I thought he played with some code, made a mess out of it, bought someone else's code, then licensed yet another third party to replace his original attempt at coding?
Just because you're a monopolist doesn't mean you're providing sub-standard stock. Look at Standard Oil. Nothing was wrong with its gas, it just used it's market power to kill off all other competition, and then priced their product with monopoly power during those times there were no competitors.
I'm not sure I agree that QoS should be definable by system/type of use. The entire TCPIP stack is such that you can model an app using the most favorable QoS for your tastes. Additionally, QoS on TCPIP pretty much kills the flexibility of an app. Let's say a couple of us want to use Skype encrypted, or tunneled. Where's our QoS at that point. Plug it on a separate network designed for a better QoS, things change.
Basically, the telco's and cable co's are going to have to provide the pipes they've promised. Somewhere there's a document that teleco's got some huge tax incentive/write-off to provide 100 Mbps fiber to the curb. The money was "paid". Where's my &%^*$!ing fiber?
I understand the issue just fine. Here's your simple solution - run double fibers to the house. One pipe for internet, one for VOIP, or whatever other service they want to have controlled QoS's for.
Second option, just run 1 fiber, and use 2 wavelengths, then split those further up the pipe.
There's all sorts of ways they can control their networks without infringing on net neutrality or negatively affecting their customers.
But your cell phone provider can degrade the quality of your call just a little bit to free up space, you just don't notice that much. What was that? I missed that last sentence, stupid &*%^^&*( Verizon!
ClearQuest will create new levels of frustration with your team. It's poorly integrated, if you can call it integration.
TestDirector is probably a little better, but still sucky, and doesn't integrate with anything else.
MKS has a product that's supposedly integrated, but I've never figured out how to use it properly, and their source control product is fundanmentally flawed (no atomic commits - the commit gets logged, put into the DB, before the actual source is processed. If the source fails to process, it's still logged and shows up on your client as being committed although the server still has the old version. That one was a fun one to track down, and we had it happen at least 2 confirmed times...)
Every other system is standalone and requires manual work to integrate with any other system you happen to utilize, as most of those suck rocks too.
This is an area that just hasn't seen the killer product that's required, because it's not a simple problem, and any solution will require some amount of pain from each of its participants because of the integration overhead.
Microsoft learned this from Unix and other large systems - years ago (back in DOS days) I can remember having to call vendor for keys to (re)install software on Unix boxes.
I can't remember anyone questioning "why" - that was simply the requirements for that software (probably still is today). I can remember some of those too - like dongles for Cadkey and Autocad. I remember everyone asking why, as it interfered with the computer's ability to print, which was one of the key functions under those applications. The entire serial number thing I remember starting in the UNIX world too, and was arguably the finest innovation in Win95 and NT. (We all remember 1111-111-1111-1111 right?:) I remember having something like 350 serial numbers in a drawer, and all machines running under that one number.
In fact it was arguably worse than MS activation - _every_ install required phone call as online activiation didn't exist. These days online activation almost certainly handles the vast majority of the cases on Windows with phone calls only required for the exceptions. I don't recall having to call more than once, as we didn't install it more than once on a machine. There was also the case that you couldn't install some software without direct help from the original developers - it's always fun being on the cutting edge. This was engineering modeling and analysis software on SGI Irix machines. We actually had to have a guy come out to assist with the install, as their "installer" (very loosely and generously labeled as such) was, shall we say, a little flaky and "forgot" to copy random files into their appropriate locations?
And then there's the wonderful BEA activation key process for their old Weblogic servers. That one deserves special mention for being the one activation scenario that MS could "innovate" to to improve their activation process. You install the software, generate a key request on the machine with the account it's to run as and send it off. Half the time, you got a bad key back. You had to do this anytime you changed anything with their servers, including point upgrades and patches. Later, they added the license server and things got better.
Except for a very small group of very specific software, no one's ever really shown that software measures such as activation significantly lower piracy. It does make a whole lot of legitimate users less happy, and complicates the entire scenario a lot more than it needs to be I used to work for a company that made very expensive software. There were no activation keys of any sort, and still aren't. They make lots of money, with no known cases of piracy.
As for the argument that who's going to pay for support, etc. Well, if you have a "pirated" copy and are stupid enough to call support in the first place, perhaps that support call should charge you the price of the software before helping you. (Note that this still doesn't give you a license, hence the next time, another nice charge - a built in revenue maker for the manufacturer, and an incentive to buy a legit copy)
Otherwise, since MS basically "gives away" a copy of the OS with every new PC sold in order to drive other revenue such as Office and their other applications, what's the point in charging for the OS itself at all? I know that's a heretical thought, but the true value of the OS to MS is in providing their own controlled platform that they can leverage for the rest of their application suite.
>>but can we please be absolute when using the word "easy"?
Actually, speaking absolutely, it *is* easy. Relatively speaking (in relation to how we think it should be) is when it becomes difficult. Actually, it's unbelievably complicated. Why do I need to call anyone when installing software? Needless complications imposed by the manufacturer is why.
The B&MG foundation does very little effective good. It treats symptoms, much like putting a cold compress on a malaria victim's head.
If B&MG really wanted to help people, they'd fund public domain research to find cures for diseases. They'd fund the beginning of economic systems in places. IOW, they'd fund HIV research into a cure instead of ineffectively funding treatments for symptoms for existing patients. They'd fund education about contraception and provide contraception options instead of orphanges and soup kitchens for starving children. They'd fund stem cell research instead of hospice care.
All of those research efforts are short of funds at this time, and a true philanthropist would work to direct some of that research, including things he didn't necessarily agree with on the off-chance that a break-through would occur. After all, a true philanthropist is interested in results, not PR.
Yes, that's a hardline, and seems cold. I'm aware they're doing some funding of research, but the bulk goes to treatment of symptoms - it's the biggest bang for the buck PR-wise, and if nothing else, BG loves attention and his sense self-importance.
That's what partitions are for. Partition Magic is particularly helpful here in resizing and copying partitions, and best of all it's not really a Symantec product, although they own it now.
Just what is Adobe's incentive to drop the price? Seriously, they're selling like hotcakes at that price because they pretty much are the only game in town for serious work.
Now, does this mean they're selling 100s of millions of copies? No. Does Adobe want to sell in that market? I'd say no. That's why you have Elements. Much easier for the average consumer, and also lower powered.
The problem with a larger market for Photoshop is that Adobe's support costs would most likely rise, as people buy it "because its the best" and then either flood the support lines or do mass returns, because they can't get it to work and Paint really was all they needed.
Yes, I'd love to own Photoshop @ $50 or even $100. $650 made me look for an alternative for my needs, which actually changed during the search. (I'm stuck between Aperture or Capture One - haven't made a final decision yet).
My truck and older vehicle gain nothing from higher octane than recommended.
How old are these vehicles? If they have no engine computer, then no, unless you manually adjust the timing to take advantage of the higher octane, they wouldn't show a difference between grades of fuel. However, if they do have an engine computer that can dynamically advance or retard the spark based upon engine sensor input, then I would be very surprised to learn that there was no difference between premium and regular unleaded in these engines. 1999 and 2004. They have computers. There is just no gain from higher octane, or no noticeable gain. If you're already running optimally at 87 octane, what good is 93 going to do for you?
I was actually under the impression that the urban heat island was due to large amounts of concrete, asphalt, etc, which have higher heat absorption coefficients....
I'd seen an article on algae biomass production as being near-zero carbon, as they pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. I think there was a recent/. story on it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only really been out a couple of days.
I thought he played with some code, made a mess out of it, bought someone else's code, then licensed yet another third party to replace his original attempt at coding?
They did, there was IBM PC DOS, MS DOS, and DRDOS (came later). In addition, there were several other systems that ran on the 8088, including CPM.
AMD == Germany -> Europe.
Intel == US, where it just happened to be in the center of the computer revolution.
Sounds like Common Sense to me, you just know that this is how it's supposed to be....
oh, and never underestimate how much you'll need to lower your IQ and wisdom to perform like somebody younger....
Just because you're a monopolist doesn't mean you're providing sub-standard stock. Look at Standard Oil. Nothing was wrong with its gas, it just used it's market power to kill off all other competition, and then priced their product with monopoly power during those times there were no competitors.
AMD existed even back then. For the rest - see the "Wintel" discussions, which you provided an adequate synopsis for.
Unless you roast the grain just a little too long. Then you get a nasty burnt coffee wort smell.
:)
My wife won't let me brew indoors anymore.
So what's MS's excuse to continue dropping?
I'm not sure I agree that QoS should be definable by system/type of use. The entire TCPIP stack is such that you can model an app using the most favorable QoS for your tastes. Additionally, QoS on TCPIP pretty much kills the flexibility of an app. Let's say a couple of us want to use Skype encrypted, or tunneled. Where's our QoS at that point. Plug it on a separate network designed for a better QoS, things change.
Basically, the telco's and cable co's are going to have to provide the pipes they've promised. Somewhere there's a document that teleco's got some huge tax incentive/write-off to provide 100 Mbps fiber to the curb. The money was "paid". Where's my &%^*$!ing fiber?
I understand the issue just fine. Here's your simple solution - run double fibers to the house. One pipe for internet, one for VOIP, or whatever other service they want to have controlled QoS's for.
Second option, just run 1 fiber, and use 2 wavelengths, then split those further up the pipe.
There's all sorts of ways they can control their networks without infringing on net neutrality or negatively affecting their customers.
There's a problem with your stance.
Downloading music isn't illegal. Uploading is.
So I'll expect you to send money to support this wronged kid.
ClearQuest will create new levels of frustration with your team. It's poorly integrated, if you can call it integration.
TestDirector is probably a little better, but still sucky, and doesn't integrate with anything else.
MKS has a product that's supposedly integrated, but I've never figured out how to use it properly, and their source control product is fundanmentally flawed (no atomic commits - the commit gets logged, put into the DB, before the actual source is processed. If the source fails to process, it's still logged and shows up on your client as being committed although the server still has the old version. That one was a fun one to track down, and we had it happen at least 2 confirmed times...)
Every other system is standalone and requires manual work to integrate with any other system you happen to utilize, as most of those suck rocks too.
This is an area that just hasn't seen the killer product that's required, because it's not a simple problem, and any solution will require some amount of pain from each of its participants because of the integration overhead.
First, this isn't the type of research private researchers generally do, therefore your first point is a red herring.
I can't remember anyone questioning "why" - that was simply the requirements for that software (probably still is today). I can remember some of those too - like dongles for Cadkey and Autocad. I remember everyone asking why, as it interfered with the computer's ability to print, which was one of the key functions under those applications. The entire serial number thing I remember starting in the UNIX world too, and was arguably the finest innovation in Win95 and NT. (We all remember 1111-111-1111-1111 right?:) I remember having something like 350 serial numbers in a drawer, and all machines running under that one number. In fact it was arguably worse than MS activation - _every_ install required phone call as online activiation didn't exist. These days online activation almost certainly handles the vast majority of the cases on Windows with phone calls only required for the exceptions. I don't recall having to call more than once, as we didn't install it more than once on a machine. There was also the case that you couldn't install some software without direct help from the original developers - it's always fun being on the cutting edge. This was engineering modeling and analysis software on SGI Irix machines. We actually had to have a guy come out to assist with the install, as their "installer" (very loosely and generously labeled as such) was, shall we say, a little flaky and "forgot" to copy random files into their appropriate locations?
And then there's the wonderful BEA activation key process for their old Weblogic servers. That one deserves special mention for being the one activation scenario that MS could "innovate" to to improve their activation process. You install the software, generate a key request on the machine with the account it's to run as and send it off. Half the time, you got a bad key back. You had to do this anytime you changed anything with their servers, including point upgrades and patches. Later, they added the license server and things got better.
Except for a very small group of very specific software, no one's ever really shown that software measures such as activation significantly lower piracy. It does make a whole lot of legitimate users less happy, and complicates the entire scenario a lot more than it needs to be I used to work for a company that made very expensive software. There were no activation keys of any sort, and still aren't. They make lots of money, with no known cases of piracy.
As for the argument that who's going to pay for support, etc. Well, if you have a "pirated" copy and are stupid enough to call support in the first place, perhaps that support call should charge you the price of the software before helping you. (Note that this still doesn't give you a license, hence the next time, another nice charge - a built in revenue maker for the manufacturer, and an incentive to buy a legit copy)
Otherwise, since MS basically "gives away" a copy of the OS with every new PC sold in order to drive other revenue such as Office and their other applications, what's the point in charging for the OS itself at all? I know that's a heretical thought, but the true value of the OS to MS is in providing their own controlled platform that they can leverage for the rest of their application suite.
The DMCA says it's illegal. Now you can go on about whether the DMCA should be legal...
Actually, speaking absolutely, it *is* easy. Relatively speaking (in relation to how we think it should be) is when it becomes difficult. Actually, it's unbelievably complicated. Why do I need to call anyone when installing software? Needless complications imposed by the manufacturer is why.
The B&MG foundation does very little effective good. It treats symptoms, much like putting a cold compress on a malaria victim's head.
If B&MG really wanted to help people, they'd fund public domain research to find cures for diseases. They'd fund the beginning of economic systems in places. IOW, they'd fund HIV research into a cure instead of ineffectively funding treatments for symptoms for existing patients. They'd fund education about contraception and provide contraception options instead of orphanges and soup kitchens for starving children. They'd fund stem cell research instead of hospice care.
All of those research efforts are short of funds at this time, and a true philanthropist would work to direct some of that research, including things he didn't necessarily agree with on the off-chance that a break-through would occur. After all, a true philanthropist is interested in results, not PR.
Yes, that's a hardline, and seems cold. I'm aware they're doing some funding of research, but the bulk goes to treatment of symptoms - it's the biggest bang for the buck PR-wise, and if nothing else, BG loves attention and his sense self-importance.
That's what partitions are for. Partition Magic is particularly helpful here in resizing and copying partitions, and best of all it's not really a Symantec product, although they own it now.
Just what is Adobe's incentive to drop the price? Seriously, they're selling like hotcakes at that price because they pretty much are the only game in town for serious work.
Now, does this mean they're selling 100s of millions of copies? No. Does Adobe want to sell in that market? I'd say no. That's why you have Elements. Much easier for the average consumer, and also lower powered.
The problem with a larger market for Photoshop is that Adobe's support costs would most likely rise, as people buy it "because its the best" and then either flood the support lines or do mass returns, because they can't get it to work and Paint really was all they needed.
Yes, I'd love to own Photoshop @ $50 or even $100. $650 made me look for an alternative for my needs, which actually changed during the search. (I'm stuck between Aperture or Capture One - haven't made a final decision yet).
I was actually under the impression that the urban heat island was due to large amounts of concrete, asphalt, etc, which have higher heat absorption coefficients....
I'd seen an article on algae biomass production as being near-zero carbon, as they pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. I think there was a recent /. story on it.