Not only that, he grossed $30,000, and was fined $17,000. Unless his costs on pirated games were more than $13,000, he still made a profit. All he got was a year probation.
I'm not even sure that counts as a slap on the wrist. More like a stern talking to.
Software should emulate hardware and serve as an extension to it. It should only provide the two things that are lacking in hardware: flexibility and ease of modification.
If you've ever worked on a device driver for a relatively complicated piece of hardware you'll quickly figure out that this already is how it works. The problem is that the hardware designs are also buggy, and your driver often ends up 10 times more complicated because you need to fix hardware bugs in the driver. This is because hardware is infleximle and hard to modify. The post is funny because it assumes that the hardware is solid and stable, and that the software is to blame. While the software may be to blame, the hardware almost invariably has a variety of bugs that are being worked around in software. Such is the nature of product development.
Under the GPL, if you use someone else's (GPL'd) work in your own, you must release it under the GPL. In the situation you propose, if you use Microsoft's work, Microsoft can take control of your derivative. How is that more permissive?
Microsoft's cross-licensing of their technology is very permissive. They let you use their technology if you let them use yours. They don't attach stipulations such as "you must release it under the GPL". However, they aren't required to release their code to you, just to let you use their technology if you can figure out how to implement it. Their method is more permissive in that they don't restrict how you use or distribute the technology.
There's no irony here- Microsoft would be limiting the conditions under which you may release your work.
I guess Microsoft is doing that to some extent. They are requiring that you allow them to use your patented technology if you want to use theirs. For most developers, this isn't restrictive at all, because they don't have any patented technology, but for a few it is restrictive. The GPL is restrictive on anyone who uses GPLed code in derivative works.
And they're doing so in a way that is at least as restrictive, if not more, than the GPL,
I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I don't agree.
but doesn't benefit anyone but MS. Besides,
Being able to use the technology benefits any developer who wants to use it. Being able to use the software Microsoft writes using their technology and the technology benefits those willing to license if from Microsoft (for a fee). Microsoft doesn't have to release THEIR code to other people, but in this case they aren't using other people's code in the first place. They are using other people's patented technology in a way MS implements, which is outside the scope of the GPL anyway.
the GPL does make software freely available to Microsoft- they just have to follow certain rules.
Free as in "free beer" maybe, but I don't think you'll be finding Microsoft using GPLed code in their products. Microsoft makes money providing software solutions to people for money. People are happy enough with the benefits they gain from using Microsoft's software that they pay Microsoft a lot of money. The certain rules you mention mean that Microsoft would have to give up their rights to the software they have spent billions of dollars developing. Not very free.
There's room for interpretation on the issue of whether this is "Microsoft's technology".
If Microsoft purchased the patents, it's their technology now. It's also possible that it's related to something Microsoft worked on internally. They've done a lot of work developing Direct X, and this may not be from SGI.
I assume SGI actually invented it; furthermore, the software implementation could be independent of the patent.
If it can be implemented independent of the patent, then three's no reason to cross license the technology. You don't need to be effected at all.
Microsoft releasing things with a license that restricts the use of the GPL is wrong in my opinion. However, their cross-licensing of their technology is pretty generous of them. Especially considering that in DIrect X they have a competitor to OpenGL. They aren't being obstructive in this case. They are cooperating with a standards organization BEYOND what they are required to do. What do they get for it? A story summary posted by a slashdot editor that makes it sound like they are trying to obstruct OpenGL development. They also get tons of open source fanatics claiming that what they are trying to steal everyone else's technology. Does anyone really wonder why Microsoft isn't fond of the "open source community"? Some of the more vocal, self proclaimed members of that community aren't exactly making it easy for them to work with them, and nearly making it necessisary for them to work against them.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Microsoft is offering to crosslicense it's technology so that others can use it, as long as others make their technology freely available to Microsoft. This is a much more permissive License than the GPL, where you have to make source to make the source to derivative works avalable under GPL, yet Microsoft are the ones being uncooperative.
Do people here realize the irony that Microsoft licensing technology in such a way that it can't be used with the GPL is about as restrictive of a license as the GPL is to closed source?
I don't think that Microsoft should be able to license things in such a way that the GPL is excluded because of Microsoft's dominant market share. BUt attacking a cross licening agreement that allows the free use of other people's technology be cause Microsoft may take technology and extend upon it is taking things a bit far. Extensions that purposly break standard implementations without significant benefit are a bad thing. But everyone hoarding their technology and refusing to let others use it is worse. Microsoft appears to be the good guys on this issue. Sorry if that upsets you.
They have options. They could import tons of coal and oil. Other countries do it. Nuclear is a BETTER solution, it's not a perfect one. There is no perfect solution. Hopefully we can keep comming up with better solutions. While we're working on those solutions time we need to realize that energy production has serious side effects, and that we need to use that energy in as efficient ways as possible.
The biggest argument you can come up with agains neuclear power is that our civilization may disappear, and that a future civilization may stumble across it 1000 years from now? If our civilization disappears, there's a good chance that a large portion of the US will be radioactive anyway. This is also a bad argument agains Yucka Mountain, because at least there won't be lots of areas spread across the US.
It would also be surprising if some better way of disposing of nuclear waste isn't found in less than 1000 years.
We need a method of producing energy that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels. Nuclear seems to be relatively clean, even with the nuclear waste, at least when used in moderation. Conservation and more efficient production from fossil fuels also play an important role in reducing polution, but the problems of producing energy don't just go away because you don't like the thought of someone possibly dieing 1000 years from now. If we didn't have electrisity, a lot more people would die now. There is no perfect, safe answer, so a REASONABLE answer must be found. Nuclear is a reasonable answer.
Re:I think that M$ has Missed the Point
on
Microsoft Freon
·
· Score: 2
This isn't the entire point of the console market? It's the way the market currently works. The point of the market is to make money selling video games to consumers.
one:cheap - This definately helps sell games. Microsoft is selling their consoles and games pretty cheap, but they aren't amking money while doing it. In order to make money, they need to increase volumes on the games.
two: uniform hardware - this is what gives consoles a uniforme experience. It makes games easier to develop and more stable. Bringing out a new console every year makes creating games harder, but not nearly as bad as developing for PCs. A three year product cycle might be more reasonable.
three: a long upgrade cycle - The only reason Microsoft wants a long upgrade cycle is to avoid pissing off customers who don't want to upgrade often, and developers that don't want to have to develop for multiple XBox platforms. Microsoft DOES want to have a shorter product cycle than Sony. Sony develops their own processors at a huge expense. SOny only starts making money off of selling consoles after several years of selling the same console to make back those development costs. Microsoft uses off the shelf processors. Their consoles cost much less to develop. Therefore shorter product cycles effect them much less than Sony. Sony also has a harder time maintaining compatibility between platforms because of their custom development. These things all give Microsoft and advantage if they have a shorter cycle than Sony. Annual upgrades still don't make sense, but 3 year cycles sure do.
four: sell hardware at a loss or paper thin margins to make money back on software - Freon is more than a console, and therefore can be expected to cost more. Because it can perform those multiple features with pretty much the same hardware, they can make it cost considerably less than the price of two seperate boxes. Freon won't likely replace the next generation of the XBox. Freon will likely be a seperate, more expensive product that is compatible with the next XBox. They can use the same hardware to provide gaming features, and have additional hardware and software to support video on Freon. Of maybe Feaon might just be a $200 price tag for a cool remote and video software, and a bigger hard drive.
Isn't this the real issue? Broadband is still an emerging technology, and it's one that requires incredible investments in infrastructure. The fact that Cable has gotten off to a good head start doesn't mean other technologies won't be able to provid competition. The real issue for me is unfiltered internet access. I was the law to guarentee that my isp, whoever that is doesn't spy on me. This means they can't choose to filter content unless legally required to do so. They shouldn't be able to look at my emails, or track what web sites I access. They shouldn't be able to block emerging technologies that compete with their content that they wish to provide. That's really more of a problem, than trying to force competition at every level of the system. I really don't want to interact with my ISP other than to have them provide email and maybe usenet. Other than that I only deal with them when there's a problem, and not having a seperate ISP and provider for the line usually seems to simplify getting support on those few occasions it's necessisary.
This sounds really good in theory. In reality, a "file format" is a pretty complicated thing. Immagin all the quirks of the file format that implaments all the things MS Word is capable of. This includes al the templates and embedding of pictures.
Who's going to create this standard? Have you ever sat in on a standards committee? It's a really long boring process where everyone on the comittee tries to scew the standard to their best advantage. When the standard is finally done, it's a mess of differet concepts hacked together, and no one on the comittee intends to implement all the features. There are always aspects that are not clearly enough defined to guarentee compatibility. You can easily end up with dozens of implementations that are all compatible with the spec, but are not compatible with each other. Or some implement optional parts where other's don't, which results in the end user crating documents that can't be used between conforming implementations.
How do you decide which implementation is correct when both meet the spec? If you don't allow optional features, you end up with an unbelievably bloated spec whose cost of implementing is prohibitive. If you limit what can be in the spec, you limit innovation.
If you let everyone create their own formats, you end up with lots of people using a dominant product because they need compatibility between each other, and you have smaller niche players who's products appeal to their customers for a variety of reasons.
If you require every company to document their file formats you get a higher level of compatibility. Of course you'll never get perfect documentation without the source ocde to go with it, and even with source, a compatible implementation is challenging. Developers are also going to want to change formats as products evolve, which is going to greatly upset their competitors.
This is a mess, and it's not a mess the govenment is in a position to resolve. The government should choose the product that best fits their needs for the application they are using it for. This decision should be made because of technical and economic reasons, not because of the political benefit of being anti big business these days.
It depends on which developers you're talking about. Commercial device driver writers will write drivers if the platform is popular with people who buy their hardware. If they have to spend $50 on a distribution to test the final product, then that's a trivial ammount. If United Linux is smart, they'll provide the distribution for free, and maybe even set up testing labs to certify drivers, possibly for a small fee.
It would definately be in United Linux's best interest to make it easy for developers to get the binaries, but the biggest trouble will be getting enough corporate customers. If they have the customer base, there will be a lot of developers that will go through the slight hassle involved with getting the binaries. If they don't get a large customer base, developers won't be interested in supporting their distribution, and will release their products tested on Red Hat only.
Redhat simply marketed their distribution better. They made agreements with important partners like Dell. Theyadvertised in the right places. They created training classes with a certification. They marketed their product better. They also put together a good distribution. There are other good distributions, but it's the good marketing that got Redhat to where they are.
I just can't buy the 19:1 ratio. Even if you include database designers and people who do some scritping as part of their jobs the 19:1 number doesn't make sense.
But even if it's true, what company wants those custom programs that they paid developers to make given away for free? Those companies pay a lot of money to have that software written. They want to keep it to themselves. They don't want to pay for it to be made flexible enough that other companies with similar needs can use it. If all software is free, who wants to pay software developers? How am I as a programmer justifying my employer paying me to write code, when they can just get it for free?
You don't just destroy the shrink wrap software industry. You destroy every industry that gets a competitive advantage through the software that they pay to have developed. That means that a company that develops products using hardware that our customers have access to, but makes much more fully featured, robust, and expensive through much more complicated driver software disappears. There's no reason to create the better product through software development be cause our competitor that didn't invest in the research and development can undersell us and put us out of business.
What about console gaming systems? Who pays for the software development there? The way it is now, the software costs are what's keeping the hardware costs affordable. How do the companies writing the games get paid? How do you determine what is reasonable compensation? The manufacturer of the console could pay companies to develope games, but then you determine how much to pay the developers? Do you invade the privacy of the players and track how much they play each game? Do you just pay the developers a lump sum for each game, and they don't make more money if it's a good game or less if it's buggy garbage?
How about web page design? Should all the software people write to make their web pages usefull and appealing be freely available? Would you still protect the rights of the graphics artist to sell their artwork or should it be free too. After all is the graphice any more of a work of art than the software displaying it?
You can say that companies will pay people to write software because they have a need to sell products that go along with the software. That works in some markets. If many other markets they may pay some developers to help and increase the quality of the software that's being developed by volunteers. THat works good when the economy it booming, but when the money gets tight, they're going to have to look at how to remain profitable, or at least bleed as little red as possible until things get better. At those times they're going to have to look at those people as a liability that doesn't have a good return on investment. Research and developemnt already gets hit hard in bad times, think about how much worse it would be if there isn't a direct link to profits, and you're better of putting the money in marketing or technical support.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.
Microsoft does supply support. They provide it to OEMs and large customers. They expect the consumers to get support from the OEMs as part of their agreement. People who load the OS on their own are much more on their own, it's a choice the consumer makes.
You can purchase support from Microsoft on a per incident basis for products like Office. Very few people need to do that, becase there are many places to turn to for support because the product is so widely used.
With Microsoft, you're paying for the product you get. With Sun, when you buy the hardware, you're subsidising the cost of the software even if you don't use it. Which of those 2 is a more honest at forthright approach? Don't let your dislike for Microsoft convince you that commercial software is by definition evil.
There are marketing approaches where offering the software for free are a good choice, and the development costs can be shifted to other parts of the package that the company is delivering to the customer, but it just doesn't work in a lot of places.
Here's what I don't understand. VILW uses a large set of complex instructions. Those instructions contain multiple opperations that can be performed in parallel by the processor. They can't just pack in any group of operations into an instruction word if they want them to be handled efficiently. It's up to the compiler to create machine code that breaks down the program into these complex instructions that the processor can handle in an optimal way.
My confusion comes from the fact that the Crusoe is rarely dealing with code that was compiled for it. The code is usually compiled for X86, and then "code morphed" into instructions for the Crusoe. That seems like you'd lose all your efficiency because even if the compiler takes a long time to figure out the best instructions, it's time taken once and not while the application is running. Code morphing is interpreting the x86 into Crusoe instructions and then running them on the Crusoe, and the code morphing is done while the applicatin is running and on the same processor. I just don't understand how this can be efficient.
Is the current X86 processors which take CISC instructions, convert them into a reduced set of instructions that it can handle quickly, and then shove them through at really high clock speeds equally inneficient that a horribly non optimized VILW processor can compete? If that's the case, why isn't the Itanium which is VILW blowing us away with it's performance?
RISC uses a reduced number of instructions. It gets it's speed because the decoding of the instructions can be done with a hardware decoder very quickly.
CISC uses a relatively larger set of complex instructions. Those instructions are typically decoded using microcode. Intel takes the approach of decoding a large quantity with a massive hardware decoder, which is faster, but takes up a lot of silicon.
VILW uses a very long instruction word. The instructions typically have to be decoded by microcode, because a hardwired decoder would be prohibitivly huge. It gets it's speed by taing a single instruction that can define multiple task which the processor can perform in parallel. The instruction set is designed to take advantage of the different types of opperations that can be performed in parallel, and a very complex compiler is required to create the most efficient machine code. The end result is a processor that gets a lot more done per machine cycle and can therefore run at lower clock speed and still perform well.
It's the lower clock speeds that really help the power disapation. Heat is produced by resistence to the flow of electrisity, and the resistence in a capacitor goes up quickly as frequency (clock speed) increases. Even though a VILW processor is doing more and creating more heat per clock cycle, they can end up with less heat at the same performance level.
They probably do want to discourage people from having their own equipment. People having their own equipment does likely increase their support costs. They may be looking at their support database and seeing that it costs significantly more to support people who have their own modems, it's hard to tell without having access to that informantion. It's pretty plain to see that the cost of cable modems have dropped to a fraction of what they were several years ago. The $3 a month probably represents what they are paying for the modem. So if it's easier to support people who lease their modems, and the costs have gone down, why shouldn't they change the pricing structure so that the people leasing their modems aren't subsidizing those who don't?
I'm pretty sure AT&T isn't just restructuring their pricing for the fun of it. They're likely doing it because it helps their bottom line. Something as drastic as changing their pricing is going to get a lot of internal scrutiny before it happens. I find it hard to believe they would do this "just to discourage people from having their own equipment". I'm pretty sure it traces back to revenues.
In case you haven't noticed, telcos are struggling right now, and any move that can keep them afloat (ok fine, keep the share holders happy) they are going to do.
This is exactly the point. These companies aren't gouging their customers, they're just trying to make a little bit of money and not lose money. They brought out the service at as low of a price as they could reasonably afford to do to gain market share. With the economy being shaky, they haven't been able to scale up as high as they'd like to be able to pay off their initial investments with lots of subscribers. The result is they have to raise prices. If you look at how they did it, it was done pretty fairly. Cable modem prices have dropped significantly, and the cost of leasing the modem was reduced accordingly. If they kept the price of the modem high, those who lease their modem would be subsidizing those whose who owned theirs. Everyone got a $7 increase in the cost of their service. That's a pretty big increase, but it may very well be justified by their costs. If AT&T or other providers were making a fortune providing cable modem service, you're complaints would be justified, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Yeah, of course the rights and all that are subject to change, but enough of running rough-shod over your customers. We are people too, and don't always have the convienence of having a ton of loot sitting around, or customers we can up prices on without telling.
It doesn't look like AT&T sent this info to ZDNet in a press release. The article said that AT&T was planning on announcing this later in the day. The article also states the current subscribers will get coupons so that they don't feel the bite of the price increase for 6 months. That seems like a pretty generous amount of warning of a price increase. I don't blame you for being upset about a price increase. No one wants to pay more for the same service, and most people don't have the choice of just switching to a different provider.
In a similar rant, a lot of these companies do these things without even pausing to consider what the risks are, simply because there (for the most part) ARE NONE.
They do have some risks in not raising prices. As we found out from the dot com crash, you can only have a business model where you don't make money for a rather limited period of time. Telephony companies are losing lots of money right now. They either need to find a way to start making money again, or your choices of providers could go from one to zero. How to you increase revenues when you can't do it by lowering the price and gaining more customers? You raise the price and hope you don't lose customers.
Cable modem service went up $7 for everyone regardles of if they own the modem or not. Modem prices haved dropped to 1/3 of what they were, and AT&T dropped the cost of leasing the modem accordingly. You aren't paying an extra $7 for using your own modem, you just are only saving $3 a month instead of $10. AT&T obviously structured the price increase so that their customers that lease modems wouldn't notice, but it really isn't fair to expect those that lease their modems to subsidize the costs for those who use their own. The price of modems has dropped, the price of leasing them should drop accordingly. This was a price increase for the service that just happends to be masked for many subscribers by a decrease in the cost of leasing the equipment.
Technically this is true, but it's not that simple. Bell telephone was granted a monopoly by the government. They were given exclusive rights to porvide telephone service to people. In exchange for that monopoly, they had to accept government oversight of how that monopoly is used. When you went to have telephone service hooked up at your house you didn't have a choice who's wiring used. The government granted exclusive rights to one company to run that wiring to your house. This servers a purpose in that you don't want dozens of companies putting up telephone poles and runnign wires everywhere.
The Bells do own the wiring, but how they can use that wiring is regulated by the FCC. The government can't just take the wiring away from them, but it can tell them they have to share. If they refuse to share, I would assume that the govenment could fine them or even force them to sell the wiring.
As other options become available such as wireless or options over cable TV networks, the monopoly of the telephone company becomes less important. Because of this it may be reasonable to give the Bells more leeway so that they can compete with other technologies. The problem is that from what I've seen, some of them make Microsoft seem like a team player.
Because there's no reason for Microsoft to go back and retrofit a 2 year old product to do this when they already have had a new version out for a while. This is mainly a tool for OEMs to be able to ship systems with different middleware. OEMs aren't shipping many systems with Win2k.
It really doesn't matter what was said. It matters what was done. The memo points out that this vice president hasn't gotte the idea that Microsoft as a monopoly can't do these things legally. However, if Microsoft didn't act on those suggestions, it's not breaking the law.
Maybe Kempin's actions are why he's no longer dealing with Microsoft's relationship with Intel.
Microsoft has got to realize that their no holds barred method of competition isn't legal as a monopoly. They could get away with it many years ago, but not any more.
This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18.
Am I the only one offended that actuall good causes feel the need to stack the statistics by using strange definitions of the terms. By the definition of sexuall abuse referenced, just about every child will be "sexually abused" by thier classmates in school. Given the definition, the only thing that surprises me about the 21% is that the number is so low.
I don't want to detract from this very real problem. I've seen proof that the problem exists thought how busy a local police department near where I live is with their cypercrime task force. They pay police officers to pose as 13 year old girls in chat rooms. Time and time again they get some middle aged pervert trying to get them to meet up with them. After they gain enough evidence, they agree to meet with them and when the pervert shows up they arrest them. You'd think that these people would learn because this is a small town, and the cases get national attention. Yet, they keep setting up meets and showing up.
The problem is real. The facts are there. Why do people need to play with the definition of Sexual Abuse in order to inflate the statistics?
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Lawmakers make laws, they see a problem, then try to come up with a law to solve it, that is what they do.
They have other tools, they just don't make good sound bytes for campain speeches. I guess more acurately it's the same tool used differently. Rather than pass laws, they can block the passage of bad laws that will either make matters worse, or restrict our rights while not addressing the problem. It should be a significant concern to people that their elected representatives aren't interested in undrestanding the problem, just having a special interest group tell them what to do. They can also pass laws that provide funding for educational programs. I remember being taught how to deal with strangers in elementary school. This is just a different spin on the same problem.
The best solution to this problem is the same solution parents have been using in the physical world for many years. Teach your children to be warry of strangers. Teach them not to give out personal information to strangers. Teach them not to go anywhere with or meet strangers anywhere unless their parents are present with them.
Your 15k rpm SCSI drive is likely faster than 7200 rpm IDE drives. It's questionable if it's any faster than a 15k rpm IDE drive would be. Vendors aren't able to get as high of margins on IDE drives, so it's not cost effective for them to make 15k IDE drives. So while the drive may be significantly faster, it's not really because it's SCSI.
Servers use SCSI because it's more expandable, and better RAID solutions are available. It's also true that the highest end drives are SCSI, but this is more of a case where they can demand a higher price point for SCSI drives, so SCSI is the only type of drive where it's profitable to market those high end drives. The same higher density, faster spindle drive technology will eventually reach the IDE market, and will perform in a comparable fasion there. SCSI also has the advantage of being able to reorder requests so that it can access the data sequentially. There are some applications where this can be taken advantage of if the drives and HBA support it, but in general, the effect is minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, he grossed $30,000, and was fined $17,000. Unless his costs on pirated games were more than $13,000, he still made a profit. All he got was a year probation.
I'm not even sure that counts as a slap on the wrist. More like a stern talking to.
They can overlap coverage from multiple planes to provide redundancy. They can even move planes remotely to fill gaps in coverage.
Here's the funny part.
Software should emulate hardware and serve as an extension to it. It should only provide the two things that are lacking in hardware: flexibility and ease of modification.
If you've ever worked on a device driver for a relatively complicated piece of hardware you'll quickly figure out that this already is how it works. The problem is that the hardware designs are also buggy, and your driver often ends up 10 times more complicated because you need to fix hardware bugs in the driver. This is because hardware is infleximle and hard to modify. The post is funny because it assumes that the hardware is solid and stable, and that the software is to blame. While the software may be to blame, the hardware almost invariably has a variety of bugs that are being worked around in software. Such is the nature of product development.
Under the GPL, if you use someone else's (GPL'd) work in your own, you must release it under the GPL. In the situation you propose, if you use Microsoft's work, Microsoft can take control of your derivative. How is that more permissive?
Microsoft's cross-licensing of their technology is very permissive. They let you use their technology if you let them use yours. They don't attach stipulations such as "you must release it under the GPL". However, they aren't required to release their code to you, just to let you use their technology if you can figure out how to implement it. Their method is more permissive in that they don't restrict how you use or distribute the technology.
There's no irony here- Microsoft would be limiting the conditions under which you may release your work.
I guess Microsoft is doing that to some extent. They are requiring that you allow them to use your patented technology if you want to use theirs. For most developers, this isn't restrictive at all, because they don't have any patented technology, but for a few it is restrictive. The GPL is restrictive on anyone who uses GPLed code in derivative works.
And they're doing so in a way that is at least as restrictive, if not more, than the GPL,
I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I don't agree.
but doesn't benefit anyone but MS. Besides,
Being able to use the technology benefits any developer who wants to use it. Being able to use the software Microsoft writes using their technology and the technology benefits those willing to license if from Microsoft (for a fee). Microsoft doesn't have to release THEIR code to other people, but in this case they aren't using other people's code in the first place. They are using other people's patented technology in a way MS implements, which is outside the scope of the GPL anyway.
the GPL does make software freely available to Microsoft- they just have to follow certain rules.
Free as in "free beer" maybe, but I don't think you'll be finding Microsoft using GPLed code in their products. Microsoft makes money providing software solutions to people for money. People are happy enough with the benefits they gain from using Microsoft's software that they pay Microsoft a lot of money. The certain rules you mention mean that Microsoft would have to give up their rights to the software they have spent billions of dollars developing. Not very free.
There's room for interpretation on the issue of whether this is "Microsoft's technology".
If Microsoft purchased the patents, it's their technology now. It's also possible that it's related to something Microsoft worked on internally. They've done a lot of work developing Direct X, and this may not be from SGI.
I assume SGI actually invented it; furthermore, the software implementation could be independent of the patent.
If it can be implemented independent of the patent, then three's no reason to cross license the technology. You don't need to be effected at all.
Microsoft releasing things with a license that restricts the use of the GPL is wrong in my opinion. However, their cross-licensing of their technology is pretty generous of them. Especially considering that in DIrect X they have a competitor to OpenGL. They aren't being obstructive in this case. They are cooperating with a standards organization BEYOND what they are required to do. What do they get for it? A story summary posted by a slashdot editor that makes it sound like they are trying to obstruct OpenGL development. They also get tons of open source fanatics claiming that what they are trying to steal everyone else's technology. Does anyone really wonder why Microsoft isn't fond of the "open source community"? Some of the more vocal, self proclaimed members of that community aren't exactly making it easy for them to work with them, and nearly making it necessisary for them to work against them.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Microsoft is offering to crosslicense it's technology so that others can use it, as long as others make their technology freely available to Microsoft. This is a much more permissive License than the GPL, where you have to make source to make the source to derivative works avalable under GPL, yet Microsoft are the ones being uncooperative.
Do people here realize the irony that Microsoft licensing technology in such a way that it can't be used with the GPL is about as restrictive of a license as the GPL is to closed source?
I don't think that Microsoft should be able to license things in such a way that the GPL is excluded because of Microsoft's dominant market share. BUt attacking a cross licening agreement that allows the free use of other people's technology be cause Microsoft may take technology and extend upon it is taking things a bit far. Extensions that purposly break standard implementations without significant benefit are a bad thing. But everyone hoarding their technology and refusing to let others use it is worse. Microsoft appears to be the good guys on this issue. Sorry if that upsets you.
They have options. They could import tons of coal and oil. Other countries do it. Nuclear is a BETTER solution, it's not a perfect one. There is no perfect solution. Hopefully we can keep comming up with better solutions. While we're working on those solutions time we need to realize that energy production has serious side effects, and that we need to use that energy in as efficient ways as possible.
The biggest argument you can come up with agains neuclear power is that our civilization may disappear, and that a future civilization may stumble across it 1000 years from now? If our civilization disappears, there's a good chance that a large portion of the US will be radioactive anyway. This is also a bad argument agains Yucka Mountain, because at least there won't be lots of areas spread across the US.
It would also be surprising if some better way of disposing of nuclear waste isn't found in less than 1000 years.
We need a method of producing energy that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels. Nuclear seems to be relatively clean, even with the nuclear waste, at least when used in moderation. Conservation and more efficient production from fossil fuels also play an important role in reducing polution, but the problems of producing energy don't just go away because you don't like the thought of someone possibly dieing 1000 years from now. If we didn't have electrisity, a lot more people would die now. There is no perfect, safe answer, so a REASONABLE answer must be found. Nuclear is a reasonable answer.
This isn't the entire point of the console market? It's the way the market currently works. The point of the market is to make money selling video games to consumers.
one:cheap - This definately helps sell games. Microsoft is selling their consoles and games pretty cheap, but they aren't amking money while doing it. In order to make money, they need to increase volumes on the games.
two: uniform hardware - this is what gives consoles a uniforme experience. It makes games easier to develop and more stable. Bringing out a new console every year makes creating games harder, but not nearly as bad as developing for PCs. A three year product cycle might be more reasonable.
three: a long upgrade cycle - The only reason Microsoft wants a long upgrade cycle is to avoid pissing off customers who don't want to upgrade often, and developers that don't want to have to develop for multiple XBox platforms. Microsoft DOES want to have a shorter product cycle than Sony. Sony develops their own processors at a huge expense. SOny only starts making money off of selling consoles after several years of selling the same console to make back those development costs. Microsoft uses off the shelf processors. Their consoles cost much less to develop. Therefore shorter product cycles effect them much less than Sony. Sony also has a harder time maintaining compatibility between platforms because of their custom development. These things all give Microsoft and advantage if they have a shorter cycle than Sony. Annual upgrades still don't make sense, but 3 year cycles sure do.
four: sell hardware at a loss or paper thin margins to make money back on software -
Freon is more than a console, and therefore can be expected to cost more. Because it can perform those multiple features with pretty much the same hardware, they can make it cost considerably less than the price of two seperate boxes. Freon won't likely replace the next generation of the XBox. Freon will likely be a seperate, more expensive product that is compatible with the next XBox. They can use the same hardware to provide gaming features, and have additional hardware and software to support video on Freon. Of maybe Feaon might just be a $200 price tag for a cool remote and video software, and a bigger hard drive.
Isn't this the real issue? Broadband is still an emerging technology, and it's one that requires incredible investments in infrastructure. The fact that Cable has gotten off to a good head start doesn't mean other technologies won't be able to provid competition. The real issue for me is unfiltered internet access. I was the law to guarentee that my isp, whoever that is doesn't spy on me. This means they can't choose to filter content unless legally required to do so. They shouldn't be able to look at my emails, or track what web sites I access. They shouldn't be able to block emerging technologies that compete with their content that they wish to provide. That's really more of a problem, than trying to force competition at every level of the system. I really don't want to interact with my ISP other than to have them provide email and maybe usenet. Other than that I only deal with them when there's a problem, and not having a seperate ISP and provider for the line usually seems to simplify getting support on those few occasions it's necessisary.
This sounds really good in theory. In reality, a "file format" is a pretty complicated thing. Immagin all the quirks of the file format that implaments all the things MS Word is capable of. This includes al the templates and embedding of pictures.
Who's going to create this standard? Have you ever sat in on a standards committee? It's a really long boring process where everyone on the comittee tries to scew the standard to their best advantage. When the standard is finally done, it's a mess of differet concepts hacked together, and no one on the comittee intends to implement all the features. There are always aspects that are not clearly enough defined to guarentee compatibility. You can easily end up with dozens of implementations that are all compatible with the spec, but are not compatible with each other. Or some implement optional parts where other's don't, which results in the end user crating documents that can't be used between conforming implementations.
How do you decide which implementation is correct when both meet the spec? If you don't allow optional features, you end up with an unbelievably bloated spec whose cost of implementing is prohibitive. If you limit what can be in the spec, you limit innovation.
If you let everyone create their own formats, you end up with lots of people using a dominant product because they need compatibility between each other, and you have smaller niche players who's products appeal to their customers for a variety of reasons.
If you require every company to document their file formats you get a higher level of compatibility. Of course you'll never get perfect documentation without the source ocde to go with it, and even with source, a compatible implementation is challenging. Developers are also going to want to change formats as products evolve, which is going to greatly upset their competitors.
This is a mess, and it's not a mess the govenment is in a position to resolve. The government should choose the product that best fits their needs for the application they are using it for. This decision should be made because of technical and economic reasons, not because of the political benefit of being anti big business these days.
It depends on which developers you're talking about. Commercial device driver writers will write drivers if the platform is popular with people who buy their hardware. If they have to spend $50 on a distribution to test the final product, then that's a trivial ammount. If United Linux is smart, they'll provide the distribution for free, and maybe even set up testing labs to certify drivers, possibly for a small fee.
It would definately be in United Linux's best interest to make it easy for developers to get the binaries, but the biggest trouble will be getting enough corporate customers. If they have the customer base, there will be a lot of developers that will go through the slight hassle involved with getting the binaries. If they don't get a large customer base, developers won't be interested in supporting their distribution, and will release their products tested on Red Hat only.
Redhat simply marketed their distribution better. They made agreements with important partners like Dell. Theyadvertised in the right places. They created training classes with a certification. They marketed their product better. They also put together a good distribution. There are other good distributions, but it's the good marketing that got Redhat to where they are.
I just can't buy the 19:1 ratio. Even if you include database designers and people who do some scritping as part of their jobs the 19:1 number doesn't make sense.
But even if it's true, what company wants those custom programs that they paid developers to make given away for free? Those companies pay a lot of money to have that software written. They want to keep it to themselves. They don't want to pay for it to be made flexible enough that other companies with similar needs can use it. If all software is free, who wants to pay software developers? How am I as a programmer justifying my employer paying me to write code, when they can just get it for free?
You don't just destroy the shrink wrap software industry. You destroy every industry that gets a competitive advantage through the software that they pay to have developed. That means that a company that develops products using hardware that our customers have access to, but makes much more fully featured, robust, and expensive through much more complicated driver software disappears. There's no reason to create the better product through software development be cause our competitor that didn't invest in the research and development can undersell us and put us out of business.
What about console gaming systems? Who pays for the software development there? The way it is now, the software costs are what's keeping the hardware costs affordable. How do the companies writing the games get paid? How do you determine what is reasonable compensation? The manufacturer of the console could pay companies to develope games, but then you determine how much to pay the developers? Do you invade the privacy of the players and track how much they play each game? Do you just pay the developers a lump sum for each game, and they don't make more money if it's a good game or less if it's buggy garbage?
How about web page design? Should all the software people write to make their web pages usefull and appealing be freely available? Would you still protect the rights of the graphics artist to sell their artwork or should it be free too. After all is the graphice any more of a work of art than the software displaying it?
You can say that companies will pay people to write software because they have a need to sell products that go along with the software. That works in some markets. If many other markets they may pay some developers to help and increase the quality of the software that's being developed by volunteers. THat works good when the economy it booming, but when the money gets tight, they're going to have to look at how to remain profitable, or at least bleed as little red as possible until things get better. At those times they're going to have to look at those people as a liability that doesn't have a good return on investment. Research and developemnt already gets hit hard in bad times, think about how much worse it would be if there isn't a direct link to profits, and you're better of putting the money in marketing or technical support.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.
Microsoft does supply support. They provide it to OEMs and large customers. They expect the consumers to get support from the OEMs as part of their agreement. People who load the OS on their own are much more on their own, it's a choice the consumer makes.
You can purchase support from Microsoft on a per incident basis for products like Office. Very few people need to do that, becase there are many places to turn to for support because the product is so widely used.
With Microsoft, you're paying for the product you get. With Sun, when you buy the hardware, you're subsidising the cost of the software even if you don't use it. Which of those 2 is a more honest at forthright approach? Don't let your dislike for Microsoft convince you that commercial software is by definition evil.
There are marketing approaches where offering the software for free are a good choice, and the development costs can be shifted to other parts of the package that the company is delivering to the customer, but it just doesn't work in a lot of places.
Here's what I don't understand. VILW uses a large set of complex instructions. Those instructions contain multiple opperations that can be performed in parallel by the processor. They can't just pack in any group of operations into an instruction word if they want them to be handled efficiently. It's up to the compiler to create machine code that breaks down the program into these complex instructions that the processor can handle in an optimal way.
My confusion comes from the fact that the Crusoe is rarely dealing with code that was compiled for it. The code is usually compiled for X86, and then "code morphed" into instructions for the Crusoe. That seems like you'd lose all your efficiency because even if the compiler takes a long time to figure out the best instructions, it's time taken once and not while the application is running. Code morphing is interpreting the x86 into Crusoe instructions and then running them on the Crusoe, and the code morphing is done while the applicatin is running and on the same processor. I just don't understand how this can be efficient.
Is the current X86 processors which take CISC instructions, convert them into a reduced set of instructions that it can handle quickly, and then shove them through at really high clock speeds equally inneficient that a horribly non optimized VILW processor can compete? If that's the case, why isn't the Itanium which is VILW blowing us away with it's performance?
RISC uses a reduced number of instructions. It gets it's speed because the decoding of the instructions can be done with a hardware decoder very quickly.
CISC uses a relatively larger set of complex instructions. Those instructions are typically decoded using microcode. Intel takes the approach of decoding a large quantity with a massive hardware decoder, which is faster, but takes up a lot of silicon.
VILW uses a very long instruction word. The instructions typically have to be decoded by microcode, because a hardwired decoder would be prohibitivly huge. It gets it's speed by taing a single instruction that can define multiple task which the processor can perform in parallel. The instruction set is designed to take advantage of the different types of opperations that can be performed in parallel, and a very complex compiler is required to create the most efficient machine code. The end result is a processor that gets a lot more done per machine cycle and can therefore run at lower clock speed and still perform well.
It's the lower clock speeds that really help the power disapation. Heat is produced by resistence to the flow of electrisity, and the resistence in a capacitor goes up quickly as frequency (clock speed) increases. Even though a VILW processor is doing more and creating more heat per clock cycle, they can end up with less heat at the same performance level.
They probably do want to discourage people from having their own equipment. People having their own equipment does likely increase their support costs. They may be looking at their support database and seeing that it costs significantly more to support people who have their own modems, it's hard to tell without having access to that informantion. It's pretty plain to see that the cost of cable modems have dropped to a fraction of what they were several years ago. The $3 a month probably represents what they are paying for the modem. So if it's easier to support people who lease their modems, and the costs have gone down, why shouldn't they change the pricing structure so that the people leasing their modems aren't subsidizing those who don't?
I'm pretty sure AT&T isn't just restructuring their pricing for the fun of it. They're likely doing it because it helps their bottom line. Something as drastic as changing their pricing is going to get a lot of internal scrutiny before it happens. I find it hard to believe they would do this "just to discourage people from having their own equipment". I'm pretty sure it traces back to revenues.
In case you haven't noticed, telcos are struggling right now, and any move that can keep them afloat (ok fine, keep the share holders happy) they are going to do.
This is exactly the point. These companies aren't gouging their customers, they're just trying to make a little bit of money and not lose money. They brought out the service at as low of a price as they could reasonably afford to do to gain market share. With the economy being shaky, they haven't been able to scale up as high as they'd like to be able to pay off their initial investments with lots of subscribers. The result is they have to raise prices. If you look at how they did it, it was done pretty fairly. Cable modem prices have dropped significantly, and the cost of leasing the modem was reduced accordingly. If they kept the price of the modem high, those who lease their modem would be subsidizing those whose who owned theirs. Everyone got a $7 increase in the cost of their service. That's a pretty big increase, but it may very well be justified by their costs. If AT&T or other providers were making a fortune providing cable modem service, you're complaints would be justified, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Yeah, of course the rights and all that are subject to change, but enough of running rough-shod over your customers. We are people too, and don't always have the convienence of having a ton of loot sitting around, or customers we can up prices on without telling.
It doesn't look like AT&T sent this info to ZDNet in a press release. The article said that AT&T was planning on announcing this later in the day. The article also states the current subscribers will get coupons so that they don't feel the bite of the price increase for 6 months. That seems like a pretty generous amount of warning of a price increase. I don't blame you for being upset about a price increase. No one wants to pay more for the same service, and most people don't have the choice of just switching to a different provider.
In a similar rant, a lot of these companies do these things without even pausing to consider what the risks are, simply because there (for the most part) ARE NONE.
They do have some risks in not raising prices. As we found out from the dot com crash, you can only have a business model where you don't make money for a rather limited period of time. Telephony companies are losing lots of money right now. They either need to find a way to start making money again, or your choices of providers could go from one to zero. How to you increase revenues when you can't do it by lowering the price and gaining more customers? You raise the price and hope you don't lose customers.
Cable modem service went up $7 for everyone regardles of if they own the modem or not. Modem prices haved dropped to 1/3 of what they were, and AT&T dropped the cost of leasing the modem accordingly. You aren't paying an extra $7 for using your own modem, you just are only saving $3 a month instead of $10. AT&T obviously structured the price increase so that their customers that lease modems wouldn't notice, but it really isn't fair to expect those that lease their modems to subsidize the costs for those who use their own. The price of modems has dropped, the price of leasing them should drop accordingly. This was a price increase for the service that just happends to be masked for many subscribers by a decrease in the cost of leasing the equipment.
That technically the Bells own the wiring.
Technically this is true, but it's not that simple. Bell telephone was granted a monopoly by the government. They were given exclusive rights to porvide telephone service to people. In exchange for that monopoly, they had to accept government oversight of how that monopoly is used. When you went to have telephone service hooked up at your house you didn't have a choice who's wiring used. The government granted exclusive rights to one company to run that wiring to your house. This servers a purpose in that you don't want dozens of companies putting up telephone poles and runnign wires everywhere.
The Bells do own the wiring, but how they can use that wiring is regulated by the FCC. The government can't just take the wiring away from them, but it can tell them they have to share. If they refuse to share, I would assume that the govenment could fine them or even force them to sell the wiring.
As other options become available such as wireless or options over cable TV networks, the monopoly of the telephone company becomes less important. Because of this it may be reasonable to give the Bells more leeway so that they can compete with other technologies. The problem is that from what I've seen, some of them make Microsoft seem like a team player.
Because there's no reason for Microsoft to go back and retrofit a 2 year old product to do this when they already have had a new version out for a while. This is mainly a tool for OEMs to be able to ship systems with different middleware. OEMs aren't shipping many systems with Win2k.
It really doesn't matter what was said. It matters what was done. The memo points out that this vice president hasn't gotte the idea that Microsoft as a monopoly can't do these things legally. However, if Microsoft didn't act on those suggestions, it's not breaking the law.
Maybe Kempin's actions are why he's no longer dealing with Microsoft's relationship with Intel.
Microsoft has got to realize that their no holds barred method of competition isn't legal as a monopoly. They could get away with it many years ago, but not any more.
This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18.
Am I the only one offended that actuall good causes feel the need to stack the statistics by using strange definitions of the terms. By the definition of sexuall abuse referenced, just about every child will be "sexually abused" by thier classmates in school. Given the definition, the only thing that surprises me about the 21% is that the number is so low.
I don't want to detract from this very real problem. I've seen proof that the problem exists thought how busy a local police department near where I live is with their cypercrime task force. They pay police officers to pose as 13 year old girls in chat rooms. Time and time again they get some middle aged pervert trying to get them to meet up with them. After they gain enough evidence, they agree to meet with them and when the pervert shows up they arrest them. You'd think that these people would learn because this is a small town, and the cases get national attention. Yet, they keep setting up meets and showing up.
The problem is real. The facts are there. Why do people need to play with the definition of Sexual Abuse in order to inflate the statistics?
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Lawmakers make laws, they see a problem, then try to come up with a law to solve it, that is what they do.
They have other tools, they just don't make good sound bytes for campain speeches. I guess more acurately it's the same tool used differently. Rather than pass laws, they can block the passage of bad laws that will either make matters worse, or restrict our rights while not addressing the problem. It should be a significant concern to people that their elected representatives aren't interested in undrestanding the problem, just having a special interest group tell them what to do. They can also pass laws that provide funding for educational programs. I remember being taught how to deal with strangers in elementary school. This is just a different spin on the same problem.
The best solution to this problem is the same solution parents have been using in the physical world for many years. Teach your children to be warry of strangers. Teach them not to give out personal information to strangers. Teach them not to go anywhere with or meet strangers anywhere unless their parents are present with them.
Your 15k rpm SCSI drive is likely faster than 7200 rpm IDE drives. It's questionable if it's any faster than a 15k rpm IDE drive would be. Vendors aren't able to get as high of margins on IDE drives, so it's not cost effective for them to make 15k IDE drives. So while the drive may be significantly faster, it's not really because it's SCSI.
Servers use SCSI because it's more expandable, and better RAID solutions are available. It's also true that the highest end drives are SCSI, but this is more of a case where they can demand a higher price point for SCSI drives, so SCSI is the only type of drive where it's profitable to market those high end drives. The same higher density, faster spindle drive technology will eventually reach the IDE market, and will perform in a comparable fasion there. SCSI also has the advantage of being able to reorder requests so that it can access the data sequentially. There are some applications where this can be taken advantage of if the drives and HBA support it, but in general, the effect is minimal.