Can't that be said for anything to do with language? I mean, why capitalize the 'i' when you are referring to yourself? Or why is it always 'you and I' and not 'you and me'?
I don't think one can rationalize language--it's closer to art than science:)
The vast majority of the cost of telephone was paid by the government. The goverment was the one that spurred the investment and provided financing for telephone early on. It has only been in the last few decades that most of it has been privatized... same thing with railroads... and roads...
Internet access will likely be subsidized in the future (just like telephone was at one time). But that will take a few decades more. Right now, only a small percentage of the population uses the internet in most countries. That figure has to go up and have the potential of hitting past 60% to 70% before goverments should consider (of course, this depends on the country. An internet-oriented country like South Korea can afford to subsidized; a low internet-usage country can't).
Why is capitalism a "universal law"? Because it's the only real way a large-scale society can function efficiently, by putting the burden not on the society as a communism does, but the individuals.
Capitalism isn't a universal law. If it were, it would have existed 5000 years ago. Yet it didn't. It only manifested itself a few hundread years ago. Therefore, it is not universal. When it comes to econopolitics, there is NOTHING that is universal (mostly because of progress and liberalism)... What you call capitalism will not exist 1000 years from now--I am pretty certain of that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Upcoming Open Source Alternative to Google...
on
Google Files for IPO
·
· Score: 1
What will kill you is the bandwidth and technology costs. You won't have enough money to pay for 1 million hits, let alone have enough servers and data storage.
You will run into problems similar to what individuals and non-profit websites do. Namely, when things are small, costs are manageable. But when your site becomes popular, you can't afford to pay for it.
I am not trying to crush your dream. You guys should keep at it. Not only might it turn into something (although not the #1 consumer search engine), you will learn some technologies and have fun with it...
It's like a curse... in one sense, you want to become the most popular; but the more popular you become, the costly things get...
Google is aiming for a few billion so it's within your range. My guess is that $20b to $30b would be way too much but $10b isn't that bad either. Google already has revenues of $1b so $10b market cap is reasonable. Its profitability is low (profits of only $100m) but with the assumption that it can raise that that to, say, $400m/year, $10b would be reasonable.
If Google gets listed, it'll become more popular. It will become more of a household name (yes there are people who have never heard of it, or use its engine).
I am unemployed and don't have much money:( so investing in Google is out of the question for me (unless I can get in on a pump and dump within the first 48 hours of trade on the secondary markets, but that is too risky). But if I DID have money, I would not consider investing for a few months. IPOs generally underperform over the first year. Over the long term, Google may be a decent company. I certainly don't think it is comparable to any of the dot-com companies with zero profits and questionable business plans...
MOST IPOs underperform within 1 year. It is definitely risky... The only people who make money off IPOs are the insiders. Google is trying to change that but who knows how it will transpire?
I was actually dissapointed with the numbers--but then again I may be too optimistic:) $100m in income isn't that much. I was thinking Google would have $300m to $500m. Its revenues are impressive though, at $1b.
As others that responded to you have pointed out, a million dollars is not much. A SMALL company, with less than 10 employees, usually has revenues in the millions.
A greater concern would be... would the government consider you a terrorist now that you have taken down the SEC website? It's only time before the govt raids every Slashdot poster's house;)
Give me an example where the New York Times stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I don't have access to it but search for Judith Miller (I think that's her name) in New York Times. If you subscribe to NYT, you can probably find what I'm talking about. NYT was basically publishing all sorts of stories about how Iraq had WMD for sure when the stories were all questionable. (And I'm not talking about Bush claiming there were WMD either. I'm talking about NYT, among others, providing proof). In other words, NYT was pumping the war with bogus information. Fox News was even worse (although I don't follow it much so I can't give concrete info).
Journalists frequently report statements by experts or interested parties. They try to accurately capture the words and affiliation of the person speaking or writing. It is up to the reader to assess the credibility of the source.
Media, in theory, is supposed to be neutral. Instead, what you have a biased, often fabricated, stories that are passed off as the truth.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your view. It is NOT up to the reader to assess the credibility of the sources!!! How can the reader do that? I'll bet 99% of the people have no idea who or what the sources are. Readers are not experts in these things. I mean, even someone like me, who actually follows the news more closely than the average population, has no clue who 90% of the people quoted are. Who are these experts being quoted? No idea. Who are the organizations being referenced? No idea. How can you expect the reader to know these things, when they presume the media represents the truth?
If you really want a good book on how media are mainpulated, you can check out Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. If that is too radical for you, there are many other books on this topic. In fact, a modern branch of philosophy like epistemology may cover it too...
I don't think you will ever agree with anything I say. I don't mean this to be rude but you are just too hoodwinked by the media. The media is heavily biased and influenced by powerful entities, like governments and corporations*. Anything I say won't change things--you have to realize it yourself. Hopefully you will before you become a slave...
Even funnier is that the same guy can change within a short period of time (depending on how the plutocrats want to control the population). Al-Sistani is called a religious leader now but watch in 6 months when he'll be called a Islamic fundamentalist. Or watch how Ahmed Chalibi is called a good leader of Iraq but may end up being called a terrorist in 6 months.
It's quite amusing to watch the news these days.
It would really be a joke if it weren't for the fact that the mainstream masses don't even realize what is goin on, and thousands of people are dying without anyone even knowing it....
I like to take on the trolls once in a while. After all, they ARE influencing opinion. If the troll was about sex, or some other useless junk, I wouldn't bother. But since the troll quotes Ann Coulter (presumably without modifying) then it is worth responding...
Oh... I don't care about my karma either. I post so many messages that my karma is quite high usually... Also, didn't karma whoring lose its meaning after Slashdot capped karma?...
...someone unpopular with educated folks.
Ann Coulter is not just someone who is unpopular.. she is a fascist in waiting. Therefore, she is my enemy. If there are a few more terrorist attacks in USA (which will probably happen--hard to stop these things), you'll see what I mean. I wouldn't really be worried about Ann Coulter if it weren't for the fact that she has a massive following, as evidenced by her books staying near the top of the charts...
You are not giving MS credit for its strong engineering. Yes there are bugs, viruses, and what have you, but they still make good products. Companies have been trying to beat Office for so long that they all lost. Similarly, so many companies have tried to beat Visual Studio and have had only marginal success. I expect.NET to crush Java too. These products are actually good.
Furthermore, MS has a lot of money that it can spend on engineering. MS is one of the top spenders in R&D (on par with IBM, Intel, etc). Most people don't think MS is doing anything but this money is going somewhere. This essentially means that it will be hard to dislodge MS from key market segments. The reason Visual Studio, for example, is so good is because its competitors don't spend the same amount of resources on it.
Lastly, if a small company is innovating ahead of MS, they will just buy it out--just like how IBM, Cisco,etc buy all their small competitors.
My point is that MS has good marketing AND engineering. Most companies seem to have one or the other. For example, Apple has good engineering but its marketing isn't strong. In contrast, Intel has good marketing but (somewhat) weak product.
I'm not Indian and I don't live there... In any case, I'm a leftist so I'm against capitalism and its modern popular form, neo-liberal economics, aka neo-liberalism, aka Globalization...
There is no such thing as "legitimate jobs" under capitalism... Anyway, since I claim Coulter is a quasi-fascist, she is most likely to be strongly in favour of capitalism (just like the Italian Fascists, German Nazis, Austrian far-right, etc) were. So I'll bet that she would be ok with the outsourcing...
I'll bet that they'll fire you if you criticize the corporation. You can probably speak about anything else (since the opinions are not official) but any criticism would probably be penalized...
As far as why a corporation would tolerate this, well, it's because freedom of speech is stronger than corporations. In other words, blogging will become ubiquitous in the future and it will be impossible for corporation to stop it (it would be almost like preventing people from talking with others during off-work hours--businesses tried it in the past but ultimately failed). Limiting people's thoughts can actually harm a corporation in the long run.... Overall, none of this will matter since these are not official positions. The media, or you, or whomever, can't quote these blogs and take that to be official words. Therefore, they don't really mean much... For example, if some guys says that Microsoft is going to do well over the next year, you can't really assume that this is based on inside information and that the stock price is going to go up. It's all unofficial and speculations. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:That's the problem with blogs...
on
The War Of The Word
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So are you saying that the mainstream media is somehow more truthful? I think it's you who is wrong. Historically, it can be easily shown that the mainstream media lies more than individuals. The vast majority of what you read in your newspaper is a lie. Generally, it is propaganda initiated by powerful entities, like goverment or large corporations or the wealthy.
If you want some good examples... consider how the mainstream media, including "reputable" sources like New York Times, were printing story after story about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This wasn't just an opinion; it was supposedly fact. They had strong proof. Did this turn out to be true?
This sort of manipulation is further extended to books as well. A huge chunk of what is claimed as fact in books is biased information. For example, how many people actually know that WWII had nothing to do with stopping genocide or defending the Jews? There was so much anti-Semiticism (by this I'm talking about what the word originally meant; I'm not talking about the modern usage where criticism of Isreal equals to anti-Semiticism). The fact of the matter is Jews were considered inferiors and no one cared at that time.
While on the topic of these "factual" books, how about all the racist and sexist books which were widely accepted and had PROOF that whites were superior to everyone, or how men were superior to women. What happened to these mainstream FACTUAL books from the late 1800's and early 1900's?
It's too bad that you don't realize that mainstream media is mostly recycled government/corporate press releases. Very little of it is the truth... I can see why you would be sceptical of individual commentary (eg. blogs). After all, anyone can say ANYTHING. However, there is an intrinsic mechanism within humans which filters out the lies. Generally, blogs that are more truthful or more insightful will attract more people and have greater reputation. For example, I can claim that 'aliens are about to invade earth' on my blog and no one will believe me. However, if I show pictures or some other data, then people will have a greater chance of believing it. When more and more people link to my site and verify my story, my reputation will increase, and more people will investigate my opinions. In contrast, the mainstream media will never disclose such matters until it is imminent (due to goverment policies).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Ann Coulter has got it right
on
The War Of The Word
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Does anyone seriously consider Ann Coulter's opinions? She is nothing more than a quasi-fascist, who isn't even strong enough to be a fascist.
All you conservatives who blindly follow her are really going to be happy when she seizes power...
This is a very good article by an insider. It is probably a bit biased but, nevertheless, is well worth reading. One of the main points that one would understand is how strong Microsoft marketing is.
Half of software is marketing; half is engineering. Too bad some people still haven't realized it....
People always trash MS but it has some of hte best engineers and software developers around. Because of that, they always seem to take advantage. For instance, if.NET becomes popular (which it will), I can automatically see MS Office destroying everything else (not that there is much competition these days) and actually cause consumers to upgrade for sure.
Also, don't forget that MS controls.NET. It is the company that designed it after all. So they would have some advantage. If nothing, they will at least have more knowledge and expertise than others.
As far as the IBM example is concerned... the reason IBM kind of lost is because they cared about mainframes more than PCs. Mainframes generated more profits and hence IBM didn't want to sacrifice that market for the PC market... In any case, IBM still remained in the top 5 PC manufacturers all throughout the 90's (and even now I think). So it's not as if they failed. A better example of total collapse is Apple. Apple had a huge market in the early 90's but totally fell off the planet...
Linux won't overtake Windows for a while (I'm talking about home market only--server is another story). Windows just provides too many features that Linux lacks. Windows is also much easier to use. For instance, how easy is it to change video card drivers (or for that matter any driver) in Linux? It is very difficult for causal users. I think 90% of the home users won't get past, say, Nvidia's 3rd instruction to modify the XFree-86 configuration file. Or how about when something goes wrong? Linux is not as foolproof. For instance, if there are problems with the filesystems, the error/fix messages generated during boot-up would give a heart attack to many users (the messages basically say something like 'you could lose all data if you proceed':) ).
Lastly, Linux does not have enough software. This will seriously prevent adoption for a while. You can find basic software in Linux but it's always those one or two special ones that make it difficult. For instance, if you are using a particular tax software, you may not find it in linux. Or you may be able to find replacements for everything but MS Encarta (encyclopedia). Or, you find everything in linux except that digital camera software that you cherish.
Windows 2000 is not a good OS for the home. My memory is sketchy since I wans't using it much (except at work) but let me see...
What version of DirectX did Windows 2000 ship with? I think it was way behind or something. Games and other multimedia apps weren't very good...
What was the cost? If I remember correctly, didn't Win2000 cost more than Win ME and Win XP?
Win2000 boots up slower than Win XP.
Win XP has better sleep mode, and other power consuming features.
And so on...
Overall, Win XP is much better than Windows 2000 for the home user... Don't know about servers though... In any case Win XP is very similar to Win 2000.
Yes developers like.Net, but the users don't give a damn about.Net, the CEO's don't care about it, its currently a cool developers toy, like QT.
Whoever that rules the programming language/tools rules the applications.... whoever that rules the applications rules the operating system... whoever that rules the operating system, rules the world (ok maybe not the last part;))
.NET is a new development environment. It isn't just a language or a piece of software. It is almost a cohesive software platform that you can use to do everything. What this means is that if you program for.NET, you will likely develop skills in C# (as opposed to say C++), will program for.NET only (since it is likely incomptabile in any other OS, not counting things like Mono), and will be doing everything for a Windows-oriented OS.
Why is Windows so popular? It's because of the applications. Now, if a huge chunk of people only program for.NET, it will capture even more market share. For example, why would anyone bother with Java anymore? The applications that we are talking about isn't just desktop applications. Rather, it is EVERYTHING. In particular,.NET will capture what is commonly called web services. Web services are the future of software!!! Remember when people were saying that everything, such as doing your banking, purchasing products, renewing your driver's licence, etc, will be done on the internet? Well it will become true with.NET. Java attempted to take over the web application/web services/whatever market. It didn't really succeed fully. With Microsoft's financial, marketing and engineering support,.NET will accomplish 100x what Java was supposed to do.
If this doesn't convince you, think about an example. Let's say web services take off, and that many of your activities are done thourough the web. Will you still stick with linux when MS dominates the web area? For example, if you have discount broker or banker that seemlessly integrates with the OS using.NET, will you still stick with linux or will you migrate to Windows? YOU probably will stick around but most won't. Already there are quite a few websites that I have encountered which require Windows (mostly due to use of ASP, WMV files, or some version of plug-in not available/not good in Linux (eg. the linux flash plug-in for mozilla totally sucks compared to Windows. Try loading www.sportsnet.ca and see how the menus cause problems)).
There's no reason for me or anyone else to buy Longhorn EVER. So even if somehow Longhorn is great software, no one really cares at this point because most of the PC sales are in markets where price is everything and where Microsoft has little to no influence. In fact most people who are buying new PCs will pirate Longhorn or whatever Microsoft has out.
First of all, pirating is illegal and you are liable. I don't expect someone named Hitler to follow the laws that closely;) but most people aren't little Hitlers. Most people follow the law. (In any case, Hitler did spend some time in jail so you may end up there too;) ) If most people pirated Windows, Microsoft would lose millions on the home operating system market--but it doesn't. Most people follow the law.
Secondly, what YOU will do is irrelevant, just like what *I* do is irrelevant. What matters is the market as a whole. If 95% of the people use Longhorn, it will dominate. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or your friend, or whomever, doesn't use it.
Lastly--and this goes to the point of my message--what drives the market are features. If.NET and Longhorn provide features that aren't available in linux, people will not bother changing. I use linux right now but I might switch based on future events. For example, if banks* provide a seemless, in
One company I worked for about 10 years ago, one of the developers posted a question to Usenet, and had his answer in 45 minutes. It was his educated opinion that had he gone to Sun with the same question, first he would have had to deal with the phone drones and their canned list of questions, before eventually getting through to the people who he knew could really answer the question, and guesstimated that resolution path at hours, not minutes. 45 minutes vs. a few hours. You be the judge.
I don't think purchasing support should preclude what you are saying. Clearly if someone was hired by a corporation, they should do the best that they can--which might include checking out the web, and so forth.
Then why not a support contract for every daemon that runs on the server (eg, sendmail, ntpd, (x)inetd, NFS, etc)? Every instance of awk, grep, sed, etc? After all, why take a chance that any one of these is anything less than perfect?
I don't think things like awk, grep, etc need support since they are just tools and hardly ever change. These are more like command line tools than complicated software (although you CAN do some complicated stuff with it I suppose). Things like postfix, xinetd, Samba, etc probably do need commercial support. I'm pretty sure the lack of enterprise adoption is partly related to the lack of commercial support.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't that be said for anything to do with language? I mean, why capitalize the 'i' when you are referring to yourself? Or why is it always 'you and I' and not 'you and me'?
:)
I don't think one can rationalize language--it's closer to art than science
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The vast majority of the cost of telephone was paid by the government. The goverment was the one that spurred the investment and provided financing for telephone early on. It has only been in the last few decades that most of it has been privatized... same thing with railroads... and roads...
Internet access will likely be subsidized in the future (just like telephone was at one time). But that will take a few decades more. Right now, only a small percentage of the population uses the internet in most countries. That figure has to go up and have the potential of hitting past 60% to 70% before goverments should consider (of course, this depends on the country. An internet-oriented country like South Korea can afford to subsidized; a low internet-usage country can't).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why is capitalism a "universal law"? Because it's the only real way a large-scale society can function efficiently, by putting the burden not on the society as a communism does, but the individuals.
Capitalism isn't a universal law. If it were, it would have existed 5000 years ago. Yet it didn't. It only manifested itself a few hundread years ago. Therefore, it is not universal. When it comes to econopolitics, there is NOTHING that is universal (mostly because of progress and liberalism)... What you call capitalism will not exist 1000 years from now--I am pretty certain of that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What will kill you is the bandwidth and technology costs. You won't have enough money to pay for 1 million hits, let alone have enough servers and data storage.
You will run into problems similar to what individuals and non-profit websites do. Namely, when things are small, costs are manageable. But when your site becomes popular, you can't afford to pay for it.
I am not trying to crush your dream. You guys should keep at it. Not only might it turn into something (although not the #1 consumer search engine), you will learn some technologies and have fun with it...
It's like a curse... in one sense, you want to become the most popular; but the more popular you become, the costly things get...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Google is aiming for a few billion so it's within your range. My guess is that $20b to $30b would be way too much but $10b isn't that bad either. Google already has revenues of $1b so $10b market cap is reasonable. Its profitability is low (profits of only $100m) but with the assumption that it can raise that that to, say, $400m/year, $10b would be reasonable.
:( so investing in Google is out of the question for me (unless I can get in on a pump and dump within the first 48 hours of trade on the secondary markets, but that is too risky). But if I DID have money, I would not consider investing for a few months. IPOs generally underperform over the first year. Over the long term, Google may be a decent company. I certainly don't think it is comparable to any of the dot-com companies with zero profits and questionable business plans...
If Google gets listed, it'll become more popular. It will become more of a household name (yes there are people who have never heard of it, or use its engine).
I am unemployed and don't have much money
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Got burned by Nortel? If not, it's very timely ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why are you calling him an idiot? Anyway...
MOST IPOs underperform within 1 year. It is definitely risky... The only people who make money off IPOs are the insiders. Google is trying to change that but who knows how it will transpire?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Welcome to capitalism... those with the most capital rule under capitalism...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I was actually dissapointed with the numbers--but then again I may be too optimistic :) $100m in income isn't that much. I was thinking Google would have $300m to $500m. Its revenues are impressive though, at $1b.
As others that responded to you have pointed out, a million dollars is not much. A SMALL company, with less than 10 employees, usually has revenues in the millions.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
A greater concern would be... would the government consider you a terrorist now that you have taken down the SEC website? It's only time before the govt raids every Slashdot poster's house ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Give me an example where the New York Times stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I don't have access to it but search for Judith Miller (I think that's her name) in New York Times. If you subscribe to NYT, you can probably find what I'm talking about. NYT was basically publishing all sorts of stories about how Iraq had WMD for sure when the stories were all questionable. (And I'm not talking about Bush claiming there were WMD either. I'm talking about NYT, among others, providing proof). In other words, NYT was pumping the war with bogus information. Fox News was even worse (although I don't follow it much so I can't give concrete info).
Journalists frequently report statements by experts or interested parties. They try to accurately capture the words and affiliation of the person speaking or writing. It is up to the reader to assess the credibility of the source.
Media, in theory, is supposed to be neutral. Instead, what you have a biased, often fabricated, stories that are passed off as the truth.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your view. It is NOT up to the reader to assess the credibility of the sources!!! How can the reader do that? I'll bet 99% of the people have no idea who or what the sources are. Readers are not experts in these things. I mean, even someone like me, who actually follows the news more closely than the average population, has no clue who 90% of the people quoted are. Who are these experts being quoted? No idea. Who are the organizations being referenced? No idea. How can you expect the reader to know these things, when they presume the media represents the truth?
If you really want a good book on how media are mainpulated, you can check out Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. If that is too radical for you, there are many other books on this topic. In fact, a modern branch of philosophy like epistemology may cover it too...
I don't think you will ever agree with anything I say. I don't mean this to be rude but you are just too hoodwinked by the media. The media is heavily biased and influenced by powerful entities, like governments and corporations*. Anything I say won't change things--you have to realize it yourself. Hopefully you will before you become a slave...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Even funnier is that the same guy can change within a short period of time (depending on how the plutocrats want to control the population). Al-Sistani is called a religious leader now but watch in 6 months when he'll be called a Islamic fundamentalist. Or watch how Ahmed Chalibi is called a good leader of Iraq but may end up being called a terrorist in 6 months.
It's quite amusing to watch the news these days.
It would really be a joke if it weren't for the fact that the mainstream masses don't even realize what is goin on, and thousands of people are dying without anyone even knowing it....
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I like to take on the trolls once in a while. After all, they ARE influencing opinion. If the troll was about sex, or some other useless junk, I wouldn't bother. But since the troll quotes Ann Coulter (presumably without modifying) then it is worth responding...
...someone unpopular with educated folks.
Oh... I don't care about my karma either. I post so many messages that my karma is quite high usually... Also, didn't karma whoring lose its meaning after Slashdot capped karma?...
Ann Coulter is not just someone who is unpopular.. she is a fascist in waiting. Therefore, she is my enemy. If there are a few more terrorist attacks in USA (which will probably happen--hard to stop these things), you'll see what I mean. I wouldn't really be worried about Ann Coulter if it weren't for the fact that she has a massive following, as evidenced by her books staying near the top of the charts...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are not giving MS credit for its strong engineering. Yes there are bugs, viruses, and what have you, but they still make good products. Companies have been trying to beat Office for so long that they all lost. Similarly, so many companies have tried to beat Visual Studio and have had only marginal success. I expect .NET to crush Java too. These products are actually good.
Furthermore, MS has a lot of money that it can spend on engineering. MS is one of the top spenders in R&D (on par with IBM, Intel, etc). Most people don't think MS is doing anything but this money is going somewhere. This essentially means that it will be hard to dislodge MS from key market segments. The reason Visual Studio, for example, is so good is because its competitors don't spend the same amount of resources on it.
Lastly, if a small company is innovating ahead of MS, they will just buy it out--just like how IBM, Cisco,etc buy all their small competitors.
My point is that MS has good marketing AND engineering. Most companies seem to have one or the other. For example, Apple has good engineering but its marketing isn't strong. In contrast, Intel has good marketing but (somewhat) weak product.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not Indian and I don't live there... In any case, I'm a leftist so I'm against capitalism and its modern popular form, neo-liberal economics, aka neo-liberalism, aka Globalization...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as "legitimate jobs" under capitalism... Anyway, since I claim Coulter is a quasi-fascist, she is most likely to be strongly in favour of capitalism (just like the Italian Fascists, German Nazis, Austrian far-right, etc) were. So I'll bet that she would be ok with the outsourcing...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'll bet that they'll fire you if you criticize the corporation. You can probably speak about anything else (since the opinions are not official) but any criticism would probably be penalized...
As far as why a corporation would tolerate this, well, it's because freedom of speech is stronger than corporations. In other words, blogging will become ubiquitous in the future and it will be impossible for corporation to stop it (it would be almost like preventing people from talking with others during off-work hours--businesses tried it in the past but ultimately failed). Limiting people's thoughts can actually harm a corporation in the long run.... Overall, none of this will matter since these are not official positions. The media, or you, or whomever, can't quote these blogs and take that to be official words. Therefore, they don't really mean much... For example, if some guys says that Microsoft is going to do well over the next year, you can't really assume that this is based on inside information and that the stock price is going to go up. It's all unofficial and speculations. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So are you saying that the mainstream media is somehow more truthful? I think it's you who is wrong. Historically, it can be easily shown that the mainstream media lies more than individuals. The vast majority of what you read in your newspaper is a lie. Generally, it is propaganda initiated by powerful entities, like goverment or large corporations or the wealthy.
If you want some good examples... consider how the mainstream media, including "reputable" sources like New York Times, were printing story after story about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This wasn't just an opinion; it was supposedly fact. They had strong proof. Did this turn out to be true?
This sort of manipulation is further extended to books as well. A huge chunk of what is claimed as fact in books is biased information. For example, how many people actually know that WWII had nothing to do with stopping genocide or defending the Jews? There was so much anti-Semiticism (by this I'm talking about what the word originally meant; I'm not talking about the modern usage where criticism of Isreal equals to anti-Semiticism). The fact of the matter is Jews were considered inferiors and no one cared at that time.
While on the topic of these "factual" books, how about all the racist and sexist books which were widely accepted and had PROOF that whites were superior to everyone, or how men were superior to women. What happened to these mainstream FACTUAL books from the late 1800's and early 1900's?
It's too bad that you don't realize that mainstream media is mostly recycled government/corporate press releases. Very little of it is the truth... I can see why you would be sceptical of individual commentary (eg. blogs). After all, anyone can say ANYTHING. However, there is an intrinsic mechanism within humans which filters out the lies. Generally, blogs that are more truthful or more insightful will attract more people and have greater reputation. For example, I can claim that 'aliens are about to invade earth' on my blog and no one will believe me. However, if I show pictures or some other data, then people will have a greater chance of believing it. When more and more people link to my site and verify my story, my reputation will increase, and more people will investigate my opinions. In contrast, the mainstream media will never disclose such matters until it is imminent (due to goverment policies).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Does anyone seriously consider Ann Coulter's opinions? She is nothing more than a quasi-fascist, who isn't even strong enough to be a fascist.
All you conservatives who blindly follow her are really going to be happy when she seizes power...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is a very good article by an insider. It is probably a bit biased but, nevertheless, is well worth reading. One of the main points that one would understand is how strong Microsoft marketing is.
Half of software is marketing; half is engineering. Too bad some people still haven't realized it....
Sivaram Velauthapillai
People always trash MS but it has some of hte best engineers and software developers around. Because of that, they always seem to take advantage. For instance, if .NET becomes popular (which it will), I can automatically see MS Office destroying everything else (not that there is much competition these days) and actually cause consumers to upgrade for sure.
.NET. It is the company that designed it after all. So they would have some advantage. If nothing, they will at least have more knowledge and expertise than others.
Also, don't forget that MS controls
As far as the IBM example is concerned... the reason IBM kind of lost is because they cared about mainframes more than PCs. Mainframes generated more profits and hence IBM didn't want to sacrifice that market for the PC market... In any case, IBM still remained in the top 5 PC manufacturers all throughout the 90's (and even now I think). So it's not as if they failed. A better example of total collapse is Apple. Apple had a huge market in the early 90's but totally fell off the planet...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Linux won't overtake Windows for a while (I'm talking about home market only--server is another story). Windows just provides too many features that Linux lacks. Windows is also much easier to use. For instance, how easy is it to change video card drivers (or for that matter any driver) in Linux? It is very difficult for causal users. I think 90% of the home users won't get past, say, Nvidia's 3rd instruction to modify the XFree-86 configuration file. Or how about when something goes wrong? Linux is not as foolproof. For instance, if there are problems with the filesystems, the error/fix messages generated during boot-up would give a heart attack to many users (the messages basically say something like 'you could lose all data if you proceed' :) ).
Lastly, Linux does not have enough software. This will seriously prevent adoption for a while. You can find basic software in Linux but it's always those one or two special ones that make it difficult. For instance, if you are using a particular tax software, you may not find it in linux. Or you may be able to find replacements for everything but MS Encarta (encyclopedia). Or, you find everything in linux except that digital camera software that you cherish.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Windows 2000 is not a good OS for the home. My memory is sketchy since I wans't using it much (except at work) but let me see...
What version of DirectX did Windows 2000 ship with? I think it was way behind or something. Games and other multimedia apps weren't very good...
What was the cost? If I remember correctly, didn't Win2000 cost more than Win ME and Win XP?
Win2000 boots up slower than Win XP.
Win XP has better sleep mode, and other power consuming features.
And so on...
Overall, Win XP is much better than Windows 2000 for the home user... Don't know about servers though... In any case Win XP is very similar to Win 2000.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes developers like .Net, but the users don't give a damn about .Net, the CEO's don't care about it, its currently a cool developers toy, like QT.
Whoever that rules the programming language/tools rules the applications.... whoever that rules the applications rules the operating system... whoever that rules the operating system, rules the world (ok maybe not the last part ;))
.NET is a new development environment. It isn't just a language or a piece of software. It is almost a cohesive software platform that you can use to do everything. What this means is that if you program for .NET, you will likely develop skills in C# (as opposed to say C++), will program for .NET only (since it is likely incomptabile in any other OS, not counting things like Mono), and will be doing everything for a Windows-oriented OS.
.NET, it will capture even more market share. For example, why would anyone bother with Java anymore? The applications that we are talking about isn't just desktop applications. Rather, it is EVERYTHING. In particular, .NET will capture what is commonly called web services. Web services are the future of software!!! Remember when people were saying that everything, such as doing your banking, purchasing products, renewing your driver's licence, etc, will be done on the internet? Well it will become true with .NET. Java attempted to take over the web application/web services/whatever market. It didn't really succeed fully. With Microsoft's financial, marketing and engineering support, .NET will accomplish 100x what Java was supposed to do.
.NET, will you still stick with linux or will you migrate to Windows? YOU probably will stick around but most won't. Already there are quite a few websites that I have encountered which require Windows (mostly due to use of ASP, WMV files, or some version of plug-in not available/not good in Linux (eg. the linux flash plug-in for mozilla totally sucks compared to Windows. Try loading www.sportsnet.ca and see how the menus cause problems)).
;) but most people aren't little Hitlers. Most people follow the law. (In any case, Hitler did spend some time in jail so you may end up there too ;) ) If most people pirated Windows, Microsoft would lose millions on the home operating system market--but it doesn't. Most people follow the law.
.NET and Longhorn provide features that aren't available in linux, people will not bother changing. I use linux right now but I might switch based on future events. For example, if banks* provide a seemless, in
Why is Windows so popular? It's because of the applications. Now, if a huge chunk of people only program for
If this doesn't convince you, think about an example. Let's say web services take off, and that many of your activities are done thourough the web. Will you still stick with linux when MS dominates the web area? For example, if you have discount broker or banker that seemlessly integrates with the OS using
There's no reason for me or anyone else to buy Longhorn EVER. So even if somehow Longhorn is great software, no one really cares at this point because most of the PC sales are in markets where price is everything and where Microsoft has little to no influence. In fact most people who are buying new PCs will pirate Longhorn or whatever Microsoft has out.
First of all, pirating is illegal and you are liable. I don't expect someone named Hitler to follow the laws that closely
Secondly, what YOU will do is irrelevant, just like what *I* do is irrelevant. What matters is the market as a whole. If 95% of the people use Longhorn, it will dominate. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or your friend, or whomever, doesn't use it.
Lastly--and this goes to the point of my message--what drives the market are features. If
One company I worked for about 10 years ago, one of the developers posted a question to Usenet, and had his answer in 45 minutes. It was his educated opinion that had he gone to Sun with the same question, first he would have had to deal with the phone drones and their canned list of questions, before eventually getting through to the people who he knew could really answer the question, and guesstimated that resolution path at hours, not minutes. 45 minutes vs. a few hours. You be the judge.
I don't think purchasing support should preclude what you are saying. Clearly if someone was hired by a corporation, they should do the best that they can--which might include checking out the web, and so forth.
Then why not a support contract for every daemon that runs on the server (eg, sendmail, ntpd, (x)inetd, NFS, etc)? Every instance of awk, grep, sed, etc? After all, why take a chance that any one of these is anything less than perfect?
I don't think things like awk, grep, etc need support since they are just tools and hardly ever change. These are more like command line tools than complicated software (although you CAN do some complicated stuff with it I suppose). Things like postfix, xinetd, Samba, etc probably do need commercial support. I'm pretty sure the lack of enterprise adoption is partly related to the lack of commercial support.
Sivaram Velauthapillai