Whatever. They can have my PVR when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Me and my lifetime TiVo subscription are inseparable. I'd give up my digital cable and/or my broadband connection at home and go back to dialup before I gave up my TiVo.
I saw your post while meta-moderating, and I felt I should throw in my $0.02.
First off, Groove is a unique product. There isn't another quite like it. NetMeeting has some of the ideas. AIM/MSN/ICQ has some of the ideas. All P2P clients like Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. have some of the ideas. SSH, CVS, RSync, and others have some of the ideas. Outlook has some of the ideas./. has some of the ideas. Etc. etc... Only Groove puts all of those functional possibilities in one package. It's really THE P2P package.
Developing new components for use in the Groove environment is, the last time I checked, a fairly easy thing too. That makes it even better. Finally, with the addition of a Groove server to the mix, which I haven't used but did advocate to them about 3 years ago, you have a product mix that is irresistible.
It's secure, extendible (ActiveX/COM), functional (multiple interaction workspaces can be available to the user and more are available as needed) , enabling (P2P), and robust (client/server).
You've probably seen more hype than you care for at this point, but you really should look into the products' abilities a bit more. You will quickly see that, like in the Windows world, there are pieces of Groove all over the Linux landscape. But there is nothing else like Groove.
As far as OS lock-in is concerned, this is the gov't you're talking about. They don't really get locked in. They have more of a history of adopting a generation of technology, freezing on it until it's absolutely worthless or too expensive to keep, discarding it, and then replacing it from scratch. No? You probably know more about that than I do, but that has been my impression from working with any federal level agencies. I'm much happier with the gov't investing in tools that already work, where possible, rather than dropping another XX Billion $$$ developing and supporting it themselves.
Well, the reason is that Office 2003 contains some very streamlined hooks into all Microsoft's new server products. Upgrading the Army to new versions of Office, even at an illicit grass-roots level, would bootstrap Microsoft's efforts to sell all the new server products. This includes Sharepoint Server, Content Management Server, Windows Server 2003 itself (of course), and Exchange Server 2003 (of course, of course). And, of course, if you use those products you'll naturally consider other new server products they're offering. Of course...
Consider this move of theirs with Office 2003 to be viral marketing at its best. Office itself still makes them a lot of money, but they know that they'll lose office desktop market share at some point if people can easily switch away from MS Office to other office products (which is getting easier all the time). So, if they make sure that there is tight integration between Office and their server products, you'll get locked in and won't (easily) be able to move off of Office, much less Windows.
But, what Microsoft forgot about gov't agencies in general, is that grass-roots marketing is a no-no. Strict hierarchies do not appreciate circumvention, especially where budget impacts may occur because of it.
Actually, no. Microsoft is selling products for less than what COULD BE CHARGED. But since we all got fed up with those prices and started demanding more value for the money, they took care of it. Sure Linux is free beer/speech, but it hasn't been up to snuff for most peoples' needs. It's been "getting there" for a while though and I'm increasingly impressed with it as a desktop OS.
By the way - using your logic, shouldn't all free beer Linux distributions be illegal? I mean, it's dumping right? I don't think I'll hear you crying about "dumping" when (and if) a free beer Linux distro ever overtakes Microsoft Windows.
I can easily pay $80 for a CD burning program, but only the vendor of that particular product is going to tell you it's worth it. Any user who doesn't need best of breed features won't pay that much for a product until they do provide those features. In the meantime, Windows provides just enough to get by with.
As far as "people like me" go, I would like you to point out where I stated that Microsoft is killing the IT industry? Failing that (consider it failed), show that Microsoft is killing the IT industry? Failing that, at least show that the IT industry is somehow dying? Failing that, please don't bother. Your kind of rhetoric is flimsy, inflammatory, and not at all based on reason or fact. You may not LIKE Microsoft, but that really isn't relevant.
Well, I'm going to have to whole-heartedly disagree with on this. It's not 1984 anymore and I'm not going to go buy my software in little $150 bits and pieces all over the freaking place just so I can, to name one stupid example, print my spreadsheet sideways on my wide carriage dot matrix printer (true story - forget the name of the product though).
There was a time when everyone DID pay for each individual piece of software and an OS was an OS, and it didn't necessarily include anything that could prevent competition or even raise the bar of competition for vendors.
But those days are over.
Now, that has almost nothing to do with PC vendors. PC vendors were "abused" only in the sense that they were forced into exclusivity agreements to sell the Windows OS.
See, the other post I just put up, and you'll note that I agree that it would be great to give consumers more choice out of the box. But then, they have those choices anyway; they're just not the "default choices" (oxymoron no?) All users have choices today, they're just not on the Windows CD.
Or, here's a thought, perhaps you were simply thinking that we would replace all the utilities chosen for inclusion in Windows by Microsoft and replace them with "choices" made by you, the FSF, or another party? In the end, the "choice" has already been made for the consumer of Windows, but everyone is free to choose something else.
You know, I had to read your post a couple time to be sure of it, but I actually agree with most of what you said. I think Microsoft is in a monopoly position now, and given that, should be required to include competitor products (e.g. RealOne) within their OS. It might create some support nightmares, but it wouldn't kill them, and people could (probably would) uninstall that stuff or not install it in the first place anyway. I mean, look at what a happy symbiosis the Flash player has enjoyed within Windows. That could easily have been squashed out of fear of the fact that it could be seen as an ActiveX competitor, but it wasn't. Everyone has benefited from that.
As far as the whole "essential to the OS" thing, just let it go already. They were obviously lying out of their asses about that one and it doesn't further anyone's case anymore to bring it up. You can act all outraged about it still if you like, but everyone else has moved on.
I think you've posted one of the more well reasoned replies here, so I'll respond to it.
Microsoft Windows is not really just an operating system. After all, it's the operating system, the window/UI manager, the services (some of which pertain to the OS and most do not), the drivers, the utilities, etc. It's not like Linux. It's more like (in terms of its market niche) Red Hat or another full blown distribution.
Windows has always had the mission of trying to make a PC as useful to the user as possible. They don't make Windows to make the competition happy. They don't make it to be "open". Bill's dream, as I understand it, was to put a PC running Windows on every desktop.
They've largely done that and, despite some hiccups, they've done it fairly well. The entire PC movement may have occurred without Microsoft anyway, but it would certainly not have happened as quickly.
Now, in the process of doing that, did we cultivate a culture of ignorance, as you claim? Not really. After all, one can not cultivate a lacking property. Ignorance is the default state. I would argue that the mission of a mass market desktop OS/distribution is to serve as many people as possible as their current level of enlightenment/education. It's not the job of Microsoft, Red Hat, IBM, etc. to educate the masses in order to make their product useful. If that could be successful, then desktop OSs would succeed purely on their technical merits and people would learn whatever they needed to use the system. But that's just not the reality of it. The reality of it is that if e-mail were much harder to use today, that my mother-in-law and multiple other relations/acquaintances of mine simply would not use it.
Another piece of this that everyone here seems to be forgetting is that people do not, for the most part, want all of the choices that everyone here seems to want. They don't want to choose an email program, a browser, a 3D engine, a text editor, a paint program, etc. They want enough of all that to get by on a day to day basis. When they decide they want a better paint program, for example, they'll go buy one that's actually good. Until then the, admittedly sucky, MS Paint will suit them just fine.
You'll notice that none of the programs that are included in Windows (with the possible exception of DirectX) are best of breed in their category. They're only enough for most people. For all I know, Microsoft may very well have beat the hell out of competitors in the past, but they leave a LOT of room for improvement. Being the company they are, with the resources they have, they could have put a much larger part of the IT industry out of business if they'd tried. Except for some notable examples, they haven't done that.
You're right, it's not. Neither is a 3D engine (DirectX), a browser, an email client, a remote desktop protocol and program, a backup tool, a disk defragmenter, a paint program, a text editor, a solitaire game, a file zipper, and all those nice device and database (ODBC) drivers really aren't part of the OS either - after all, it's not like Microsoft makes most of the stuff that requires those drivers.
Actually, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to provide any of that to the consumer. Everything they provide in the OS is a lost sales opportunity somewhere else. It's totally anti-competitive of them to provide any of it. You should have to pay for every feature you get. The OS should just make the computer run.
Let's see - besides the cost of the core Windows OS then (which I'm sure you'll argue should be free - so let's just leave that out), you would probably pay about $50 each for every new program you add to the system. If you add 10 new programs to the computer (which is conservative), you get to spend $500.
Now, what does Media Player have to do with the core OS? Nothing. It "merely" makes it useful.
Linux CAN be as easy to get running to your taste as Windows. It's really a matter of choosing the right distro.
But, the problems/challenges come about when you want to start customizing things in a meaningful way. For instance, a video driver upgrade under Linux can be a real PITA. There are plenty of examples of rough edges that can be found in Linux or Windows really. It's just that, if you're going to switch from one to the other, then don't be casual about it. Be a little more serious, do your research, or you will find your experience lacking. Linux is not a silver bullet for everything that's wrong with Windows; it has its own baggage. The reverse is also true. You're truly not in Kansas anymore when you leave Windows behind. That's all. It's quite doable; you just need to learn and then take into consideration the real differences between them.
If you're willing to spend some time with it, Linux can be a real pleasure to use.
I'm not trolling here, but if you can't keep WindowsXP running then you really shouldn't be playing with Linux.
Seriously.
My experience with both is fairly deep and, invariably, people who have problems with Windows just don't know what they're doing. Or they have faulty hardware and just don't know it yet. That's a much more frustrating situation that's going to Linux doesn't help either.
If you're one of those people who wants his computer to always "just work" without extensive configuration, downloading, tweaking, and research then Linux is not for you. Linux HAS gotten a lot easier to use, but you'll need to install a lot more than just the base OS if you want to do all the above, including playing UT2004 and probably other games.
Anyway, I'm not writing this to be nasty or anything, but I have seen more than one hopeful Linux user go down in flames and return, dispirited, to the Windows world. If you go in with your eyes open and with realistic expectations, you may find the experience to be a rewarding one. Just don't buy into the hype, and you'll avoid some disappointment. That's true of Windows too, BTW.
Actually, society is the Matrix. But media is the expression of society, so it's a convenient target.
All of these measures which seek to systemically control media according to corporate whims are, ultimately, nothing more than attempts to control our hard earned $$$ via our belief system.
For the time being, I'll control what I watch and when I watch it. But that's only possible because we have TiVo. When the use/possession of that becomes illegal, I will have to move on to other means I suppose. In the meantime, the unfortunately unaware masses will be continuing to feed money to these organizations, exacerbating the problem even further.
Maybe things won't get much worse than they are now (in terms of media saturation), but if things do get worse, it will get ugly. I would prefer to imagine a reformed media system where the media serve the interests of the for-profits AND of the consumer, but it's not obvious to me how that will ever happen. For profit companies seem more intent than ever on enslaving the population at large as much as possible. Does it really have to be that way?
Now, it is somehow less conceivable to wait for 15mn, when you can do the same transaction in 30 seconds from a web browser. Did that buy me 14:30 mn of free, relaxing time? Somehow, I'm not sure...
I've previously thought about the issues you outlined above, and I've come to the conclusion that if there is something in my life which gives me back a certain amount of time, it is my responsibility to fill that time the way I see fit. If I don't do that, then the universe will fill it for me.
Now, I may have to consciously fill that time with slacker time, but what's wrong with that? I'd rather "waste" time on my own terms than let someone else do it for me. After all, it's the only real resource over which I have control. Everything else ultimately gets shared with everyone else, whether or not I like it. Granted, there are these things we call "commitments" that take my time, but I actually do have the choice whether or not to fulfill each one of those. I just have to deal with the potential fallout if I decline one or more of those. Then again, there may not be actual fallout for some of them; I may just be afraid of nothing.
But, the technology allows us to generate a much higher GDP overall. So, the stress stays about the same as it always has. We all get more done with less because the technology allows us to. And we all do what we can, in terms of stress, time, etc.
So, yes, technology has made my job easier. But, no it hasn't reduced the overall amount of stress in my life.
Incidentally, has there ever been research into whether or not stress levels in a population actually do fluctuate? That seems like a dumb question, but I have to wonder if the answer for large populations isn't "No".
Windows isn't inherently insecure either. After all, it's possible to turn off all the services you don't need and to keep your open ports down to a minimum. Keeping your Windows machine patched and all the server products you use patched are also essential. Furthermore, you don't have to use programs that present security issues or, at least, you don't have to use features of those products that are insecure.
In short, those are the same precautions one has to take with Linux. There are some things that *can* make Linux more secure by default, but the same can be said of Windows.
So, as always, security ultimately comes down to the administrators of the servers.
People in the Windows world have been saying this for years. I'm not trolling, but I am glad to see this issue finally come home to roost in the Linux world. There's been far too much complacent smugness in this corner of the IT world and it will do everyone good to kiss, make up, and address the issues as a unified community.
And finally too.. I mean, why the hell should I have to waste time telling them that I do NOT want them to cancel my favorite shows?! They can just use the TiVo statistics and figure it out for themselves. Do I care that they know what I'm watching? Why, yes I do. I'm pretty happy about it actually. Now maybe they'll start paying attention and stop making (and re-airing) crap.
Amen! Please mod this up. I am continually trying to get my current project to balance between an interest in OSS and proprietary software. At the end of the day, no one here is going to give us a bonus, or even a cookie, for using OSS. Instead, this is a business. Did we get the next big client because they finally like the web application we are providing them to use as an interface to this business? That's the question we have to answer, and the answer had better be "yes". Nothing else will matter at that point.
So, we do things like use Tomcat with Tapestry - both OSS. We use them with JBuilder and Oracle, not OSS. Now we're deciding on a reporting product and having to choosen between iReport + JasperReports vs. Crystal Reports 10 Developer. The reports have to be maintainable by a business analyst, have to be pure Java, and have to cost under $1000. Want to guess which way we'll go on that one?
Grrr... I had a much better response prepared, but it died when Firefox crashed on me..
Anyway, here's the short version.
State machines are not nebulous when the state machines are complete and closed loop. Imagine a language where the state machine description IS the programming language, and you just let the computer figure out how to get the job done based on the state machine program. Don't believe it can be done? Then check out the Abstract State Machine Language (AsmL) that was pointed to by the other response to my post. It has been done.
A state machine is a specification mechanism, not a design pattern. Common state machines could be abstracted into state machine design patterns though.
Your post indicates that you are still thinking inside the box. Imagine a language where the state machine spec IS the programming language. Or imagine something radical like doing a series of UML specifications for a system, and that IS the program for the system. No code generation. No other intermediate steps except some sort of compiler/execution environment that knows the language and can execute it.
This would force us to produce VERY GOOD specs, because the specs would be the program.
I know this all sounds far fetched, but Java, Perl, or Python would have sounded very far fetched to any programmer 30 years ago. "Whaddya mean I don't need to write my data structures in macro assembler? You just replace these 200 lines of assembler code with that 1 line of Perl?! Why, that's just a stupid waste of memory!" Constraints around software development have changed, there's no excuse to make everyone continue to write software in relatively low level languages like Java when we could do much better.
Even if you don't believe that we can do better, it doesn't pay to believe it.:+) There is no progress where complacency resides.
However, I think you missed the point. She's talking about the fact that programming languages need more primitives to support common operations in order to reduce the amount of code.
For example: State machines are a common way of expressing requirements. When done correctly (in the formal sense), a state machine is deterministic and closed loop. Heck, I can go find programs that will allow me to input a state machine and it will generate Java code which expresses that state machine in the usual Java fashion. I can write some Java code to do the same thing. In either case, if my state machine changes, I will need to make the changes by hand so I don't lose any work.
Now, why the heck should I have to do that? Why can't the language take care of it for me? It's easy to imagine a formal computer language that allows expression of state machines. It's easy to imagine how that would save me thousands of lines of code.
It is therefore easy to see that her ideas could help us all write better software.
If the whole top is so "duh" and unoriginal, then why isn't this being done in mainstream software engineering? Given the fact that being a "code monkey" is not a guaranteed ticket to continued employment, everyone should be jumping on these ideas.
Well, to answer my own question a bit, I think one of the differences between 2K3 and UT is that 2K3 requires much more thinking in order to be successful. In UT, the action was much more visceral and there was a lot more reliance on twitch factor. In 2K3, even straight DM requires a LOT more thought. Between the huge maps which result in complicated strategies, the weapons options, adrenaline power-ups, the new double-tap moves, AND the translocator; the game is just incredibly deep now compared to straight UT/Q3 style of games. Don't even get me started on how new maps, mods, etc. complicate that even further.
I think the whole genre went in this direction too. Did people get tired of traditional twitch style DM? I haven't; it's still a lot of fun. I do hope they bring that back to life again. I enjoy the thinking side of 2K3, but sometimes pure mayhem fits me better. 8+)
Also - Is it just me, or is the translocator just about one of the THE MOST irritating FPS devices ever? Yeah, it's a cool concept, but not when you play Instance Action against the computer (which is what I mostly play). The computer can do it often, instantaneously, and always accurately. I try it, and I'm frag soup. Is there a trick to that that helps? A certain key combo maybe? Argh..
I've often thought that if I ever went through the trouble of developing and marketing a package (game or otherwise) that I would be disappointed if I didn't see the product pirated even a little bit. In my mind, putting a product not even worth infringing ("piracy" is such a stupid word - har har mateys) upon would be just depressing in a career changing kind of way.
And your post is correct as well. However, there is such a thing as "predatory capitalism". You might not believe this yet, but the software companies that have outsourced to India and other countries do not (AFAIK) really care one whit about India or its people. Someday, within the next 10 years probably, the likes of IBM and probably other companies will start setting their sights on even cheaper countries. When that happens, the resulting workforce fallout in India will make the bursting of the.com bubble in the US look like a picnic. An entire strata of India's new middle class will fall into poverty, and they will suffer greatly by it.
As an American software developer, I have my reservations (and yes, even my fears) about outsourcing. Some of that is irrational. Some of it isn't though. You have to ask yourself some hard questions. What will happen when India is no longer "free trade flavor of the decade"? Will the experience have been, on balance, a good one? Or will the newly dispossessed Indian developers also feel bitter? Have you looked into how life has improved for the Japanese and Mexicans? (I've heard that it's a mixed bag at best.) You're right, we've done all this before and we're just doing it again.
Perhaps none of the above will come to pass; that is certainly possible. But I still think that all of us, on a worldwide basis, would do well to ensure that the large companies that would like to do business in our countries actually have an interest in becoming a part of our countries. Every company's fate should be tied, to some degree, to the fortune of their host countries and their relationships with the host countries.
In short, I think the definition of "profit" needs to change over the long run. A company which simply uses their host community and does not contribute to a sustainable economy and environment should pay a steep price for being a poor citizen. After all, if companies get to be treated like people (in the sense of being a legal entity in the US court system), then they ought to have the same obligations.
There is always, and will always be, a difference between the technical understanding of a phenomenon and the folk model understand of same. Unless (and if) we ever achieve planet-wide educational parity that may always be the case.
That said, I think some of the complexity we see in physics and other fields is self-inflicted, by necessity. We theorize on what might be causing certain events. Obviously, since we don't understand everything, fitting particularly ill-understood events into our current perspective can get messy. But that's the best we can do until our understanding has improved. In the meantime, if you want the best explanation available, you need to be on board with the current theories, publications, etc.
All of this doesn't mean science is failing. It just means we have more knowledge now and the bar is higher in terms of establishing a baseline of working knowledge.
Any dominant desktop OS is vulnerable (since the issue here is one of an incompetant user-base -- it has nothing to do with the OS).
Well, yes, BUT even if the Linux users were all as susceptible to social engineering as Windows users are (which would easily be the case if Linux were in the dominant position), then you would *still* have a far lower infection rate. Why? This is true simply because Linux users are likely to be running in root/Administrator mode indiscriminately and because of the heterogeneous nature of the Linux community.
Certainly, any Linux/Unix system admin worth their paycheck is going to ensure that the users do NOT run as root by default, but there are probably a number of exploits whereby infection of a single user could result in compromising root level permissions. Even then a Linux based worm or virus is still going to have a much tougher time spreading in general because of the heterogeneous nature of the Linux computing landscape. Granted, it might be a lot more homogenous if Linux were the dominant OS, but Linux is truly Linux because it fosters a degree of diversity, so the heterogeneity would still provide some degree of protection.
I think you would (with some discussion) agree here that the real problem isn't the user. The real problem, in my mind, is that the user is empowered by Windows to such a degree of power and with such convenience, that Windows is easily exploited by those who would pervert the system to the whims of a developer who wants to write a virus, worm , etc. As a culture, Linux is much more likely to limit the users where it makes sense, in order to provide more security.
FWIW - Microsoft is now coming around to this way of thinking. Before long, this will also be a part of their culture. However, they still have to fight the tide of viruses/worms which find a hospitable environment in their older OS and Office products. The question I wonder about is - will Microsoft manage to turn the tide (which will required encouraging/forcing people to upgrade) before public opinion turns against them and enables the Linux community to swipe the OS dominance throne?
From this point of view, Microsoft would be wise to write their own worm which disables suspect product capabilities. Heck, they would even be well advised to start handing out free Office upgrades to anyone who trades in old copies of Office, legal or otherwise. A one time swap program would go a long ways towards nipping this in the (admittedly mature) bud.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, the way of Apple. Or Sun. Or IBM. Or ...
Whatever. They can have my PVR when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Me and my lifetime TiVo subscription are inseparable. I'd give up my digital cable and/or my broadband connection at home and go back to dialup before I gave up my TiVo.
Yeah, it's that good.
I saw your post while meta-moderating, and I felt I should throw in my $0.02.
/. has some of the ideas. Etc. etc... Only Groove puts all of those functional possibilities in one package. It's really THE P2P package.
First off, Groove is a unique product. There isn't another quite like it. NetMeeting has some of the ideas. AIM/MSN/ICQ has some of the ideas. All P2P clients like Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. have some of the ideas. SSH, CVS, RSync, and others have some of the ideas. Outlook has some of the ideas.
Developing new components for use in the Groove environment is, the last time I checked, a fairly easy thing too. That makes it even better. Finally, with the addition of a Groove server to the mix, which I haven't used but did advocate to them about 3 years ago, you have a product mix that is irresistible.
It's secure, extendible (ActiveX/COM), functional (multiple interaction workspaces can be available to the user and more are available as needed) , enabling (P2P), and robust (client/server).
You've probably seen more hype than you care for at this point, but you really should look into the products' abilities a bit more. You will quickly see that, like in the Windows world, there are pieces of Groove all over the Linux landscape. But there is nothing else like Groove.
As far as OS lock-in is concerned, this is the gov't you're talking about. They don't really get locked in. They have more of a history of adopting a generation of technology, freezing on it until it's absolutely worthless or too expensive to keep, discarding it, and then replacing it from scratch. No? You probably know more about that than I do, but that has been my impression from working with any federal level agencies. I'm much happier with the gov't investing in tools that already work, where possible, rather than dropping another XX Billion $$$ developing and supporting it themselves.
Well, the reason is that Office 2003 contains some very streamlined hooks into all Microsoft's new server products. Upgrading the Army to new versions of Office, even at an illicit grass-roots level, would bootstrap Microsoft's efforts to sell all the new server products. This includes Sharepoint Server, Content Management Server, Windows Server 2003 itself (of course), and Exchange Server 2003 (of course, of course). And, of course, if you use those products you'll naturally consider other new server products they're offering. Of course...
Consider this move of theirs with Office 2003 to be viral marketing at its best. Office itself still makes them a lot of money, but they know that they'll lose office desktop market share at some point if people can easily switch away from MS Office to other office products (which is getting easier all the time). So, if they make sure that there is tight integration between Office and their server products, you'll get locked in and won't (easily) be able to move off of Office, much less Windows.
But, what Microsoft forgot about gov't agencies in general, is that grass-roots marketing is a no-no. Strict hierarchies do not appreciate circumvention, especially where budget impacts may occur because of it.
Actually, no. Microsoft is selling products for less than what COULD BE CHARGED. But since we all got fed up with those prices and started demanding more value for the money, they took care of it. Sure Linux is free beer/speech, but it hasn't been up to snuff for most peoples' needs. It's been "getting there" for a while though and I'm increasingly impressed with it as a desktop OS.
By the way - using your logic, shouldn't all free beer Linux distributions be illegal? I mean, it's dumping right? I don't think I'll hear you crying about "dumping" when (and if) a free beer Linux distro ever overtakes Microsoft Windows.
I can easily pay $80 for a CD burning program, but only the vendor of that particular product is going to tell you it's worth it. Any user who doesn't need best of breed features won't pay that much for a product until they do provide those features. In the meantime, Windows provides just enough to get by with.
As far as "people like me" go, I would like you to point out where I stated that Microsoft is killing the IT industry? Failing that (consider it failed), show that Microsoft is killing the IT industry? Failing that, at least show that the IT industry is somehow dying? Failing that, please don't bother. Your kind of rhetoric is flimsy, inflammatory, and not at all based on reason or fact. You may not LIKE Microsoft, but that really isn't relevant.
Well, I'm going to have to whole-heartedly disagree with on this. It's not 1984 anymore and I'm not going to go buy my software in little $150 bits and pieces all over the freaking place just so I can, to name one stupid example, print my spreadsheet sideways on my wide carriage dot matrix printer (true story - forget the name of the product though).
There was a time when everyone DID pay for each individual piece of software and an OS was an OS, and it didn't necessarily include anything that could prevent competition or even raise the bar of competition for vendors.
But those days are over.
Now, that has almost nothing to do with PC vendors. PC vendors were "abused" only in the sense that they were forced into exclusivity agreements to sell the Windows OS.
See, the other post I just put up, and you'll note that I agree that it would be great to give consumers more choice out of the box. But then, they have those choices anyway; they're just not the "default choices" (oxymoron no?) All users have choices today, they're just not on the Windows CD.
Or, here's a thought, perhaps you were simply thinking that we would replace all the utilities chosen for inclusion in Windows by Microsoft and replace them with "choices" made by you, the FSF, or another party? In the end, the "choice" has already been made for the consumer of Windows, but everyone is free to choose something else.
You know, I had to read your post a couple time to be sure of it, but I actually agree with most of what you said. I think Microsoft is in a monopoly position now, and given that, should be required to include competitor products (e.g. RealOne) within their OS. It might create some support nightmares, but it wouldn't kill them, and people could (probably would) uninstall that stuff or not install it in the first place anyway. I mean, look at what a happy symbiosis the Flash player has enjoyed within Windows. That could easily have been squashed out of fear of the fact that it could be seen as an ActiveX competitor, but it wasn't. Everyone has benefited from that.
As far as the whole "essential to the OS" thing, just let it go already. They were obviously lying out of their asses about that one and it doesn't further anyone's case anymore to bring it up. You can act all outraged about it still if you like, but everyone else has moved on.
I think you've posted one of the more well reasoned replies here, so I'll respond to it.
Microsoft Windows is not really just an operating system. After all, it's the operating system, the window/UI manager, the services (some of which pertain to the OS and most do not), the drivers, the utilities, etc. It's not like Linux. It's more like (in terms of its market niche) Red Hat or another full blown distribution.
Windows has always had the mission of trying to make a PC as useful to the user as possible. They don't make Windows to make the competition happy. They don't make it to be "open". Bill's dream, as I understand it, was to put a PC running Windows on every desktop.
They've largely done that and, despite some hiccups, they've done it fairly well. The entire PC movement may have occurred without Microsoft anyway, but it would certainly not have happened as quickly.
Now, in the process of doing that, did we cultivate a culture of ignorance, as you claim? Not really. After all, one can not cultivate a lacking property. Ignorance is the default state. I would argue that the mission of a mass market desktop OS/distribution is to serve as many people as possible as their current level of enlightenment/education. It's not the job of Microsoft, Red Hat, IBM, etc. to educate the masses in order to make their product useful. If that could be successful, then desktop OSs would succeed purely on their technical merits and people would learn whatever they needed to use the system. But that's just not the reality of it. The reality of it is that if e-mail were much harder to use today, that my mother-in-law and multiple other relations/acquaintances of mine simply would not use it.
Another piece of this that everyone here seems to be forgetting is that people do not, for the most part, want all of the choices that everyone here seems to want. They don't want to choose an email program, a browser, a 3D engine, a text editor, a paint program, etc. They want enough of all that to get by on a day to day basis. When they decide they want a better paint program, for example, they'll go buy one that's actually good. Until then the, admittedly sucky, MS Paint will suit them just fine.
You'll notice that none of the programs that are included in Windows (with the possible exception of DirectX) are best of breed in their category. They're only enough for most people. For all I know, Microsoft may very well have beat the hell out of competitors in the past, but they leave a LOT of room for improvement. Being the company they are, with the resources they have, they could have put a much larger part of the IT industry out of business if they'd tried. Except for some notable examples, they haven't done that.
You're right, it's not. Neither is a 3D engine (DirectX), a browser, an email client, a remote desktop protocol and program, a backup tool, a disk defragmenter, a paint program, a text editor, a solitaire game, a file zipper, and all those nice device and database (ODBC) drivers really aren't part of the OS either - after all, it's not like Microsoft makes most of the stuff that requires those drivers.
Actually, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to provide any of that to the consumer. Everything they provide in the OS is a lost sales opportunity somewhere else. It's totally anti-competitive of them to provide any of it. You should have to pay for every feature you get. The OS should just make the computer run.
Let's see - besides the cost of the core Windows OS then (which I'm sure you'll argue should be free - so let's just leave that out), you would probably pay about $50 each for every new program you add to the system. If you add 10 new programs to the computer (which is conservative), you get to spend $500.
Now, what does Media Player have to do with the core OS? Nothing. It "merely" makes it useful.
Troll.
Linux CAN be as easy to get running to your taste as Windows. It's really a matter of choosing the right distro.
But, the problems/challenges come about when you want to start customizing things in a meaningful way. For instance, a video driver upgrade under Linux can be a real PITA. There are plenty of examples of rough edges that can be found in Linux or Windows really. It's just that, if you're going to switch from one to the other, then don't be casual about it. Be a little more serious, do your research, or you will find your experience lacking. Linux is not a silver bullet for everything that's wrong with Windows; it has its own baggage. The reverse is also true. You're truly not in Kansas anymore when you leave Windows behind. That's all. It's quite doable; you just need to learn and then take into consideration the real differences between them.
If you're willing to spend some time with it, Linux can be a real pleasure to use.
I'm not trolling here, but if you can't keep WindowsXP running then you really shouldn't be playing with Linux.
Seriously.
My experience with both is fairly deep and, invariably, people who have problems with Windows just don't know what they're doing. Or they have faulty hardware and just don't know it yet. That's a much more frustrating situation that's going to Linux doesn't help either.
If you're one of those people who wants his computer to always "just work" without extensive configuration, downloading, tweaking, and research then Linux is not for you. Linux HAS gotten a lot easier to use, but you'll need to install a lot more than just the base OS if you want to do all the above, including playing UT2004 and probably other games.
Anyway, I'm not writing this to be nasty or anything, but I have seen more than one hopeful Linux user go down in flames and return, dispirited, to the Windows world. If you go in with your eyes open and with realistic expectations, you may find the experience to be a rewarding one. Just don't buy into the hype, and you'll avoid some disappointment. That's true of Windows too, BTW.
Actually, society is the Matrix. But media is the expression of society, so it's a convenient target.
All of these measures which seek to systemically control media according to corporate whims are, ultimately, nothing more than attempts to control our hard earned $$$ via our belief system.
For the time being, I'll control what I watch and when I watch it. But that's only possible because we have TiVo. When the use/possession of that becomes illegal, I will have to move on to other means I suppose. In the meantime, the unfortunately unaware masses will be continuing to feed money to these organizations, exacerbating the problem even further.
Maybe things won't get much worse than they are now (in terms of media saturation), but if things do get worse, it will get ugly. I would prefer to imagine a reformed media system where the media serve the interests of the for-profits AND of the consumer, but it's not obvious to me how that will ever happen. For profit companies seem more intent than ever on enslaving the population at large as much as possible. Does it really have to be that way?
Errr... I'm no climber, or pilot, but isn't the Everest peak inaccessible to helicopters because the air is too thin?
Now, it is somehow less conceivable to wait for 15mn, when you can do the same transaction in 30 seconds from a web browser. Did that buy me 14:30 mn of free, relaxing time? Somehow, I'm not sure...
I've previously thought about the issues you outlined above, and I've come to the conclusion that if there is something in my life which gives me back a certain amount of time, it is my responsibility to fill that time the way I see fit. If I don't do that, then the universe will fill it for me.
Now, I may have to consciously fill that time with slacker time, but what's wrong with that? I'd rather "waste" time on my own terms than let someone else do it for me. After all, it's the only real resource over which I have control. Everything else ultimately gets shared with everyone else, whether or not I like it. Granted, there are these things we call "commitments" that take my time, but I actually do have the choice whether or not to fulfill each one of those. I just have to deal with the potential fallout if I decline one or more of those. Then again, there may not be actual fallout for some of them; I may just be afraid of nothing.
But, the technology allows us to generate a much higher GDP overall. So, the stress stays about the same as it always has. We all get more done with less because the technology allows us to. And we all do what we can, in terms of stress, time, etc.
So, yes, technology has made my job easier. But, no it hasn't reduced the overall amount of stress in my life.
Incidentally, has there ever been research into whether or not stress levels in a population actually do fluctuate? That seems like a dumb question, but I have to wonder if the answer for large populations isn't "No".
Windows isn't inherently insecure either. After all, it's possible to turn off all the services you don't need and to keep your open ports down to a minimum. Keeping your Windows machine patched and all the server products you use patched are also essential. Furthermore, you don't have to use programs that present security issues or, at least, you don't have to use features of those products that are insecure.
In short, those are the same precautions one has to take with Linux. There are some things that *can* make Linux more secure by default, but the same can be said of Windows.
So, as always, security ultimately comes down to the administrators of the servers.
People in the Windows world have been saying this for years. I'm not trolling, but I am glad to see this issue finally come home to roost in the Linux world. There's been far too much complacent smugness in this corner of the IT world and it will do everyone good to kiss, make up, and address the issues as a unified community.
And finally too.. I mean, why the hell should I have to waste time telling them that I do NOT want them to cancel my favorite shows?! They can just use the TiVo statistics and figure it out for themselves. Do I care that they know what I'm watching? Why, yes I do. I'm pretty happy about it actually. Now maybe they'll start paying attention and stop making (and re-airing) crap.
Amen! Please mod this up. I am continually trying to get my current project to balance between an interest in OSS and proprietary software. At the end of the day, no one here is going to give us a bonus, or even a cookie, for using OSS. Instead, this is a business. Did we get the next big client because they finally like the web application we are providing them to use as an interface to this business? That's the question we have to answer, and the answer had better be "yes". Nothing else will matter at that point.
So, we do things like use Tomcat with Tapestry - both OSS. We use them with JBuilder and Oracle, not OSS. Now we're deciding on a reporting product and having to choosen between iReport + JasperReports vs. Crystal Reports 10 Developer. The reports have to be maintainable by a business analyst, have to be pure Java, and have to cost under $1000. Want to guess which way we'll go on that one?
Grrr... I had a much better response prepared, but it died when Firefox crashed on me..
:+) There is no progress where complacency resides.
Anyway, here's the short version.
State machines are not nebulous when the state machines are complete and closed loop. Imagine a language where the state machine description IS the programming language, and you just let the computer figure out how to get the job done based on the state machine program. Don't believe it can be done? Then check out the Abstract State Machine Language (AsmL) that was pointed to by the other response to my post. It has been done.
A state machine is a specification mechanism, not a design pattern. Common state machines could be abstracted into state machine design patterns though.
Your post indicates that you are still thinking inside the box. Imagine a language where the state machine spec IS the programming language. Or imagine something radical like doing a series of UML specifications for a system, and that IS the program for the system. No code generation. No other intermediate steps except some sort of compiler/execution environment that knows the language and can execute it.
This would force us to produce VERY GOOD specs, because the specs would be the program.
I know this all sounds far fetched, but Java, Perl, or Python would have sounded very far fetched to any programmer 30 years ago. "Whaddya mean I don't need to write my data structures in macro assembler? You just replace these 200 lines of assembler code with that 1 line of Perl?! Why, that's just a stupid waste of memory!" Constraints around software development have changed, there's no excuse to make everyone continue to write software in relatively low level languages like Java when we could do much better.
Even if you don't believe that we can do better, it doesn't pay to believe it.
I agree entirely. Less code = less bugs.
However, I think you missed the point. She's talking about the fact that programming languages need more primitives to support common operations in order to reduce the amount of code.
For example: State machines are a common way of expressing requirements. When done correctly (in the formal sense), a state machine is deterministic and closed loop. Heck, I can go find programs that will allow me to input a state machine and it will generate Java code which expresses that state machine in the usual Java fashion. I can write some Java code to do the same thing. In either case, if my state machine changes, I will need to make the changes by hand so I don't lose any work.
Now, why the heck should I have to do that? Why can't the language take care of it for me? It's easy to imagine a formal computer language that allows expression of state machines. It's easy to imagine how that would save me thousands of lines of code.
It is therefore easy to see that her ideas could help us all write better software.
If the whole top is so "duh" and unoriginal, then why isn't this being done in mainstream software engineering? Given the fact that being a "code monkey" is not a guaranteed ticket to continued employment, everyone should be jumping on these ideas.
Well, to answer my own question a bit, I think one of the differences between 2K3 and UT is that 2K3 requires much more thinking in order to be successful. In UT, the action was much more visceral and there was a lot more reliance on twitch factor. In 2K3, even straight DM requires a LOT more thought. Between the huge maps which result in complicated strategies, the weapons options, adrenaline power-ups, the new double-tap moves, AND the translocator; the game is just incredibly deep now compared to straight UT/Q3 style of games. Don't even get me started on how new maps, mods, etc. complicate that even further.
I think the whole genre went in this direction too. Did people get tired of traditional twitch style DM? I haven't; it's still a lot of fun. I do hope they bring that back to life again. I enjoy the thinking side of 2K3, but sometimes pure mayhem fits me better. 8+)
Also - Is it just me, or is the translocator just about one of the THE MOST irritating FPS devices ever? Yeah, it's a cool concept, but not when you play Instance Action against the computer (which is what I mostly play). The computer can do it often, instantaneously, and always accurately. I try it, and I'm frag soup. Is there a trick to that that helps? A certain key combo maybe? Argh..
I really waited for UT 2003. I hope 2004 is fun to play and not only looks good...
Seriously, what's the problem with 2003's gameplay? I agree that it took some getting used to since it 'felt' different from UT's gameplay, but so???
I'm just curious. I've heard comment this from a couple of people, but I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.
I've often thought that if I ever went through the trouble of developing and marketing a package (game or otherwise) that I would be disappointed if I didn't see the product pirated even a little bit. In my mind, putting a product not even worth infringing ("piracy" is such a stupid word - har har mateys) upon would be just depressing in a career changing kind of way.
And your post is correct as well. However, there is such a thing as "predatory capitalism". You might not believe this yet, but the software companies that have outsourced to India and other countries do not (AFAIK) really care one whit about India or its people. Someday, within the next 10 years probably, the likes of IBM and probably other companies will start setting their sights on even cheaper countries. When that happens, the resulting workforce fallout in India will make the bursting of the .com bubble in the US look like a picnic. An entire strata of India's new middle class will fall into poverty, and they will suffer greatly by it.
As an American software developer, I have my reservations (and yes, even my fears) about outsourcing. Some of that is irrational. Some of it isn't though. You have to ask yourself some hard questions. What will happen when India is no longer "free trade flavor of the decade"? Will the experience have been, on balance, a good one? Or will the newly dispossessed Indian developers also feel bitter? Have you looked into how life has improved for the Japanese and Mexicans? (I've heard that it's a mixed bag at best.) You're right, we've done all this before and we're just doing it again.
Perhaps none of the above will come to pass; that is certainly possible. But I still think that all of us, on a worldwide basis, would do well to ensure that the large companies that would like to do business in our countries actually have an interest in becoming a part of our countries. Every company's fate should be tied, to some degree, to the fortune of their host countries and their relationships with the host countries.
In short, I think the definition of "profit" needs to change over the long run. A company which simply uses their host community and does not contribute to a sustainable economy and environment should pay a steep price for being a poor citizen. After all, if companies get to be treated like people (in the sense of being a legal entity in the US court system), then they ought to have the same obligations.
There is always, and will always be, a difference between the technical understanding of a phenomenon and the folk model understand of same. Unless (and if) we ever achieve planet-wide educational parity that may always be the case.
That said, I think some of the complexity we see in physics and other fields is self-inflicted, by necessity. We theorize on what might be causing certain events. Obviously, since we don't understand everything, fitting particularly ill-understood events into our current perspective can get messy. But that's the best we can do until our understanding has improved. In the meantime, if you want the best explanation available, you need to be on board with the current theories, publications, etc.
All of this doesn't mean science is failing. It just means we have more knowledge now and the bar is higher in terms of establishing a baseline of working knowledge.
Any dominant desktop OS is vulnerable (since the issue here is one of an incompetant user-base -- it has nothing to do with the OS).
Well, yes, BUT even if the Linux users were all as susceptible to social engineering as Windows users are (which would easily be the case if Linux were in the dominant position), then you would *still* have a far lower infection rate. Why? This is true simply because Linux users are likely to be running in root/Administrator mode indiscriminately and because of the heterogeneous nature of the Linux community.
Certainly, any Linux/Unix system admin worth their paycheck is going to ensure that the users do NOT run as root by default, but there are probably a number of exploits whereby infection of a single user could result in compromising root level permissions. Even then a Linux based worm or virus is still going to have a much tougher time spreading in general because of the heterogeneous nature of the Linux computing landscape. Granted, it might be a lot more homogenous if Linux were the dominant OS, but Linux is truly Linux because it fosters a degree of diversity, so the heterogeneity would still provide some degree of protection.
I think you would (with some discussion) agree here that the real problem isn't the user. The real problem, in my mind, is that the user is empowered by Windows to such a degree of power and with such convenience, that Windows is easily exploited by those who would pervert the system to the whims of a developer who wants to write a virus, worm , etc. As a culture, Linux is much more likely to limit the users where it makes sense, in order to provide more security.
FWIW - Microsoft is now coming around to this way of thinking. Before long, this will also be a part of their culture. However, they still have to fight the tide of viruses/worms which find a hospitable environment in their older OS and Office products. The question I wonder about is - will Microsoft manage to turn the tide (which will required encouraging/forcing people to upgrade) before public opinion turns against them and enables the Linux community to swipe the OS dominance throne?
From this point of view, Microsoft would be wise to write their own worm which disables suspect product capabilities. Heck, they would even be well advised to start handing out free Office upgrades to anyone who trades in old copies of Office, legal or otherwise. A one time swap program would go a long ways towards nipping this in the (admittedly mature) bud.