How about "you don't like it, don't use it?" I guess the argument against this attitude is that there is so much hype about OSS saying that we SHOULD be using it as a general rule.
That "you don't like it, don't use it!" thing tends to be pretty silly as well. First of all, it's stupidly obvious. If someone's complaining, and when the ask-for-help/offer-criticism, the response they get is rude and insulting, they certainly won't be using that software for very long.
Plus, it usually appears side-by-side with some statement about, "You're so stupid, I bet you don't even use it, so why are you complaining?!" So... if you use it and you don't like it, stop using it. If you don't use because you don't like it, then you're stupid, so shut up. And all of this comes from the same group who preaches that we all have a moral responsibility to support "FREE (as in speech)" software.
Listen, user feedback is a valuable way to make your software better. If you don't want to do what it takes to make your software good, then don't try to promote your software, and don't get upset when no one wants to use it. Don't sit back, shooting down user feedback because the users aren't elite enough, and then complain that stupid users aren't using your software.
Again, this ISN'T a complaint about OSS in general, but only a minority in the community. There is a lot of OSS that is quite good. However, those pieces of software usually come out of a community that is open to user complaints and receptive to input. They clearly were not employing the "If you don't like it, go f$#% yourself," method of customer service.
Isn't the main complaint about WIndows and many products that run on it that they pander to the lowest common denomonator while simutaneously trying to pack in every concevable bell and whistle?
"Pandering to the lowest common denominator" and "being responsive to the needs of your users" are two different things.
Isn't it good enough to say that The GIMP is very powerful and works really well fo the people who use it?
Well, it's true enough the GIMP is good enough at doing what the people who use it use it to do... but that isn't a very meaningful statement. Are the GIMP developers happy with their small user-base, or would they like to see their program used more widely? Do they want it to be considered a PITA to use by graphic designers, or would they prefer that a Photoshop user sits down in front of the GIMP and says, "Wow, this is nice."
The GIMP is just an example of something larger that we're talking about, though. The real question is, is OSS just supposed to be something that a small number of geeks tinker with, or is it supposed to be something my mom can use too? If you want my mom to use your software, than you should address the issues my mom will have with your software. If you don't want to do that, then don't be surprised if my mom start talking smack about how your software sucks for what she wants to do. Either way, the whole "holier than thou" attitude isn't impressing her.
What I'm suggesting is, maybe sometimes the "something useful" that someone can offer is a "common complaint". They can tell you what it is that will bother many/most users about your application. This is "something useful" if you want people to use your application because it gives you the opportunity to address that issue.
Granted, saying "GIMP's interface SUCKS!!!" isn't exactly constructive criticism, but telling that person that they can fix it themselves isn't going to grow your user base. Trying to engage that person in enough of a conversation so as to figure out what aspect of the GUI is bothersome to that user, and then addressing that issue-- that will make for a better application, which will, in turn, expand your userbase.
And whether you like it or not, an application that does what users want to do without being "bothersome" is a better application than one that users find a PITA to use. I would even say that an application that's "pretty" is better than an "ugly" application with the same functionality.
So, in general, I'm saying that if you receive a complaint, you should pretend that there is, in fact, something bothering the user (even though what's bothering them isn't always what they think is bothering them), and consider that it might be worthwhile to address their issue in some way (even if you don't address it the way they say they want it addressed). At least, if you want to make good software, you might want to consider this practice.
...so they can just copy exactly what some other program is doing, and the OSS designers don't have to be innovative or creative on their own? Come on now, do you own work...
Yeah, I know. I heard Honda will be coming out with a new car in a couple years... but it'll be using WHEELS and an ENGINE! I heard they're even going to use FUEL of some kind! What's the point of just copying other car designs, huh? That's not innovative. There's nothing creative about a car with wheels.
That would be absolutely horrible if any major (or even minor) advances, tweaks, changes, etc are made... you're still stuck in an outdated "standard" that probably won't apply to whatever you came up with. Even if you update the "standard", that's just wasting needless time.
Yeah, standards suck. Why would we want standards when there's an outside chance it might change. Like HTML... it was so stupid, because we had to come up with XHTML, and sooner or later we might come up with something else. This proves that HTML was stupid and should never have been used. If only we got rid of all standards, the Internet would be a much cooler place.
Well, yeah, I hear that one around these parts a lot. I also hear how he could download the source code, alter it to be the perfect application, just the way he wants, recompile it, and use that instead. But, you know, that's kind of a lot to expect from some random person.
Maybe he's not a programmer. Maybe the most he has to offer the community is the voice of someone who's displeased with the application. Maybe he's not a UI expert and can't even explain how to make the UI good, and all he can do is explain why he thinks it's bad. Maybe that's the most he can offer a project.
You think the GIMP project is going to be really receptive to that help? If he goes to them and says, "This program is great, but here are a couple of things that I think should change and I can help only by telling you this," is that going to hold a lot of sway with the community? I'd guess not, since these sorts of complaints have been around for quite a long time and the improvements that I've seen to GIMP seem more aimed at those who already have a high opinion of the app.
IMHO, one weakness of many open-source projects has been that they aren't active enough in gathering feedback from people with no association to the project. This lack of feedback keeps software in the state of "scratching a personal itch" rather than good generalized solutions fit for public consumption. Feedback from general users should be treated as participation in the community, rather than being treated as nonsense from ignorant outsiders.
(BTW, this isn't not a complaint about OSS as a whole, but only a rebuttal of the "You don't like it, fix it" attitude expressed by some.)
You have a point, but it also shows a certain disregard for the way designers work. When you're working on something, (using Adobe's apps as an example) there's a good chance that you're not going to use *just* Photoshop or *just* Illustrator or *just* InDesign. There's a good chance you'll use all of them at different points during the same project, so while you want each program's interface to be optimized for their individual tasks, you also want some continuity between GUIs so that you don't have to "switch modes" in a terribly jarring way when you move to the next task.
So while I agree that, if some developer wants to go his own way, he should be allowed to do so, I'm not too worried about that. Given that it's open source, you can't really not-allow them anyway. However, having a tightly integrated, easy to use, feature rich, and complete GPL graphic design suite would be quite a nice thing to see (for a variety of reasons)
What do you view as Microsoft's responsibilities to their customers? In what ways do you believe Microsoft has/does/will fulfill these responsibilities better than other software developers?
Or: Are you not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not lying right now?
Whether or not you agree with it has nothing to do with the realities that IT managers of extremely large organizations face.
And that IT managers "face realities" doesn't keep there from being multiple solutions to any given problem. Depending on what your precise needs are...
There are, however, massive internal websites that large organizations run that weren't coded this way. IBM is one of them. This can be a real problem that isn't easily fixed.
That's one of the reasons why web apps should be coded with standards in the first place. It mitigates the chances of it turning into a mess that "isn't easily fixed". I'm not arguing this from a moral standpoint of "Oh, it would be honorable to use open standards", but I'm arguing on the grounds that it's bad for business. First, it's generally bad for business to do things in non-standard HTML since it's harder for someone else to come along and read/figure-out/change.
Second, vendor lock-in is BAD. I don't understand why some IT people are blind to the fact that being dependent on one company (i.e. Microsoft) is undesirable. What if they start charging ridiculous prices for unwieldy licenses? (some would argue they've already crossed that line) What if they go under? What if they just change their product and refuse to continue support?
With the example at hand, a web app that's coded in a non-standard way and only runs on IE, what if Microsoft buckles to the pressure brought on by Firefox and starts supporting web standards. Suddenly your IE only pages won't work in new versions of IE, and you're screwed.
The best solution to many of the problems brought on by our technology boom is to use different technologies while supporting unified and open standards.
Having a heterogeneous world *out there* doesn't prohibit large organizations from standardizing their inside world. In other words, just because Firefox is picking up market share shouldn't keep a given large corporation from using IE as their standard on the desktops they support.
However, first of all, I don't agree that corporations need to stick with IE for version control. Second, whether a corporation standardizes on IE or Firefox, they should still code their web applications to generally cohere to standards. W3C standards are not just silly rules set up to code for non-IE browsers.
I agree that Firefox is a good program, but I'm not really writing a pro-Firefox anti-IE thing here, nor am I accusing Gartner of being pro-MS. Whether all that is true or not, it is beside the point. The point is, we shouldn't be pushing for a "winner" of the "browser wars". Having a "winner" will represent a return to a software monoculture, which I think even an open source software monoculture is probably bad.
Heterogeneity is good. I'd like to see Gecko, KHTML, and IE (assuming they clean up their act) each have a substantial share of the market. If you write a new HTML renderer, well welcome to the party, we can use it. Having different competing technologies here is *good*, so long as they all comply with existing standards. In that case, they should all render pages the same. There shouldn't need to be major compatibility issues merely because the HTML is being rendered by a different browser.
However, it's true that web developers will have to deal with any inconsistencies and quirks associated with the different major browsers.... but that's just not new. That's exactly what the job entails. If you employ a HTML programmer who isn't capable of writing a page that will render properly in Firefox, Safari, Opera, and IE, then fire him immediately. He doesn't know how to do his job.
If you're using a browser that can't [generally] render standard-compliant pages properly, stop using it. The people who make that browser aren't doing their jobs, and you have other options.
Meanwhile, Gartner is saying, "Too bad, but we'll have to accept supporting multiple web browsers for the foreseeable future...."? To me, that's comparable to saying, "Too bad, but we'll have to accept that malware writers will have a harder time infecting us for the foreseeable future." I don't recall ever hearing anything from Gartner that wasn't ridiculously obvious or stupidly wrong.
I watched Steve's kenyote speech, and he spent fiteen times as much time demo'ing software than talking about the Mac mini -- which I thought was the big event of the night....I ended up thinking "wow, Apple is really a software company that happens to make hardware".
The Mac mini is kinda neat, in that it's so small and all, but it's not really selling as well as it is just because of its small size. In general, Apple hardware is impressively engineered, but people often aren't buying Apple hardware for the Apple hardware. They buy Apple hardware for the Apple software. The real reason the mini was the "big event of the night" is that it was a sub-$500 way to get OSX.
Seems like the opposite might also be true, though. The first 10% is hard because no one has heard of your product and so web developers don't code their pages to support it and IT people won't standardize on it. 10%, though, means a substantial presence in the hearts and minds of users, and once you get there, don't be surprised if things snowball.
"OH NO! IT people, run for cover... Firefox might stick around for a while, but won't drive IE completely out of use, so you'll have to support 2 browsers!"
Who are these "gartner" people, how do they make money by stating the obvious, and how do I get in on that action?
IT people should have gotten used to a multi-browser (i.e. more than 2) world 10 years ago. And by "getting used to a multi-browser world," I mean, "welcoming the benefits of a heterogeneous software environment by writing standards compliant code, validating that code, and testing it against multiple browsers".
To the extent that you're serious, the answer is: probably to some degree. If some organization collected enough funds to actually produce the show (collected from a loyal fan base or otherwise), that organization could, in theory produce it on their own, independently, and shop it around to different channels. The problem with this "theory" is, the Star Trek franchise and all related intellectual property is owned by someone and licensed to others, and to sell the show to anyone, you'd first need to negotiate with them and clear it all legally.
Now, bringing all that money to the table gives you a serious bargaining chip, and with it, the organization providing that money could probably negotiate a certain degree of creative control. However, ownership of the IP is a bigger bargaining chip when it comes to selling the show-- they can find other sources of money, but you can't find another source of the Star Trek IP.
Maybe spyware authors are just hoping to make the appearance that they're focussing on Firefox in order to prevent switching. If I were a spyware author, and I knew that people switching to Firefox would make my job harder, and I knew the reason people are switching was the understanding that "using Firefox makes you less likely to get infected with spyware," I know what I'd do: try to make noise that I'm working on Firefox spyware.
The hoped-for result would be that people would be discouraged from switching because they believed it didn't matter. They'd think I was going to get them one way or the other, so they might as well stick with what they're used to. The hoped-for result would be that people stay on IE and keep my job easier.
I'm not saying that this is what's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were to happen.
On the other hand, when consumers (i.e. "common" people) band together and insist on what they want, against the wishes of some Goliath, that always seems a little inspiring to me, even if the goal itself is a little silly. At least it shows that it's possible to win over those major corporations who see fit to tell us what we want. And anyway, you know, man does not live by beer alone...
Let's just make sure the people organizing this thing don't get to be in charge of the writing, or we may find that in season 5 the crew of the Enterprise travels through time to find that the world-peace enjoyed in their day was inspired by of a bunch of Trekkies banding together to keep Star Trek on the air.
Sometimes it sounds like the new browser war is between Internet Explorer and Firefox, and only those. But people often forget that there are other browsers out there, such as Opera and Safari/Konqueror (when will we get a decent KHTML browser for Windows?).
Let's let them continue to forget, so that I can browse the web in peace, huh?
If the market is indeed split into two major parts, this is actually a bad thing, because it gives you only two huge targets. That makes it easier and less expensive to create viruses, or take over computers for monetary purposes.
This is very true, that our security is well served by heterogeneity. And not just in browsers, but in platforms. I'd bet we'll find that some of the attempts to infect Firefox are targeted specifically at Windows exploits, and even don't work on Linux/OSX. Maybe they'll come up with an extension/toolbar that reports searches and browsing habits back to some marketing team, but that in itself doesn't bother me so much.
The shear fact of spyware, that some software reports some kind of information back to someone, that's one issue, but at least users can choose that for themselves. It's the self-installing programs, impossible to remove, inflicting damage on your system as you force-remove them, installing other spyware as it goes, reinstalling itself as it's removed, etc.-- those facets of spyware are what trouble me. And I doubt it will be terrifically easy to create platform-agnostic spyware that exhibits those properties, even if you have a common browser.
When my IBM laptop had a memory slot go bad, the first thing they asked was if I had IBM RAM in it. Dell may be the same way.
Say "yes". Dell's tech support asks all sorts of stupid questions. Just say yes.
In fact, this is really where the extra money going to Dell for a "big business" account can be worth it: in warranties. If you're a consumer and have the standard consumer warranty, every time you have a problem you'll be talking to someone who has no knowledge about computers, but to make up for it they have a thick accents and a checklists (as in "have you tried rebooting?" Check). They won't help you with anything, they'll just keep taking you through the checklist.
Now get their silver level corporate support. Call up and say, "My hard drive went bad. Send me a new one." The only question you get back is, "Will you need someone to install it?"
The difference is, businesses actually get treated with some modicum of respect. In a similar situation, CompUSA really ripped me off with a warranty. I bought a camera with a fragile screen, and requested a warranty specifically for the screen. Two months later, the screen broke and I was told the warrantee didn't cover LCD screens. When I argued that I had been sold that specific warranty to protect the screen, I was told it didn't matter, and I was accused of hitting the camera with a baseball bat.
A few months later, a CompUSA sales guy called me asking, "Your company has an account, why don't you buy anything from us?" I told him about the camera, and suddenly it's like, "Oh, that? I'll take care of that!"
It's like it's their policy: treat business customers like gold, treat general consumers like dirt.
Because their actions have not been damaging to their market position; they have succeeded wildly with those tactics.
Exactly. It's not foolish to continue using a strategy that continues to work. I would actually break your interesting question into two:
Will Microsoft's anticompetitive business tactics hurt their market position, as so many keep predicting it eventually will?
If that happens, will Microsoft adapt and change tactics or will they blindly continue as they have?
Although we have seen some occasional indicators that the answer to #1 may be "yes, and soon", I don't believe we've seen substantial enough evidence yet. And until the answer to #1 is shown to be "yes", it's impossible to answer #2.
It takes a lot of work to be that incompetent. Or do you think their "incompetence" just *happens* to lock consumers into a never-ending cycle of paid-upgrades of their own products?
IMHO, I don't think Microsoft "needs to be banned from preinstalling". For one thing, it's not they who are pre-installing, it's the OEMs. The OEMs should have the right to install whatever software they like (assuming they adhere to proper licensing and all). Restricting Windows from being pre-installed without restricting other operating systems seems unduly punitive towards MS. Restricting any OS from being pre-installed seems unduly punitive towards consumers.
What MS should not be allowed to do is engage in anti-competitive practices such as penalizing vendors (with stiffer licensing fees and such) who offer pre-installed Linux systems.
Slashdot Mirror
That "you don't like it, don't use it!" thing tends to be pretty silly as well. First of all, it's stupidly obvious. If someone's complaining, and when the ask-for-help/offer-criticism, the response they get is rude and insulting, they certainly won't be using that software for very long.
Plus, it usually appears side-by-side with some statement about, "You're so stupid, I bet you don't even use it, so why are you complaining?!" So... if you use it and you don't like it, stop using it. If you don't use because you don't like it, then you're stupid, so shut up. And all of this comes from the same group who preaches that we all have a moral responsibility to support "FREE (as in speech)" software.
Listen, user feedback is a valuable way to make your software better. If you don't want to do what it takes to make your software good, then don't try to promote your software, and don't get upset when no one wants to use it. Don't sit back, shooting down user feedback because the users aren't elite enough, and then complain that stupid users aren't using your software.
Again, this ISN'T a complaint about OSS in general, but only a minority in the community. There is a lot of OSS that is quite good. However, those pieces of software usually come out of a community that is open to user complaints and receptive to input. They clearly were not employing the "If you don't like it, go f$#% yourself," method of customer service.
Isn't the main complaint about WIndows and many products that run on it that they pander to the lowest common denomonator while simutaneously trying to pack in every concevable bell and whistle?
"Pandering to the lowest common denominator" and "being responsive to the needs of your users" are two different things.
Isn't it good enough to say that The GIMP is very powerful and works really well fo the people who use it?
Well, it's true enough the GIMP is good enough at doing what the people who use it use it to do... but that isn't a very meaningful statement. Are the GIMP developers happy with their small user-base, or would they like to see their program used more widely? Do they want it to be considered a PITA to use by graphic designers, or would they prefer that a Photoshop user sits down in front of the GIMP and says, "Wow, this is nice."
The GIMP is just an example of something larger that we're talking about, though. The real question is, is OSS just supposed to be something that a small number of geeks tinker with, or is it supposed to be something my mom can use too? If you want my mom to use your software, than you should address the issues my mom will have with your software. If you don't want to do that, then don't be surprised if my mom start talking smack about how your software sucks for what she wants to do. Either way, the whole "holier than thou" attitude isn't impressing her.
Granted, saying "GIMP's interface SUCKS!!!" isn't exactly constructive criticism, but telling that person that they can fix it themselves isn't going to grow your user base. Trying to engage that person in enough of a conversation so as to figure out what aspect of the GUI is bothersome to that user, and then addressing that issue-- that will make for a better application, which will, in turn, expand your userbase.
And whether you like it or not, an application that does what users want to do without being "bothersome" is a better application than one that users find a PITA to use. I would even say that an application that's "pretty" is better than an "ugly" application with the same functionality.
So, in general, I'm saying that if you receive a complaint, you should pretend that there is, in fact, something bothering the user (even though what's bothering them isn't always what they think is bothering them), and consider that it might be worthwhile to address their issue in some way (even if you don't address it the way they say they want it addressed). At least, if you want to make good software, you might want to consider this practice.
Yeah, I know. I heard Honda will be coming out with a new car in a couple years... but it'll be using WHEELS and an ENGINE! I heard they're even going to use FUEL of some kind! What's the point of just copying other car designs, huh? That's not innovative. There's nothing creative about a car with wheels.
That would be absolutely horrible if any major (or even minor) advances, tweaks, changes, etc are made... you're still stuck in an outdated "standard" that probably won't apply to whatever you came up with. Even if you update the "standard", that's just wasting needless time.
Yeah, standards suck. Why would we want standards when there's an outside chance it might change. Like HTML... it was so stupid, because we had to come up with XHTML, and sooner or later we might come up with something else. This proves that HTML was stupid and should never have been used. If only we got rid of all standards, the Internet would be a much cooler place.
Maybe he's not a programmer. Maybe the most he has to offer the community is the voice of someone who's displeased with the application. Maybe he's not a UI expert and can't even explain how to make the UI good, and all he can do is explain why he thinks it's bad. Maybe that's the most he can offer a project.
You think the GIMP project is going to be really receptive to that help? If he goes to them and says, "This program is great, but here are a couple of things that I think should change and I can help only by telling you this," is that going to hold a lot of sway with the community? I'd guess not, since these sorts of complaints have been around for quite a long time and the improvements that I've seen to GIMP seem more aimed at those who already have a high opinion of the app.
IMHO, one weakness of many open-source projects has been that they aren't active enough in gathering feedback from people with no association to the project. This lack of feedback keeps software in the state of "scratching a personal itch" rather than good generalized solutions fit for public consumption. Feedback from general users should be treated as participation in the community, rather than being treated as nonsense from ignorant outsiders.
(BTW, this isn't not a complaint about OSS as a whole, but only a rebuttal of the "You don't like it, fix it" attitude expressed by some.)
So while I agree that, if some developer wants to go his own way, he should be allowed to do so, I'm not too worried about that. Given that it's open source, you can't really not-allow them anyway. However, having a tightly integrated, easy to use, feature rich, and complete GPL graphic design suite would be quite a nice thing to see (for a variety of reasons)
What do you view as Microsoft's responsibilities to their customers? In what ways do you believe Microsoft has/does/will fulfill these responsibilities better than other software developers?
uh huh. And why should we believe that answer?
And that IT managers "face realities" doesn't keep there from being multiple solutions to any given problem. Depending on what your precise needs are...
There are, however, massive internal websites that large organizations run that weren't coded this way. IBM is one of them. This can be a real problem that isn't easily fixed.
That's one of the reasons why web apps should be coded with standards in the first place. It mitigates the chances of it turning into a mess that "isn't easily fixed". I'm not arguing this from a moral standpoint of "Oh, it would be honorable to use open standards", but I'm arguing on the grounds that it's bad for business. First, it's generally bad for business to do things in non-standard HTML since it's harder for someone else to come along and read/figure-out/change.
Second, vendor lock-in is BAD. I don't understand why some IT people are blind to the fact that being dependent on one company (i.e. Microsoft) is undesirable. What if they start charging ridiculous prices for unwieldy licenses? (some would argue they've already crossed that line) What if they go under? What if they just change their product and refuse to continue support?
With the example at hand, a web app that's coded in a non-standard way and only runs on IE, what if Microsoft buckles to the pressure brought on by Firefox and starts supporting web standards. Suddenly your IE only pages won't work in new versions of IE, and you're screwed.
The best solution to many of the problems brought on by our technology boom is to use different technologies while supporting unified and open standards.
However, first of all, I don't agree that corporations need to stick with IE for version control. Second, whether a corporation standardizes on IE or Firefox, they should still code their web applications to generally cohere to standards. W3C standards are not just silly rules set up to code for non-IE browsers.
Heterogeneity is good. I'd like to see Gecko, KHTML, and IE (assuming they clean up their act) each have a substantial share of the market. If you write a new HTML renderer, well welcome to the party, we can use it. Having different competing technologies here is *good*, so long as they all comply with existing standards. In that case, they should all render pages the same. There shouldn't need to be major compatibility issues merely because the HTML is being rendered by a different browser.
However, it's true that web developers will have to deal with any inconsistencies and quirks associated with the different major browsers.... but that's just not new. That's exactly what the job entails. If you employ a HTML programmer who isn't capable of writing a page that will render properly in Firefox, Safari, Opera, and IE, then fire him immediately. He doesn't know how to do his job.
If you're using a browser that can't [generally] render standard-compliant pages properly, stop using it. The people who make that browser aren't doing their jobs, and you have other options.
Meanwhile, Gartner is saying, "Too bad, but we'll have to accept supporting multiple web browsers for the foreseeable future...."? To me, that's comparable to saying, "Too bad, but we'll have to accept that malware writers will have a harder time infecting us for the foreseeable future." I don't recall ever hearing anything from Gartner that wasn't ridiculously obvious or stupidly wrong.
The Mac mini is kinda neat, in that it's so small and all, but it's not really selling as well as it is just because of its small size. In general, Apple hardware is impressively engineered, but people often aren't buying Apple hardware for the Apple hardware. They buy Apple hardware for the Apple software. The real reason the mini was the "big event of the night" is that it was a sub-$500 way to get OSX.
Seems like the opposite might also be true, though. The first 10% is hard because no one has heard of your product and so web developers don't code their pages to support it and IT people won't standardize on it. 10%, though, means a substantial presence in the hearts and minds of users, and once you get there, don't be surprised if things snowball.
Who are these "gartner" people, how do they make money by stating the obvious, and how do I get in on that action?
IT people should have gotten used to a multi-browser (i.e. more than 2) world 10 years ago. And by "getting used to a multi-browser world," I mean, "welcoming the benefits of a heterogeneous software environment by writing standards compliant code, validating that code, and testing it against multiple browsers".
Now, bringing all that money to the table gives you a serious bargaining chip, and with it, the organization providing that money could probably negotiate a certain degree of creative control. However, ownership of the IP is a bigger bargaining chip when it comes to selling the show-- they can find other sources of money, but you can't find another source of the Star Trek IP.
The hoped-for result would be that people would be discouraged from switching because they believed it didn't matter. They'd think I was going to get them one way or the other, so they might as well stick with what they're used to. The hoped-for result would be that people stay on IE and keep my job easier.
I'm not saying that this is what's happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were to happen.
Let's just make sure the people organizing this thing don't get to be in charge of the writing, or we may find that in season 5 the crew of the Enterprise travels through time to find that the world-peace enjoyed in their day was inspired by of a bunch of Trekkies banding together to keep Star Trek on the air.
Let's let them continue to forget, so that I can browse the web in peace, huh?
If the market is indeed split into two major parts, this is actually a bad thing, because it gives you only two huge targets. That makes it easier and less expensive to create viruses, or take over computers for monetary purposes.
This is very true, that our security is well served by heterogeneity. And not just in browsers, but in platforms. I'd bet we'll find that some of the attempts to infect Firefox are targeted specifically at Windows exploits, and even don't work on Linux/OSX. Maybe they'll come up with an extension/toolbar that reports searches and browsing habits back to some marketing team, but that in itself doesn't bother me so much.
The shear fact of spyware, that some software reports some kind of information back to someone, that's one issue, but at least users can choose that for themselves. It's the self-installing programs, impossible to remove, inflicting damage on your system as you force-remove them, installing other spyware as it goes, reinstalling itself as it's removed, etc.-- those facets of spyware are what trouble me. And I doubt it will be terrifically easy to create platform-agnostic spyware that exhibits those properties, even if you have a common browser.
Say "yes". Dell's tech support asks all sorts of stupid questions. Just say yes.
In fact, this is really where the extra money going to Dell for a "big business" account can be worth it: in warranties. If you're a consumer and have the standard consumer warranty, every time you have a problem you'll be talking to someone who has no knowledge about computers, but to make up for it they have a thick accents and a checklists (as in "have you tried rebooting?" Check). They won't help you with anything, they'll just keep taking you through the checklist.
Now get their silver level corporate support. Call up and say, "My hard drive went bad. Send me a new one." The only question you get back is, "Will you need someone to install it?"
The difference is, businesses actually get treated with some modicum of respect. In a similar situation, CompUSA really ripped me off with a warranty. I bought a camera with a fragile screen, and requested a warranty specifically for the screen. Two months later, the screen broke and I was told the warrantee didn't cover LCD screens. When I argued that I had been sold that specific warranty to protect the screen, I was told it didn't matter, and I was accused of hitting the camera with a baseball bat.
A few months later, a CompUSA sales guy called me asking, "Your company has an account, why don't you buy anything from us?" I told him about the camera, and suddenly it's like, "Oh, that? I'll take care of that!"
It's like it's their policy: treat business customers like gold, treat general consumers like dirt.
This guy in my biology class said that if Ferris dies, he's giving his eyes to Stevie Wonder.
Still... that's 20K of data? Title, subject, category, keywords, etc.-- it seems like they should be able to get that in under 20K.
Browsing the Staples web site for mail-order brides.
Exactly. It's not foolish to continue using a strategy that continues to work. I would actually break your interesting question into two:
- Will Microsoft's anticompetitive business tactics hurt their market position, as so many keep predicting it eventually will?
- If that happens, will Microsoft adapt and change tactics or will they blindly continue as they have?
Although we have seen some occasional indicators that the answer to #1 may be "yes, and soon", I don't believe we've seen substantial enough evidence yet. And until the answer to #1 is shown to be "yes", it's impossible to answer #2.It takes a lot of work to be that incompetent. Or do you think their "incompetence" just *happens* to lock consumers into a never-ending cycle of paid-upgrades of their own products?
That's what's so annoying! Even are complaints are unoriginal!
What MS should not be allowed to do is engage in anti-competitive practices such as penalizing vendors (with stiffer licensing fees and such) who offer pre-installed Linux systems.