"was completely unlike the book in it's major plot line"
I would disagree. The book was a series of short stories only connected thematically and by the presence of Susan Calvin. The screenplay needed glue, so it added the concept of interviewing Calvin. This was not the major plot line, just the glue. The major plot line was the eight historical vignettes from the book. That script was amazingly faithful to the spirit of the book.
The movie that was actually made may be all right as a stand alone, but I won't watch it as long as it claims to have some relevance to Asimov's work. The scenes in the previews clearly have nothing to do with Asimov's work (in I, Robot or anything) or Ellison's script. Like Total Recall (We'll Remember for You Wholesale), it should have come up with its own name.
The XBox used to cost about $300 to make. At the time, a P3-800 was already over the hill (P4s and P3 1.3 Ghz were already out). I doubt that they were much (if any) more expensive then than they are now. Microsoft was never using innovative or cutting edge parts (that would drop in price). The bigger expense is the hard drive. Those don't become cheaper, just bigger (i.e. the smallest hard drive now is the same price as the smallest hard drive was three years ago, but five times the size). Yes, Sony is probably subsidizing their console as well, but it's cheaper to make.
Nintendo makes money from its Japanese operations, so it will continue operation even with its low US sales. Microsoft has similar market penetration in the US but without the Japanese market. As such, they can't be getting nearly as much licensing revenue (from 3rd party games) as Sony in the US. Further, Microsoft can't sell as many units of Halo as Sony can sell of Sony's flagship game, because Microsoft's installed base is so much smaller. And they can't make as much money as a third party would because they only support one console.
Last I heard, Microsoft was losing money hand over fist in their game console division. Part of the problem is that they lose money on every console sale. They might be breaking even in software sales; they're hampered a bit by an unwillingness to port to other platforms. Makes it harder to make money when you skip part of your potential market.
I think the grandparent missed the part about the algae that could be used to produce sufficient biodiesel for the nation's needs in 28,000 sq. km (or 10,000 sq. miles: your square with 105 mile sides). Most discussions of biodiesel discuss grain or rapeseed which are much less efficient producers of biodiesel (rapeseed is shown at 110-145 gallons per acre in the Wikipedia; the algae is shown 10,000-20,000: 70-200 times as effective). The algae can produce sufficient biodiesel in.3% of the US land area using land that would not otherwise be arable. More traditional methods would take 20-60% of the US's land area and requires all of that to be arable (could be used to grow food) land. Thus, traditional biodiesel production is not really a feasible replacement for petrodiesel. The new algae based method may be.
" I wonder _why_ MS choose not to make it standars compliant?"
We are talking about the company that deliberately set out to make the MS Money experience *worse* by extending the amount of time it took to accomplish tasks. Why? So they could sell more banner ads (recent/. story from MS employee blog). The way I see it, we're lucky Exchange's web pages work in non-IE browsers at all. It's probably just so they can give the impression that IE is better than other browsers (if it didn't work at all, people would blame MS; however, working badly implies that other browsers don't have the ability to display MS sites).
1. Burning fuel and turning it directly into mechanical power. One step.
2. Burning fuel; converting it into electricity; storing the electrical voltage in a battery (possibly a fuel cell); convert the battery power into mechanical power. Three steps.
Yes, the power plant is more efficient at converting fuel into electrical power than the car engine is at converting fuel into mechanical power. The problem is that you have to store the electricity and then convert it into mechanical power. Even if all the individual steps are more efficient, it would be very hard to replace one step with three and increase overall efficiency.
That's not a compiler in the same sense; it's an encoder. It allows people to store PHP scripts as a proprietary code (it's actually a lot like java). A true compiler creates native machine code.
There was a recession in the *early* 80s and another (albeit light) to kick off the 90s. There was a stock market crash in '87, but it didn't cause any real issues with the overall economy (in terms of employment, etc.).
The registry offers one central place where all the configuration data is kept. It makes it easier to share configuration between programs. It also ensures that all configuration uses the same format, so that the same code can be used to read it in any application.
That's not to say that a registry is all happiness and roses. By sharing the configuration between all apps, any app can corrupt *all* of the configuration. Further, it is much harder to recover the configuration, because it is not in a human readable format.
"That said, I think MS realizes it has a problem now and is dealing with it, unfortunately it will take a year or two for it to really be dealt with."
A large part of the problem is a fundamental problem with their basic security model. This is not a result of not thinking security is worth the price. The stuff that makes it insecure is frequently *more* expensive. A great deal of the problems arise from offering web sites the ability to do things like install software. Unfortunately, there is no way to fully secure this (note the virus that required people to input a password to install) without disabling it.
Note the Microsoft version of "securing" the shell:// protocol (FireFox recently blacklisted the protocol entirely; i.e. disabled it) involves throwing up a dialog box that says "Do you want to run this or save it?" If the user picks save, they get a cryptic file on their hard-drive. If the user picks "run this," it runs code that can be harmful. Perhaps this is Microsoft's definition of "secure." It certainly isn't mine.
The problem is not that MS rested on its laurels; the problem is that they created all sorts of fundamentally insecure functionality. Some of that functionality is vital to how Microsoft Windows works: for example, Windows Update is an ActiveX control which *requires* the ability to install replacement kernel code (not so coincidentally, the same rights that make for an easy exploit). If it could not, Windows Update would be useless.
"I can guarantee that some number of Mozilla developers are not competent programmers given the number of possible contributors to the project."
Yes, but can you guarantee that the code from the not competent programmers will make it into the project? It's not as easy to contribute to an open source project as it may seem. There is at least one person who reviews code before it goes into the project (plus, anyone can review it once it is in the project). Further, most of the code is written by a very small number of people. While the number of "possible contributors" is the population of the planet, the actual number of contributors is probably smaller in Mozilla than in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Re:Not for the home but for the servers of the wor
on
Unix To Beef Up Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"giving Microsoft a competitive edge in the server market...by allowing them to run...software applications that may only be available for the Unix/Linux platform"
Yes, because I would like to add the overhead of running MS Windows Server to my LAMP solution. It runs too fast now; I need to slow it down.
This could backfire badly as well. What is the incentive for companies to port to MS Windows with this? There isn't one. Instead, it makes sense for a company which expects a 50/50 MS Windows Server/*nix market to develop for *nix so that their code runs on both platforms. In other words, it makes it easier to be a *nix developer.
Will open source projects like Apache, MySQL, and PHP drop their MS Windows ports if this occurs? At the very least, I would expect interest to diminish.
You're mixing two bugzilla reports. One regards the general idea (theoretically vulnerable) of passing unknown protocols to the OS for handling. This still hasn't been "fixed" (i.e. the behavior has not changed in general). The other regards the shell:// vulnerability in MS Windows, which was blacklisted within two days of being reported.
It is also worth nothing that the shell:// protocol problem is a problem with its *handler* which is provided by the OS (which is why it only afflicted MS Windows versions of Mozilla) rather than with anything in Mozilla. The "fix" actually just turns off the shell:// protocol.
"I don't see part-time amateurs having the money to cause that kind of trouble."
That's why we have lawyers and venture capitalists. To provide time (lawyers) or capital (VCs) to finance the patent infringement claim. Or they simply sell it to some litigious bastards (remember: the company that used to be called SCO is now called something like Tarantella; the company that is now called SCO used to be called Caldera) and let them handle it.
" If we permit the patent office keep their fees, then they have more incentive to pass more bogus patents."
No, you have it backwards. They have more incentive (as an agency) to reject patents if they keep the fees. The fees are paid for the *application*, rejected or not. If they reject patent applications, the applicant might refile (so they get paid again). If they accept patent applications, then no more fees.
The problem is that 4 hours (assuming two applications to process per day; I believe that is what I read in one of these discussions) is not enough time to find the prior art and evaluate the obviousness properly. Thus, the patent office needs more time (money) to function properly.
Its also worth noting that government agencies tend not to give raises based on performance. Instead, they give cost of living adjustments or promotions. Thus, your scenario is a bit far fetched even if you had gotten the incentives correct. Increased funding would tend to result in hiring more people (rather than giving raises), as supervising more people is a promotion (which gives the manager a raise).
It would also help if the patent office reviewed every patent when a claim was made. If IBM (or whomever) had to submit its patent infringement claims to the patent office who would then forward them to the defending company, it would be easier for the company to contest the patents and harder for IBM to engage in extortion ("Ok, maybe these patents are no good. What about our other patents? Are you sure that you can beat all of them?"). The process would go something like this:
1. Someone gets a patent on whatever.
2. They find someone else who they believe use technology that infringes on their patent and inform the patent office.
3. The patent office sends an infringement notice and asks if the defendant wishes to contest the patent (or its relevance to the defending company).
4. If the defending company contests, there is a discovery period where each side sends the other (and the patent office) its claims. If one side concedes during this, the review of the patent is called off. If neither does...
5. The patent office schedules an examination to review the claims. At that time, they can choose to uphold or cancel the patent. The losing side pays the examination fees.
This process moves the burden of finding relevant prior art to people who are actually *in* the business concerned. The patent office merely rules based on their own definitions.
Re:Not ONLY Faster, lighter, but also IE-compatibl
on
Browser Wars 2004
·
· Score: 1
"Microsoft has been letting dust pile up on IE, but that's about to change anyway."
It's the installed base though. Microsoft has already said that they won't feature update (as opposed to security update; IE 5.5 and 6 were primarily feature updates; Windows Update provides security updates) the browser on XP and older machines anymore. As such, Microsoft will need to continue supporting IE6 features at least until IE6 goes out of support (i.e. IE7 will only ship with a new OS).
Any new Microsoft browser will have to retain backward compatibility or people won't bother to use it.
I think that you missed the request. When I type something in the url bar, it shows me a bunch of things that had that text as the prefix. I then either type more (limiting the selection further), hit down arrow to select a choice, or occasionally use the mouse (to use the scroll bar then make a choice). What the grandparent suggested was to put the most likely choices at the top. Done correctly, this would reduce the number of down arrows or at least eliminate the need to use the mouse.
The suggestion is not to replace your bookmarks with auto-completion; it's to improve the existing auto-completion, as some of us already use it frequently.
Btw, I would like to add my voice to the ones suggesting that any such change be a plugin rather than part of the base program. This is exactly the reason why. Some people like auto-completion and use it already; some don't. Why force the code on those that don't use it? Of course, I feel the same way about browser tabs, but that is probably a lost cause.
The Google zeitgeist ( http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html ) shows *IE6* with more than 80% of the market (about 86% to my eye: anyone have actual numbers for Google?). IE5 and IE5.5 both still have more market share than either "Other" or Mozilla based browsers. Note that 4.5% for each would be sufficient to give 95% (with 86% for IE6). It looks consistent with the stats in this article (i.e. if you graph the stats given by the article, I think that they will look a lot like the zeitgeist graph). Note that with a 3% market share, a.8% increase is "a significant uptick."
Market cap is not as important as "assets controlled" or total revenue. Market cap is based on profits rather than on having a large amount of assets/revenue (and affect on the market). Microsoft has a much larger market cap than its size would justify.
"Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that."
Microsoft contracts can not restrict OEM software installs of things that perform purposes available in the OS...it violates their agreement with the Department of Justice. Any provision about this in a Microsoft contract would be void and unenforceable (like a steamboat contract waiving the steamboat's responsibility for lost luggage if the steamboat blew up or a contract selling yourself into slavery; there are some things one cannot sign away).
Mozilla Firefox is *not* an email or groupware client. It is a web browser. The open source email/groupware client is called Evolution (and there may be others as well). Evolution replaces Outlook; Firefox just replaces Internet Explorer.
This is presumably part of the reason why Mozilla came up with Firefox: to allow mix and match between browser and email clients. The Mozilla project provides an Outlook Express (email client) replacement in Mozilla Thunderbird, but it doesn't have a groupware (Outlook) replacement.
Your link is to KDE relevant content. I suspect that that biases the results more than the fact that the was posted on slashdot. Note that Konqueror is used by more people than Opera in your results...something else that I would expect from a crowd that is biased towards KDE.
Open source allows multiple companies to exist: Red Hat, Mandrake, and Suse all have similar products. Closed source encourages consolidation into single companies, e.g. Microsoft.
Closed source companies use proprietary file formats, thus stifling competition. Further, since software's costs are almost all development costs (rather than production costs), the marginal cost of production is close to zero and the fixed costs (barriers to entry) are the majority of the price. The result is that areas with one company will have cheaper prices (and fewer features) than areas with multiple companies.
Open source creates shared file formats, fomenting competition. Again, it is advantageous to only have one code base. Yet, with open source, this does not mean just one company. Many companies can work with the same code base.
I would agree that service/support is a more reliable source of income than selling open source licenses:) However, the same is true of closed source companies as well. It is more profitable to offer an ongoing service (e.g. support) than a one time sale (e.g. a software license).
For the same reason that Microsoft just released a Critical Security Update to disable (or reduce?) ADODB support in IE. It exposes something that runs with permissions suitable for a local service to remote access. I don't know of an actual exploit, but in principle at least, it would allow a web app to do things like put a password prompt on your screen (and collect the data you enter).
W3Schools.com is aimed at DIY (do it yourself; as opposed to developers who use Front Page or even Dreamweaver to auto generate ugly HTML/CSS) developers...it's not exactly a typical cross section of browser users. 95% is a more typical number for those using IE from other sites. In fact, I've seen the numbers posted higher for some sites. Btw, the IE6/5 ratio is skewed as well. IE5 is still more used than IE5.5 and has about half as many users as IE6.
I could have sworn that somebody had Google's stats posted on the web somewhere, but I can't find them now. Google (aimed at everyone) would have much more representative stats than W3 Schools.
Slashdot Mirror
"was completely unlike the book in it's major plot line"
I would disagree. The book was a series of short stories only connected thematically and by the presence of Susan Calvin. The screenplay needed glue, so it added the concept of interviewing Calvin. This was not the major plot line, just the glue. The major plot line was the eight historical vignettes from the book. That script was amazingly faithful to the spirit of the book.
The movie that was actually made may be all right as a stand alone, but I won't watch it as long as it claims to have some relevance to Asimov's work. The scenes in the previews clearly have nothing to do with Asimov's work (in I, Robot or anything) or Ellison's script. Like Total Recall (We'll Remember for You Wholesale), it should have come up with its own name.
The XBox used to cost about $300 to make. At the time, a P3-800 was already over the hill (P4s and P3 1.3 Ghz were already out). I doubt that they were much (if any) more expensive then than they are now. Microsoft was never using innovative or cutting edge parts (that would drop in price). The bigger expense is the hard drive. Those don't become cheaper, just bigger (i.e. the smallest hard drive now is the same price as the smallest hard drive was three years ago, but five times the size). Yes, Sony is probably subsidizing their console as well, but it's cheaper to make.
Nintendo makes money from its Japanese operations, so it will continue operation even with its low US sales. Microsoft has similar market penetration in the US but without the Japanese market. As such, they can't be getting nearly as much licensing revenue (from 3rd party games) as Sony in the US. Further, Microsoft can't sell as many units of Halo as Sony can sell of Sony's flagship game, because Microsoft's installed base is so much smaller. And they can't make as much money as a third party would because they only support one console.
"I'd guess they're just breaking even"
Last I heard, Microsoft was losing money hand over fist in their game console division. Part of the problem is that they lose money on every console sale. They might be breaking even in software sales; they're hampered a bit by an unwillingness to port to other platforms. Makes it harder to make money when you skip part of your potential market.
I think the grandparent missed the part about the algae that could be used to produce sufficient biodiesel for the nation's needs in 28,000 sq. km (or 10,000 sq. miles: your square with 105 mile sides). Most discussions of biodiesel discuss grain or rapeseed which are much less efficient producers of biodiesel (rapeseed is shown at 110-145 gallons per acre in the Wikipedia; the algae is shown 10,000-20,000: 70-200 times as effective). The algae can produce sufficient biodiesel in .3% of the US land area using land that would not otherwise be arable. More traditional methods would take 20-60% of the US's land area and requires all of that to be arable (could be used to grow food) land. Thus, traditional biodiesel production is not really a feasible replacement for petrodiesel. The new algae based method may be.
" I wonder _why_ MS choose not to make it standars compliant?"
/. story from MS employee blog). The way I see it, we're lucky Exchange's web pages work in non-IE browsers at all. It's probably just so they can give the impression that IE is better than other browsers (if it didn't work at all, people would blame MS; however, working badly implies that other browsers don't have the ability to display MS sites).
We are talking about the company that deliberately set out to make the MS Money experience *worse* by extending the amount of time it took to accomplish tasks. Why? So they could sell more banner ads (recent
Which do you think is more efficient:
1. Burning fuel and turning it directly into mechanical power. One step.
2. Burning fuel; converting it into electricity; storing the electrical voltage in a battery (possibly a fuel cell); convert the battery power into mechanical power. Three steps.
Yes, the power plant is more efficient at converting fuel into electrical power than the car engine is at converting fuel into mechanical power. The problem is that you have to store the electricity and then convert it into mechanical power. Even if all the individual steps are more efficient, it would be very hard to replace one step with three and increase overall efficiency.
That's not a compiler in the same sense; it's an encoder. It allows people to store PHP scripts as a proprietary code (it's actually a lot like java). A true compiler creates native machine code.
>>> There are no windows in the basement.
>> Only GNU/Linux can be installed on computers in basements???
> It is very dark. You are likely to be eaten by a GRUE/Linux.
Of all the days not to have mod points. Now that's funny...at least for those of us who remember text based adventure games.
There was a recession in the *early* 80s and another (albeit light) to kick off the 90s. There was a stock market crash in '87, but it didn't cause any real issues with the overall economy (in terms of employment, etc.).
The registry offers one central place where all the configuration data is kept. It makes it easier to share configuration between programs. It also ensures that all configuration uses the same format, so that the same code can be used to read it in any application.
That's not to say that a registry is all happiness and roses. By sharing the configuration between all apps, any app can corrupt *all* of the configuration. Further, it is much harder to recover the configuration, because it is not in a human readable format.
"That said, I think MS realizes it has a problem now and is dealing with it, unfortunately it will take a year or two for it to really be dealt with."
A large part of the problem is a fundamental problem with their basic security model. This is not a result of not thinking security is worth the price. The stuff that makes it insecure is frequently *more* expensive. A great deal of the problems arise from offering web sites the ability to do things like install software. Unfortunately, there is no way to fully secure this (note the virus that required people to input a password to install) without disabling it.
Note the Microsoft version of "securing" the shell:// protocol (FireFox recently blacklisted the protocol entirely; i.e. disabled it) involves throwing up a dialog box that says "Do you want to run this or save it?" If the user picks save, they get a cryptic file on their hard-drive. If the user picks "run this," it runs code that can be harmful. Perhaps this is Microsoft's definition of "secure." It certainly isn't mine.
The problem is not that MS rested on its laurels; the problem is that they created all sorts of fundamentally insecure functionality. Some of that functionality is vital to how Microsoft Windows works: for example, Windows Update is an ActiveX control which *requires* the ability to install replacement kernel code (not so coincidentally, the same rights that make for an easy exploit). If it could not, Windows Update would be useless.
"I can guarantee that some number of Mozilla developers are not competent programmers given the number of possible contributors to the project."
Yes, but can you guarantee that the code from the not competent programmers will make it into the project? It's not as easy to contribute to an open source project as it may seem. There is at least one person who reviews code before it goes into the project (plus, anyone can review it once it is in the project). Further, most of the code is written by a very small number of people. While the number of "possible contributors" is the population of the planet, the actual number of contributors is probably smaller in Mozilla than in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
"giving Microsoft a competitive edge in the server market...by allowing them to run...software applications that may only be available for the Unix/Linux platform"
Yes, because I would like to add the overhead of running MS Windows Server to my LAMP solution. It runs too fast now; I need to slow it down.
This could backfire badly as well. What is the incentive for companies to port to MS Windows with this? There isn't one. Instead, it makes sense for a company which expects a 50/50 MS Windows Server/*nix market to develop for *nix so that their code runs on both platforms. In other words, it makes it easier to be a *nix developer.
Will open source projects like Apache, MySQL, and PHP drop their MS Windows ports if this occurs? At the very least, I would expect interest to diminish.
You're mixing two bugzilla reports. One regards the general idea (theoretically vulnerable) of passing unknown protocols to the OS for handling. This still hasn't been "fixed" (i.e. the behavior has not changed in general). The other regards the shell:// vulnerability in MS Windows, which was blacklisted within two days of being reported.
It is also worth nothing that the shell:// protocol problem is a problem with its *handler* which is provided by the OS (which is why it only afflicted MS Windows versions of Mozilla) rather than with anything in Mozilla. The "fix" actually just turns off the shell:// protocol.
"I don't see part-time amateurs having the money to cause that kind of trouble."
That's why we have lawyers and venture capitalists. To provide time (lawyers) or capital (VCs) to finance the patent infringement claim. Or they simply sell it to some litigious bastards (remember: the company that used to be called SCO is now called something like Tarantella; the company that is now called SCO used to be called Caldera) and let them handle it.
" If we permit the patent office keep their fees, then they have more incentive to pass more bogus patents."
No, you have it backwards. They have more incentive (as an agency) to reject patents if they keep the fees. The fees are paid for the *application*, rejected or not. If they reject patent applications, the applicant might refile (so they get paid again). If they accept patent applications, then no more fees.
The problem is that 4 hours (assuming two applications to process per day; I believe that is what I read in one of these discussions) is not enough time to find the prior art and evaluate the obviousness properly. Thus, the patent office needs more time (money) to function properly.
Its also worth noting that government agencies tend not to give raises based on performance. Instead, they give cost of living adjustments or promotions. Thus, your scenario is a bit far fetched even if you had gotten the incentives correct. Increased funding would tend to result in hiring more people (rather than giving raises), as supervising more people is a promotion (which gives the manager a raise).
It would also help if the patent office reviewed every patent when a claim was made. If IBM (or whomever) had to submit its patent infringement claims to the patent office who would then forward them to the defending company, it would be easier for the company to contest the patents and harder for IBM to engage in extortion ("Ok, maybe these patents are no good. What about our other patents? Are you sure that you can beat all of them?"). The process would go something like this:
1. Someone gets a patent on whatever.
2. They find someone else who they believe use technology that infringes on their patent and inform the patent office.
3. The patent office sends an infringement notice and asks if the defendant wishes to contest the patent (or its relevance to the defending company).
4. If the defending company contests, there is a discovery period where each side sends the other (and the patent office) its claims. If one side concedes during this, the review of the patent is called off. If neither does...
5. The patent office schedules an examination to review the claims. At that time, they can choose to uphold or cancel the patent. The losing side pays the examination fees.
This process moves the burden of finding relevant prior art to people who are actually *in* the business concerned. The patent office merely rules based on their own definitions.
"Microsoft has been letting dust pile up on IE, but that's about to change anyway."
It's the installed base though. Microsoft has already said that they won't feature update (as opposed to security update; IE 5.5 and 6 were primarily feature updates; Windows Update provides security updates) the browser on XP and older machines anymore. As such, Microsoft will need to continue supporting IE6 features at least until IE6 goes out of support (i.e. IE7 will only ship with a new OS).
Any new Microsoft browser will have to retain backward compatibility or people won't bother to use it.
I think that you missed the request. When I type something in the url bar, it shows me a bunch of things that had that text as the prefix. I then either type more (limiting the selection further), hit down arrow to select a choice, or occasionally use the mouse (to use the scroll bar then make a choice). What the grandparent suggested was to put the most likely choices at the top. Done correctly, this would reduce the number of down arrows or at least eliminate the need to use the mouse.
The suggestion is not to replace your bookmarks with auto-completion; it's to improve the existing auto-completion, as some of us already use it frequently.
Btw, I would like to add my voice to the ones suggesting that any such change be a plugin rather than part of the base program. This is exactly the reason why. Some people like auto-completion and use it already; some don't. Why force the code on those that don't use it? Of course, I feel the same way about browser tabs, but that is probably a lost cause.
The Google zeitgeist ( http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html ) shows *IE6* with more than 80% of the market (about 86% to my eye: anyone have actual numbers for Google?). IE5 and IE5.5 both still have more market share than either "Other" or Mozilla based browsers. Note that 4.5% for each would be sufficient to give 95% (with 86% for IE6). It looks consistent with the stats in this article (i.e. if you graph the stats given by the article, I think that they will look a lot like the zeitgeist graph). Note that with a 3% market share, a .8% increase is "a significant uptick."
Market cap is not as important as "assets controlled" or total revenue. Market cap is based on profits rather than on having a large amount of assets/revenue (and affect on the market). Microsoft has a much larger market cap than its size would justify.
"Now... If some large OEM was to pre-install Firefox, then the picture would really start to change. But I doubt whether their contracts with Microsoft *allow* them to do that."
Microsoft contracts can not restrict OEM software installs of things that perform purposes available in the OS...it violates their agreement with the Department of Justice. Any provision about this in a Microsoft contract would be void and unenforceable (like a steamboat contract waiving the steamboat's responsibility for lost luggage if the steamboat blew up or a contract selling yourself into slavery; there are some things one cannot sign away).
Mozilla Firefox is *not* an email or groupware client. It is a web browser. The open source email/groupware client is called Evolution (and there may be others as well). Evolution replaces Outlook; Firefox just replaces Internet Explorer.
This is presumably part of the reason why Mozilla came up with Firefox: to allow mix and match between browser and email clients. The Mozilla project provides an Outlook Express (email client) replacement in Mozilla Thunderbird, but it doesn't have a groupware (Outlook) replacement.
Your link is to KDE relevant content. I suspect that that biases the results more than the fact that the was posted on slashdot. Note that Konqueror is used by more people than Opera in your results...something else that I would expect from a crowd that is biased towards KDE.
Open source allows multiple companies to exist: Red Hat, Mandrake, and Suse all have similar products. Closed source encourages consolidation into single companies, e.g. Microsoft.
:) However, the same is true of closed source companies as well. It is more profitable to offer an ongoing service (e.g. support) than a one time sale (e.g. a software license).
Closed source companies use proprietary file formats, thus stifling competition. Further, since software's costs are almost all development costs (rather than production costs), the marginal cost of production is close to zero and the fixed costs (barriers to entry) are the majority of the price. The result is that areas with one company will have cheaper prices (and fewer features) than areas with multiple companies.
Open source creates shared file formats, fomenting competition. Again, it is advantageous to only have one code base. Yet, with open source, this does not mean just one company. Many companies can work with the same code base.
I would agree that service/support is a more reliable source of income than selling open source licenses
For the same reason that Microsoft just released a Critical Security Update to disable (or reduce?) ADODB support in IE. It exposes something that runs with permissions suitable for a local service to remote access. I don't know of an actual exploit, but in principle at least, it would allow a web app to do things like put a password prompt on your screen (and collect the data you enter).
W3Schools.com is aimed at DIY (do it yourself; as opposed to developers who use Front Page or even Dreamweaver to auto generate ugly HTML/CSS) developers...it's not exactly a typical cross section of browser users. 95% is a more typical number for those using IE from other sites. In fact, I've seen the numbers posted higher for some sites. Btw, the IE6/5 ratio is skewed as well. IE5 is still more used than IE5.5 and has about half as many users as IE6.
I could have sworn that somebody had Google's stats posted on the web somewhere, but I can't find them now. Google (aimed at everyone) would have much more representative stats than W3 Schools.