The key to Microsoft's succes has been in my view their leveraging of their OS monopoly, and their unfair business practices.
I'm am an anti-capitalist and I'm not going to go around defending a threat to humanity: corporations. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion that, somehow, MS is the only one carrying out unfair business practices. EVERY company is unethical; every corporation erects and enforces unfair business practices; every business is out there to monopolize their industry (just look around). What MS is doing is no different than Intel (I consider Intel even worse--it's amazing that AMD showed up), IBM, Apple, etc.
Stacker:
MS worked with them for a while to include the tech into DOS.
Then this cooperation stopped and DOS was equipped with doublespace.
Eventually Stacker won this case and was awarded 165 Million IIRC.
If MS broke the law, they broke the law and should be penalized. But I think you are getting at something more than that. You are implying it was unfair practice. Well, you know what, everyone does this. I worked at a large corporation and management there would hire an outside company (a small one) for some technical expertise. One the company gained some knowledge, it would almost abruptly cut off the relationship. The little firm that was hired is often shocked and loses its technical strength (because now the big company doesn't need them anymore and often erects barriers). What MS does is no different than other companies. Either you are against ALL companies or you are against NONE.
So the issue is not whether MS was doing anything "bad". Instead, it is whether they were doing anything different from other businesses.
Wordperfect:
Microsoft used the introduction of Windows 3 to push Word. When Windows 3 came out WP had no version for it. I don't know if this was part WP's own stupidity or they were kept in the dark by MS.
That's not true. Windows 3 was a surprise. No one expected it to be as popular as it was. Word processors only came after the popularity of the OS. In any case, what the hell was Wordperfect doing? If I remember correctly, it didn't have a Windows version for a long time (I think well after the Microsoft one (which wasn't called Word I don't think), and AmiPro (remember this?)). There is no excuse for having the dominant market share and then not doing anything (I'm talking about WordPerfect here). The fault lies with Wordperfect executives and other strategists. Of course, CEOs never get blamed after all...
Netscape:
Bundling the browser with the Os, just because it's unseparately. I beleive they have been found guilty on misusing their monopoly in this case.
This is probably the only one I agree with. MS totally destroyed Netscape by bundling it with the OS.
Borland C++ Builder/Delphi.
Visual Studio.Net looks more like these products as it looks like VS 6. The only problem Borland always had is that is was lagging behind, because it could never have a new version out together with the introduction of a new Windows version. Again just like WP probably kept in the dark for as long as possible giving the competing MS product a head start of about a year.
MS probably DOES give its programmers advantages over the external competition. However, your product sells because of FEATURES (and other "little" things like price, marketing, etc). You cannot solely blame the introduction of a new OS for the failure. Admit it: Visual Studio just killed Borland in terms of features and capabilities. If Borland had introduced new, better, features it could have kept the customers. But it didn't. Visual Studio started having more features. Programmers are probably the ones that least care about graphics, pictures, ads, marketing, etc. YET Visual Studio killed Borland.
Playstation/GameCube
MS is now at a point where they can just keep throwing money at until the opposition goes broke. They could give Xbox away for fr
I'm going to type up long messages for the other replies (hopefully:) ). So read them for my view on OOo.
With respect to desktops using 3D, it's because that's the next logical step. ALL video cards now are 3D. You won't find a system without one. So why not use the capabilities of the card for the desktop? The (3D) video cards are designed for 3D performance. Not using the 3D capabilities is a WASTE. The current desktops don't even use (I would say) 10% of the card's capabilities. I haven't done any testing but I'll guess that modern desktops don't even use 1MB of the memory (even the worst cards usually have 8MB+), don't use any of the GPU functions, don't use the speed of the cards, etc. The card is just sitting there not doing anything.
As a matter of fact, you MIGHT even see performance INCREASE if you start using 3D features. The cards are designed for them and I'm guessing that 2D pixel operations are slower than 3D ones. Do note that I'm talking about simple stuff for the desktop (nothing like games). You know... stuff like drawing the icons, menus, toolbars, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the card is faster at drawing a 3D taskbar with 3D (vector) icons than drawing 2D bars with 2D bitmaps (now).
I'm guessing on a lot of these things but I think I'm right. Video cards, even the worst of them, DO have 3D capabilities and are good at it. I'm not talking about some super-duper 3D desktop with bumpmapping, trilinear filtering, etc. I'm just talking about basic desktop stuff. Why have 2D bitmap icons anymore? Aren't 3D scalable vector icons better? Why have toolbars/taskbars/etc use 2D graphics and all its limitations? For example, changing colours will be easier and faster under a 3D desktop than a 2D one.
Does that convince you that 3D desktops are better?:)
We are building a society of automatons, with little in the way of reasoning ability. A big shame.
That serves the interests of the capitalists and the elites. A FREE thinking THOUGHTFUL person is a threat to the government and the corporations that rule.
The governments just want you to be a GOOD TAXPAYING citizen. They don't want you to speak against the government; they don't want you to protest; they don't want you to THINK.
A corporation is similar. They just need WORKERS. As long as a person does a job, that's all that's required. If you start thinking outside the box, you are a threat to them. Why do corporations enforce strict IP (intellectual property) laws on employees? Why do businesses not support or look down upon certain things that you do (like learning or studying "unrelated" stuff)?
You are nothing more than a WORKER-CONSUMER...and you need to remain that way! The rebels within us must be quashed!!!
What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs)...
Actually it DOES impact jobs. There are a ton of jobs which ask for specific experience. I'm not saying it is right; just that, that's how it works. People don't ask if you have database experience; they ask if you have MS Access experience.
This applies to the comp sci/eng field too. Many jobs basically REQUIRE you to have experience with certain software. They don't want a programmer; they want a WINDOWS programmer. The fact that a programming is the same thing regardless of platform (using a graphics toolkit, some API, etc) doesn't matter. I'm talking about entry level jobs (which is where I am). High level jobs clearly require specialized knowledge. Similarly, employers don't ask whether you know versioning control systems. Instead, they ask for specific stuff. The fact that you know CVS doesn't matter; they only look to see if you have say Clearcase experience. We are not even talking about administering these things...just using them in your job. It probably takes 10 hours to learn a different system if you know one. Yet they don't care. Other examples include employers asking for Rational Rose, even though you may have done UML design on the side using other software (like free ones such as Poseidon or Umbrello).
If you don't have any of the specifics, you don't even get past the resume selection stage (step 1). Yes, it's that bad:( Take it from experience...
Perhaps what I am sayin is dependent on the economic cycle. Maybe, employers ask for specific stuff during "recessions" (like now) and don't really care during boom periods. I am not sure. I graduated at the wrong time and the only boom I know of is the sonic boom...:(
Yeah... I guess you can watch multiple streams. Kind of like watching tv news with picture-in-picture.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that the capacity must increase for a LARGE segment of hte population. If only a few people (like geeks) have the capability, no one is going to offer any services. For example, most computer games are still designed with 56k modem in mind (also LAN but that's another thing). Except for the latency you get with a cable modem/DSL, you get no other benefit. Similarly, most websites are still text-oriented and the extra bandwidth is useless (unless you are downloading something)...
But your argument basically implies that technological improvements don't mean anything. MMX/SSE/etc ARE improvements. Multimedia applications for example (like games) benefit greatly from them. Architecture differences DO impact the outcome. Doing things in parallel is different. Speed matters but it encompasses many different things.
With your logic, you can reduce everything into a simple counting machine. If everything can be run on 386, why stop there? How come you don't say the 286 is good enough? A 286 with a math co-processor and a few other things are just like a 386. Why stop at 386?
Only a capitalist would try to impose a tax to curb something. This is just as idiotic as trying to curb pollution by introducing a pollution credit system that the top capitalistic economists come up with.
Yes, I realize that left-leaning people usually support these things but that's only because it is better than not having anything at all. In other words, people who support such schemes are short-term oriented and are not idealists (of course, I am not that person). You cut pollution by eliminating it (or trying to elminate it). Similarly, you cut spam by trying to eliminate it. Go to the root cause and eliminate that (if it is worth doing that--I am not saying it is worth it in this case). Introducing a tax will not really do anything because the wealthy can afford it (just like how a country like China that tries to curb population growth by fines discriminates against the poor and lower classes). Large wealthy corporations will pay the taxes while the smaller ones are driven out of business (yes, these spammers ARE in a business--not a business you and I like but it's still a business).
You want to cut spam? Get people to avoid clicking on the spam messages and not to respond. The reason SPAM is popular is because it works! Yep, people actually click on those penis enlargement ads, free sex, Nigerian scams, etc. Yes, what I am saying is hard but it is the only solution that will lead to utopia. All other solutions will violate/penalize liberties or certain parties.
Knowing the US legal system (as an outsider, not as a lawyer), it wouldn't surprise me if SCO wins a few cases. Since they seem to be suing a whole hoard of people for many different things (IBM violation; GPL is a threat; customer of Linux (I wonder who this is?); etc), the chances are they will win some cases. Just like the recent Microsoft Internet Explorer loss against some bogus lawsuit.
IBM likely won't lose (since it spends a ton of money on lawyers and has the legal system "under its wraps") but some of the other parties that are caught up may lose. If SCO sues Linus Torvalds (it's not clear if they are or not), what are the chances of Linus losing? Much higher than most people here think. I know the open source organization is paying for his lawyers but I highly doubt they are as good as SCO's lawyers.
The legal system in developed countries basically come down to who is richer and can afford the best lawyers. One just needs to look at OJ Simpson, Robert Durst, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, G.E., ExonnMobil, BP, Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc. They can still be convicted but with lower terms, if not freed outright. Does anyone think the Enron and Arthur Anderson criminals will get more than 5 years? The latest case seems to be Robert Durst. Now, someone explain to me if this guy would have been freed if he were not rich and had the best lawyers? If it were me, I would get jailed for sure. If anything, I would get some jail term for chopping up the body and hiding it.
Can you be so sure? How many people lap up government and corporate propaganda? How many people worship politicians and their government? How many people worship CEOs? How come everyone uses Internet Explorer even though Mozilla or other 3rd party ones are arguably better?
If a company knows what it is doing (ie. it is an expert when it comes to propaganda and disinformation), most people will fall for it. The only ones that won't are conspiracy theorists, sceptics, and experts within that field. For instance, most people following econopolitics knows that the US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, or even freedom. Yet the vast majority of the population (at least in USA) doesn't know it. Similarly, the vast majority of people on Slashdot know that certain computer products suck, yet the mainstream population purchases these products.
Never underestimate the power of propaganda (and disinformation). Remember, no one (that knows what they are doing) ever passes off a lie as the truth. Instead, they are likely to pass off HALF-TRUTHS (aka half-lies) as the truth. Most people will believe the half-truths unless they are experts in that field. For example, governments always say they created x number of jobs, which is true. However, they rarely mention the number layed off or the number entering the workforce. Only those that follow the government or have knowledge about labour will notice the different...
There is no such thing as an American system. You either have capitalism or you don't. Capitalists, needless to say, don't hold allegiance to countries (in fact, they are the first ones to sell out their countries and move to tax sheltered countries like Bahamas or Monaco:| ). Yes, people have the habit of blaming a country. Under capitalism, the corporations are free to move around and do whatever they want. Microsoft, or for that matter any other company, can move to China tomorrow. Besides, the ownership of the company may be foreigners. Many large corporations are inter-listed on other stock exchanges and many foreigners own them.
Anyway, MS DOES innovate. They DO take ideas from others but they make a better product out of it. Why is MS Office so popular? Wordperfect and Lotus had a headstart but couldn't keep up. How come SQL Server is eating up marketshare? It came out of nowhere. Watch X-Box capture market share (I think Nintendo won't release a next version and Sony may have problems). If MS sucks at innovation, why is Visual Studio offer more features and capabilities than any of its competition?
Look at the Linux world. Most of the open-source software(OSS) are clones of existing stuff. The vast majority of OSS software copy Unix or Windows. Why is KDE/X (or Gnome for the rest of you;) ) lagging Windows? For example, Longhorn (next version is windows) is supposed to use 3D card capabilities (at least that's the "rumour"). I don'tsee KDE doing anything like that in its future version. Why is OpenOffice.org (OOo) lagging everything? Right now,OOo is just copying MS Office and isn't really doing anything innovative or new.
Shouldn't geeks be LEADING? I think you are the opposite of a geek...which would be... hmm.. a caveman;) When all of us start using 64 bits, you'll still be using 32 bits... oh the horror >:o
By that line of thinking, we can run everything on the ENIAC too. Yes, the very first computer can theoretically run everything--albeit a bit slower:)
I think a better criteria is to count which applications CAN'T run on a 386. I would say most won't. Not because they do anything special, but because they aren't compiled for the 386. Programs may use MMX/3dNow instructions...
Trust me... content will fill the bandwidth almost overnight. With higher bandwidth (and yes, latency too) we can get real-time video, better computer games (latency is a more important thing here), etc. Imagine reading/watching video broadcast for news, instead of reading text.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. There isn't a real capitalist economy on the planet, just as there isn't a real communist economy or a real socialist economy.
I agree that we aren't practicing PURE capitalism. However, countries like USA are on the path towards pure capitalism. It is more capitalistic than ever. It has more "free" markets, has open capital flow, financial systems, etc that go along with capitalism.
USA (or for that matter most other countries) may not be practicing pure capitalism. But it is closer to capitalism any others. If it is not capitalism, then what is USA practicing? (Read my whole post first). Merchantilism? You mention things like pseudo-socialism, fascism, and plutocracy, but these are minor traits. USA practices more capitalism than these other competing systems.
What do you say to people like me who theorize that free markets and capitalism will lead to oligopolies and monopolies? I believe that the so-called free market will lead to oligopolies or monopolies (if you want detailed view of why, let me know: I'm willing to type it up:) ). Essentially you will end up with large corporations controlling every aspect of life. The world is moving in that direction. You can already get a sense of that by observing how some corporations are already bigger than most of the small countries. Or how a few corporations dominate many sectors (eg. media, military weapons, oil, movies, cars, computers, etc). Things will just get worse. All you need are for a few of these corporations to merge a few more times (so far, anti-monopoly laws block these mergers but just wait until they are stricken down).
Anyway, under my theory, you will end up with what I call corporatism (I guess somewhat akin what you are calling corporte feudalism, although under my view, the system will be very "democratic" (in the veins of the present) and everyone will be "free" (as in American Dream: free to do whatever but only a few succeed and those that do control everything)).
What all this means is that the end-result is closer to capitalism than any other system. Even purists like you will probably count it as capitalism when it happens. Markets will be totally free, property rights will be strongly enforced, no corporate taxes, government intervention will not exist, etc. It's capitalism as capitalists like you want it to be. It's your dream except for one thing: instead of many little businesses ruling, you'll end up with a few large corporations. You might not want to call it capitalism but it will be for millions of people like me and others. In the end that's all that matters.
What does all this have to do with the original message? Well, the people who control the current system are capitalists. If a few corporations start ruling it must NECESSARILY be considered as capitalism. After all, if the CATO institute, perhaps the most powerful economic-oriented political body in the world right now, is driving USA (and other countries), then is it not capitalism? CATO institute doesn't get all what it wants. However, the fact that they are the most powerful body means that they influence the government the most (especially the right wing) and the corporations.
All the guys influencing the government, corporations, etc are CAPITALISTS. Read any economic book, or any speech given to CEOs, or what influences management (eg. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc) and you'll find that the capitalists have the power. If capitalists aren't running the show then who is? If USA isn't on the path towards capitalism, where is it headed? If Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) isn't influencing the world, who is? Karl Marx?
To put it plainly, USA is practicing capitalism! It may not be pure capitalism but it is a whole lot closer to it than communism, socialism, anarchism, theocracy, monarchy or any other competiting systems.
And I just love how hardline socialists like you (I bet you don't think of yourself as one) love to pretend that just because you made one decision or another, that you're somehow magically entitled to be given a living from it.
What did I say a person is entitled to? I think people are entitled a lot of things that you would disagree with, but my post didn't touch on it.
You sit there and whine.
What am I whining about? I am critiquing the system. Even if I had a job, even if all of us had a job, it wouldn't change my opinion. I'm talking about the nature of the system and how it is unjust. I am not saying I deserve a job. The whole point is about how it is difficult to change jobs--something that you take for granted.
ARe you talking to me? Or the original poster? I'm not really sure I understand your point...
I was talking about the original Windows vs Apple case which permitted the cloning of icons, and thinsgs like that. The original case has nothing to do with the modern Apple OS (which, as you point out, is from OpenBSD). The Microsoft win actually results in allowing OSS to thrive (and by OSS I'm mostly talking about Linux applications but OS/X is OSS too).
If this guy's an exempt employee, he's not paid for his time. He's paid a salary instead. At that point it gets murky.
So what are you saying? That a company owns a salaried person's WHOLE day? Whole 24 hours? I am sure that is against the law too. If anything, claiming 24hours of a person's life belongs to a company is likely against the UN Human Rights (not that anyone follows it but still).
In any case, the problem is not the legality of the matter. Instead, it is enforcing it. Most people (unless they have good jobs ie. get paid a lot), can't afford to fight back against the corporation. The best most people can do is to attempt to file a complaint with a government labour body (in many places) but it is not going to go anywhere.
I'm sure the new operating systems have stickies built in. Thins like KDE (Linux) have stickies as add-ons, applets, etc. I don't use it so I don't know much about it but I'm sure you can set it up so that it runs in your taskbar all the time.
Anyway, the reason *I* don't use stickies is because I use a PIM (personal information manager), like KOrganizer. What's the point of using stickies when you can have TO-DOs in a PIM (like KOrganizer, Outlook, etc)? TO-DOs are far better than stickies IMO.
Slasdot is not just about technology. You'll notice that it also deals with civil rights (eg. RIAA abuse of fileswappers), tech worker issues (eg. outsourcing, bad corporate policy), government policies (eg. China using linux), etc.
I think the site you are looking for is this one, or maybe this or perhaps even theseones. These deal with only technologies:) They also only cover FACTS coming out from the best PR departments the tech world has seen. You certainly won't get any spin from those sites;)
That's the difference between socialist principles and capitalist ones... Under capitalism, you worship the capitalist overlords, who happen to be corporations right now...
Yes but he (the original poster) touched on it. He is talking about the situation where you cannot leave company B. He is pre-supposing that either you wont' find another job or company A won't take you back.
Of course, you can leave ANY company at any time (with decent notice). However, it will be difficult for many to do so when they can't find other jobs.
As far as you becoming a corporate slave (let's call it for what it is! Signing away your THOUGHTS is a new form of SLAVERY), it is so easy to do that. Study labour movements from the 1800's to now (or even now in other parts of the world) and you'll see why it is difficult. Without going into history, this is what will happen:
Companies will COLLUDE and create philosophies, contracts, etc that are common with all companies. Around 40 years ago, the IP contract stuff wasn't very common. If anything, each company DIFFERED GREATLY. Nowadays, you'll notice that many companies have almost identical views towards IP contracts. In other words, the companies have all "standardized" their IP contracts. Even if you leave one company, the other one will have almost identical views towards intellectual property.
To make matters worse, the present economic conditions mean that A LOT of people will just sign away their soul (like me:( ). If YOU leave your company, *I* will take your place (for example). The worst thing about this is that the company is not harmed. It doesn't even feel it. If anything, it thinks its policies are right and that you are an idiot, while I, along with the countless other unemployed people who will take the job, am a good employee. In a "perfect" world (perfect in the sense of capitalism), YOU will lose ALL THE TIME. There will always be people who will undercut you. There will always be people who are more desperate. Unless you are some super-talented person (there are only a few people like this), the company won't lose much. Even then, the VAST MAJORITY of jobs are mundane maintenance/testing/etc jobs (the vast majority of jobs in software development/computer engineering involve maintenance. This applies to anything. For instance, I was reading that something like 60% or 70% of the jobs in the US Air Force (and I think the Navy too) are maintenance/support/refuelling/etc jobs. The number of people who fly planes, drop bombs, or fight are very small). By choosing the rigtheous path, you will basically lock yourself out of the majority of the job market. THAT is a price that most people aren't willing to pay:(
The only people who are free are those that stand up to their principles. Unfortunately there aren't many like that today. It's interesting, to me at least, how Richard Stallman created Free software simply due to IP contracts of MIT. No one has done that when it comes to labour...
Yes, the IDIOCY of humans (myself included). You will sign away your life even though you realize it is wrong. I am unemployed now and will do the same. YET I KNOW it is wrong.
Few of us are principled. It is very hard to live a life with principles. Perhaps that's why there are few idealists.
If Satan* comes to earth, 90% of the population will be under his/her control within 1 day!!!
* I'm an athiest by the way; This is simply a metaphor. I do not think there is such a thing as Satan--thank God for that;)
That might sound funny but I experienced a somewhat similar situation (although not as extremist as you are saying ie. 24 hours) When I had a job a while ago (yes a long time ago:( ), there were people who were actually getting paid less than technicians or "lower level" professions (at least what the company considered it to be). What was happening was that the engineers were salaried and ended up working some crazy hours (well over 40) while certain other positions (like technicians) were getting paid hourly. If you actually compared the per-hour rate, the engineers were making lower. In fact, SOME technicians had more total income too (because they were paid overtime while salaried staff weren't).
When you don't have a job, you'll take anything:( BUT if you have choices, considering the conditions of the job is important. Even little things matter. For instance, if it takes 1 hour to drive to your work, another lower paying job which takes you 15 minutes may be more attractive. Instead of spending 2 hours driving back and forth, you'll only spend 30 min. You can spend the extra time reading, or shopping, or fooling around, or even spending it with your kids (yes, I realize this is out of fashion:( ). Of course, it all depends on how valuable the entity (time in this case) is. Since I am single and unemployed, I value my time at ZERO (so I would take the 1 hour job) RIGHT NOW.
Welcome to corporate-controlled plutocracies... Yes, you are nothing more than a worker-consumer ant. Any thoughts outside this is expressly forbidden...
Slashdot Mirror
The key to Microsoft's succes has been in my view their leveraging of their OS monopoly, and their unfair business practices.
I'm am an anti-capitalist and I'm not going to go around defending a threat to humanity: corporations. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion that, somehow, MS is the only one carrying out unfair business practices. EVERY company is unethical; every corporation erects and enforces unfair business practices; every business is out there to monopolize their industry (just look around). What MS is doing is no different than Intel (I consider Intel even worse--it's amazing that AMD showed up), IBM, Apple, etc.
Stacker: MS worked with them for a while to include the tech into DOS. Then this cooperation stopped and DOS was equipped with doublespace. Eventually Stacker won this case and was awarded 165 Million IIRC.
If MS broke the law, they broke the law and should be penalized. But I think you are getting at something more than that. You are implying it was unfair practice. Well, you know what, everyone does this. I worked at a large corporation and management there would hire an outside company (a small one) for some technical expertise. One the company gained some knowledge, it would almost abruptly cut off the relationship. The little firm that was hired is often shocked and loses its technical strength (because now the big company doesn't need them anymore and often erects barriers). What MS does is no different than other companies. Either you are against ALL companies or you are against NONE.
So the issue is not whether MS was doing anything "bad". Instead, it is whether they were doing anything different from other businesses.
Wordperfect: Microsoft used the introduction of Windows 3 to push Word. When Windows 3 came out WP had no version for it. I don't know if this was part WP's own stupidity or they were kept in the dark by MS.
That's not true. Windows 3 was a surprise. No one expected it to be as popular as it was. Word processors only came after the popularity of the OS. In any case, what the hell was Wordperfect doing? If I remember correctly, it didn't have a Windows version for a long time (I think well after the Microsoft one (which wasn't called Word I don't think), and AmiPro (remember this?)). There is no excuse for having the dominant market share and then not doing anything (I'm talking about WordPerfect here). The fault lies with Wordperfect executives and other strategists. Of course, CEOs never get blamed after all...
Netscape: Bundling the browser with the Os, just because it's unseparately. I beleive they have been found guilty on misusing their monopoly in this case.
This is probably the only one I agree with. MS totally destroyed Netscape by bundling it with the OS.
Borland C++ Builder/Delphi. Visual Studio.Net looks more like these products as it looks like VS 6. The only problem Borland always had is that is was lagging behind, because it could never have a new version out together with the introduction of a new Windows version. Again just like WP probably kept in the dark for as long as possible giving the competing MS product a head start of about a year.
MS probably DOES give its programmers advantages over the external competition. However, your product sells because of FEATURES (and other "little" things like price, marketing, etc). You cannot solely blame the introduction of a new OS for the failure. Admit it: Visual Studio just killed Borland in terms of features and capabilities. If Borland had introduced new, better, features it could have kept the customers. But it didn't. Visual Studio started having more features. Programmers are probably the ones that least care about graphics, pictures, ads, marketing, etc. YET Visual Studio killed Borland.
Playstation/GameCube MS is now at a point where they can just keep throwing money at until the opposition goes broke. They could give Xbox away for fr
I'm going to type up long messages for the other replies (hopefully :) ). So read them for my view on OOo.
:)
With respect to desktops using 3D, it's because that's the next logical step. ALL video cards now are 3D. You won't find a system without one. So why not use the capabilities of the card for the desktop? The (3D) video cards are designed for 3D performance. Not using the 3D capabilities is a WASTE. The current desktops don't even use (I would say) 10% of the card's capabilities. I haven't done any testing but I'll guess that modern desktops don't even use 1MB of the memory (even the worst cards usually have 8MB+), don't use any of the GPU functions, don't use the speed of the cards, etc. The card is just sitting there not doing anything.
As a matter of fact, you MIGHT even see performance INCREASE if you start using 3D features. The cards are designed for them and I'm guessing that 2D pixel operations are slower than 3D ones. Do note that I'm talking about simple stuff for the desktop (nothing like games). You know... stuff like drawing the icons, menus, toolbars, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the card is faster at drawing a 3D taskbar with 3D (vector) icons than drawing 2D bars with 2D bitmaps (now).
I'm guessing on a lot of these things but I think I'm right. Video cards, even the worst of them, DO have 3D capabilities and are good at it. I'm not talking about some super-duper 3D desktop with bumpmapping, trilinear filtering, etc. I'm just talking about basic desktop stuff. Why have 2D bitmap icons anymore? Aren't 3D scalable vector icons better? Why have toolbars/taskbars/etc use 2D graphics and all its limitations? For example, changing colours will be easier and faster under a 3D desktop than a 2D one.
Does that convince you that 3D desktops are better?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
We are building a society of automatons, with little in the way of reasoning ability. A big shame.
That serves the interests of the capitalists and the elites. A FREE thinking THOUGHTFUL person is a threat to the government and the corporations that rule.
The governments just want you to be a GOOD TAXPAYING citizen. They don't want you to speak against the government; they don't want you to protest; they don't want you to THINK.
A corporation is similar. They just need WORKERS. As long as a person does a job, that's all that's required. If you start thinking outside the box, you are a threat to them. Why do corporations enforce strict IP (intellectual property) laws on employees? Why do businesses not support or look down upon certain things that you do (like learning or studying "unrelated" stuff)?
You are nothing more than a WORKER-CONSUMER...and you need to remain that way! The rebels within us must be quashed!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs)...
:( Take it from experience...
:(
Actually it DOES impact jobs. There are a ton of jobs which ask for specific experience. I'm not saying it is right; just that, that's how it works. People don't ask if you have database experience; they ask if you have MS Access experience.
This applies to the comp sci/eng field too. Many jobs basically REQUIRE you to have experience with certain software. They don't want a programmer; they want a WINDOWS programmer. The fact that a programming is the same thing regardless of platform (using a graphics toolkit, some API, etc) doesn't matter. I'm talking about entry level jobs (which is where I am). High level jobs clearly require specialized knowledge. Similarly, employers don't ask whether you know versioning control systems. Instead, they ask for specific stuff. The fact that you know CVS doesn't matter; they only look to see if you have say Clearcase experience. We are not even talking about administering these things...just using them in your job. It probably takes 10 hours to learn a different system if you know one. Yet they don't care. Other examples include employers asking for Rational Rose, even though you may have done UML design on the side using other software (like free ones such as Poseidon or Umbrello).
If you don't have any of the specifics, you don't even get past the resume selection stage (step 1). Yes, it's that bad
Perhaps what I am sayin is dependent on the economic cycle. Maybe, employers ask for specific stuff during "recessions" (like now) and don't really care during boom periods. I am not sure. I graduated at the wrong time and the only boom I know of is the sonic boom...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I can't believe you were called an idiot for making a typo... What's slashdot coming to? :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yeah... I guess you can watch multiple streams. Kind of like watching tv news with picture-in-picture.
One other thing I forgot to mention is that the capacity must increase for a LARGE segment of hte population. If only a few people (like geeks) have the capability, no one is going to offer any services. For example, most computer games are still designed with 56k modem in mind (also LAN but that's another thing). Except for the latency you get with a cable modem/DSL, you get no other benefit. Similarly, most websites are still text-oriented and the extra bandwidth is useless (unless you are downloading something)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But your argument basically implies that technological improvements don't mean anything. MMX/SSE/etc ARE improvements. Multimedia applications for example (like games) benefit greatly from them. Architecture differences DO impact the outcome. Doing things in parallel is different. Speed matters but it encompasses many different things.
With your logic, you can reduce everything into a simple counting machine. If everything can be run on 386, why stop there? How come you don't say the 286 is good enough? A 286 with a math co-processor and a few other things are just like a 386. Why stop at 386?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Only a capitalist would try to impose a tax to curb something. This is just as idiotic as trying to curb pollution by introducing a pollution credit system that the top capitalistic economists come up with.
Yes, I realize that left-leaning people usually support these things but that's only because it is better than not having anything at all. In other words, people who support such schemes are short-term oriented and are not idealists (of course, I am not that person). You cut pollution by eliminating it (or trying to elminate it). Similarly, you cut spam by trying to eliminate it. Go to the root cause and eliminate that (if it is worth doing that--I am not saying it is worth it in this case). Introducing a tax will not really do anything because the wealthy can afford it (just like how a country like China that tries to curb population growth by fines discriminates against the poor and lower classes). Large wealthy corporations will pay the taxes while the smaller ones are driven out of business (yes, these spammers ARE in a business--not a business you and I like but it's still a business).
You want to cut spam? Get people to avoid clicking on the spam messages and not to respond. The reason SPAM is popular is because it works! Yep, people actually click on those penis enlargement ads, free sex, Nigerian scams, etc. Yes, what I am saying is hard but it is the only solution that will lead to utopia. All other solutions will violate/penalize liberties or certain parties.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Knowing the US legal system (as an outsider, not as a lawyer), it wouldn't surprise me if SCO wins a few cases. Since they seem to be suing a whole hoard of people for many different things (IBM violation; GPL is a threat; customer of Linux (I wonder who this is?); etc), the chances are they will win some cases. Just like the recent Microsoft Internet Explorer loss against some bogus lawsuit.
IBM likely won't lose (since it spends a ton of money on lawyers and has the legal system "under its wraps") but some of the other parties that are caught up may lose. If SCO sues Linus Torvalds (it's not clear if they are or not), what are the chances of Linus losing? Much higher than most people here think. I know the open source organization is paying for his lawyers but I highly doubt they are as good as SCO's lawyers.
The legal system in developed countries basically come down to who is richer and can afford the best lawyers. One just needs to look at OJ Simpson, Robert Durst, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, G.E., ExonnMobil, BP, Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc. They can still be convicted but with lower terms, if not freed outright. Does anyone think the Enron and Arthur Anderson criminals will get more than 5 years? The latest case seems to be Robert Durst. Now, someone explain to me if this guy would have been freed if he were not rich and had the best lawyers? If it were me, I would get jailed for sure. If anything, I would get some jail term for chopping up the body and hiding it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can you be so sure? How many people lap up government and corporate propaganda? How many people worship politicians and their government? How many people worship CEOs? How come everyone uses Internet Explorer even though Mozilla or other 3rd party ones are arguably better?
If a company knows what it is doing (ie. it is an expert when it comes to propaganda and disinformation), most people will fall for it. The only ones that won't are conspiracy theorists, sceptics, and experts within that field. For instance, most people following econopolitics knows that the US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, or even freedom. Yet the vast majority of the population (at least in USA) doesn't know it. Similarly, the vast majority of people on Slashdot know that certain computer products suck, yet the mainstream population purchases these products.
Never underestimate the power of propaganda (and disinformation). Remember, no one (that knows what they are doing) ever passes off a lie as the truth. Instead, they are likely to pass off HALF-TRUTHS (aka half-lies) as the truth. Most people will believe the half-truths unless they are experts in that field. For example, governments always say they created x number of jobs, which is true. However, they rarely mention the number layed off or the number entering the workforce. Only those that follow the government or have knowledge about labour will notice the different...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as an American system. You either have capitalism or you don't. Capitalists, needless to say, don't hold allegiance to countries (in fact, they are the first ones to sell out their countries and move to tax sheltered countries like Bahamas or Monaco :| ). Yes, people have the habit of blaming a country. Under capitalism, the corporations are free to move around and do whatever they want. Microsoft, or for that matter any other company, can move to China tomorrow. Besides, the ownership of the company may be foreigners. Many large corporations are inter-listed on other stock exchanges and many foreigners own them.
;) ) lagging Windows? For example, Longhorn (next version is windows) is supposed to use 3D card capabilities (at least that's the "rumour"). I don'tsee KDE doing anything like that in its future version. Why is OpenOffice.org (OOo) lagging everything? Right now,OOo is just copying MS Office and isn't really doing anything innovative or new.
Anyway, MS DOES innovate. They DO take ideas from others but they make a better product out of it. Why is MS Office so popular? Wordperfect and Lotus had a headstart but couldn't keep up. How come SQL Server is eating up marketshare? It came out of nowhere. Watch X-Box capture market share (I think Nintendo won't release a next version and Sony may have problems). If MS sucks at innovation, why is Visual Studio offer more features and capabilities than any of its competition?
Look at the Linux world. Most of the open-source software(OSS) are clones of existing stuff. The vast majority of OSS software copy Unix or Windows. Why is KDE/X (or Gnome for the rest of you
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Shouldn't geeks be LEADING? I think you are the opposite of a geek...which would be... hmm.. a caveman ;) When all of us start using 64 bits, you'll still be using 32 bits ... oh the horror >:o
Sivaram Velauthapillai
By that line of thinking, we can run everything on the ENIAC too. Yes, the very first computer can theoretically run everything--albeit a bit slower :)
I think a better criteria is to count which applications CAN'T run on a 386. I would say most won't. Not because they do anything special, but because they aren't compiled for the 386. Programs may use MMX/3dNow instructions...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Trust me... content will fill the bandwidth almost overnight. With higher bandwidth (and yes, latency too) we can get real-time video, better computer games (latency is a more important thing here), etc. Imagine reading/watching video broadcast for news, instead of reading text.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This has nothing to do with capitalism. There isn't a real capitalist economy on the planet, just as there isn't a real communist economy or a real socialist economy.
:) ). Essentially you will end up with large corporations controlling every aspect of life. The world is moving in that direction. You can already get a sense of that by observing how some corporations are already bigger than most of the small countries. Or how a few corporations dominate many sectors (eg. media, military weapons, oil, movies, cars, computers, etc). Things will just get worse. All you need are for a few of these corporations to merge a few more times (so far, anti-monopoly laws block these mergers but just wait until they are stricken down).
I agree that we aren't practicing PURE capitalism. However, countries like USA are on the path towards pure capitalism. It is more capitalistic than ever. It has more "free" markets, has open capital flow, financial systems, etc that go along with capitalism.
USA (or for that matter most other countries) may not be practicing pure capitalism. But it is closer to capitalism any others. If it is not capitalism, then what is USA practicing? (Read my whole post first). Merchantilism? You mention things like pseudo-socialism, fascism, and plutocracy, but these are minor traits. USA practices more capitalism than these other competing systems.
What do you say to people like me who theorize that free markets and capitalism will lead to oligopolies and monopolies? I believe that the so-called free market will lead to oligopolies or monopolies (if you want detailed view of why, let me know: I'm willing to type it up
Anyway, under my theory, you will end up with what I call corporatism (I guess somewhat akin what you are calling corporte feudalism, although under my view, the system will be very "democratic" (in the veins of the present) and everyone will be "free" (as in American Dream: free to do whatever but only a few succeed and those that do control everything)).
What all this means is that the end-result is closer to capitalism than any other system. Even purists like you will probably count it as capitalism when it happens. Markets will be totally free, property rights will be strongly enforced, no corporate taxes, government intervention will not exist, etc. It's capitalism as capitalists like you want it to be. It's your dream except for one thing: instead of many little businesses ruling, you'll end up with a few large corporations. You might not want to call it capitalism but it will be for millions of people like me and others. In the end that's all that matters.
What does all this have to do with the original message? Well, the people who control the current system are capitalists. If a few corporations start ruling it must NECESSARILY be considered as capitalism. After all, if the CATO institute, perhaps the most powerful economic-oriented political body in the world right now, is driving USA (and other countries), then is it not capitalism? CATO institute doesn't get all what it wants. However, the fact that they are the most powerful body means that they influence the government the most (especially the right wing) and the corporations.
All the guys influencing the government, corporations, etc are CAPITALISTS. Read any economic book, or any speech given to CEOs, or what influences management (eg. Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc) and you'll find that the capitalists have the power. If capitalists aren't running the show then who is? If USA isn't on the path towards capitalism, where is it headed? If Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) isn't influencing the world, who is? Karl Marx?
To put it plainly, USA is practicing capitalism! It may not be pure capitalism but it is a whole lot closer to it than communism, socialism, anarchism, theocracy, monarchy or any other competiting systems.
Having said this, capitalism is going to collapse
And I just love how hardline socialists like you (I bet you don't think of yourself as one) love to pretend that just because you made one decision or another, that you're somehow magically entitled to be given a living from it.
What did I say a person is entitled to? I think people are entitled a lot of things that you would disagree with, but my post didn't touch on it.
You sit there and whine.
What am I whining about? I am critiquing the system. Even if I had a job, even if all of us had a job, it wouldn't change my opinion. I'm talking about the nature of the system and how it is unjust. I am not saying I deserve a job. The whole point is about how it is difficult to change jobs--something that you take for granted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
ARe you talking to me? Or the original poster? I'm not really sure I understand your point...
I was talking about the original Windows vs Apple case which permitted the cloning of icons, and thinsgs like that. The original case has nothing to do with the modern Apple OS (which, as you point out, is from OpenBSD). The Microsoft win actually results in allowing OSS to thrive (and by OSS I'm mostly talking about Linux applications but OS/X is OSS too).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If this guy's an exempt employee, he's not paid for his time. He's paid a salary instead. At that point it gets murky.
So what are you saying? That a company owns a salaried person's WHOLE day? Whole 24 hours? I am sure that is against the law too. If anything, claiming 24hours of a person's life belongs to a company is likely against the UN Human Rights (not that anyone follows it but still).
In any case, the problem is not the legality of the matter. Instead, it is enforcing it. Most people (unless they have good jobs ie. get paid a lot), can't afford to fight back against the corporation. The best most people can do is to attempt to file a complaint with a government labour body (in many places) but it is not going to go anywhere.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm sure the new operating systems have stickies built in. Thins like KDE (Linux) have stickies as add-ons, applets, etc. I don't use it so I don't know much about it but I'm sure you can set it up so that it runs in your taskbar all the time.
Anyway, the reason *I* don't use stickies is because I use a PIM (personal information manager), like KOrganizer. What's the point of using stickies when you can have TO-DOs in a PIM (like KOrganizer, Outlook, etc)? TO-DOs are far better than stickies IMO.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Slasdot is not just about technology. You'll notice that it also deals with civil rights (eg. RIAA abuse of fileswappers), tech worker issues (eg. outsourcing, bad corporate policy), government policies (eg. China using linux), etc.
:) They also only cover FACTS coming out from the best PR departments the tech world has seen. You certainly won't get any spin from those sites ;)
I think the site you are looking for is this one, or maybe this or perhaps even these ones. These deal with only technologies
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's the difference between socialist principles and capitalist ones... Under capitalism, you worship the capitalist overlords, who happen to be corporations right now...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes but he (the original poster) touched on it. He is talking about the situation where you cannot leave company B. He is pre-supposing that either you wont' find another job or company A won't take you back.
:( ). If YOU leave your company, *I* will take your place (for example). The worst thing about this is that the company is not harmed. It doesn't even feel it. If anything, it thinks its policies are right and that you are an idiot, while I, along with the countless other unemployed people who will take the job, am a good employee. In a "perfect" world (perfect in the sense of capitalism), YOU will lose ALL THE TIME. There will always be people who will undercut you. There will always be people who are more desperate. Unless you are some super-talented person (there are only a few people like this), the company won't lose much. Even then, the VAST MAJORITY of jobs are mundane maintenance/testing/etc jobs (the vast majority of jobs in software development/computer engineering involve maintenance. This applies to anything. For instance, I was reading that something like 60% or 70% of the jobs in the US Air Force (and I think the Navy too) are maintenance/support/refuelling/etc jobs. The number of people who fly planes, drop bombs, or fight are very small). By choosing the rigtheous path, you will basically lock yourself out of the majority of the job market. THAT is a price that most people aren't willing to pay :(
Of course, you can leave ANY company at any time (with decent notice). However, it will be difficult for many to do so when they can't find other jobs.
As far as you becoming a corporate slave (let's call it for what it is! Signing away your THOUGHTS is a new form of SLAVERY), it is so easy to do that. Study labour movements from the 1800's to now (or even now in other parts of the world) and you'll see why it is difficult. Without going into history, this is what will happen:
Companies will COLLUDE and create philosophies, contracts, etc that are common with all companies. Around 40 years ago, the IP contract stuff wasn't very common. If anything, each company DIFFERED GREATLY. Nowadays, you'll notice that many companies have almost identical views towards IP contracts. In other words, the companies have all "standardized" their IP contracts. Even if you leave one company, the other one will have almost identical views towards intellectual property.
To make matters worse, the present economic conditions mean that A LOT of people will just sign away their soul (like me
The only people who are free are those that stand up to their principles. Unfortunately there aren't many like that today. It's interesting, to me at least, how Richard Stallman created Free software simply due to IP contracts of MIT. No one has done that when it comes to labour...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, the IDIOCY of humans (myself included). You will sign away your life even though you realize it is wrong. I am unemployed now and will do the same. YET I KNOW it is wrong.
;)
Few of us are principled. It is very hard to live a life with principles. Perhaps that's why there are few idealists.
If Satan* comes to earth, 90% of the population will be under his/her control within 1 day!!!
* I'm an athiest by the way; This is simply a metaphor. I do not think there is such a thing as Satan--thank God for that
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That might sound funny but I experienced a somewhat similar situation (although not as extremist as you are saying ie. 24 hours) When I had a job a while ago (yes a long time ago :( ), there were people who were actually getting paid less than technicians or "lower level" professions (at least what the company considered it to be). What was happening was that the engineers were salaried and ended up working some crazy hours (well over 40) while certain other positions (like technicians) were getting paid hourly. If you actually compared the per-hour rate, the engineers were making lower. In fact, SOME technicians had more total income too (because they were paid overtime while salaried staff weren't).
:( BUT if you have choices, considering the conditions of the job is important. Even little things matter. For instance, if it takes 1 hour to drive to your work, another lower paying job which takes you 15 minutes may be more attractive. Instead of spending 2 hours driving back and forth, you'll only spend 30 min. You can spend the extra time reading, or shopping, or fooling around, or even spending it with your kids (yes, I realize this is out of fashion :( ). Of course, it all depends on how valuable the entity (time in this case) is. Since I am single and unemployed, I value my time at ZERO (so I would take the 1 hour job) RIGHT NOW.
When you don't have a job, you'll take anything
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Welcome to corporate-controlled plutocracies... Yes, you are nothing more than a worker-consumer ant. Any thoughts outside this is expressly forbidden...
Sivaram Velauthapillai