It's going to be awesome.
Bob is always fun to watch and read. And he's pro splicing. So it's going to be okay to have some fun cutting up his interviews and doing interesting things to them.
I'm amazed Israel was on the list. They usually have a pretty blasé attitude on "piracy." Mainly because they have to deal with things like terrorism on a scale we can scarcely imagine. Finding and hunting down piracy takes resources which can usually be used to fight crimes that actually hurt people. I wonder how much on the enforcement end came from Israel, or if it was just a matter of letting us go into their country to take the "pirates" out.
But it's kind of a pointless argument. For all practical purposes, during every day normal enterprise use, for a standard enterprise customer who has no need to distribute software outside his enterprise, there is no difference at all between GPL and BSD.
The only spot where the GPL and BSD licenses differ in any real way for enterprise customers is when distribution is involved. If just using it without significant modification, then there is no difference between them because the GPL really only comes into affect when the software is distributed. Which makes sense. It is a distribution license.
Yes, but contrary to popular belief, you can't copyright ideas. Ideas have always been free. Except where patents are involved, but it's rare that a patent has any literary value.
Why, I use DECnet all the time. I am a purist, and refuse to work with upstart protocols like TCP/IP. I believe the height of technology in its purist form came in 1985. So why upgrade?
Why, my gopher web server works just fine, and I run it from a floppy disk on my 8088 XT. In fact, I do everything on my 8088 XT. It can even play Midi files in mono! Sure, it's not as pretty as some of the fancy shmacy new wave "windows" systems, but show me something you can't do from the command line in DOS, and I'll show you something I refuse to learn how to do.
Why, when I was your age, we had to walk ten miles to school, program in BASIC, and the games we played were based on revolutionary 8 bit technology! We didn't have an "internet." Internet schminternet, give me a text based BBS for my Hayes 3 Baud modem, and I can download over pixilated porn till the cows come home. And we liked it!
But there are ways to minimize the risk Chevys and most other American cars pose to network security. For example, when you see one, just flatten the tires or let the air out. You're doing the public a service and preventing yet another American built car from being able to victimize yet another innocent non-secured wireless network.
Personally, I prefer it. I wish Wine could run Fireworks, but other than that, I don't really have any serious bitches about the system.
The thing I absolutely love about Linux is the fact that it rarely breaks down completely. I've been known to fry a user account now and then, but that's nothing compared to having the whole system get hosed because I uninstalled something I shouldn't have installed in the first place. I've been holding by dual boot copy of Windows together with duct tape for going on two years now, which isn't easy because I don't happen to have a copy of XP.
So why don't you just buy a copy of Windows XP for maintenance? Well, I work 90 hour weeks. I just don't have the time to make it out. It would be so much easier if I could just download a copy of it, but that's not legally possible unless I shell out two grand for an MSDN subscription.
Linux by contrast doesn't have issues like that. If I lose or misplace a CD, it's a trivial matter to make a new one if I need it.
Why should you have to Google for something though ?
And why should have to figure out what hardware you're using (because Compaq won't tell you), figure out your specs, download drivers that weren't intended for your specific machine, and reboot several times to do it? And all this, just to get my video card to have a refresh rate that I can't see change as I scroll or type. It was more like watching a bad flash animation of a windows desktop, than actually using Windows. Such was my experience with Windows XP. In fact, from what I understand I'm not the only one that goes through this. Anyone with hardware not in the five year old windows hardware database will have similar issues. Then my pad and pen didn't work, so I have to track down drivers for those.
Linux on the other hand... Much better hardware support. All around, it was just better. With no effort on my part (and no need at all to search Google), Fedora Core 3 picked up and installed everything (except the scanner part of my printer/scanner combo... I'm still working on that). And it worked. In fact, certain pieces of hardware work better under Linux than they do under Windows. Case and point, I can get higher resolution on my NVIDIA graphics card than I can using windows on the same box. My tablet and pen are much more sensitive, and make it easier to do complex diagrams and doodles. In Windows, I had to re-learn how to draw in order to use this technology.
I do have to hand it to the guy who wrote the article. I can't tell you how sick I am of know nothings that complain endlessly because their one in a million hardware configuration didn't work with Linux, and then they go on to tell the whole world that Linux sucks as a result of it, and nobody should even bother installing it. When these same people start talking about usability and things like "Buddy Icons" it's especially funny.
Although I wouldn't put this guy into the same category. At least he's proposing a solution, or set of them. But I can't say I agree with his assessment of the problem.
I hate to be an ass, but it rarely takes 12 minutes. In my experience it's been closer to 5 minutes on Windows server OS's, and slightly longer on Xp's and Nt's... Also depends on your connection, few hackers are ever interested in narrow band users.
I still don't see why they don't go after the real pirates, who make and distribute these things commercially, and mostly in foreign countries. Seems to me that the non net pirates are probably a bigger threat. But they wouldn't need an international crack down force to find them (just walk through manhatten sometime), so I imagine they have to spend money on something. A shame.
I agree, their mice are good, and very compatible with Linux. I make sure to use Microsoft mice on all of my Linux boxes. You can cut the irony with a stick.
Can they really do that? I mean, it's obviously a joke, but what if there is a "association for higher fees" that gets pissed off that they said anything. I could see the meeting now. "The games up, we've been slashdotted. Everyone knows now." The law suits to come would be equally silly.
IF Ballmer was smart, he would see a lot of things:
1. That it's never a good idea to be incredibly aggressive, and then back off. It just feeds the monkey boy persona everyone thinks of when they think Ballmer. I would say Ballmer himself, and Microsoft as a whole have some pretty serious PR issues. A good start: stop being such an ass. Calmly answer inquiries and questions the way any other professional CEO would.
2. By paying close attention to your competition, you are giving them the home team advantage. You're bringing the fight to their home. When it comes to things like Search, Microsoft has never done well, and they are by contrast... an upstart. Instead, focus on your product for a change. You want to talk about innovation? Freaking innovate for a change. Everyone's open to something better. If you can produce the best product possible, people will come. Ms has a lot of strengths. Usability tends to be one of them. Why not exploit that?
3. What a Siebel database is.
4. Google does not need to be caught. This is a market that Microsoft has already dismissed as "non innovative" and boring. Even in his comments, he said that no innovation ever happens in search. Have you used Google Earth Mr. Ballmer? My god man. If you believe there's no innovation to be had, then why even bother? It's like saying, "Yeah, I know my product is going to suck, but this other guy over there sucks even more but thinks he doesn't."
As far as giving up the fight... well, this is a fight they gave up long ago when yahoo won the first round of Search Engine wars. Ms's search engine was never a priority until Google showed that you can make money without annoying people. Yet Ms still don't seem to get that aspect of it. And it shows, the Microsoft MSN search engine is loud annoying, and produces crap search results ala Lycos, circa 1996.
To this day they haven't even been able to come close to what Google is doing, and they know it. Given their performance in this sector, there's no reason they should even be involved in it in the first place. They need to cut their losses and focus on real money makers like Xbox Royalties, Enterprise Apps, Databases, Smart Phones, and Mice.
5. Interoperability? What exactly does interoperability mean if you can't support Open Source? What IS supported? Also, if Microsoft can't support Open Source, then why have they released Open Source applications for Windows XP, Server03, and.Net? It seems the only logical conclusion that can be derived from Ballmer's statements is that Interoperability doesn't actually mean anything, and that it's his way of getting people to just shut up.
6. The real threat to Microsoft isn't Linux, it's KDE and GNOME. If Ballmer was smart, he would understand this, and that the OS itself is far less relevant to the consumer than the desktop environment which the consumer considers to be the OS. A move to BSD or Linux like Apple did would cement that and make them virtually unstoppable in this market for many years to come. Yet, they don't seem worried about any of that. That's what gets me.
Exactly.
But that lowers the bar for success considerably. Not to sound like I'm mocking you (I'm really not), but by that standard you can count the people that are making a living selling cut rate software on Ebay. Some of them are making well into the six and seven figures without even showing up on anyone's radar.
You really need to be more careful about throwing words around recklessly like that. Just because someone does not agree with you, or they have done more research than you on a given subject does not make them foolish.
According to DoubleClick's own web site (the source):
"DoubleClick does not use your name, address, email address, or phone number to deliver Internet ads. DoubleClick does use information about your browser and Web surfing to determine which ads to show your browser. "
Therein lies the problem with DoubleClick, and the level of community anger towards them. They do track people, they have been doing it for years, and the scope has been increasing gradually. While I'll concede that I haven't heard of them installing spyware, I can't say I would put it past them.
You also said:
"Take a look at Doubleclick's SEC filings and their 300M or so in revenue."
Aside from the fact that you're off on the numbers, why would I? They're a private company?
Not only do they throw pop ups in your face, they help people get around your popup blockers. Great guys you're defending here.
I think it's important to point out that your defending DoubleClick as though they were the only option. They're not. There are other companies out there that behave ethically and haven't even been investigated once by the FTC or the Attorney General. There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head that are not compiling illegal databases designed to profile the spending habits of every man woman and child on earth. You can choose to work with a company that will be honest, and adhere to their privacy policies, and not exploit you or your visitors without consent. There are lots of companies out there that do will pay you as much or more than DoubleClick does for your space. Or you could do what I do with Microsoft. Nothing. If it works, why would you care how they behave or what they do? Who cares about business practices.. right? C'mon, apathy is actually a nice place to be, but it doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.
And this is new? How is this a flaw? Has the person who is describing the flaw even tried a POC?
Even if it were a flaw, do you really think people are going to notice the URL? Half the people I deal with on a regular basis don't even know what a URL is!
To date, I haven't seen an ad blocker that can block text ads. And you'll notice more and more sites using the Google style ads every day. I could care less what DoubleClick thinks. In fact, the statistics on Adsense demonstrate that less annoying ads do in fact work. They work just as well, or (in most cases) better than flashing banner ads.
DoubleClick's ads are annoying, and detract from the value that I receive from going to the web page that hosts them. If there's no value for me viewing this content, or reduced value because of the distractions I have to face, then tell me... why should I view these pages in the first place?
I have seen so many thousands of Banner ads that I tune them out anyway. I can't tell you the last time I clicked on a double click ad, or any other banner for that matter. Then there's their metrics systems, which I find offensive. And cookies, and data sharing, and the list goes on.
It is a free market, only in this case, the people being marketed to have the option of tuning it out if they find it offensive. That's life. If their ads didn't suck, and they didn't do things like publicly announce that they're going to build profiles on every man woman and child in the world then maybe people wouldn't mind seeing their ads.
They complain endlessly about the negative "vibes" towards advertising, yet they take no responsibility for creating these "vibes" in the first place. No one had a problem with Internet ads before DoubleClick started tracking people.
Hate to be a pain, but didn't he say not to say dia? I don't know. I know nothing about diagramming in linux. Just thought I'de be annoying and point that out.
I'm just waiting for the first post to accuse Forbes of selling out for doing a slilly article based on a movie. It was fair with howthingswork.com, why not here?
At least they called us savvy. But then again, that's what they get for posting a WIKI on one of the world's most populace web sites. And even though the timing of the vandalism was suspicious. The evidence is still only circumstantial. In the future, they might want to try to use a technology that's easier to control. A blog section would be a good example. I might even use it. But to say that Slashdotters are evil... well, yeah, we are kind of.;P
Slashdot Mirror
It's going to be awesome. Bob is always fun to watch and read. And he's pro splicing. So it's going to be okay to have some fun cutting up his interviews and doing interesting things to them.
I'm amazed Israel was on the list. They usually have a pretty blasé attitude on "piracy." Mainly because they have to deal with things like terrorism on a scale we can scarcely imagine. Finding and hunting down piracy takes resources which can usually be used to fight crimes that actually hurt people. I wonder how much on the enforcement end came from Israel, or if it was just a matter of letting us go into their country to take the "pirates" out.
But it's kind of a pointless argument.
For all practical purposes, during every day normal enterprise use, for a standard enterprise customer who has no need to distribute software outside his enterprise, there is no difference at all between GPL and BSD.
The only spot where the GPL and BSD licenses differ in any real way for enterprise customers is when distribution is involved. If just using it without significant modification, then there is no difference between them because the GPL really only comes into affect when the software is distributed. Which makes sense. It is a distribution license.
Yes, but contrary to popular belief, you can't copyright ideas. Ideas have always been free. Except where patents are involved, but it's rare that a patent has any literary value.
Or it could put the pirates out of business all together. If it's cheap enough.
There's pagerank, which is incredibly handy, if you maintain web sites or do any SEO
I bet he's got sphinkter monkeys too. Damn monkeys.
Why, I use DECnet all the time. I am a purist, and refuse to work with upstart protocols like TCP/IP. I believe the height of technology in its purist form came in 1985. So why upgrade?
Why, my gopher web server works just fine, and I run it from a floppy disk on my 8088 XT. In fact, I do everything on my 8088 XT. It can even play Midi files in mono! Sure, it's not as pretty as some of the fancy shmacy new wave "windows" systems, but show me something you can't do from the command line in DOS, and I'll show you something I refuse to learn how to do.
Why, when I was your age, we had to walk ten miles to school, program in BASIC, and the games we played were based on revolutionary 8 bit technology! We didn't have an "internet." Internet schminternet, give me a text based BBS for my Hayes 3 Baud modem, and I can download over pixilated porn till the cows come home. And we liked it!
But there are ways to minimize the risk Chevys and most other American cars pose to network security. For example, when you see one, just flatten the tires or let the air out. You're doing the public a service and preventing yet another American built car from being able to victimize yet another innocent non-secured wireless network.
Exactly.
So why do you think it is that Linux gets a bad rap for hardware support when Windows has exactly the same problem?
Personally, I prefer it.
I wish Wine could run Fireworks, but other than that, I don't really have any serious bitches about the system.
The thing I absolutely love about Linux is the fact that it rarely breaks down completely. I've been known to fry a user account now and then, but that's nothing compared to having the whole system get hosed because I uninstalled something I shouldn't have installed in the first place. I've been holding by dual boot copy of Windows together with duct tape for going on two years now, which isn't easy because I don't happen to have a copy of XP.
So why don't you just buy a copy of Windows XP for maintenance? Well, I work 90 hour weeks. I just don't have the time to make it out. It would be so much easier if I could just download a copy of it, but that's not legally possible unless I shell out two grand for an MSDN subscription.
Linux by contrast doesn't have issues like that. If I lose or misplace a CD, it's a trivial matter to make a new one if I need it.
Why should you have to Google for something though ?
And why should have to figure out what hardware you're using (because Compaq won't tell you), figure out your specs, download drivers that weren't intended for your specific machine, and reboot several times to do it? And all this, just to get my video card to have a refresh rate that I can't see change as I scroll or type. It was more like watching a bad flash animation of a windows desktop, than actually using Windows. Such was my experience with Windows XP. In fact, from what I understand I'm not the only one that goes through this. Anyone with hardware not in the five year old windows hardware database will have similar issues. Then my pad and pen didn't work, so I have to track down drivers for those.
Linux on the other hand...
Much better hardware support. All around, it was just better. With no effort on my part (and no need at all to search Google), Fedora Core 3 picked up and installed everything (except the scanner part of my printer/scanner combo... I'm still working on that). And it worked. In fact, certain pieces of hardware work better under Linux than they do under Windows. Case and point, I can get higher resolution on my NVIDIA graphics card than I can using windows on the same box. My tablet and pen are much more sensitive, and make it easier to do complex diagrams and doodles. In Windows, I had to re-learn how to draw in order to use this technology.
I do have to hand it to the guy who wrote the article. I can't tell you how sick I am of know nothings that complain endlessly because their one in a million hardware configuration didn't work with Linux, and then they go on to tell the whole world that Linux sucks as a result of it, and nobody should even bother installing it. When these same people start talking about usability and things like "Buddy Icons" it's especially funny.
Although I wouldn't put this guy into the same category. At least he's proposing a solution, or set of them. But I can't say I agree with his assessment of the problem.
I hate to be an ass, but it rarely takes 12 minutes. In my experience it's been closer to 5 minutes on Windows server OS's, and slightly longer on Xp's and Nt's... Also depends on your connection, few hackers are ever interested in narrow band users.
I still don't see why they don't go after the real pirates, who make and distribute these things commercially, and mostly in foreign countries. Seems to me that the non net pirates are probably a bigger threat. But they wouldn't need an international crack down force to find them (just walk through manhatten sometime), so I imagine they have to spend money on something. A shame.
I agree, their mice are good, and very compatible with Linux. I make sure to use Microsoft mice on all of my Linux boxes. You can cut the irony with a stick.
Can they really do that? I mean, it's obviously a joke, but what if there is a "association for higher fees" that gets pissed off that they said anything. I could see the meeting now. "The games up, we've been slashdotted. Everyone knows now." The law suits to come would be equally silly.
IF Ballmer was smart, he would see a lot of things:
.Net? It seems the only logical conclusion that can be derived from Ballmer's statements is that Interoperability doesn't actually mean anything, and that it's his way of getting people to just shut up.
1. That it's never a good idea to be incredibly aggressive, and then back off. It just feeds the monkey boy persona everyone thinks of when they think Ballmer. I would say Ballmer himself, and Microsoft as a whole have some pretty serious PR issues. A good start: stop being such an ass. Calmly answer inquiries and questions the way any other professional CEO would.
2. By paying close attention to your competition, you are giving them the home team advantage. You're bringing the fight to their home. When it comes to things like Search, Microsoft has never done well, and they are by contrast... an upstart. Instead, focus on your product for a change. You want to talk about innovation? Freaking innovate for a change. Everyone's open to something better. If you can produce the best product possible, people will come. Ms has a lot of strengths. Usability tends to be one of them. Why not exploit that?
3. What a Siebel database is.
4. Google does not need to be caught. This is a market that Microsoft has already dismissed as "non innovative" and boring. Even in his comments, he said that no innovation ever happens in search. Have you used Google Earth Mr. Ballmer? My god man. If you believe there's no innovation to be had, then why even bother? It's like saying, "Yeah, I know my product is going to suck, but this other guy over there sucks even more but thinks he doesn't."
As far as giving up the fight... well, this is a fight they gave up long ago when yahoo won the first round of Search Engine wars. Ms's search engine was never a priority until Google showed that you can make money without annoying people. Yet Ms still don't seem to get that aspect of it. And it shows, the Microsoft MSN search engine is loud annoying, and produces crap search results ala Lycos, circa 1996.
To this day they haven't even been able to come close to what Google is doing, and they know it. Given their performance in this sector, there's no reason they should even be involved in it in the first place. They need to cut their losses and focus on real money makers like Xbox Royalties, Enterprise Apps, Databases, Smart Phones, and Mice.
5. Interoperability? What exactly does interoperability mean if you can't support Open Source? What IS supported? Also, if Microsoft can't support Open Source, then why have they released Open Source applications for Windows XP, Server03, and
6. The real threat to Microsoft isn't Linux, it's KDE and GNOME. If Ballmer was smart, he would understand this, and that the OS itself is far less relevant to the consumer than the desktop environment which the consumer considers to be the OS. A move to BSD or Linux like Apple did would cement that and make them virtually unstoppable in this market for many years to come. Yet, they don't seem worried about any of that. That's what gets me.
Exactly. But that lowers the bar for success considerably. Not to sound like I'm mocking you (I'm really not), but by that standard you can count the people that are making a living selling cut rate software on Ebay. Some of them are making well into the six and seven figures without even showing up on anyone's radar.
You really need to be more careful about throwing words around recklessly like that. Just because someone does not agree with you, or they have done more research than you on a given subject does not make them foolish.
You said
"they certainly don't track you across sites"
They've been investigated by the Attorney General and the FTC over it.
According to DoubleClick's own web site (the source):
"DoubleClick does not use your name, address, email address, or phone number to deliver Internet ads. DoubleClick does use information about your browser and Web surfing to determine which ads to show your browser. "
Therein lies the problem with DoubleClick, and the level of community anger towards them. They do track people, they have been doing it for years, and the scope has been increasing gradually. While I'll concede that I haven't heard of them installing spyware, I can't say I would put it past them.
You also said:
"Take a look at Doubleclick's SEC filings and their 300M or so in revenue."
Aside from the fact that you're off on the numbers, why would I? They're a private company?
Oh, and last one:
" They do not throw pop-ups in your face"
Not only do they throw pop ups in your face, they help people get around your popup blockers. Great guys you're defending here.
I think it's important to point out that your defending DoubleClick as though they were the only option. They're not. There are other companies out there that behave ethically and haven't even been investigated once by the FTC or the Attorney General. There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head that are not compiling illegal databases designed to profile the spending habits of every man woman and child on earth. You can choose to work with a company that will be honest, and adhere to their privacy policies, and not exploit you or your visitors without consent. There are lots of companies out there that do will pay you as much or more than DoubleClick does for your space. Or you could do what I do with Microsoft. Nothing. If it works, why would you care how they behave or what they do? Who cares about business practices.. right? C'mon, apathy is actually a nice place to be, but it doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.
And this is new?
How is this a flaw?
Has the person who is describing the flaw even tried a POC?
Even if it were a flaw, do you really think people are going to notice the URL? Half the people I deal with on a regular basis don't even know what a URL is!
I don't think so.
To date, I haven't seen an ad blocker that can block text ads. And you'll notice more and more sites using the Google style ads every day. I could care less what DoubleClick thinks. In fact, the statistics on Adsense demonstrate that less annoying ads do in fact work. They work just as well, or (in most cases) better than flashing banner ads.
DoubleClick's ads are annoying, and detract from the value that I receive from going to the web page that hosts them. If there's no value for me viewing this content, or reduced value because of the distractions I have to face, then tell me... why should I view these pages in the first place?
I have seen so many thousands of Banner ads that I tune them out anyway. I can't tell you the last time I clicked on a double click ad, or any other banner for that matter. Then there's their metrics systems, which I find offensive. And cookies, and data sharing, and the list goes on.
It is a free market, only in this case, the people being marketed to have the option of tuning it out if they find it offensive. That's life. If their ads didn't suck, and they didn't do things like publicly announce that they're going to build profiles on every man woman and child in the world then maybe people wouldn't mind seeing their ads.
They complain endlessly about the negative "vibes" towards advertising, yet they take no responsibility for creating these "vibes" in the first place. No one had a problem with Internet ads before DoubleClick started tracking people.
Hate to be a pain, but didn't he say not to say dia? I don't know. I know nothing about diagramming in linux. Just thought I'de be annoying and point that out.
I'm just waiting for the first post to accuse Forbes of selling out for doing a slilly article based on a movie. It was fair with howthingswork.com, why not here?
Exactly, and it's not that they didn't know this stuff was out there. Moderating a WIKI is bullshit.
At least they called us savvy. But then again, that's what they get for posting a WIKI on one of the world's most populace web sites. And even though the timing of the vandalism was suspicious. The evidence is still only circumstantial. In the future, they might want to try to use a technology that's easier to control. A blog section would be a good example. I might even use it. But to say that Slashdotters are evil... well, yeah, we are kind of. ;P