Whilst the "blogosphere" is somewhat overrated, in technical fields it is a major power.
It's something that Microsoft and numerous other companies didn't have to deal with in the past. Think: if Sony had put rootkits in pre-internet, how soon would word have spread?
Look at the whole SCO fiasco. It wasn't the old mainstream print media that did the real investigating, it was geeks doing blogging.
My bet is that Google won't touch the OS. Instead, they'll make it irrelevant.
Deliver almost everything through a browser, and the old "you need a new version of Windows to run the new version of XYZ" dies away. In the meantime, we'll see more dedicated machines aimed at low-end computing which will be running Linux and distros improving (if you've not seen Ubuntu, get a live CD).
Microsoft's biggest problem is that they are so committed to the Windows desktop platform.
That's the thing they've got to accept - that the desktop is not the future. The web as an unrestricted experience is. By that I mean, that you put your web service/content up, and I can use it anywhere that I've got a browser. That I can go from my office in London to my office in New York, or an internet cafe in Paris, or my phone in Edinburgh, fire up and use it.
This whole talk of Ray Ozzie "webifying" will be more of the old "they don't get it" in my opinion. They'll build lots of web integration into existing packages instead of putting the system via a browser.
Large corporations love browser-based apps. No software that's going to wreck another piece of software or have complex OS relationships. Just open up and go.
As for SMB, that's proprietary. Do you understand what that means? That a bunch of guys have had to sniff packets going between clients and servers to try and open up a closed protocol.
If you don't like SMB, then avoid it. Create a FAT32 partition and do your sharing that way.
I'm not sure I agree about movies. If they have it down to a formula, how do films like Cutthroat Island get made? How come there are so many films that don't hit the magic "3 times budget" in terms of box office.
Hollywood often seeks a formula of mixing known commodities in the hope of getting something good. The films that succeed often do so not because of that, but because someone actually cared about the creative process of what they made.
Ok, so if I get this right, if I create an interface to provide interoperability between my programs, and my programs become popular enough that people want to connect to them for reasons I didn't intend (and don't want to have to support), why is it a good business decision to release an API for that interface?
Because someone else might come along and offer it instead, and your customers might switch to them.
To use the banking industry as an example, there's no need for everyone to write their own accounting packages
I'd completely disagree.
I used to work on systems for mortgage and insurance, and to financial companies, their software for managing customer accounts is very valuable.
Banks are basically all about data processing and product development. There's almost nothing physical (cash, and not much of that now). Banks having better software than their competitors is what can mean that they can launch better products.
Check out Google Adwords sometime, and try and find out much you'll have to pay for a very high chance of getting "holidays" to show your site. It's astronomical.
Instead, here's Google offering something like a free ad. I'd be interested to know how many poster shops saw an increase in the sale of Miro prints at the same time as this event.
Personally, if I was running Google, I'd now be very careful about using any artist in the ARS camp, and I'd go and make my tributes elsewhere.
The problem is that all resources spent on government research are taken from elsewhere. Quite a lot of government R&D goes nowhere, and is often funded due to politics and inertia, and nothing to do with the "public good".
Simply because a few projects strike it lucky doesn't mean that it's a wholesale vindication of government-funded R&D.
They did so for one reason: It turned out that those were the key ingredients for the development of the iPod
Maybe you are reading this different to me (it doesn't scan too well), but the assertion to me is that the government did the research so someone could develop an iPod.
They didn't do it "for one reason" and it certainly would have had nothing to do with the iPod. It's like arguing that Spencer Silver of 3M deliberately made a faulty adhesive with the intention of creating the Post-it note.
There was a time when some artists were far richer than they are now, imperial Europe when they had "benefactors" perhaps only a few hundred people were able to see thos musicians perform.
Firstly, I doubt your claim about them being richer than they are now. Were Mozart, Beethoven or Bach richer than Bono?
Secondly, are you suggesting that access to Mozart was restricted by their benefactors?
I guess thats about right too. But I argued about creating a gig culture, not that one already exists. How many people playing on the radio ever play near you. I'm not saying they should, or could, play gig's everywhere - but I do believe it should be there primary vocation - not going on tv to push themselves.
Some bands don't want to gig. They'd rather produce music in a studio to be released as a recording.
I can't imagine paying that much to see Madonna now. She's OK, but $1000 would get me a years worth of tickets at the sort of venues I go to, and I'd see a lot of great new bands up close.
But I guess old-school notions of loyalty just don't exist anymore
And when did this loyalty exist?
I can think back to at least the early 80s, and some people here can probably go back further, and recall bands doing things that I'd count as disloyal to their very loyal fan bases (like making a greatest hits album, and putting one new track on, just so that fans have to buy a whole album). Or releasing something as a limited edition, and then 6-12 months later, re-releasing it.
You are owed nothing. It's not like bands are robbing you. You pays your money, you takes your choices.
Personally, I wouldn't go. I wouldn't mind seeing Madonna live, but not at that price, and not in such massive venues. I see some great bands in small venues and pay around $30 for a ticket. So, that's where my money will go.
I've always had pet peeve against showjumping being an olympic sport, because the barriers to entry are so high. It proves nothing in terms of being a global champion when most of the rest of the world don't even get a chance to try it. When was the last time you saw a Kenyan or Jamaican showjumper? The countries involved are basically from G7 nations, and normally people from the top 5% wealth wise.
Compare it with running. Whilst it may take expensive trainers and good equipment to win a gold medal, people with raw talent can be spotted.
So what? Most businesses will just hang on to what they've got then.
This isn't 1997, where businesses really wanted to upgrade their word 6 in order to get great new features. Office is basically mature. Plenty of businesses are still running on Office 2000, and without a compelling reason to upgrade will remain there.
The problem with things like warning dialogues for deleting shortcuts is that people will just get fed up and get used to clicking "continue". As they see deleting shortcuts as a "low risk" option, they'll also perceive a more dangerous operation (like installing an application) as "low risk" too.
it seems that the company is finally, if belatedly, fixing things. Stephen Sinofsky, a Gates confidant who oversaw a steady and regular set of Microsoft Office releases over the past decade, is now running the development of future Windows versions.
My experience of people who become "trusted lieutenants" is that they are generally people with a similar outlook. The sort of managers who are micromanaging pricks don't generally like free spirits working for them.
I'd really be interested to know where the "good Microsoft" is. All my experience is that the attitude of a corporation comes from the top. The chief exec hires people with his attitude and it cascades down. Those staff who are flexible follow the new order, those that hate it leave, and new starters will be picked based on likelihood to fit into it.
For people in the USA, there is less of an advantage, though.
Apart from high prices in the UK compared to the USA or the Far East, we can also get to see movies earlier. In some cases, the R1 DVD is out not long after the cinematic release here (eg Hostel).
In the case of a few old movies, they are only in R1.
I'm just trying to say that where people get in the consumers way, they work a way around it. For US customers, the demand for multiregion is small because most titles are R1, and you don't get quite the same price difference buying from the far east that we do.
Go to the website (www.ubuntu.com) and either download the live CD or order a CD set (for free, including postage).
I'm no Linux specialist, but installing just wasn't that tough. Maybe I got lucky with hardware, but my networking, graphics, sound and printing all worked very well. If you care to, there's a post on my weblog (see URL) about my experiences with the Live CD.
I suspect that for a lot of people, their l33tness (and your lack of) is what they want to make themselves feel bigger.
If someone really loves Linux, the best thing they can do is get as many people using it as possible. If someone really hates "M$" then surely, they'd like to see them starved of oxygen by helping users migrate.
If we all are running open standards, everyone but the proprietary manufacturers, and those wedded to them wins. If I can convert some people to OpenOffice.org, I'm just glad they are using it because it helps me in return. Can't some people understand that more users on linux means that they also get a better time?
Look at Firefox. It's big enough that no-one can ignore it. If your website doesn't play nice with it, you could piss off 10% of the internet who might not shop with you. If Linux hit 10%, you'd see a lot more applications and drivers come on board.
Slashdot Mirror
It's something that Microsoft and numerous other companies didn't have to deal with in the past. Think: if Sony had put rootkits in pre-internet, how soon would word have spread?
Look at the whole SCO fiasco. It wasn't the old mainstream print media that did the real investigating, it was geeks doing blogging.
Deliver almost everything through a browser, and the old "you need a new version of Windows to run the new version of XYZ" dies away. In the meantime, we'll see more dedicated machines aimed at low-end computing which will be running Linux and distros improving (if you've not seen Ubuntu, get a live CD).
That's the thing they've got to accept - that the desktop is not the future. The web as an unrestricted experience is. By that I mean, that you put your web service/content up, and I can use it anywhere that I've got a browser. That I can go from my office in London to my office in New York, or an internet cafe in Paris, or my phone in Edinburgh, fire up and use it.
This whole talk of Ray Ozzie "webifying" will be more of the old "they don't get it" in my opinion. They'll build lots of web integration into existing packages instead of putting the system via a browser.
Large corporations love browser-based apps. No software that's going to wreck another piece of software or have complex OS relationships. Just open up and go.
I'm not bullshitting here - mine worked great.
As for SMB, that's proprietary. Do you understand what that means? That a bunch of guys have had to sniff packets going between clients and servers to try and open up a closed protocol.
If you don't like SMB, then avoid it. Create a FAT32 partition and do your sharing that way.
Hollywood often seeks a formula of mixing known commodities in the hope of getting something good. The films that succeed often do so not because of that, but because someone actually cared about the creative process of what they made.
Because someone else might come along and offer it instead, and your customers might switch to them.
I'd completely disagree.
I used to work on systems for mortgage and insurance, and to financial companies, their software for managing customer accounts is very valuable.
Banks are basically all about data processing and product development. There's almost nothing physical (cash, and not much of that now). Banks having better software than their competitors is what can mean that they can launch better products.
5. Google never does a tribute to any ARS artist again.
Check out Google Adwords sometime, and try and find out much you'll have to pay for a very high chance of getting "holidays" to show your site. It's astronomical.
Instead, here's Google offering something like a free ad. I'd be interested to know how many poster shops saw an increase in the sale of Miro prints at the same time as this event.
Personally, if I was running Google, I'd now be very careful about using any artist in the ARS camp, and I'd go and make my tributes elsewhere.
Simply because a few projects strike it lucky doesn't mean that it's a wholesale vindication of government-funded R&D.
They did so for one reason: It turned out that those were the key ingredients for the development of the iPod
Maybe you are reading this different to me (it doesn't scan too well), but the assertion to me is that the government did the research so someone could develop an iPod.
They didn't do it "for one reason" and it certainly would have had nothing to do with the iPod. It's like arguing that Spencer Silver of 3M deliberately made a faulty adhesive with the intention of creating the Post-it note.
Firstly, I doubt your claim about them being richer than they are now. Were Mozart, Beethoven or Bach richer than Bono?
Secondly, are you suggesting that access to Mozart was restricted by their benefactors?
to someone not involved in the industry, what does "15 points" mean?
Some bands don't want to gig. They'd rather produce music in a studio to be released as a recording.
I can't imagine paying that much to see Madonna now. She's OK, but $1000 would get me a years worth of tickets at the sort of venues I go to, and I'd see a lot of great new bands up close.
And when did this loyalty exist?
I can think back to at least the early 80s, and some people here can probably go back further, and recall bands doing things that I'd count as disloyal to their very loyal fan bases (like making a greatest hits album, and putting one new track on, just so that fans have to buy a whole album). Or releasing something as a limited edition, and then 6-12 months later, re-releasing it.
You are owed nothing. It's not like bands are robbing you. You pays your money, you takes your choices.
Personally, I wouldn't go. I wouldn't mind seeing Madonna live, but not at that price, and not in such massive venues. I see some great bands in small venues and pay around $30 for a ticket. So, that's where my money will go.
Compare it with running. Whilst it may take expensive trainers and good equipment to win a gold medal, people with raw talent can be spotted.
This isn't 1997, where businesses really wanted to upgrade their word 6 in order to get great new features. Office is basically mature. Plenty of businesses are still running on Office 2000, and without a compelling reason to upgrade will remain there.
The problem with things like warning dialogues for deleting shortcuts is that people will just get fed up and get used to clicking "continue". As they see deleting shortcuts as a "low risk" option, they'll also perceive a more dangerous operation (like installing an application) as "low risk" too.
it seems that the company is finally, if belatedly, fixing things. Stephen Sinofsky, a Gates confidant who oversaw a steady and regular set of Microsoft Office releases over the past decade, is now running the development of future Windows versions.
compared with:-
Sadly, Gates, too, is part of the Bad Microsoft
Here's what I'm missing...
He's described as a confidant to Bill Gates and http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+shake+up+Windows+ leadership/2100-1016_3-6052572.html describes him, as "a trusted lieutenant of Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer".
My experience of people who become "trusted lieutenants" is that they are generally people with a similar outlook. The sort of managers who are micromanaging pricks don't generally like free spirits working for them.
I'd really be interested to know where the "good Microsoft" is. All my experience is that the attitude of a corporation comes from the top. The chief exec hires people with his attitude and it cascades down. Those staff who are flexible follow the new order, those that hate it leave, and new starters will be picked based on likelihood to fit into it.
For people in the USA, there is less of an advantage, though.
Apart from high prices in the UK compared to the USA or the Far East, we can also get to see movies earlier. In some cases, the R1 DVD is out not long after the cinematic release here (eg Hostel).
In the case of a few old movies, they are only in R1.
I'm just trying to say that where people get in the consumers way, they work a way around it. For US customers, the demand for multiregion is small because most titles are R1, and you don't get quite the same price difference buying from the far east that we do.
Go to the website (www.ubuntu.com) and either download the live CD or order a CD set (for free, including postage).
I'm no Linux specialist, but installing just wasn't that tough. Maybe I got lucky with hardware, but my networking, graphics, sound and printing all worked very well. If you care to, there's a post on my weblog (see URL) about my experiences with the Live CD.
If someone really loves Linux, the best thing they can do is get as many people using it as possible. If someone really hates "M$" then surely, they'd like to see them starved of oxygen by helping users migrate.
If we all are running open standards, everyone but the proprietary manufacturers, and those wedded to them wins. If I can convert some people to OpenOffice.org, I'm just glad they are using it because it helps me in return. Can't some people understand that more users on linux means that they also get a better time?
Look at Firefox. It's big enough that no-one can ignore it. If your website doesn't play nice with it, you could piss off 10% of the internet who might not shop with you. If Linux hit 10%, you'd see a lot more applications and drivers come on board.
Also, does anyone have DVD Jon's email address?