I accept what you are saying. What I am touting is a very theoretical scenario of the type which usually gets modded down as a troll. It may well bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
I think Google would be easier for Microsoft to compete with than most. Not that Microsoft would crush them easily, just that Microsoft can compete with Google pretty well, using some pretty nasty tactics.
My reasoning is this: Like it or not, Microsoft has a pretty effective stranglehold on most of the clients used to access Google. One of their major touted features for Longhorn is "find things easily".
By integrating MSN search to the "search" feature, Microsoft can theoretically blur the lines between the Internet and the local PC. Users won't browse the web, they'll "search" on their PC.
After all, the company offers only one basic product (albeit in a couple of incarnations).
Microsoft are starting to consider Google as competition. And competing with Microsoft has historically been a bad move - I can see Longhorn's search facilities integrating with MSN search such that the boundary between the Internet and the PC on your desk becoming blurred. Google are pretty much at the top, and it'll be almost impossible to maintain that long-term.
So you probably wouldn't buy this share for growth. How about income? Has Google publicised what it plans on offering in dividends? Even if it did, with no past record to go on, how can you have any idea what level of income to expect?
Even if you don't buy the share for growth, it's still an expensive share. It wouldn't take much for its value (and thus the value of the investment) to plummet.
Ultimately, I think this share is a bet that the rich might be prepared (and financially able) to take, but most would be well advised to steer clear of. The dot-com bubble burst a long time ago.
I'm just re-stating SCOs argument. I'm not agreeing with it for one moment, they seem to base their business decisions on the effects of magic mushrooms.
Accidentally downloaded them when you installed a game, you say?
You are aware that the IT policy specifically bans games on company computers? You're not? That's a shaaaame (really lay it on). Have you read the staff handbook? Your contract? Good, good. Who's your line manager?
I've never really seen spyware
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm serious. I've never really seen much spyware.
True, I'm an IT professional. And on my home computer I use Linux almost exclusively.
And at work: nothing. Nada. Those few who have Internet access it's closely monitored & filtered, incoming email is thoroughly scanned and systems are locked down. And I see no spyware.
Last time I booted Windows at home (just a NAT'ing firwall as protection), it was Win2K and I did see a premium dialler try and install. Seems to me that the malware vendors are yearning for the Bad Old Days of Windows '9x, complete with 9 levels of DLL hell and drivers written by barbary apes. So they're using whatever they can to bring those days back.
Things like that remind me why I stopped working with Windows.
Microsoft calls Linux "a toy". Why isn't that immature?
Linux users call Windows "an operating system".
There's nothing to be gained by adopting the same immature tactics as the enemy. Businesses (if that's your target market) will either get confused or sit on the sidelines, quietly sniggering.
those who HAVE lost data and still don't make backups because they just don't get it that recovering data is far more of a pain than backing up in the first place.
Not the point. If the customer doesn't have backups of their work & you don't have easy access to some means of backing it up, you'll have to do it the hard way. (WTF are you doing such a job if you don't carry around a spare hard disk?!)
If the customer simply doesn't like the sound of rebuilding from scratch, you'll have to do it the hard way.
If the customer doesn't have access to original install media (and you're going to be a Good Little Tech and refuse to put pirated software on), you're going to have to do it the hard way.
Why don't they keep the current, private network and just upgrade the machines and the software on that? Why do the upgrade AND move to a less secure network?
Years ago, when computers first started coming in to general use, every small business wanted a computer. Not because they had any specific problem they thought the computer could fix, but simply because they wanted to "computerise the business".
My mother (now semi-retired) spent many years running a small accounting business, and attempted to computerise her office several times in the late '80s and early '90s. Failed several times, too. With one notable exception (Sage for DOS), it's only in the last 8 years or so that computing packages for small-business accounting have been any good. For many years, my mother (and her staff) prepared accounts by hand then typed them up - that was the "computer system". Damned if I can think what benefit that brought apart from producing nice-looking accounts.
Bottom line is, back then people wanted to put things on computers because computers were "The Thing". Now, the US Federal Reserve wants to use the Internet because the Internet is "The Thing".
Whether or not this is a sound basis for such important decisions is another matter altogether...
Why even bother producing something as crappy as this and then market it to a region of the world where there is already full access to the full version!?
Here's a thought. Their anti-piracy brigade will get a lot more sympathy, both judicial and public, if they can point to a cheaper version of the OS.
Consider the following theoretical courtroom scene two months ago:
MS: Your honour, the defendant has been using pirated copies of Windows, contrary to all these laws... Defendant: Be reasonable, sir! How am I supposed to afford the OS when it costs a month's salary?! Judge: Good point. Get out of here, Microsoft.
And now?
MS: Your honour, the defendant has been using pirated copies of Windows, contrary to all these laws... Defendant: Be reasonable, sir! How am I supposed to afford the OS when it costs a month's salary?! MS: Your honour, we provide a cheaper version for people in the defendants position. Judge: You do? Well, then I find the defendant guilty. You are sentenced to a fine of (whatever).
Who wants to bet that we'll see the Microsoft Anti-Piracy Machine kicking off in Asia within 18 months?
Obviously, a random Slashdot reader like myself is better at this than you are (and I'm not making one dollar a year plus benefits), but it would seem that you're not a very well-informed person.
I know the article's a joke (so no RTFA please), but I've noticed something in all these Windows TCO comparisons.
They assume that Unix/Linux admin staff are more expensive than Windows admin staff. This is quite correct and is thus a fair point.
They assume that the number of staff required to administer a bunch of Linux servers is proportionally the same as the number of staff required to administer a bunch of Windows servers.
WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG!! WHO TOLD THEM THAT?! STOP DOING IT!!!
1. Windows XP is quite a good operating system, and '95 release A wasn't that bad.
2. Apple are going to collapse within 18 months. Fact! You heard it here first!
3. 2004 won't be the year of the Linux desktop. There will never be a year of the Linux desktop because (insert spurious reason here). This is in spite of the fact that I work for a company which, at one time, had probably the largest desktop Linux rollout in Europe.
All they're doing is re-opening the bidding process. Not the actual migration.
From TFA:
Mayor Ude, who said he's been thinking it over for a few days, says there will be a legal study completed by Autumn concerning the migration, and if it looks safe, they will go forward and meanwhile the bidding begins.
With any luck, this will crystallise the issues surrounding software patents more clearly in Euro MPs minds and make them think about more than Microsoft et al's bottom line. Indeed, looks like Munich is really pushing that bit:
He also announced that the city is going to request a legal study on the question of what consequences the EU-directive on the patentability of "computer-implemented inventions" will have in the current version of the Council of Ministers's proposed law.
If you are aware of the patent issue, then section 7 of the GPL forbids you from distributing the offending code at all
But are you obliged to tell all your previous clients of the patent issue? If not, they could reasonably claim that they knew nothing of it and had been happily redistributing it until such time as they get a rude letter themselves. Potentially, by the time the IP police are screaming about patents, there are already so many "open" implementations that they are fighting a losing battle. The most they can hope for then is to prevent widespread use in their own country.
IMO, while software patents are a Bad Thing and are indeed a threat to GPL'd software, I don't think the threat is entirely one-sided. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Of course, this could be enough to make many businesses re-think their Linux strategy, effectively relegating it to a hobby OS with no commercial use/application. If this happens, there's neither point nor need to sue anyone who uses it so the Evil Patent Lawyers retreat into their caves. Which, let's face it, would be quite enough to satisfy Microsoft.
The obvious solution to this is to distribute source WITH binaries. That way, you've already fulfilled your GPL obligations to existing customers before a court order tells you to distribute neither.
This probably doesn't solve the whole problem, IANAL. Another thought that occurs is: where does this leave people who already have both source and binary, even though they didn't write the code and it's since been found to violate 1 or more patents? Can they redistribute it? Use it? Or are they also bound by the court order?
KDE (and, I believe, Gnome) allows you to configure shortcut keys to more or less anything, based on keys/key combos.
It wouldn't be all that difficult for someone with a modicum of experience to configure a one-handed keyboard so it becomes very usable - at least for whatever it is you'd want to use a one-handed keyboard for. No need to write code.
Slashdot Mirror
I accept what you are saying. What I am touting is a very theoretical scenario of the type which usually gets modded down as a troll. It may well bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
I think Google would be easier for Microsoft to compete with than most. Not that Microsoft would crush them easily, just that Microsoft can compete with Google pretty well, using some pretty nasty tactics.
My reasoning is this: Like it or not, Microsoft has a pretty effective stranglehold on most of the clients used to access Google. One of their major touted features for Longhorn is "find things easily".
By integrating MSN search to the "search" feature, Microsoft can theoretically blur the lines between the Internet and the local PC. Users won't browse the web, they'll "search" on their PC.
Google, Yahoo et al rapidly become irrelevant.
After all, the company offers only one basic product (albeit in a couple of incarnations).
Microsoft are starting to consider Google as competition. And competing with Microsoft has historically been a bad move - I can see Longhorn's search facilities integrating with MSN search such that the boundary between the Internet and the PC on your desk becoming blurred. Google are pretty much at the top, and it'll be almost impossible to maintain that long-term.
So you probably wouldn't buy this share for growth. How about income? Has Google publicised what it plans on offering in dividends? Even if it did, with no past record to go on, how can you have any idea what level of income to expect?
Even if you don't buy the share for growth, it's still an expensive share. It wouldn't take much for its value (and thus the value of the investment) to plummet.
Ultimately, I think this share is a bet that the rich might be prepared (and financially able) to take, but most would be well advised to steer clear of. The dot-com bubble burst a long time ago.
I'm just re-stating SCOs argument. I'm not agreeing with it for one moment, they seem to base their business decisions on the effects of magic mushrooms.
This will probably be modded down but...
Not really. SCO's original argument was that "the GPL is invalid, developers are effectively putting their work into the Public Domain".
If the court agrees with this, the GPL becomes invalid and SCO are well within their rights to do what they want with the code.
It's not quite over yet.
Ooooh, I could have so much fun with that....
Accidentally downloaded them when you installed a game, you say?
You are aware that the IT policy specifically bans games on company computers? You're not? That's a shaaaame (really lay it on). Have you read the staff handbook? Your contract? Good, good. Who's your line manager?
I'm serious. I've never really seen much spyware.
True, I'm an IT professional. And on my home computer I use Linux almost exclusively.
And at work: nothing. Nada. Those few who have Internet access it's closely monitored & filtered, incoming email is thoroughly scanned and systems are locked down. And I see no spyware.
Last time I booted Windows at home (just a NAT'ing firwall as protection), it was Win2K and I did see a premium dialler try and install. Seems to me that the malware vendors are yearning for the Bad Old Days of Windows '9x, complete with 9 levels of DLL hell and drivers written by barbary apes. So they're using whatever they can to bring those days back.
Things like that remind me why I stopped working with Windows.
You may actually be right. Most mainstream Linux distros are busy trying to be both server and desktop, so wind up opening services unnecessarily.
I wouldn't expect OS X to do that. But ICBW.
Hence why I'd leave all settings at "Default" and not even touch the system. Literally just leave it there waiting to be r00t3d.
I'd be interested to know the average survival rates for a whole bunch of unpatched operating systems. I'd start with:
- Win95/98/Me
- WinNT4/2K/XP
- Win3.1 (with Trumpet Winsock)
- Mac OS (whatever the first version with a TCP/IP stack)
- Linux (various distros)
ALL unpatched.
Paradoxically, I reckon the newer Windows systems would go first (more services open to the world), along with older Linux distros (same problem).
Microsoft calls Linux "a toy". Why isn't that immature?
Linux users call Windows "an operating system".
There's nothing to be gained by adopting the same immature tactics as the enemy. Businesses (if that's your target market) will either get confused or sit on the sidelines, quietly sniggering.
those who HAVE lost data and still don't make backups because they just don't get it that recovering data is far more of a pain than backing up in the first place.
http://www.vogon-data-recovery.com/
Seriously. Get the user to request a price for recovering a couple of hundred megs of "vitally important" data. Should do the trick...
There are two types of people in this world.
Those who make backups, and those who have never lost data.
Not the point. If the customer doesn't have backups of their work & you don't have easy access to some means of backing it up, you'll have to do it the hard way. (WTF are you doing such a job if you don't carry around a spare hard disk?!)
If the customer simply doesn't like the sound of rebuilding from scratch, you'll have to do it the hard way.
If the customer doesn't have access to original install media (and you're going to be a Good Little Tech and refuse to put pirated software on), you're going to have to do it the hard way.
or reinstall Windows 98 or any OS...
Yeah, but you know what happened:
Tech: Heck, this is a mess. Best to reinstall the whole lot from scratch. You do have backups, right?
User: B... Back--ups?
Tech: (sigh)
Several porn sites have prior art.
Why don't they keep the current, private network and just upgrade the machines and the software on that? Why do the upgrade AND move to a less secure network?
Years ago, when computers first started coming in to general use, every small business wanted a computer. Not because they had any specific problem they thought the computer could fix, but simply because they wanted to "computerise the business".
My mother (now semi-retired) spent many years running a small accounting business, and attempted to computerise her office several times in the late '80s and early '90s. Failed several times, too. With one notable exception (Sage for DOS), it's only in the last 8 years or so that computing packages for small-business accounting have been any good. For many years, my mother (and her staff) prepared accounts by hand then typed them up - that was the "computer system". Damned if I can think what benefit that brought apart from producing nice-looking accounts.
Bottom line is, back then people wanted to put things on computers because computers were "The Thing". Now, the US Federal Reserve wants to use the Internet because the Internet is "The Thing".
Whether or not this is a sound basis for such important decisions is another matter altogether...
Why even bother producing something as crappy as this and then market it to a region of the world where there is already full access to the full version!?
Here's a thought. Their anti-piracy brigade will get a lot more sympathy, both judicial and public, if they can point to a cheaper version of the OS.
Consider the following theoretical courtroom scene two months ago:
MS: Your honour, the defendant has been using pirated copies of Windows, contrary to all these laws...
Defendant: Be reasonable, sir! How am I supposed to afford the OS when it costs a month's salary?!
Judge: Good point. Get out of here, Microsoft.
And now?
MS: Your honour, the defendant has been using pirated copies of Windows, contrary to all these laws...
Defendant: Be reasonable, sir! How am I supposed to afford the OS when it costs a month's salary?!
MS: Your honour, we provide a cheaper version for people in the defendants position.
Judge: You do? Well, then I find the defendant guilty. You are sentenced to a fine of (whatever).
Who wants to bet that we'll see the Microsoft Anti-Piracy Machine kicking off in Asia within 18 months?
... in simple words, why you seem to be smoking crack while posting your comments?
A tablet has a keyboard, can be closed to protect the screen (though these ones don't run MacOS), and you can run Linux on it.
Obviously, a random Slashdot reader like myself is better at this than you are (and I'm not making one dollar a year plus benefits), but it would seem that you're not a very well-informed person.
I know the article's a joke (so no RTFA please), but I've noticed something in all these Windows TCO comparisons.
They assume that Unix/Linux admin staff are more expensive than Windows admin staff. This is quite correct and is thus a fair point.
They assume that the number of staff required to administer a bunch of Linux servers is proportionally the same as the number of staff required to administer a bunch of Windows servers.
WRONG! TOTALLY WRONG!! WHO TOLD THEM THAT?! STOP DOING IT!!!
I would imagine that the British Broadcasting Corporation doesn't much care about the feds.
Is that so? Let's put it to the test.
I know I will be modded down for this, but:
1. Windows XP is quite a good operating system, and '95 release A wasn't that bad.
2. Apple are going to collapse within 18 months. Fact! You heard it here first!
3. 2004 won't be the year of the Linux desktop. There will never be a year of the Linux desktop because (insert spurious reason here). This is in spite of the fact that I work for a company which, at one time, had probably the largest desktop Linux rollout in Europe.
All they're doing is re-opening the bidding process. Not the actual migration.
From TFA:
Mayor Ude, who said he's been thinking it over for a few days, says there will be a legal study completed by Autumn concerning the migration, and if it looks safe, they will go forward and meanwhile the bidding begins.
With any luck, this will crystallise the issues surrounding software patents more clearly in Euro MPs minds and make them think about more than Microsoft et al's bottom line. Indeed, looks like Munich is really pushing that bit:
He also announced that the city is going to request a legal study on the question of what consequences the EU-directive on the patentability of "computer-implemented inventions" will have in the current version of the Council of Ministers's proposed law.
(All emphasis mine)
If you are aware of the patent issue, then section 7 of the GPL forbids you from distributing the offending code at all
But are you obliged to tell all your previous clients of the patent issue? If not, they could reasonably claim that they knew nothing of it and had been happily redistributing it until such time as they get a rude letter themselves. Potentially, by the time the IP police are screaming about patents, there are already so many "open" implementations that they are fighting a losing battle. The most they can hope for then is to prevent widespread use in their own country.
IMO, while software patents are a Bad Thing and are indeed a threat to GPL'd software, I don't think the threat is entirely one-sided. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Of course, this could be enough to make many businesses re-think their Linux strategy, effectively relegating it to a hobby OS with no commercial use/application. If this happens, there's neither point nor need to sue anyone who uses it so the Evil Patent Lawyers retreat into their caves. Which, let's face it, would be quite enough to satisfy Microsoft.
OK, my misunderstanding.
The obvious solution to this is to distribute source WITH binaries. That way, you've already fulfilled your GPL obligations to existing customers before a court order tells you to distribute neither.
This probably doesn't solve the whole problem, IANAL. Another thought that occurs is: where does this leave people who already have both source and binary, even though they didn't write the code and it's since been found to violate 1 or more patents? Can they redistribute it? Use it? Or are they also bound by the court order?
KDE (and, I believe, Gnome) allows you to configure shortcut keys to more or less anything, based on keys/key combos.
It wouldn't be all that difficult for someone with a modicum of experience to configure a one-handed keyboard so it becomes very usable - at least for whatever it is you'd want to use a one-handed keyboard for. No need to write code.