charge and, since you seem to have a solid understanding of their business practices, I'd like to see if you can set me straight.
By definition a monopoly is a market where there are many buyers but only one seller. A good example of a this would be Bell Telephone in the 1970's and early 1980's before they were broken up. In those cases, there were no other alternatives and Bell could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Competition was non-existent. Compare that to the so-called Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft creates Microsoft Windows and a hosts of other software for the consumer market. But, if you don't like them or their products there are other choices out there. Don't like Windows? Go to Linux or OS X. Don't like SQL Server? Go to MySQL or PostgreSQL, or Oracle, don't like Internet Explorer? Go to Firefox or Opera or any of the other browsers that set you free from Microsoft. In fact, for every piece of the Microsoft pie you don't like, there is almost always at least one alternative that is not controlled by Microsoft.
Sorry, that doesn't scream monopoly to me.
Now, people always bring up the fact that Microsoft has twisted vendors arms to only supply PC's with Windows and MS software. They've charged higher fees to vendors who refused to be exclusive and, rumor has it, that they've even threatened some vendors. Many point to this as evidence of Microsoft's monopoly power. I say it's rubbish.
It points to greedy vendors
Do you really believe that Microsoft would refuse to deal with a major PC vendor at reasonable prices if the PC vendor simply said "Fine. Raise licensing costs and we'll dump you totally. We'll go to Linux on all of our 5 million+ PC sales this year". If you look at it carefully, the problem isn't Microsoft here but the PC vendors supporting and even CREATING the so-called monopoly. Want to penalize someone? Penalize Dell or Gateway or Acer (all of whom now also offer Linux alternatives on at least some PC's).
The fact of the matter is Microsoft is not a monopoly. People gravitate to Windows and Microsoft software because 1) it's easy to use and 2) until VERY recently there were simply no other real alternatives out there. Add to that the fact that people tend to go with what's familiar and you can understand why Microsoft, even as evil as they are, are so powerful.
But there is hope. Because Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, competition is rising up all over the place. More importantly, that competition is slowing taking speed and gaining market share. It took Microsoft nearly 30 years to gain the market it has. Its eventual market overthrow isn't going to happen overnight. But, if you look at how fast the alternatives are gaining ground, it should give even the most die-hard Microsoft marketer nightmares and chills at night. And, it should give those of us who truly believe in Open Source reason to smile. It might not be as quick as we'd like, but change is happening.
My Company is 100% open source. We don't use Windows or Microsoft products for ANYTHING. We've never run into a problem that we couldn't find an open solution for and we'll never go back to Microsoft again. But getting us to that point took education and time. And that is what the market needs: education and time. And maybe a few Windows vs Linux commercials...
I'm a bit confused about how this violates a users 'right to privacy'. They're on a public network that isn't closed in any way and in a channel where anyone can come in at any time and log conversations to a private log without their permission.
Now, where is the expectation/right to privacy again?
The other night my laptop, running Windows XP, crashed. Not sure why it did and really didn't have time to sift through the rubble to figure it out. I figured it was a good enough excuse to upgrade and try Vista so I headed off to Walmart to buy the latest shiny offering from Microsoft. I came home excited to see what new features Vista had and I was even willing to put up with the bugs in the name of being on the 'cutting edge' or new software. I have to say, I was very disappointed.
What I found was a near unusable system with so many bugs that I could barely boot it. There wre hardware and software incompatibilities everywhere and I was faced with a night of figuring out how to make the supposedly 'easiest to use version of Windows yet' actually work for me.
I got pissed.
I was done.
I went to the Ubuntu website, grabbed a copy of the 64bit version of Ubuntu and installed it. I'd used Linux on the server for years but all of my previous forays into the desktop had been met with a lot of disappointment so I assumed this was going to be another lackluster performance by an operating system that was not quite ready for prime time.
Was I wrong!
The installation of Ubuntu was absolutely dead easy. No problems, no 'gotchas', no issues at all. It asked me a few questions and I was good to go in less than an hour. Then the magic happened. All of the issues I'd heard about: wireless, graphics, sound, etc, weren't there. I immediately had access to my wireless network, sound rocked, graphics were beautiful, and it all just worked like it was supposed to.
The *only* thing that did not work was my built in Orbicam (webcam) and I understand I'm just a driver away from that working too. Needless to say, I was pleased. I was shocked. But, whatever I was, I will never look back at Windows as an option again. Linux can provide me everything I need and want in an OS (including the flashy graphics eye-candy that Vista has) and at a much reduced cost to my resources. Windows is gone. Forever. Good riddance.
My last act of Microsoft defiance was to write this blog post and letter to Microsoft (which I also sent as an email to them). I believe that everyone who finds Windows Vista unusable and moves to Linux should send an email to MS letting them know why you're leaving. Personally, I don't know if there is anything they could do to make me come back. I am that pleased with Ubuntu.
Am I a fanboy? Absolutely 100% yes. For me, this is the year of Linux on the desktop and I encourage everyone who doesn't believe it's possible to run a functional and stable desktop system with Linux to head on over to Ubuntu and check it out. You will be amazed. Linux is finally here.
The difference, I would think, would is fairly obvious to most people. GMail and Yahoo don't give you a promise of "unbreakable encryption for your emails" that even the government can't break. There's no question that Google will share your information when properly ask to do so by law enforcement. It's in their Terms of Service. You know what to expect and you use your GMail or Yahoo accordingly.
On the same token, while I am appalled at HushMail's actions, it's for a different reason than most here I suspect. I don't have a problem with HushMail sharing information about customers engaging in illegal behavior with the authorities. Those people don't deserve their activities to be protected - they're illegal. But I DO have a problem with HushMail not disclosing that they're doing it right up front. Now, I've not fully read their ToS so maybe they do but their statements on the website would lead you to believe they aren't.
Really though, why would anyone use a PUBLIC service to conduct illicit activities? Setting up a private mail system complete with encryption is trivial and MUCH more secure.
Most advertisers use a pay per click model to pay the sites they advertise on. So, if I'm blocking the popups, doesn't that indicate that I am not interested in them and would not have clicked on them anyway?
But I fail to see where unlocking the iPhone damages the contract or AT&T's profitability. Currently (AKAIK) there is only one source of supply for the iPhone, and that is along with AT&T's contract (however long). The source isn't Apple, or AT&T but the contract. No contract, no iPhone.
Actually, that's not entirely true. While it is true that the only place to get an iPhone is through AT&T, you most certainly do not need to sign a contract in order to purchase a phone. I can walk into any AT&T store in the country, put down my $600 and walk out without signing a contract.
That also explains why AT&T says it damages their profitability. If the phone remained locked to the AT&T network, AT&T would make money on the sale of the phone AND make monthly revenue from the contracts. With an unlocked phone, AT&T is ONLY making money from the sale of the phone (which might not be a lot depending on how much Apple sells the phones to AT&T for).
I can see why AT&T claims damages. The question I have is why is AT&T paying a royalty for each contract to Apple? That makes absolutely no sense since Apple isn't actually providing the company with anything except the phones. Anyone have any insight into why this is?
It's nice to see the use of Linux move from the server and to the desktop. And, while I agree with many of the post here that say "Linux is not quite there", I think it depends on how seriously and aggressively the OEM goes after the consumer market.
Someone who is just buying PC's, installing a stock Linux on them, and reselling them probably won't see a lot of success. For the home market, stock Linux installs tend to suck. But, companies like the ones discussed in both the article and the comments here who are taking an aggressive, active, approach by creating custom kernels, device drivers, and the like, will probably see their sales double or triple over the next few years. Users want an alternative to Windows. The problem is that most Linux OEM's simply don't provide a good alternative. That is starting to change and it's good to see.
We still have a ways to go but Linux is now squarely on the desktop and competing.
Every time I read an article about Microsoft and Open Source, I find most of the comments surrounding the article are incredibly negative and suspicious. Invariably, someone will claim that their only intention in investigating Open Source technology is to eventually kill the market. I take a different view.
While I think that Microsoft definitely isn't engaging in Open Source activities to be magnanimous, I do think their their interests are genuine. I believe their intentions are 100% money related. They don't want to engage or participate in the open source community, they want to dominate it, exploit it, and find a way to create a sustainable business model around it. I don't see that as a bad thing and I think those of us who are building businesses around open source solutions should seriously watch what Microsoft does within the model as an example of what we could do. Maybe not a perfect example (it is Microsoft, after all) but an example nonetheless.
Just because it's corporate open source doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a chance. And just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's always evil. It just usually is.
But couldn't it be said that, since Microsoft knows piracy in these nations is occurring and that because they are doing nothing to stop it they, in fact, condoning that piracy. And, since their EULA doesn't specifically detail which countries/groups are allowed to pirate and which are not they are, in effect, making prosecution of anyone impossible since they've created a very muddy water?
As his website says, he is on vacation in Thailand but he will consider doing an interview when he returns. He claims he knows nothing about the rampant fraud/vaporware suspicions all over the internet about this.
I just sent an email to their people asking if they would be willing to do a live interview to clear some of the fraud questions up. We'll see how it goes I suppose. If they agree, I will get the interview up and posted on YouTube and UStream asap.
Even if they tried to distribute with a support disclaimer there would still be a lot of calls to support about it. Also, Dell would have to distribute CDs with the source code since OpenOffice is GPL'd, etc, etc.
1: So Dell gets a support call about Open Office. They handle it the same way they handle most technical questions about MS Office: go to the software vendor. Problem solved. No additional work required.
2: Why would Dell need to distribute CD's with source on them? Nowhere does the GPL even mention that you have to do this. All they have to do is include a piece of paper in each box that says "Want the Open Office source? Email: xxx@dell.com", or set up an FTP site, or make someone mail in a source request form, etc, etc. Problem solved.
I started college in 1991 and I remember the day before declaring my major (CompSci) a friend brought me an article that said it was a dead field where nobody would be able to find a job by the time I graduated. By the time I graduated, it seemed that there was at least an article a week about how Computer Science was dead and everything was going to hell in a handbasket. Then came the dot com bubble.
These doom and gloom articles make the rounds all the time - in many industries. The truth of the matter is that Computer Science is never going to be "dead". The technology is getting more sophisticated, the talent cheaper, but there will *always* be a need for smart, talented, driven people who can develop great software, design, deploy, and manage tough as nails networks, and generally be the "go to geeks" in their realm.
No, we probably won't see the heady days of the dot com bubble again (although that can be debated too but we won't all waste away and die if we stick with our chosen profession and encourage others to enter it and make it better. The competition will be fiercer (India, China, Vietnam), the work more demanding (AI, Neural Nets), but the field is still one of the best out there.
Let's face it: businesses looking at Linux aren't equally considering 100+ distros. They're looking at maybe 5. And those five distros are close enough where Dell could easily cross-train their technicians to offer support for all of them. Using the argument that there are just too many distros is silly because most of those distros are either specialized or not even considered when a business looks at Linux.
The promise of "Linux on the Desktop" will never really come true until a major vendor is willing to jump in with both feet and really push a distro (or a few distros) forward. IBM had this chance and missed it. I really don't think Dell is going to be able to pull it off either because they aren't serious enough. They could, but they won't.
I didn't say "everything" could be replicated on the web. I said very little couldn't be. That said, I would assume that web applications would probably run on a machine with an OS, web server, etc. That would fall into that "very little" part:-)
Personally, I see less and less need for compiled and distributed software as broadband internet becomes ubiquitous and rich internet applications become more sophisticated. As it stands now, there is very little that traditional software does that can't be replicated on the web using the right technology. Software as a service is slowly becoming a reality and compiled software is soon to go the way of the dinosaurs.
To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'
While I am not a MS fan I do think the statement above could legitimately classified as "fear mongering". Microsoft is a business and one of the functions of a business is to satisfy (or at least look like they are trying to satisfy) their customers. I highly doubt that they would alienate a huge amount of their customer base over a few thousand or hundred thousand illegitimate activations. Doing so would be suicide on their part because it would spark a giant "Oh my god, what if that had been US" within the large business community that Microsoft serves. Large corporate customers would seriously start looking at alternatives because they would see a situation where they might potentially be left out in the cold should they buy a copy of Windows and it's activation has already been used.
This is going to be a bad situation for Microsoft. But it's not going to cause them to tell their customers "screw off".
And I do not see anything wrong with the reply by Lycos
How can you not see anything wrong with the reply by Lycos? While I'm sure we don't know the entire story, a customer service agent should never tell someone "no one here is going to help you". That's just bad customer service. Whether the guy liked it or not that customer is part of the reason he has a job. She might not be paying anything for the account but she is one of the reasons advertisers pay Lycos big bucks to advertise on their site. Like it or not, the company is beholden to people just like her and telling her that no one was going to help her is akin to saying "you know what? Fuck you!"
Personally, I hope this man is reprimanded for this. I don't think he deserves to be fired but he needs a stern lesson on customer service. People like him are the very reason why customer service has become so horrible. Nobody actually cares about the customer anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
My personal advice is to just sit by and allow him to do it. Reply to one of his post (probably his most recent) and explain your side of the story but let him know you're not going to waste time with his endless tirade of complaints. Let him know that, if he wants help, email your support team privately and you'll try to resolve his problem but you're done with him publicly.
By allowing him to continue to post unhindered, your other visitors will see through his crap and it won't have any power and, eventually, when he realizes he isn't getting your ire up like he wants, he's going to either go away or bring up a legitimate concern.
You're also going to demonstrate to your visitors that you're open to criticism and don't try to stifle your critics. It's a win-win situation.
Good luck!
...I like the idea. It's really no different than the Taser guns being used right not in police agencies all around the world. I think few would argue that *many* potentially hazardous confrontations with police and the public have been averted by the user of these non-lethal weapons.
Some people say that another hijacking is "unlikely" to happen because we've learned from 9/11. Interesting that pre-9-11, many were saying hijackings in this country were unlikely to happen because we learned from other terrorist hijackings in other countries. Yes, it's unlikely but there is a big difference between unlikely and impossible.
Granted, these bracelets wouldn't guarantee that another terrorists attack wouldn't happen. But these, combined with biometric technologies and better trained airline staff, could mean it's just about impossible for them to use planes in a second attack.
Yeah, personally, I like the idea.
Can you point to some of these NDA's you speak of? Because, I have to wonder how you can have an NDA on something that anyone can go to your website and download the source code for.
Remember when the Slammer worm hit the net a few years ago? There was an article in some defense newspaper I saw that mentioned that they were concerned about power generation and management facilities being hit by the worm. So, from that, I would say it's a reasonable assumption that the facility was running some version of Microsoft Windows (probably NT4 or 2000).
I'm not a Microsoft fan-boy. In fact, our company is totally run on FOSS and we've never looked back at MS for anything other than pointing out to people how much freer we were without the Beast of Redmond on our backs. But I'm always left a little confused by the monopoly charge and, since you seem to have a solid understanding of their business practices, I'd like to see if you can set me straight.
By definition a monopoly is a market where there are many buyers but only one seller. A good example of a this would be Bell Telephone in the 1970's and early 1980's before they were broken up. In those cases, there were no other alternatives and Bell could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Competition was non-existent. Compare that to the so-called Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft creates Microsoft Windows and a hosts of other software for the consumer market. But, if you don't like them or their products there are other choices out there. Don't like Windows? Go to Linux or OS X. Don't like SQL Server? Go to MySQL or PostgreSQL, or Oracle, don't like Internet Explorer? Go to Firefox or Opera or any of the other browsers that set you free from Microsoft. In fact, for every piece of the Microsoft pie you don't like, there is almost always at least one alternative that is not controlled by Microsoft.
Sorry, that doesn't scream monopoly to me.
Now, people always bring up the fact that Microsoft has twisted vendors arms to only supply PC's with Windows and MS software. They've charged higher fees to vendors who refused to be exclusive and, rumor has it, that they've even threatened some vendors. Many point to this as evidence of Microsoft's monopoly power. I say it's rubbish.
It points to greedy vendors
Do you really believe that Microsoft would refuse to deal with a major PC vendor at reasonable prices if the PC vendor simply said "Fine. Raise licensing costs and we'll dump you totally. We'll go to Linux on all of our 5 million+ PC sales this year". If you look at it carefully, the problem isn't Microsoft here but the PC vendors supporting and even CREATING the so-called monopoly. Want to penalize someone? Penalize Dell or Gateway or Acer (all of whom now also offer Linux alternatives on at least some PC's).
The fact of the matter is Microsoft is not a monopoly. People gravitate to Windows and Microsoft software because 1) it's easy to use and 2) until VERY recently there were simply no other real alternatives out there. Add to that the fact that people tend to go with what's familiar and you can understand why Microsoft, even as evil as they are, are so powerful.
But there is hope. Because Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, competition is rising up all over the place. More importantly, that competition is slowing taking speed and gaining market share. It took Microsoft nearly 30 years to gain the market it has. Its eventual market overthrow isn't going to happen overnight. But, if you look at how fast the alternatives are gaining ground, it should give even the most die-hard Microsoft marketer nightmares and chills at night. And, it should give those of us who truly believe in Open Source reason to smile. It might not be as quick as we'd like, but change is happening.
My Company is 100% open source. We don't use Windows or Microsoft products for ANYTHING. We've never run into a problem that we couldn't find an open solution for and we'll never go back to Microsoft again. But getting us to that point took education and time. And that is what the market needs: education and time. And maybe a few Windows vs Linux commercials...
I'm a bit confused about how this violates a users 'right to privacy'. They're on a public network that isn't closed in any way and in a channel where anyone can come in at any time and log conversations to a private log without their permission. Now, where is the expectation/right to privacy again?
What I found was a near unusable system with so many bugs that I could barely boot it. There wre hardware and software incompatibilities everywhere and I was faced with a night of figuring out how to make the supposedly 'easiest to use version of Windows yet' actually work for me.
I got pissed.
I was done.
I went to the Ubuntu website, grabbed a copy of the 64bit version of Ubuntu and installed it. I'd used Linux on the server for years but all of my previous forays into the desktop had been met with a lot of disappointment so I assumed this was going to be another lackluster performance by an operating system that was not quite ready for prime time.
Was I wrong!
The installation of Ubuntu was absolutely dead easy. No problems, no 'gotchas', no issues at all. It asked me a few questions and I was good to go in less than an hour. Then the magic happened. All of the issues I'd heard about: wireless, graphics, sound, etc, weren't there. I immediately had access to my wireless network, sound rocked, graphics were beautiful, and it all just worked like it was supposed to.
The *only* thing that did not work was my built in Orbicam (webcam) and I understand I'm just a driver away from that working too. Needless to say, I was pleased. I was shocked. But, whatever I was, I will never look back at Windows as an option again. Linux can provide me everything I need and want in an OS (including the flashy graphics eye-candy that Vista has) and at a much reduced cost to my resources. Windows is gone. Forever. Good riddance.
My last act of Microsoft defiance was to write this blog post and letter to Microsoft (which I also sent as an email to them). I believe that everyone who finds Windows Vista unusable and moves to Linux should send an email to MS letting them know why you're leaving. Personally, I don't know if there is anything they could do to make me come back. I am that pleased with Ubuntu.
Am I a fanboy? Absolutely 100% yes. For me, this is the year of Linux on the desktop and I encourage everyone who doesn't believe it's possible to run a functional and stable desktop system with Linux to head on over to Ubuntu and check it out. You will be amazed. Linux is finally here.
The difference, I would think, would is fairly obvious to most people. GMail and Yahoo don't give you a promise of "unbreakable encryption for your emails" that even the government can't break. There's no question that Google will share your information when properly ask to do so by law enforcement. It's in their Terms of Service. You know what to expect and you use your GMail or Yahoo accordingly.
On the same token, while I am appalled at HushMail's actions, it's for a different reason than most here I suspect. I don't have a problem with HushMail sharing information about customers engaging in illegal behavior with the authorities. Those people don't deserve their activities to be protected - they're illegal. But I DO have a problem with HushMail not disclosing that they're doing it right up front. Now, I've not fully read their ToS so maybe they do but their statements on the website would lead you to believe they aren't.
Really though, why would anyone use a PUBLIC service to conduct illicit activities? Setting up a private mail system complete with encryption is trivial and MUCH more secure.
Most advertisers use a pay per click model to pay the sites they advertise on. So, if I'm blocking the popups, doesn't that indicate that I am not interested in them and would not have clicked on them anyway?
Actually, that's not entirely true. While it is true that the only place to get an iPhone is through AT&T, you most certainly do not need to sign a contract in order to purchase a phone. I can walk into any AT&T store in the country, put down my $600 and walk out without signing a contract.
That also explains why AT&T says it damages their profitability. If the phone remained locked to the AT&T network, AT&T would make money on the sale of the phone AND make monthly revenue from the contracts. With an unlocked phone, AT&T is ONLY making money from the sale of the phone (which might not be a lot depending on how much Apple sells the phones to AT&T for).
I can see why AT&T claims damages. The question I have is why is AT&T paying a royalty for each contract to Apple? That makes absolutely no sense since Apple isn't actually providing the company with anything except the phones. Anyone have any insight into why this is?
It's nice to see the use of Linux move from the server and to the desktop. And, while I agree with many of the post here that say "Linux is not quite there", I think it depends on how seriously and aggressively the OEM goes after the consumer market.
Someone who is just buying PC's, installing a stock Linux on them, and reselling them probably won't see a lot of success. For the home market, stock Linux installs tend to suck. But, companies like the ones discussed in both the article and the comments here who are taking an aggressive, active, approach by creating custom kernels, device drivers, and the like, will probably see their sales double or triple over the next few years. Users want an alternative to Windows. The problem is that most Linux OEM's simply don't provide a good alternative. That is starting to change and it's good to see.
We still have a ways to go but Linux is now squarely on the desktop and competing.
1) creating a unified software installation/removal system.
2) Better hardware support.
Users should never have to manually install or uninstall software and new hardware should work with little or no "tinkering".
Crap! Sorry for not formatting properly. Forgot I was in HTML mode and didn't insert paragraph breaks. My deepest apologies dear Slashdot readers.
Every time I read an article about Microsoft and Open Source, I find most of the comments surrounding the article are incredibly negative and suspicious. Invariably, someone will claim that their only intention in investigating Open Source technology is to eventually kill the market. I take a different view. While I think that Microsoft definitely isn't engaging in Open Source activities to be magnanimous, I do think their their interests are genuine. I believe their intentions are 100% money related. They don't want to engage or participate in the open source community, they want to dominate it, exploit it, and find a way to create a sustainable business model around it. I don't see that as a bad thing and I think those of us who are building businesses around open source solutions should seriously watch what Microsoft does within the model as an example of what we could do. Maybe not a perfect example (it is Microsoft, after all) but an example nonetheless. Just because it's corporate open source doesn't mean it shouldn't be given a chance. And just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's always evil. It just usually is.
But couldn't it be said that, since Microsoft knows piracy in these nations is occurring and that because they are doing nothing to stop it they, in fact, condoning that piracy. And, since their EULA doesn't specifically detail which countries/groups are allowed to pirate and which are not they are, in effect, making prosecution of anyone impossible since they've created a very muddy water?
As his website says, he is on vacation in Thailand but he will consider doing an interview when he returns. He claims he knows nothing about the rampant fraud/vaporware suspicions all over the internet about this.
I just sent an email to their people asking if they would be willing to do a live interview to clear some of the fraud questions up. We'll see how it goes I suppose. If they agree, I will get the interview up and posted on YouTube and UStream asap.
So I'm wondering how long it's going to take some enterprising hacker to write new software to flash to the modems and disable this "feature"?
Even if they tried to distribute with a support disclaimer there would still be a lot of calls to support about it. Also, Dell would have to distribute CDs with the source code since OpenOffice is GPL'd, etc, etc.
1: So Dell gets a support call about Open Office. They handle it the same way they handle most technical questions about MS Office: go to the software vendor. Problem solved. No additional work required.
2: Why would Dell need to distribute CD's with source on them? Nowhere does the GPL even mention that you have to do this. All they have to do is include a piece of paper in each box that says "Want the Open Office source? Email: xxx@dell.com", or set up an FTP site, or make someone mail in a source request form, etc, etc. Problem solved.
I started college in 1991 and I remember the day before declaring my major (CompSci) a friend brought me an article that said it was a dead field where nobody would be able to find a job by the time I graduated. By the time I graduated, it seemed that there was at least an article a week about how Computer Science was dead and everything was going to hell in a handbasket. Then came the dot com bubble.
These doom and gloom articles make the rounds all the time - in many industries. The truth of the matter is that Computer Science is never going to be "dead". The technology is getting more sophisticated, the talent cheaper, but there will *always* be a need for smart, talented, driven people who can develop great software, design, deploy, and manage tough as nails networks, and generally be the "go to geeks" in their realm.
No, we probably won't see the heady days of the dot com bubble again (although that can be debated too but we won't all waste away and die if we stick with our chosen profession and encourage others to enter it and make it better. The competition will be fiercer (India, China, Vietnam), the work more demanding (AI, Neural Nets), but the field is still one of the best out there.
Let's face it: businesses looking at Linux aren't equally considering 100+ distros. They're looking at maybe 5. And those five distros are close enough where Dell could easily cross-train their technicians to offer support for all of them. Using the argument that there are just too many distros is silly because most of those distros are either specialized or not even considered when a business looks at Linux. The promise of "Linux on the Desktop" will never really come true until a major vendor is willing to jump in with both feet and really push a distro (or a few distros) forward. IBM had this chance and missed it. I really don't think Dell is going to be able to pull it off either because they aren't serious enough. They could, but they won't.
I didn't say "everything" could be replicated on the web. I said very little couldn't be. That said, I would assume that web applications would probably run on a machine with an OS, web server, etc. That would fall into that "very little" part :-)
Personally, I see less and less need for compiled and distributed software as broadband internet becomes ubiquitous and rich internet applications become more sophisticated. As it stands now, there is very little that traditional software does that can't be replicated on the web using the right technology. Software as a service is slowly becoming a reality and compiled software is soon to go the way of the dinosaurs.
While I am not a MS fan I do think the statement above could legitimately classified as "fear mongering". Microsoft is a business and one of the functions of a business is to satisfy (or at least look like they are trying to satisfy) their customers. I highly doubt that they would alienate a huge amount of their customer base over a few thousand or hundred thousand illegitimate activations. Doing so would be suicide on their part because it would spark a giant "Oh my god, what if that had been US" within the large business community that Microsoft serves. Large corporate customers would seriously start looking at alternatives because they would see a situation where they might potentially be left out in the cold should they buy a copy of Windows and it's activation has already been used.
This is going to be a bad situation for Microsoft. But it's not going to cause them to tell their customers "screw off".
How can you not see anything wrong with the reply by Lycos? While I'm sure we don't know the entire story, a customer service agent should never tell someone "no one here is going to help you". That's just bad customer service. Whether the guy liked it or not that customer is part of the reason he has a job. She might not be paying anything for the account but she is one of the reasons advertisers pay Lycos big bucks to advertise on their site. Like it or not, the company is beholden to people just like her and telling her that no one was going to help her is akin to saying "you know what? Fuck you!"
Personally, I hope this man is reprimanded for this. I don't think he deserves to be fired but he needs a stern lesson on customer service. People like him are the very reason why customer service has become so horrible. Nobody actually cares about the customer anymore.