Business, on the other hand, does care because of the annoying and expensive (and usually unwanted) upgrade cycles. And anyone looking to reduce Microsoft's market share should concentrate their efforts on demonstrating the effectiveness of Linux to business.
MS has a war chest of $60 Billion. They add to this at around the rate of $1 Billion/month. If business really cared, they would use alternatives and MS couldn't charge so much.
MS has it figured out. They know exactly the point of pain where they can charge high prices and require subscriptions but still make it more painful for businesses to migrate. Sometimes, they push that point just to get an accurate idea of how high the pain should be. To them, the Linux migrations that are occurring now are just feedback in their marketing plans.
Make no doubt about it, MS can afford to and will make drastic price cuts and offer free upgrades if Linux becomes a serious competitor.
The only real threat is that a tipping point will occur which will precipitate a major shift in the market that will get out of their control.
Why do you get to decide unilaterally when the deal is off?
'Complaining' has another name, and it's 'telling a company what the consumer wants.' In this case the geek user market wants better privacy, so why do you insist on defending Google?
"Defending Google" here is defending the right to enter into agreements. You, apparently, want to be protected from your decisions by being able to change the terms of service if you don't like them at a later date and you want the force of law, through regulation, to enforce your preference.
You don't need regulation, you need to be responsible for your decisions.
Your concerns might be valid, I don't know. But, and I know you are sick to death of this, if you feel this way, "DON'T USE IT THEN". That would be a way of 'telling a company what the consumer wants'. But, you don't really want to tell a company what the consumer wants, you want to force the company to provide a service that you want.
The biggest reason why the show is a sucsess is because of the dialog.
I would think the writers have a lot to do with how good the dialog is. I wonder what they get paid.
On the other hand, it's probably easier to find clever writers than it is to replace voice talent and not upset viewers (or should I say listeners?) by the change.
I also wonder what Matt Groening makes per episode. Does he do any of the writing?
So, you're saying Micrsoft shelled out $2 billion to get a refund from the EU fine of $500 million?
Um..
This kind of money is insignificant to Microsoft, a company that is reported to have >$60 BILLION in reserves while accumulating at the rate of around $1 Billion/month. BOTH of these payments taken together don't amount to the Microsoft accumulation for THIS quarter.
Microsoft would be far more concerned about the other EU demands, the different versions of Windows they might have to field and the enhanced sharing of protocol information with competitors. Those directly and negatively affect their FUTURE ability to accumulate cash at the rate of $1 Billion/Month.
The Moon, you know the original one that's about 1/5 th the size of the earth and has been recognized since prehistory, is a moon of the Earth and it orbits THE SUN.
The old Moon's orbit is even eccentric toward the Sun when it's sunward of the earth. This new object's eccentricity toward the Sun is just much much greater.
But, why did MS put a web browser into Win95 OSR2? Because there was already so much great content that people were going around MS to get.
You still had to get an ISP to connect to the Internet and every ISP provided a browser before this was available.
It wasn't all just crappy academic papers in bad fonts either. A lot of creative and interesting people were churning out content at Universities before the AOL crowd discovered the Internet. In fact, the average quality of content went down dramatically after the masses invaded the Internet.
Which came first? The WWW content or the people looking for it?
You weren't really using the web in '96, were you? There was a lot of good content in those days. Not like today, sure, but people were obviously attracted to it. All the best libraries were and still are academic.
Microsoft had almost nothing to do with AOL, Compuserve, or local ISPs, that provided the highways. The use of Windows 3.1 with Winsock stacks was exploding before Windows95 came out. The browser experience in this environment was pretty much the same as the browser experience you had using Windows95, especially in the early days of Windows95. Windows95 sold so well because of the Internet, not the other way around.
Never mind that computer ownership skyrocketed after Windows 95 came out.
Hmmm... You don't think that maybe the skyrocketing computer ownership had something to do with that World Wide Web thing that was exploding right around the same time?
Oh, and don't suggest for a minute that the Web grew because of Windows95 (or NT), MS had a microscopic Web Server presence in those days. The content was all on Unix servers and people wanted to get to it. You had to buy a computer to get to it. Windows95 computers were the cheapest available.
Is that why I have two loyalty cards on my keyring and three more in my wallet?
Gee, it was insidious of those chains to install those bar-code reading lasers with the mind control settings.
Just the other day, I told them that I didn't want a loyalty card and then they zapped me with the laser and I couldn't remember why I wouldn't want their wonderful card. Now, every time I go to the store, they zap me again to make sure I use it.
Seriously, the store is paying you for this information and it's totally opt-in. Personally, I want more opportunities where I can sell personal information if something valuable is offered, like you know, money.
I don't know anything about this area, really, but in seas on the earth isn't it thought that salt accumulation occurs from activities of living (and dying) organisms?
Read the quote from the article again. He never mentions anything about code generation.
Well, he does talk about subject experts "shaping" software. But, I think I can see the distinction. He explicitly refers to the role of designer and software engineer.
If I can infer what he's getting at here, it seems he's suggesting that software engineers will code up generic services and modules to meet generic needs and the designers will fit these together into specific needs. Sounds interesting.
I was wondering how automatic code generation from specification could handle the thornier problems of containing the resources necessary to solve a specific problem. I think the point is that software engineers will be involved to make sure that a given design is implemented in an efficient manner.
If I've captured any of this, it does sound new and interesting. I wish him luck.
Simonyi believes the answer is to unshackle the design of software from the details of implementation in code. "There are two meanings to software design," he explained on Tuesday. "One is, designing the artifact we're trying to implement. The other is the sheer software engineering to make that artifact come into being. I believe these are two separate roles -- the subject matter expert and the software engineer."
Giving the former group tools to shape software will transform the landscape, according to Simonyi. Otherwise, you're stuck in the unsatisfactory present, where the people who know the most about what the software is supposed to accomplish can't directly shape the software itself: All they can do is "make a humble request to the programmer." Simonyi left Microsoft in 2002 to start a new company, Intentional Software, aimed at turning this vision into something concrete.
It's difficult to believe that Simonyi could be ignorant of the many many years of development of CASE tools and AI projects that have promised to build software systems from specifications.
In 1980, a Professor told a lecture hall of Sophomore Computer Science students, myself included, that almost none of them would have jobs in programming, because in just a few years we would have AI systems that would build software systems from specifications that subject specialists could input.
I don't think we are even a little bit closer to that dream today than we were 24 years ago.
Maybe I'm confusing things here, though. Specifications aren't exactly the same as design. I know that I've sat through some CASE tool presentations where they implied that the work was all done when the design was done, but they were doing some pretty fast hand waving. I believe that those tools did not live up to the promises of their marketing.
Am I off-base here? Has Simonyi cracked this problem with something entirely new?
Relatively, a poor American might always be wealthier than a poor (or rich) Indian, according to the American way of measurement. But in the end, you need to adopt relativism and ask the Indian how she (he) experience her (his) situation and her (his) way of life.
This of course also means that is wrong to ask an Indian citizen how an American would define their way of life and how an American feel about living in the USA.
I would imagine that the many suffering from daily starvation in India would consider their lives bad by any standard.
But, what do I know? I, like virtually all Americans, have never experienced starvation, so perhaps I'm culturally biased and I need to look at this through the enlightenment of cultural relativism that you propose.
I am critizing the (common) American view to think they are and know the best every time.
Nice strawman. Did I claim that the USA was best every time? You were critizing that Americans claim to know the best every time? Where was that in the discussion? All I saw was a negative comparison of US vs. India on the subjects of (crime,violence,poverty,terrorism).
I have negative things to say about all nationstates on Earth. And good things too.
My, but you are so knowledgeable. Please, tell me one good thing and one bad thing about Bhutan.
Seems to me Americans are constantly afraid of terrorism, hence the terrorism is working. Lack of "attacks" does not mean absence of effects of terrorism. Question is, do you feel safer in the USA from terrorism than you would in India?
Do you know anything at all about the level of fear of terrorism in India, or are you just spouting off because it allows you to criticize the US?
I note you didn't you choose to defend your remark about India vs. US poverty. At least you seem to know something about this, even though it is clear you spoke without thinking before.
Considering conditions in India are far better than in the USA (crime, violence, poverty, terrorism).
Poverty? Really? There's less poverty in India than in the USA now? My, how things must have changed...
I wonder about terrorism, also. Seems like Muslim separatists are targetting India now. No terrorism to speak of in the US since 9/11/2001, but I've heard of several recent incidents in India. One could say that terrorism in India is on a major upswing.
I find that ironic because, here in Ohio, USA, the real McDonald's of coffee would habe to be Tim Horton's, which is owned by the Wendy's Hamburger chain.
Funny thing though. I like their coffee a LOT better than Starbucks and it's a lot more reasonably priced.
WP ran into a lot of problems because of how it was made. I worked for two companies who did a major conversion from WP to MS Office, and both had the same issue: the users loved WP, and the support staff hated it. Since the IT department does the software purchasing, guess who won?
Interesting! I hear that WP is still used in a lot of Lawyer's offices. I would guess that the lawyers and paralegals have more power than the IT staff in those places.
Bottom line: bureaucracies don't fail, people do (because they can always work the system) There is no such thing as a no-fault error in engineering.
I don't really agree with this. There may have been fault in this case and in most cases, but a culture that believes that someone is always at fault will be one where people will not attempt anything new or risky.
All potential failures cannot be anticipated. If you have to find fault with a person, you'll sometimes end up just finding a scapegoat.
The fault might well be with the bureacracy, too. If the bureacracy creates so much paperwork that engineers didn't have time to do their engineering, then that's a fault of the bureacracy itself. Of course, you could always find the fault with the top managers that didn't staff sufficiently or authorized something that was inherently risky without allowing for failure, but I bet top managers won't ever be found to be the proximate cause of a failure.
Slashdot Mirror
MS has a war chest of $60 Billion. They add to this at around the rate of $1 Billion/month. If business really cared, they would use alternatives and MS couldn't charge so much.
MS has it figured out. They know exactly the point of pain where they can charge high prices and require subscriptions but still make it more painful for businesses to migrate. Sometimes, they push that point just to get an accurate idea of how high the pain should be. To them, the Linux migrations that are occurring now are just feedback in their marketing plans.
Make no doubt about it, MS can afford to and will make drastic price cuts and offer free upgrades if Linux becomes a serious competitor.
The only real threat is that a tipping point will occur which will precipitate a major shift in the market that will get out of their control.
Why do you get to decide unilaterally when the deal is off?
"Defending Google" here is defending the right to enter into agreements. You, apparently, want to be protected from your decisions by being able to change the terms of service if you don't like them at a later date and you want the force of law, through regulation, to enforce your preference.
You don't need regulation, you need to be responsible for your decisions.
Your concerns might be valid, I don't know. But, and I know you are sick to death of this, if you feel this way, "DON'T USE IT THEN". That would be a way of 'telling a company what the consumer wants'. But, you don't really want to tell a company what the consumer wants, you want to force the company to provide a service that you want.
I would think the writers have a lot to do with how good the dialog is. I wonder what they get paid.
On the other hand, it's probably easier to find clever writers than it is to replace voice talent and not upset viewers (or should I say listeners?) by the change.
I also wonder what Matt Groening makes per episode. Does he do any of the writing?
Um..
This kind of money is insignificant to Microsoft, a company that is reported to have >$60 BILLION in reserves while accumulating at the rate of around $1 Billion/month. BOTH of these payments taken together don't amount to the Microsoft accumulation for THIS quarter.
Microsoft would be far more concerned about the other EU demands, the different versions of Windows they might have to field and the enhanced sharing of protocol information with competitors. Those directly and negatively affect their FUTURE ability to accumulate cash at the rate of $1 Billion/Month.
The old Moon's orbit is even eccentric toward the Sun when it's sunward of the earth. This new object's eccentricity toward the Sun is just much much greater.
You still had to get an ISP to connect to the Internet and every ISP provided a browser before this was available.
It wasn't all just crappy academic papers in bad fonts either. A lot of creative and interesting people were churning out content at Universities before the AOL crowd discovered the Internet. In fact, the average quality of content went down dramatically after the masses invaded the Internet.
You weren't really using the web in '96, were you? There was a lot of good content in those days. Not like today, sure, but people were obviously attracted to it. All the best libraries were and still are academic.
Microsoft had almost nothing to do with AOL, Compuserve, or local ISPs, that provided the highways. The use of Windows 3.1 with Winsock stacks was exploding before Windows95 came out. The browser experience in this environment was pretty much the same as the browser experience you had using Windows95, especially in the early days of Windows95. Windows95 sold so well because of the Internet, not the other way around.
Hmmm... You don't think that maybe the skyrocketing computer ownership had something to do with that World Wide Web thing that was exploding right around the same time?
Oh, and don't suggest for a minute that the Web grew because of Windows95 (or NT), MS had a microscopic Web Server presence in those days. The content was all on Unix servers and people wanted to get to it. You had to buy a computer to get to it. Windows95 computers were the cheapest available.
Accidental empires, indeed.
- Is that why I have two loyalty cards on my keyring and three more in my wallet?
Gee, it was insidious of those chains to install those bar-code reading lasers with the mind control settings.Just the other day, I told them that I didn't want a loyalty card and then they zapped me with the laser and I couldn't remember why I wouldn't want their wonderful card. Now, every time I go to the store, they zap me again to make sure I use it.
Seriously, the store is paying you for this information and it's totally opt-in. Personally, I want more opportunities where I can sell personal information if something valuable is offered, like you know, money.
I don't know anything about this area, really, but in seas on the earth isn't it thought that salt accumulation occurs from activities of living (and dying) organisms?
- Read the quote from the article again. He never mentions anything about code generation.
Well, he does talk about subject experts "shaping" software. But, I think I can see the distinction. He explicitly refers to the role of designer and software engineer.If I can infer what he's getting at here, it seems he's suggesting that software engineers will code up generic services and modules to meet generic needs and the designers will fit these together into specific needs. Sounds interesting.
I was wondering how automatic code generation from specification could handle the thornier problems of containing the resources necessary to solve a specific problem. I think the point is that software engineers will be involved to make sure that a given design is implemented in an efficient manner.
If I've captured any of this, it does sound new and interesting. I wish him luck.
It's difficult to believe that Simonyi could be ignorant of the many many years of development of CASE tools and AI projects that have promised to build software systems from specifications.
In 1980, a Professor told a lecture hall of Sophomore Computer Science students, myself included, that almost none of them would have jobs in programming, because in just a few years we would have AI systems that would build software systems from specifications that subject specialists could input.
I don't think we are even a little bit closer to that dream today than we were 24 years ago.
Maybe I'm confusing things here, though. Specifications aren't exactly the same as design. I know that I've sat through some CASE tool presentations where they implied that the work was all done when the design was done, but they were doing some pretty fast hand waving. I believe that those tools did not live up to the promises of their marketing.
Am I off-base here? Has Simonyi cracked this problem with something entirely new?
I'm sure I could benefit from such a study.
Since you were the one who suggested that India had advantages with regard to poverty level to the USA, I have to ask.
Have you performed these field studies in India and the US to determine this? Or, are you just speaking from ignorance?
This of course also means that is wrong to ask an Indian citizen how an American would define their way of life and how an American feel about living in the USA.
I would imagine that the many suffering from daily starvation in India would consider their lives bad by any standard.
But, what do I know? I, like virtually all Americans, have never experienced starvation, so perhaps I'm culturally biased and I need to look at this through the enlightenment of cultural relativism that you propose.
- Maybe some things are better in the USA, and maybe some things are better in India.
Yes, well, someone who professes to know good and bad points about every world nation tells us that poverty is worse in the US when compared to India.I might stay away from calling people ignorant if I were you.
Nice strawman. Did I claim that the USA was best every time? You were critizing that Americans claim to know the best every time? Where was that in the discussion? All I saw was a negative comparison of US vs. India on the subjects of (crime,violence,poverty,terrorism).
My, but you are so knowledgeable. Please, tell me one good thing and one bad thing about Bhutan.
Do you know anything at all about the level of fear of terrorism in India, or are you just spouting off because it allows you to criticize the US?
I note you didn't you choose to defend your remark about India vs. US poverty. At least you seem to know something about this, even though it is clear you spoke without thinking before.
Poverty? Really? There's less poverty in India than in the USA now? My, how things must have changed...
I wonder about terrorism, also. Seems like Muslim separatists are targetting India now. No terrorism to speak of in the US since 9/11/2001, but I've heard of several recent incidents in India. One could say that terrorism in India is on a major upswing.
Funny thing though. I like their coffee a LOT better than Starbucks and it's a lot more reasonably priced.
Interesting! I hear that WP is still used in a lot of Lawyer's offices. I would guess that the lawyers and paralegals have more power than the IT staff in those places.
I don't really agree with this. There may have been fault in this case and in most cases, but a culture that believes that someone is always at fault will be one where people will not attempt anything new or risky.
All potential failures cannot be anticipated. If you have to find fault with a person, you'll sometimes end up just finding a scapegoat.
The fault might well be with the bureacracy, too. If the bureacracy creates so much paperwork that engineers didn't have time to do their engineering, then that's a fault of the bureacracy itself. Of course, you could always find the fault with the top managers that didn't staff sufficiently or authorized something that was inherently risky without allowing for failure, but I bet top managers won't ever be found to be the proximate cause of a failure.
Quake? No no, you'd play Doom, except you need to land on Phobos, not Mars proper.
The Republicans blocked the Clinton nominees from getting out of Committee, but there always was an up or down vote in the Committee.
It won't be up to IBM, it'll be up to the Judge, but based on what I've seen...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It was a JOKE. Sorry I didn't provide a smiley for those who just don't get these things.