Granted its not coming directly from R&D, but http://finance.google.com/finance?q=msft&btnG=Sear ch 2005 Revenue (USD): 39.79B isn't too shabby.
Everyone is giving them flak for thinking they can throw money at the situation and it fix all of their problems, but it takes $$$ to hire the best and brightest. I for one would like to get M$ and Google to start a bidding war for my mind. If M$ has the funds to back it, then maybe they can get some people in there to do some good.
Someone put it earlier that their stock is going to be a rollercoaster these next few years, but I would still bet that it's going to inch up over the next 3-5 years.
Vista is nice and all that, but how about fixing XP first!!!!
How else are they going to get you to upgrade?
Look, our new OS doesn't suck as much as the one of ours that you are currently using. For only $100's more you can "upgrade" and probably have to buy new hardware to run it on as well.
And the winning bid comes from MSN for: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and so on and so forth)
Goole can in a close second with $500,000,000. Sorry, but thanks for trying
I would think that since Microsoft and MSN are essentially the same this would be along the same lines as me challenging you to a game of guess what number I am thinking of.
Given that you don't need to know about viruses, what is safe to click on and so on, Linux is easier.
That was Apple's big thing for a while. "Mac has no viruses." Well, it's been said before and I'll say it again. That was because there was no incentive to write them. There is starting to become an incentive now as there are more mac users...and here come the viruses
As the number of Linux desktops being maintained by casual users increases, so will the viruses that target them. They will be just as easy targets as the windows desktops as they will be running the same type of software with the same inherit security holes. They will not maintain them, and they will not know any better.
Right now linux is still used mainly by technical people who at least vaguely understand how computer work. It also has a large user base that are extremely advanced users. Those people will probably never have the problems that average users have. However linux IS easier for them because they can make it into exactly what they want and are free to modify it to their liking.
It is something fixed and immutable by the commercial firms to the average user. First, they can't do it themselves. Second, they don't know who can do it for them...don't say forums or anything else as there is no "standard" or publicly know (outside of these discussions) way to request a feature except to use the known way of going back through the person/company that installed your OS/software. Third, if they were to find the person/company to do the customization then that would cost money. Individual customization isn't cheap...it isn't until you can have a product that is used by many people that it can become profitable (thus the large commercial firms). Fourth, not all people are rational in that they see things as I have a problem, let's search out the possible soultions. It generally goes something like this. My soundcard doesn't work...there must be something wrong with it. Let's take it back to Best Buy (who tells them that it isn't supported in Linux). Then they blindly assume that it will never work in linux.
Basically if it doesn't work "out of the box" then the chances of it ever working are very low. Same way with "features" and "customizations." To the average person, they will glady choose software working over software freedom.
As you said "Different people, want different things." Well, you are different, you want different things. Don't try to give them something they don't want.
Maybe not penis enlargement pills, but you could still get these...
Hey, check this site out, just came across it and thought of you [insert spoofed site name]
Or Hey, did you go to high-school with this guy? [insert spoofed site name]
Then you thought you were going to youtoob or myspace or some other "friendly" site, but you were really getting redirected back to a site that exploits ActiveX, and boom, gotta virus. Maybe not you, since hopefully your running Firefox, but its those other 85% that will get it.
We don't necessarily need MORE linux distributions, we need BETTER linux distributions. We also need to get the ones that are out there a little more unified. Things like the Linux Standard Base http://www.freestandards.org/en/LSB while although not the end-all solution is a step in the right direction. We don't need boocoos of distros, choice is great, but something like 5-10 GREAT distros would provide good competition yet also unify some of the effort against who you said is the number 1 problem (microsoft).
Off topic a little I know, sorry. Just thought it needed to be said.
How would a cluser of say 10 of these things perform? 100? 1000? At ~$1500 for 10, I would imagine that it would be pretty good considering you can barely find a decent server for that much. For some applications like a web or mail server just load balance the requests. Other applications probably wouldn't be as successful
Forget virtualization, when you need a new machine, just buy X of these to fill that need. If one breaks, throw it away as it would cost more in tech support to have someone actually take a look at it.
Don't know how the power issue would be, but this could be an interesting idea...anyone know of a reason it would/wouldn't work?
[Mod Parent Up] Very well put. Rules are rules, and rules are meant to be broken.
The only thing that can limit innovation is the lack of desire. But as they say, where there is a will, there is a way.
I'm sure that technology isn't the only area where this is happening. Hopefully we as people (not just Americans) are capable of seeing beyond the short-term gain that companies are trying to get and look at the longer-term benefits. Also, I hope that companies start looking at ways to procure long-term benefit for their customers...and that we as consumers respond and reward companies that do so. Granted I like bargains, but I also want quality. I'm not always a brand-whore, but in some areas I'll pay more "just for the name" but I'll also change me allegiance if I find a company is worthy/or not of my support.
I've long wondered why a database like Oracle didn't have its own tuned OS. Most (at least in my experience) oracle installations are on dedicated servers (the only app on the system is oracle). In fact, all of the projects that I have been on, the database servers had only oracle on them. Oracle is so resource intensive that it pretty much has to be the only thing.
So, why not create a platform that centers around just the database? Build the entire OS from the ground up (linux is a great starting point), but with a single thought in mind. Performance, scalibility, and security but specifically for a database. Everything from the filesystem to partitions to kernel modifications (haven't done kernel development, but would assume that there is stuff in there that a DB wouldn't need).
Don't get started about vendor lock-in, but you could also have HW that was designed specifically for this platform as well (Oracle certified or something like that...do they not already have that?).
Plus, with virtualization starting to pick up the pace. If you did want something other than oracle on a single piece of hardware, then you could just put your oracle OS on one of the virtual machines, then all of your other general purpose OSes of your favorite flavor on the other virtual machines.
Hey Larry, if you need someone to help you out with that then I'd be willing to work for stock options.
Very true, cron is your best friend at times, but can quickly turn on you. I would be interested to see "qproc", but is there a standard utility that implements smarter job queuing? Something that would allow you to set up a priority system, but also times to run other jobs (cron-style).
No you were right, you weren't born yesterday. You were born today.
True, just this first day has been so long must have lost track of time...
Google's sitting on that growing database... right now its mostly private... but you seem to think opening it up and letting everyone take a look see is a good thing...
I never said that I wanted it to open up. I'm not saying that you are, but some people almost live in fear of "big brother" and spend great amounts of time "covering their tracks" so that they can ensure their "anonymity." Great and good, but they preach it like a religion. I on the other hand would rather have my "college indiscretions" and just go on with my life...yes, with blind trust put in some institutions.
Blind trust, would I give out personal info to a bulk email request? No. Would I give it to a friend? Probably. Would I give it to a company that my friend worked for? Maybe. Some random site? Probably use fake info and my "spam email address." Point being, established corporations (however corrupt you can make them out to be) for the most part have to adhere to some (at least) basic ethical standards. If they don't they will get due publicity for their wrong doings and people will probably shy away from their services. So, if google does start giving google access to mail accounts, then I'll change my service. Until they do, their ability to "anonymously" track my habits and profile me is worth the benfits and usefulness that I am about to gain from their services.
Paranoia is objecting to [fill in the blank] without even considering the benefits...just objecting "for the cause"
Sanity is doing an honest analysis of the situation, and if the benefit is greater than the "cost" then you should use the service.
FYI, I agree with what you are saying in principle...some people just take it to an extreme that is well paranoia. I enjoy playing devil's advocate, so I'm not attacking you directly (unless you ARE one of those people, j/k).
Name: Henry Ostenoff
SSN: 418-25-0916
Birthdate: 04/05/2006
Bring it on, you can't do anything with that data. That's the oldest scare tactic in the book. It's not like I was born yesterday...wait...nevermind.
So yeah, we all have things we don't want made public. However, the things that I do say over gmail and "non-controlled" mediums aren't worth the effort for someone to subpoena Google for my conversations. If I have something that I really don't want to be traceable, then there are ways. But just for me organizing a campout, or forwarding all of the "if you want to be popular forward this to at least 8 people in the next 8 minutes" messages, then go right ahead.
Privacy is one thing, paranoia is another...don't confuse the two.
Re:IT doesn't matter -- but not being a moron matt
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 1
The key to productive IT is finding technology bottlenecks and determining the best solution. However, the term best solution is a tricky one that must look at several aspects. The cost of a 20-inch iMac isn't the issue, rather the ROI. If the employee that receives that 20-inch upgrade, or possibly a second flat screen becomes $1000's more productive, then the cost is justified... However, if you go out and buy everyone, including the guy that "only does 20 minutes of real work a day" a cutting edge computer, then you will end up wondering what went wrong while filing for bankruptcy. The same is true when making large HW or SW purchases/upgrades. Go ahead and spend the big $$$ if it is what will give you a competitive advantage. However, the latest and greatest only makes sense if the situation requires it.
My last thought is that if you can find the right employees, you can arm them what your competitions throws out after they upgrade, and they will still be able to get more output (to some degree). Then use the money that you save to make sure that they are happy...also hire a few interns to let them watch what real productivity is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted its not coming directly from R&D, but http://finance.google.com/finance?q=msft&btnG=Sear ch 2005 Revenue (USD): 39.79B isn't too shabby.
Everyone is giving them flak for thinking they can throw money at the situation and it fix all of their problems, but it takes $$$ to hire the best and brightest. I for one would like to get M$ and Google to start a bidding war for my mind. If M$ has the funds to back it, then maybe they can get some people in there to do some good.
Someone put it earlier that their stock is going to be a rollercoaster these next few years, but I would still bet that it's going to inch up over the next 3-5 years.
How else are they going to get you to upgrade?
Look, our new OS doesn't suck as much as the one of ours that you are currently using. For only $100's more you can "upgrade" and probably have to buy new hardware to run it on as well.
Not sure how that would work...
0 (and so on and so forth)
And the winning bid comes from MSN for: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
Goole can in a close second with $500,000,000. Sorry, but thanks for trying
I would think that since Microsoft and MSN are essentially the same this would be along the same lines as me challenging you to a game of guess what number I am thinking of.
I agree. I'd be interested. If it works as well as you say then do as the romans do, wait...just post it.
That was Apple's big thing for a while. "Mac has no viruses." Well, it's been said before and I'll say it again. That was because there was no incentive to write them. There is starting to become an incentive now as there are more mac users...and here come the viruses
As the number of Linux desktops being maintained by casual users increases, so will the viruses that target them. They will be just as easy targets as the windows desktops as they will be running the same type of software with the same inherit security holes. They will not maintain them, and they will not know any better.
Right now linux is still used mainly by technical people who at least vaguely understand how computer work. It also has a large user base that are extremely advanced users. Those people will probably never have the problems that average users have. However linux IS easier for them because they can make it into exactly what they want and are free to modify it to their liking.
It is something fixed and immutable by the commercial firms to the average user. First, they can't do it themselves. Second, they don't know who can do it for them...don't say forums or anything else as there is no "standard" or publicly know (outside of these discussions) way to request a feature except to use the known way of going back through the person/company that installed your OS/software. Third, if they were to find the person/company to do the customization then that would cost money. Individual customization isn't cheap...it isn't until you can have a product that is used by many people that it can become profitable (thus the large commercial firms). Fourth, not all people are rational in that they see things as I have a problem, let's search out the possible soultions. It generally goes something like this. My soundcard doesn't work...there must be something wrong with it. Let's take it back to Best Buy (who tells them that it isn't supported in Linux). Then they blindly assume that it will never work in linux.
Basically if it doesn't work "out of the box" then the chances of it ever working are very low. Same way with "features" and "customizations." To the average person, they will glady choose software working over software freedom.
As you said "Different people, want different things." Well, you are different, you want different things. Don't try to give them something they don't want.
Maybe not penis enlargement pills, but you could still get these...
Hey, check this site out, just came across it and thought of you [insert spoofed site name]
Or
Hey, did you go to high-school with this guy? [insert spoofed site name]
Then you thought you were going to youtoob or myspace or some other "friendly" site, but you were really getting redirected back to a site that exploits ActiveX, and boom, gotta virus. Maybe not you, since hopefully your running Firefox, but its those other 85% that will get it.
We don't necessarily need MORE linux distributions, we need BETTER linux distributions. We also need to get the ones that are out there a little more unified. Things like the Linux Standard Base http://www.freestandards.org/en/LSB while although not the end-all solution is a step in the right direction. We don't need boocoos of distros, choice is great, but something like 5-10 GREAT distros would provide good competition yet also unify some of the effort against who you said is the number 1 problem (microsoft).
Off topic a little I know, sorry. Just thought it needed to be said.
How would a cluser of say 10 of these things perform? 100? 1000? At ~$1500 for 10, I would imagine that it would be pretty good considering you can barely find a decent server for that much. For some applications like a web or mail server just load balance the requests. Other applications probably wouldn't be as successful Forget virtualization, when you need a new machine, just buy X of these to fill that need. If one breaks, throw it away as it would cost more in tech support to have someone actually take a look at it. Don't know how the power issue would be, but this could be an interesting idea...anyone know of a reason it would/wouldn't work?
[Mod Parent Up] Very well put. Rules are rules, and rules are meant to be broken.
The only thing that can limit innovation is the lack of desire. But as they say, where there is a will, there is a way.
I'm sure that technology isn't the only area where this is happening. Hopefully we as people (not just Americans) are capable of seeing beyond the short-term gain that companies are trying to get and look at the longer-term benefits. Also, I hope that companies start looking at ways to procure long-term benefit for their customers...and that we as consumers respond and reward companies that do so. Granted I like bargains, but I also want quality. I'm not always a brand-whore, but in some areas I'll pay more "just for the name" but I'll also change me allegiance if I find a company is worthy/or not of my support.
I've long wondered why a database like Oracle didn't have its own tuned OS. Most (at least in my experience) oracle installations are on dedicated servers (the only app on the system is oracle). In fact, all of the projects that I have been on, the database servers had only oracle on them. Oracle is so resource intensive that it pretty much has to be the only thing.
So, why not create a platform that centers around just the database? Build the entire OS from the ground up (linux is a great starting point), but with a single thought in mind. Performance, scalibility, and security but specifically for a database. Everything from the filesystem to partitions to kernel modifications (haven't done kernel development, but would assume that there is stuff in there that a DB wouldn't need).
Don't get started about vendor lock-in, but you could also have HW that was designed specifically for this platform as well (Oracle certified or something like that...do they not already have that?).
Plus, with virtualization starting to pick up the pace. If you did want something other than oracle on a single piece of hardware, then you could just put your oracle OS on one of the virtual machines, then all of your other general purpose OSes of your favorite flavor on the other virtual machines. Hey Larry, if you need someone to help you out with that then I'd be willing to work for stock options.
Very true, cron is your best friend at times, but can quickly turn on you. I would be interested to see "qproc", but is there a standard utility that implements smarter job queuing? Something that would allow you to set up a priority system, but also times to run other jobs (cron-style).
True, just this first day has been so long must have lost track of time...
I never said that I wanted it to open up. I'm not saying that you are, but some people almost live in fear of "big brother" and spend great amounts of time "covering their tracks" so that they can ensure their "anonymity." Great and good, but they preach it like a religion. I on the other hand would rather have my "college indiscretions" and just go on with my life...yes, with blind trust put in some institutions.
Blind trust, would I give out personal info to a bulk email request? No. Would I give it to a friend? Probably. Would I give it to a company that my friend worked for? Maybe. Some random site? Probably use fake info and my "spam email address." Point being, established corporations (however corrupt you can make them out to be) for the most part have to adhere to some (at least) basic ethical standards. If they don't they will get due publicity for their wrong doings and people will probably shy away from their services. So, if google does start giving google access to mail accounts, then I'll change my service. Until they do, their ability to "anonymously" track my habits and profile me is worth the benfits and usefulness that I am about to gain from their services.
Paranoia is objecting to [fill in the blank] without even considering the benefits...just objecting "for the cause"
Sanity is doing an honest analysis of the situation, and if the benefit is greater than the "cost" then you should use the service.
FYI, I agree with what you are saying in principle...some people just take it to an extreme that is well paranoia. I enjoy playing devil's advocate, so I'm not attacking you directly (unless you ARE one of those people, j/k).
Name: Henry Ostenoff SSN: 418-25-0916 Birthdate: 04/05/2006 Bring it on, you can't do anything with that data. That's the oldest scare tactic in the book. It's not like I was born yesterday...wait...nevermind. So yeah, we all have things we don't want made public. However, the things that I do say over gmail and "non-controlled" mediums aren't worth the effort for someone to subpoena Google for my conversations. If I have something that I really don't want to be traceable, then there are ways. But just for me organizing a campout, or forwarding all of the "if you want to be popular forward this to at least 8 people in the next 8 minutes" messages, then go right ahead. Privacy is one thing, paranoia is another...don't confuse the two.
The key to productive IT is finding technology bottlenecks and determining the best solution. However, the term best solution is a tricky one that must look at several aspects. The cost of a 20-inch iMac isn't the issue, rather the ROI. If the employee that receives that 20-inch upgrade, or possibly a second flat screen becomes $1000's more productive, then the cost is justified... However, if you go out and buy everyone, including the guy that "only does 20 minutes of real work a day" a cutting edge computer, then you will end up wondering what went wrong while filing for bankruptcy. The same is true when making large HW or SW purchases/upgrades. Go ahead and spend the big $$$ if it is what will give you a competitive advantage. However, the latest and greatest only makes sense if the situation requires it. My last thought is that if you can find the right employees, you can arm them what your competitions throws out after they upgrade, and they will still be able to get more output (to some degree). Then use the money that you save to make sure that they are happy...also hire a few interns to let them watch what real productivity is all about.