I don't blame them here at all. Unless you know an exact configuration of software, hardware, etc you can't make any promises. You just can't, and you never will be able to.
Totally agree there. I just wish Roblimo would have replied with something clear and succint like, "Yeah, but you guys are the ones slamming Linux for not being backed. What, exactly, is that MS 'guarantee' good for?" It's not that software should or even could be warranted against everything, but as Roblimo did point out, if it's going to be warranted , it should be warranted for SOMEthing.
He squirmed a lot on the disclaimer of fitness thing, too. He's totally correct that pretty much all software (OSS included) makes this disclaimer, but he didn't really adress the issue that the barrier of responsibility is much lower for something thats provided gratis than for a commercial product.
Not only that, but I don't think Roblimo nailed him quite enough on the fact that, okay, no company can really back their software, but MS is the one making the claim, linux isn't. It's another instance of one of MS's promises not standing up to mean anything. It was Roblimo's basic point, but he let the MS guy confuse the issue there and wriggle off the hook.
Also, with the issue of indemnification, who would be a potential litigant against linux when SCO's dead? Novell, who owns SuSE? IBM, who has banked a lot of their business on linux? Pretty much leaves MS. So that could be interpreted as a threat, in the style of mob racketeering/fire insurance. Would have loved to see Roblimo follow up there - would MS consider pursuing legal action against linux? Would MS promise not to?
That said, it was a good interview by Roblimo. Overall did a good job of avoiding the guy's spin.
Why do you think they were willing to give up the weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact? Engagement is the correct answer to North Korea
First, Kim is nuts. I'm not sure MAD theory still applies to him, but let's hope so. Second, what he wants is attention. He seems to be clamoring for talks - about what, I've no idea - and is going out of his way to advertise this nuke program. I think he suffers from delusions of grandeur and gets off on the possibility of beleving he's the equal of Japan and the US.
So under the engagement idea, we give him exactly what he wants. The question is, is that a good or bad idea? Does the attention appease him, or does it teach him that acting like an ass gets him what he wants? His history tells me the latter, because appeasement/engagement is what we've tried with him so far, and he keeps pulling the old "We're making nukes" card, running on 10 years now.
That said, I agree sabre-rattling is the worst course of action. I think we should develop a plan to tactically destroy his nuclear capability, sit on it, and decide if we want to ignore him, or let him play diplomacy. Take out his nukes only as a last resort.
a lot of people can see an 3 year improvement on tvs stereos, pvrs, etc. a lot of people couldn't tell you what got better in office xp over office 2000.
Hmmm...I can't either. I can, however, start with the stuff that got WORSE. Like Bloat/Nag-ware, etc.
The spammers MCI hosts don't preferentially hurt MCI customers. They hurt everyone. So the J&J analogy isn't quite on the spot. If anything, this one's a community issue, definitely not a customer issue.
That said, as mentioned, this is likely due to the fact that they are enormous and don't have the time to eradicate $5M worth of spam business.
Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were pregnant women - even if they were pregnant only at home.
IANAL, but legal consequences of that will be, umm, mind-blowing...
The effects of smoking, like being pregnant, follow you to work, regardless of whether you smoke or get knocked up at work.
I don't think the analogy is even close. Smoking is a vice. Pregnancy is not a vice -- it is a critical part of the perpetuation of the human species.
As a militant non-smoker, I'd like to agree with you, but I don't think the courts are going to care. How about AIDS caught by exchanging needles? Some might say that's a disease caught from a vice. Kind of like emphysema. You watched Philadelphia lately?
Just because both happen to involve health care costs doesn't mean that they are at all equivalent.
Morally, I agree, but that's irrelevant when it goes to the courts.
Is greater than what you say on a weblog. It's about the ability for an organization you work for (or attend as a student) being increasingly able to dictate your behavior and lifestyle outside of the workplace.
And the courts have been pretty vigilant about restricting such things to that which actually impacts the company.
We've been on a fairly steady decline since they found out they can make employees go through demeaning tests for insurance purposes and are currently at the point where companies are trying to kick smokers out.
That's what our society (well, the US) gets for comingling employment with social issues like health care. I don't think the smokers thing will pass legal scrutiny, but it is an issue that legitimately affects the company.
Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them
It's not an argument, it's the law. Your company actually can't stop you from saying anything. They simply have the right not to pay you if you act in a manner not becoming of an employee.
conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.
As pointed out by another poster, there were, but it's immaterial. If anything, a large multinational company is less likely to notice - or care - what the heck you do on spare time. It's smaller companies where the boss gets his panties in a bunch. And if you think this is new, check employment conditions around the time of, and just after, the bill of rights was written. If you think employees had more rights then, you need a history lesson desperately. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" if nothing else.
To recap: 1) People have the right to free speech and other freedoms. 2) If your exercising of these freedoms harms the company, they may have the right to cease employing you, depending what you do. 3) This is nothing new. 4) If anything, things are better these days, certainly than 200 years ago when there were NO laws protecting employees. 5) This has nothing to do with global corporate paranoia.
Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were smokers- even if they only smoked at home.
Yeah, I heard about that. I'd be shocked if the workers don't win that lawsuit, but we'll see. I know the parallel isn't perfect, but replace "smoker" with "pregnant woman" and see how far, legally, that goes.
I went to a high school that spent several million on thier sports program each year, but would have run of the mill computers around and not keep them up to date. They ran the very first version of Windows 95 (the one where you could close the start button) until late 1998 when I graduated. 2 years later, I visited the school and found they where using the same OS - couldn't believe it. But oh my, the parents would scream if they let the football program slip a little...
Think that's bad? I graduated in 1995 and we were still running 8088's. I think most were finally upgraded from 256K of ram - that's right, KB - to 512, and a couple of screamers had 640K. Ran DOS 3.X. So windows at all. And I heard it still took them a few years after I graduated to get something running windows. Can you imagine using machines (desktops) whose chip design is 20 years old (vintage about 1978)? Thank God my parents got me a computer my sophomore year or I'd be having a friend type this for me probably.
Naturally, our football team was often nationally ranked.
I have yet to hear an iPod owner say, "It's a hassle to use, but damn if it doesn't look cool." Have you? Or are you just pulling your stereotypes of iPod owners out of your posterior?
I know a lot if iPod owners - expect to number myself among them soon - and I've never heard one tell me that they got that over a Sony because they couldn't figure the Sony out. Maybe it's because I'm in grad school and not surrounded by fucktards, I don't know. But, again, just being easier doesn't get Apple 60% margins on those iPods. Being cool does.
But what about the power buyers (like myself) who get heavy textbooks, heavier textbooks, and even heavier textbooks (grr @ orgo)? It just doesn't seem like it's cost-effective, but maybe I'm missing something..?
They're still making money on the books. Most companies would kill to have such a "problem," and I imagine they number themselves among them.
I really dont see what teh problem is: Patents server a purpose, to encourage innovation and to enable you ot I to profit from it. What's wrong with that?
Congratulations. That's the best troll I've seen in weeks.
I don't think Apple does much innovation of that kind anymore. They seem to have taken another track to the typical "lead, follow, or..." paradigm: taking something that exists, and making it better and easier.
Actually, I like how I had it. Better is extremely subjective. I'll probably grant easier, but it isn't the n00bs that apple gets margins from, it's the style-conscious.
TiVo may be a dead duck soon. DirecTV did not renew their contract with them. Their chairman and president just bolted. His example does support his thesis.
Yikes, news to me as a direcTV owner. I withdraw said comment!
The innovator is usually the one who ends up going out of business. Apple is (currently) the exception.
I don't think Apple does much innovation of that kind anymore. They seem to have taken another track to the typical "lead, follow, or..." paradigm: taking something that exists, and making it cool. Did they invent the portable music player? No, they made it cool and really usable.
Also, just to nitpick: TiVo supplies DirecTV's PVRs. I think TiVo is here to stay. But I realize you could have picked 1000 other examples that supported your thesis.
Come on, at least give us a story. Was it because he was a sniveling fuckwit? Because of his constant and annoying tendency to editorialize on story summaries? Or because he was embezzeling from OSDN?
1) article in question wasn't slashdotted
2) some karmawhore will always post fulltext.
3) redundancy can often be prevented by at least reading the other/. posts
4) google cache is your friend
5) if you can't be bothered to read other posts and/or the article, then you have nothing to add, so don't post.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't blame them here at all. Unless you know an exact configuration of software, hardware, etc you can't make any promises. You just can't, and you never will be able to.
Totally agree there. I just wish Roblimo would have replied with something clear and succint like, "Yeah, but you guys are the ones slamming Linux for not being backed. What, exactly, is that MS 'guarantee' good for?" It's not that software should or even could be warranted against everything, but as Roblimo did point out, if it's going to be warranted , it should be warranted for SOMEthing.
Not only that, but I don't think Roblimo nailed him quite enough on the fact that, okay, no company can really back their software, but MS is the one making the claim, linux isn't. It's another instance of one of MS's promises not standing up to mean anything. It was Roblimo's basic point, but he let the MS guy confuse the issue there and wriggle off the hook.
Also, with the issue of indemnification, who would be a potential litigant against linux when SCO's dead? Novell, who owns SuSE? IBM, who has banked a lot of their business on linux? Pretty much leaves MS. So that could be interpreted as a threat, in the style of mob racketeering/fire insurance. Would have loved to see Roblimo follow up there - would MS consider pursuing legal action against linux? Would MS promise not to?
That said, it was a good interview by Roblimo. Overall did a good job of avoiding the guy's spin.
...just eat some fucking carrots, you numbnut.
First, Kim is nuts. I'm not sure MAD theory still applies to him, but let's hope so. Second, what he wants is attention. He seems to be clamoring for talks - about what, I've no idea - and is going out of his way to advertise this nuke program. I think he suffers from delusions of grandeur and gets off on the possibility of beleving he's the equal of Japan and the US.
So under the engagement idea, we give him exactly what he wants. The question is, is that a good or bad idea? Does the attention appease him, or does it teach him that acting like an ass gets him what he wants? His history tells me the latter, because appeasement/engagement is what we've tried with him so far, and he keeps pulling the old "We're making nukes" card, running on 10 years now.
That said, I agree sabre-rattling is the worst course of action. I think we should develop a plan to tactically destroy his nuclear capability, sit on it, and decide if we want to ignore him, or let him play diplomacy. Take out his nukes only as a last resort.
C'mon, you don't think Page and Brin could conquor France?
How does firefox do all that? It's just a browser. Mozilla I could see.
Hmmm...I can't either. I can, however, start with the stuff that got WORSE. Like Bloat/Nag-ware, etc.
Puck mouse?
That said, as mentioned, this is likely due to the fact that they are enormous and don't have the time to eradicate $5M worth of spam business.
Thank you, Captain Fucking Obvious - er, Crunch.
Let me guess what frequency it blew, Cap'n...
The effects of smoking, like being pregnant, follow you to work, regardless of whether you smoke or get knocked up at work.
As a militant non-smoker, I'd like to agree with you, but I don't think the courts are going to care. How about AIDS caught by exchanging needles? Some might say that's a disease caught from a vice. Kind of like emphysema. You watched Philadelphia lately?
Just because both happen to involve health care costs doesn't mean that they are at all equivalent.
Morally, I agree, but that's irrelevant when it goes to the courts.
And the courts have been pretty vigilant about restricting such things to that which actually impacts the company.
We've been on a fairly steady decline since they found out they can make employees go through demeaning tests for insurance purposes and are currently at the point where companies are trying to kick smokers out.
That's what our society (well, the US) gets for comingling employment with social issues like health care. I don't think the smokers thing will pass legal scrutiny, but it is an issue that legitimately affects the company.
Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them
It's not an argument, it's the law. Your company actually can't stop you from saying anything. They simply have the right not to pay you if you act in a manner not becoming of an employee.
conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.
As pointed out by another poster, there were, but it's immaterial. If anything, a large multinational company is less likely to notice - or care - what the heck you do on spare time. It's smaller companies where the boss gets his panties in a bunch. And if you think this is new, check employment conditions around the time of, and just after, the bill of rights was written. If you think employees had more rights then, you need a history lesson desperately. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" if nothing else.
To recap: 1) People have the right to free speech and other freedoms. 2) If your exercising of these freedoms harms the company, they may have the right to cease employing you, depending what you do. 3) This is nothing new. 4) If anything, things are better these days, certainly than 200 years ago when there were NO laws protecting employees. 5) This has nothing to do with global corporate paranoia.
Yeah, I heard about that. I'd be shocked if the workers don't win that lawsuit, but we'll see. I know the parallel isn't perfect, but replace "smoker" with "pregnant woman" and see how far, legally, that goes.
I don't imagine this has anything to do with MS putting a local search ("Near Me") on their new search.msn.com, would it?
Think that's bad? I graduated in 1995 and we were still running 8088's. I think most were finally upgraded from 256K of ram - that's right, KB - to 512, and a couple of screamers had 640K. Ran DOS 3.X. So windows at all. And I heard it still took them a few years after I graduated to get something running windows. Can you imagine using machines (desktops) whose chip design is 20 years old (vintage about 1978)? Thank God my parents got me a computer my sophomore year or I'd be having a friend type this for me probably.
Naturally, our football team was often nationally ranked.
I know a lot if iPod owners - expect to number myself among them soon - and I've never heard one tell me that they got that over a Sony because they couldn't figure the Sony out. Maybe it's because I'm in grad school and not surrounded by fucktards, I don't know. But, again, just being easier doesn't get Apple 60% margins on those iPods. Being cool does.
They're still making money on the books. Most companies would kill to have such a "problem," and I imagine they number themselves among them.
Congratulations. That's the best troll I've seen in weeks.
Actually, I like how I had it. Better is extremely subjective. I'll probably grant easier, but it isn't the n00bs that apple gets margins from, it's the style-conscious.
Yikes, news to me as a direcTV owner. I withdraw said comment!
I don't think Apple does much innovation of that kind anymore. They seem to have taken another track to the typical "lead, follow, or..." paradigm: taking something that exists, and making it cool. Did they invent the portable music player? No, they made it cool and really usable.
Also, just to nitpick: TiVo supplies DirecTV's PVRs. I think TiVo is here to stay. But I realize you could have picked 1000 other examples that supported your thesis.
Come on, I MUST KNOW!
2) some karmawhore will always post fulltext.
3) redundancy can often be prevented by at least reading the other
4) google cache is your friend
5) if you can't be bothered to read other posts and/or the article, then you have nothing to add, so don't post.
No excuses for not R'ing TFA in some manner.