Apparently they're going to lay all the components on their desk because they didn't include a CASE in the budget. Though an inexpensive mid-tower case could be had for $30 or so, it should have been in the budget.
Additionally, they didn't include keyboard, monitor, and mouse needed to interact with the machine. Unless it's going to share them with your existing system (in which case a KVM switch needs to be added to the budget), it will need all those components.
Last, though this has been pointed out... what about the OS. Sure, you can get Linux and there's a neat WINE variant (don't recall the name) around that's tuned for gaming, but the WINE variant costs around $50 IIRC, and even if you use the Linux/WINE option to avoid the Microsoft tax, you're still looking at ~$50.
So if we cheap out on a 17" CRT monitor, keyboard, case, mouse, and Linux/WINE, we're still looking at around $800, not $500.
Microsoft blamed the proposal on a newly hired, "lower-level business person" who did not understand the company's obligations under the antitrust settlement.
Possible responses from the judge:
The Surgeon General has determined it is hazardous to your health to blow smoke up my ass.
Pull my other leg, it has bells on it.
And after I accept that, you've got a bridge you want to sell me?
Ha ha ha ha! Stop it, you're killin' me!
Ahhh, the blame it on the new guy defense. Not gonna fly. Next excuse?
(to lead counsel) Okay. If you say so. Are we still on for golf in Bermuda next week?
If we're going to talk about Linux as a desktop OS which happens so frequently on/. then this review has "not a desktop distro" written all over it.
I've always thought of Slackware as sort of the HeathKit hobbyist version of Linux... sort of the build your own robot dog, vs. the Aibos of Linspire, SuSE, or Mandrivacoriscalifragilisticexpialidocious.
When I first decided to play with Linux, many many moons ago, I think I bought the Walnut Creek CD-ROM of Slackware at Fry's or by mail order. I got a decent install up and running with XFree86 and a window manager. But it was very definitely a steep learning curve.
Recently, trying out a free copy of Linspire, it was probably the easiest install of any OS (Microsoft, BSD, or Windows) I've seen. Ubuntu was pretty simple too. I could have given my parents Linspire and had them up and running almost without my help.
But if you want to learn Linux, not just install it, Slackware is probably one of the best for that. IMO, Despite all the up-and-comers, it's still a good starter kit for the people who want to learn a little about how it works while getting it working.
It's important to remember that visible source code isn't the only requirement for Open Source. For software to be Open Source, it's not only necessary that the source code be available, but also that users are free to modify it and redistribute modified or unmodified copies.
So will we have to add more definitions and acronyms to the software lexicon?
Would source code you're allowed to inspect, but cannot modify, be Published Unmodifiable Source (PUS)?
How about Open Unmodifiable Computing Hardware (OUCH)?
Boolean Logic Open Unmodifiable Source Executable (BLOUSE)?
Unless you're doing pure open source GPL'ed programming, entry level for a version of QT you can use for commercial code is nearly $1800. You can't even use the free version to get your sea legs under you, because the license does not allow you to use code you wrote with the free version in the paid versions.
Microsoft, Borland, etc. usually have an entry level version of most of their programming products (with which you can still write proprietary code) that is less than my car payment. Entry level on QT is more than my mortgage.
Yes, they support open source, but unless you're an open source coder or a well-funded enterprise coder, they basically tell you to F off. I don't like that and it detracts from any excitement I could have about these announcements.
I generally find that by the time upgrading the CPU is cost effective, a new motherboard makes sense as part of the package. YMMV
So much is built onto the mainboard now... USB, firewire, support for various forms of DDR, sound, LAN... These don't change as often as CPUs, but they change.
Of course, this is meant to be a budget board, or at least they're using budget chipsets. The best I can see is that it provides whitebox manufacturers more flexibility. Use whatever CPU is on hand.
Seems like the standard settlement with Microsoft is $750 million. Maybe they just have suitcases with $750 million pre-prepared. When it comes time to settle, Ballmer takes one out of the closet, opens it up, shows it to the aggrieved party, and says "how does $750 million sound to you?"
Their little eyes grow wide, their little palms grow sweaty, and their mouth dries up. "Yes, Mr. Ballmer. That will be fine."
They reach for the suitcase, but Ballmer snatches it away. "First you'll have to sign this," he says, pushing a settlement agreement their way. A pen lies on top, and as they pick up the pen, it extends a small needle and pricks their finger, sucking their blood into the inkwell.
They sign.
As they take the suitcase and walk out of Ballmer's office, they hear an evil laugh behind them... muahaha. They turn to see that Ballmer has grown to twice his size, sprouting ram horns from his forehead. "You signed it in blood," he bellows. "Your soul is mine!!!!"
But hey, $750 million can buy a heck of a good time while you're still alive.
It may be a "laudable approach" for Sony to pick up the tabs for the camera makers, but what about the consumers? I have one of the Canon models mentioned. I'd like to get it fixed/certified NOW so I don't unexpectedly find it exhibiting these defective behaviors when I'm trying to tape something important like my son's first steps or his first Christmas.
The Canon announcement is only for Asia and it only offers to fix the camera if and when it starts showing symptoms of the problems. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a-lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture.
Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?
The main question on my mind, though, is would the cell phone carriers offer fewer freebies and worse deals if contracts were limited to one year, or would the competition in the market end up causing Mass. consumers to get deals on one-year contract that the rest of the country only gets on two-year contracts.
I'm not going to get Showtime just to watch Stargate but I guarantee I'll watch when it gets syndicated. I think Showtime has a good plan with this; they have a show with decent brand recognition, and there is no reason the show has to be about the specific characters. The "Law and Order" franchise has shown that if there is good writing and direction that a show can stay viable in spite of actor changes.
Showtime dropped "Stargate SG-1" a few years ago. It's now running original episodes on Sci-Fi, which is a "basic cable" channel (generally packaged in with your basic subscription, doesn't require a special subscription fee).
Showtime, which was doing some interesting sci-fi programming in the '90s has tried to go after ethnic and lifestyle markets in the last few years with "Queer Like Folk", "The L Word", "Soul Food: The Series", "Barbershop: The Series", etc.
What makes me do some serious wondering is that Showtime is owned by Viacom, which owns Paramount and UPN. With a dedicated userbase of "Star Trek: Enterprise" viewers, it seems odd that they wouldn't try moving the series over to Showtime and pick up a million plus subscribers at $10 a month. Spread 10 episodes over 4 months, and even if they're paying 40% commissions to the local cable carriers, they'd still generate 24 million in revenues for those 4 months. They could budget each show at 1.5 million, pick up 9 million in subscription profits, then pick up more on DVD sets.
My favorite is that the Nigerian Scammers won for Literature...
"...for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them."
Actually, Rome is a very intelligent, well-done show, though I could have done without the swinging-cock shots of Purefoy in episode 4.
My first piece of entertainment journalism (in 1997) was interviewing a VP at Showtime about the upcoming premiere of Stargate SG-1.
From the article (the "Zakarin" quoted was Marc Zakarin, Exec VP of Original Programming):
Perhaps the most amazing part of all of this is Showtime's committment to Stargate SG-. In a bold move, Showtime has ordered forty-two one-hour episodes and a two-hour series premiere at an average budget of a whopping 1.4 million dollars per episode. Each episode will be cycled into syndication by MGM Worldwide Television a few months after it runs on Showtime, helping recoup some if not all of the production costs, but by the time the first one airs on commercial TV, over thirty million dollars will have been invested.
Even with Anderson and the financial success of the original movie, will Showtime suddenly quail and re-think its committment if the initial ratings for Stargate SG-1 are weak? "Because we're not advertiser supported, we're less influenced by the vagaries of the ratings," Zakarin says, "so if we have a couple of bad weeks, we're not sweating bullets."
"What we really respond to more than ratings is the intensity of the viewing experience, and when we see and hear from the field that there is a strong core audience that is really appreciating something on Showtime, that's more important than tonnage. The networks are in the tonnage business. We're in the intensity of viewing business."
That said, the "intensity of viewing" is aimed at generating new subscribers and keeping old ones happy. If people shuffle off the shackles of the HBO coil and resort to downloading, how long will HBO keep producing good content?
It seems to me that you've contradicted yourself - given that open source has so many eyes on the code itself, would you not therefore expect more/more frequent patches/upgrades?
No, actually I'd expect more of the stuff to get caught in the beta stages and not make it into general release.
This is the first "State of the Onion" I've read, and probably the last. Lots of inside jokes and veiled allusions that the casual Perl dabbler just ain't gonna get.
With how inaccessible and cryptic it was, you'd think he'd written it in [insert name of programming language here]... ba-dump-bump.
I guess, though, this does give some credence to the "security through obscurity" theory, as the number and frequency of issues seems to have increased as Firefox adoption has increased. And if that's the case, can we expect to see these issues become even more frequent if Firefox adoption continues to grow?
All the arguments that open source is more secure because there are more eyes to spot problems and more hands to fix them are starting to ring a bit hollow as I upgrade/patch my Firefox install on what seems like a monthly basis.
Given, I still trust MSFT as far as I can throw a Volkswagen, but my laughs at their FUD aren't so loud or haughty today.
I don't recall there being *that* many vulnerabilities and exploits for the browser itself, but that there were some serious ones for common extensions. Now, I can't say this for certain, but is it possible that he's lumping in the vulnerabilities/exploits for popular 3rd party extensions (like the recent pretty big one with GreaseMonkey) with vulnerabilities/exploits for the core browser?
As well, how many of these vulnerabilities/exploits were "critical" and how severely did they expose your computer to running unauthorized code vs. the MS ones? How much effort did it take to repair them? The last vulnerability I recall patching required making a minor change to my Firefox config by hand rather than patching or upgrading.
Because IE is so tied in not only to the OS, but to various Visual Studio API's, were Microsoft's vulnerabilities more far-reaching?
I'm no MS apologist, but I'm also not a Linux or OSS zealot. I like to use what works best for my needs and habits, which ends up being a mix of Closed Source and Open Source products. I don't want to be biased on one side or another, but I'd like to be sure that comparisons like this are apples to apples.
In California and other states, there is a legal concept known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. This is where a company uses ultimately bogus lawsuits to quiet critics.
The True Stella Awards covered a case where Sharper Image sued Consumer Reports over a bad review of their air purifier. A judge found that Sharper Image's suit was bogus, that they'd filed it to try to silence Consumer Reports' criticism, and awarded Consumer Reports $400,000 to cover their legal fees.
If Apple has really not performed the necessary due dilligence in this case, I hope the EFF is filing a SLAPP claim against them on behalf of the defendants.
"Women" is the plural of "woman". Get a clue yourself before you start getting all pedantic man.
It seemed to me that it was a joke, meant to imply that the female population of Slashdot readers is so low that using the plural form would be incorrect.
And now I would believe that's a plate of crow in front of you. Dig in.
Seems to me to be the beginning of one of those sci-fi scenarios where women no longer need men to reproduce. Two women want a baby, they just have this procedure done, and voila. No need for sperm to make the baby and there's a 100% guarantee the baby is a girl.
Gradually, men begin to disappear as old ones die and no new ones are born to replace them, until finally Earth is entirely populated by women.
Then some major event happens (like a giant meteor strike) that knocks technology back into the stone age. Without men and without labs, no babies can be created. The race is dying out.
And then, deep in some hidden location, a small cache of men is found in a research facility that was trying to find a way to keep the male half of our species alive. They are the last men on earth, and a planet full of women wants their stud services!
Commando teams of women try to raid the facility so that the men can be captured, mechanically "milked" for their semen, and it can be distributed. But the facility was created with superior defenses. The men inside are safe. Gradually the women realize that the men are in charge of their own bodies.
Each day ovulating women line up outside the facility, naked save for a pair of high heels, and bearing gifts of food and assorted lagers. The men choose the ones they find most attractive, then those must face off in an exotic dancing competition to determine who may enter and be serviced.
I think I've just written the script to a late-night cable movie.
While Party-Gaming is having difficulties with retention and yield, it is quite possible that this is due to growing competition.
For example, while PartyPoker is well known, PokerStars seems to be coming up fast. They advertise heavily on poker shows, moreso than PartyPoker it seems. Additionally, a visit to both sites generated a pop-up at PartyPoker on the opening page (yes, let's annoy potential clients), but not at PokerStars. I haven't tried the PartyPoker software in quite some time, but when it came time to choose I found PokerStars a more pleasant interface in which to waste time on play money games.
BUT, and this is very important, poker has been enjoying a popularity surge lately, especially Texas Hold-em. The number of poker shows on TV (even cable) a decade ago could have been counted on the fingers of one knee. Maybe there'd be something late night on ESPN 2, sandwiched in between Powder Puff BMX and Curling. Now you have poker shows on Travel channel, Bravo, InHD, and more. It's quite possible that, gasp, poker is a fad, and as more and more people realize they really suck at it, the fad is receding. Perhaps the money is going back to sports betting, going back to more traditional casino gaming (blackjack, roulette), or perhaps it's going to pay for $3 a gallon gasoline.
I definitely wouldn't take this article as an indicator of industry troubles as a whole, but it would be useful as a warning to watch for shifts in consumer gaming patterns across the industry.
The Slashdot summary seems to be deceptive. According to TFA, the case is "specifically concerning the issue of broad licenses for the source code of communications protocols." To sum it up more succinctly, Microsoft was ordered to open up protocols for print and file sharing and some security tasks to competitors so they could better integrate their products with MSFT server products. Microsoft got this softened to include a provision that the parties they opened up the protocols to could not publish them. Of course, this left all FOSS groups swinging in the wind because they couldn't agree to that provision and remain open source.
Microsoft agreed to let a court rule on the matter and provide more specific guidance, so the case is really about whether these protocols will be available to FOSS projects which could then publish their code that works with the protocols. TFA does not say that the case reaches any broade than that or touches on the $621 million penalties at all.
So what the case really seems to be about is not the whole EU judgement or Microsoft "hauling the EU into court" (an inflammatory phrasing), but Microsoft trying to "open up" the protocols as ordered, yet keep them closed to a certain extent by requiring an NDA from anyone who got access to them.
So, is the Slashdot summary a bit overreaching in its description of Microsoft's actions? IMO, yes. Does it make what Microsoft is doing right? IMO, no. I believe that these protocols are very basic ones and essential to interoperability. By denying them to FOSS projects, they hobble those projects in their ability to compete on an even playing field. The idea behind anti-trust sanctions is to make the playing field more even.
Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.
Slashdot Mirror
Additionally, they didn't include keyboard, monitor, and mouse needed to interact with the machine. Unless it's going to share them with your existing system (in which case a KVM switch needs to be added to the budget), it will need all those components.
Last, though this has been pointed out... what about the OS. Sure, you can get Linux and there's a neat WINE variant (don't recall the name) around that's tuned for gaming, but the WINE variant costs around $50 IIRC, and even if you use the Linux/WINE option to avoid the Microsoft tax, you're still looking at ~$50.
So if we cheap out on a 17" CRT monitor, keyboard, case, mouse, and Linux/WINE, we're still looking at around $800, not $500.
- Greg
Possible responses from the judge:
- Greg
I've always thought of Slackware as sort of the HeathKit hobbyist version of Linux... sort of the build your own robot dog, vs. the Aibos of Linspire, SuSE, or Mandrivacoriscalifragilisticexpialidocious.
When I first decided to play with Linux, many many moons ago, I think I bought the Walnut Creek CD-ROM of Slackware at Fry's or by mail order. I got a decent install up and running with XFree86 and a window manager. But it was very definitely a steep learning curve.
Recently, trying out a free copy of Linspire, it was probably the easiest install of any OS (Microsoft, BSD, or Windows) I've seen. Ubuntu was pretty simple too. I could have given my parents Linspire and had them up and running almost without my help.
But if you want to learn Linux, not just install it, Slackware is probably one of the best for that. IMO, Despite all the up-and-comers, it's still a good starter kit for the people who want to learn a little about how it works while getting it working.
- Greg
So will we have to add more definitions and acronyms to the software lexicon?
Would source code you're allowed to inspect, but cannot modify, be Published Unmodifiable Source (PUS)?
How about Open Unmodifiable Computing Hardware (OUCH)?
Boolean Logic Open Unmodifiable Source Executable (BLOUSE)?
Suddenly your BLOUSE is filled with PUS...
Okay, let's just forget we went there.
- Greg
Microsoft, Borland, etc. usually have an entry level version of most of their programming products (with which you can still write proprietary code) that is less than my car payment. Entry level on QT is more than my mortgage.
Yes, they support open source, but unless you're an open source coder or a well-funded enterprise coder, they basically tell you to F off. I don't like that and it detracts from any excitement I could have about these announcements.
- Greg
So much is built onto the mainboard now... USB, firewire, support for various forms of DDR, sound, LAN... These don't change as often as CPUs, but they change.
Of course, this is meant to be a budget board, or at least they're using budget chipsets. The best I can see is that it provides whitebox manufacturers more flexibility. Use whatever CPU is on hand.
- Greg
Their little eyes grow wide, their little palms grow sweaty, and their mouth dries up. "Yes, Mr. Ballmer. That will be fine."
They reach for the suitcase, but Ballmer snatches it away. "First you'll have to sign this," he says, pushing a settlement agreement their way. A pen lies on top, and as they pick up the pen, it extends a small needle and pricks their finger, sucking their blood into the inkwell.
They sign.
As they take the suitcase and walk out of Ballmer's office, they hear an evil laugh behind them... muahaha. They turn to see that Ballmer has grown to twice his size, sprouting ram horns from his forehead. "You signed it in blood," he bellows. "Your soul is mine!!!!"
But hey, $750 million can buy a heck of a good time while you're still alive.
- Greg
The Canon announcement is only for Asia and it only offers to fix the camera if and when it starts showing symptoms of the problems. As far as I'm concerned, that's bogus. They should offer a general recall and repair/replacement of all models affected so people don't lose the once-in-a-lifetime events they bought these cameras to capture.
- Greg
But seriously folks...
Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?
The main question on my mind, though, is would the cell phone carriers offer fewer freebies and worse deals if contracts were limited to one year, or would the competition in the market end up causing Mass. consumers to get deals on one-year contract that the rest of the country only gets on two-year contracts.
- Greg
Showtime dropped "Stargate SG-1" a few years ago. It's now running original episodes on Sci-Fi, which is a "basic cable" channel (generally packaged in with your basic subscription, doesn't require a special subscription fee).
Showtime, which was doing some interesting sci-fi programming in the '90s has tried to go after ethnic and lifestyle markets in the last few years with "Queer Like Folk", "The L Word", "Soul Food: The Series", "Barbershop: The Series", etc.
What makes me do some serious wondering is that Showtime is owned by Viacom, which owns Paramount and UPN. With a dedicated userbase of "Star Trek: Enterprise" viewers, it seems odd that they wouldn't try moving the series over to Showtime and pick up a million plus subscribers at $10 a month. Spread 10 episodes over 4 months, and even if they're paying 40% commissions to the local cable carriers, they'd still generate 24 million in revenues for those 4 months. They could budget each show at 1.5 million, pick up 9 million in subscription profits, then pick up more on DVD sets.
"...for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them."
LOVE IT!
- Greg
My first piece of entertainment journalism (in 1997) was interviewing a VP at Showtime about the upcoming premiere of Stargate SG-1.
From the article (the "Zakarin" quoted was Marc Zakarin, Exec VP of Original Programming):
That said, the "intensity of viewing" is aimed at generating new subscribers and keeping old ones happy. If people shuffle off the shackles of the HBO coil and resort to downloading, how long will HBO keep producing good content?No, actually I'd expect more of the stuff to get caught in the beta stages and not make it into general release.
- Greg
With how inaccessible and cryptic it was, you'd think he'd written it in [insert name of programming language here]... ba-dump-bump.
- Greg
The sad thing is that it also comes on the heels of zdnet.com claiming that Firefox is having significantly more security issues than IE.
I guess, though, this does give some credence to the "security through obscurity" theory, as the number and frequency of issues seems to have increased as Firefox adoption has increased. And if that's the case, can we expect to see these issues become even more frequent if Firefox adoption continues to grow?
All the arguments that open source is more secure because there are more eyes to spot problems and more hands to fix them are starting to ring a bit hollow as I upgrade/patch my Firefox install on what seems like a monthly basis.
Given, I still trust MSFT as far as I can throw a Volkswagen, but my laughs at their FUD aren't so loud or haughty today.
- Greg
As well, how many of these vulnerabilities/exploits were "critical" and how severely did they expose your computer to running unauthorized code vs. the MS ones? How much effort did it take to repair them? The last vulnerability I recall patching required making a minor change to my Firefox config by hand rather than patching or upgrading.
Because IE is so tied in not only to the OS, but to various Visual Studio API's, were Microsoft's vulnerabilities more far-reaching?
I'm no MS apologist, but I'm also not a Linux or OSS zealot. I like to use what works best for my needs and habits, which ends up being a mix of Closed Source and Open Source products. I don't want to be biased on one side or another, but I'd like to be sure that comparisons like this are apples to apples.
- Greg
The True Stella Awards covered a case where Sharper Image sued Consumer Reports over a bad review of their air purifier. A judge found that Sharper Image's suit was bogus, that they'd filed it to try to silence Consumer Reports' criticism, and awarded Consumer Reports $400,000 to cover their legal fees.
If Apple has really not performed the necessary due dilligence in this case, I hope the EFF is filing a SLAPP claim against them on behalf of the defendants.
- Greg
- Greg
Then there would be the Microsoft Vista "Infect Me" edition with a special version of Outlook that automatically opens all attachments.
Add to that the "Miriam Abacha" edition which sends all your banking info to Nigeria.
My favorite would be the Vista "Office Gamer" edition which includes 25 variations on Solitaire.
- Greg
"Women" is the plural of "woman". Get a clue yourself before you start getting all pedantic man.
It seemed to me that it was a joke, meant to imply that the female population of Slashdot readers is so low that using the plural form would be incorrect.
And now I would believe that's a plate of crow in front of you. Dig in.
- Greg
Gradually, men begin to disappear as old ones die and no new ones are born to replace them, until finally Earth is entirely populated by women.
Then some major event happens (like a giant meteor strike) that knocks technology back into the stone age. Without men and without labs, no babies can be created. The race is dying out.
And then, deep in some hidden location, a small cache of men is found in a research facility that was trying to find a way to keep the male half of our species alive. They are the last men on earth, and a planet full of women wants their stud services!
Commando teams of women try to raid the facility so that the men can be captured, mechanically "milked" for their semen, and it can be distributed. But the facility was created with superior defenses. The men inside are safe. Gradually the women realize that the men are in charge of their own bodies.
Each day ovulating women line up outside the facility, naked save for a pair of high heels, and bearing gifts of food and assorted lagers. The men choose the ones they find most attractive, then those must face off in an exotic dancing competition to determine who may enter and be serviced.
I think I've just written the script to a late-night cable movie.
- Greg
Opera 7.54 worked for me and got me to the application. Firefox 1.06 got the error message following the CAPTCHA.
For example, while PartyPoker is well known, PokerStars seems to be coming up fast. They advertise heavily on poker shows, moreso than PartyPoker it seems. Additionally, a visit to both sites generated a pop-up at PartyPoker on the opening page (yes, let's annoy potential clients), but not at PokerStars. I haven't tried the PartyPoker software in quite some time, but when it came time to choose I found PokerStars a more pleasant interface in which to waste time on play money games.
BUT, and this is very important, poker has been enjoying a popularity surge lately, especially Texas Hold-em. The number of poker shows on TV (even cable) a decade ago could have been counted on the fingers of one knee. Maybe there'd be something late night on ESPN 2, sandwiched in between Powder Puff BMX and Curling. Now you have poker shows on Travel channel, Bravo, InHD, and more. It's quite possible that, gasp, poker is a fad, and as more and more people realize they really suck at it, the fad is receding. Perhaps the money is going back to sports betting, going back to more traditional casino gaming (blackjack, roulette), or perhaps it's going to pay for $3 a gallon gasoline.
I definitely wouldn't take this article as an indicator of industry troubles as a whole, but it would be useful as a warning to watch for shifts in consumer gaming patterns across the industry.
Is there a "+1 sarcastic as Hell" mod? :-)
- Greg
Microsoft agreed to let a court rule on the matter and provide more specific guidance, so the case is really about whether these protocols will be available to FOSS projects which could then publish their code that works with the protocols. TFA does not say that the case reaches any broade than that or touches on the $621 million penalties at all.
So what the case really seems to be about is not the whole EU judgement or Microsoft "hauling the EU into court" (an inflammatory phrasing), but Microsoft trying to "open up" the protocols as ordered, yet keep them closed to a certain extent by requiring an NDA from anyone who got access to them.
So, is the Slashdot summary a bit overreaching in its description of Microsoft's actions? IMO, yes. Does it make what Microsoft is doing right? IMO, no. I believe that these protocols are very basic ones and essential to interoperability. By denying them to FOSS projects, they hobble those projects in their ability to compete on an even playing field. The idea behind anti-trust sanctions is to make the playing field more even.
Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.