But before Windows 95, you could could the number of people on the Net on one hand. It was a neat toy (I was using Gopher and Usenet in the early 90's), but in no, way, shape, or form was the Net the same after Windows 95. Before that, you had Unix geeks at universities using it, and the few, the brave, and the determined fighting with Trumpet Winsock and Mosaic on Windows 3.1. That's like saying we had "PC"'s in the 1970's. Sure, you're technically right, but the reality is that Windows is what made Net usage and access ubiquitous. We didn't have to deal with all kinds of hostile traffic before MS made it cheap and easy because there simply weren't that many people using it.
Yeah, but those are all US government jobs, and I don't know how well those pay. But who knows? Shoot down enough real science, and maybe you'll get a job as head of FEMA!
You forget one big thing... the Internet happened largely because of Microsoft. Hostile traffic from the Internet (made popular by cheap, easy to use computers) was practially invented to attack Windows. They're the first line for every single new security threat in IT today, for the most part (Cisco is coming into this position, now), so it's a bit tough to respond when whole new kinds of crime are being invented specifically to target only your product. Nobody, including Microsoft, could have forseen the amount of absolute shit that is being generated by assholes in the general population (spam, worms, etc.). I think the sheer amount of "hostile" traffic online has taken *everybody* by surprise.
Hang on... you dumped your Yahoo account, and you're upset, that they... dumped your Yahooo account?
Every business gets suggestions from their customers. Many are implemented, many are not. If your suggestion is 1. Just plain dumb 2. Too expensive 3. Too difficult or 4. Something that only a tiny fraction of users care about, it won't get adopted. I'm sure that Yahoo knows about the handful of "Old Skool" (whatever that means) users, and quite honestly don't care. If you've got millions of customers, and a hundred are asking for this bizarre request, why would they care? Every business gets wacky requests from some of its customers from time to time (mine is no different). It's up to the business if it's worth the time, money, and effort to fulfill those requests. If they don't, and those customers making those wacky requests leave, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It might even be a good thing, because every business has customers that are more trouble than they're worth. I gotta imagine that people moaning about going through "all of the trouble" to get a Yahoo account fall in the category of being more trouble than they're worth.
So, what you're saying is that Flickr is the best thing out there for whatever Flickr does (I can't figure out what the point is... to show off your own photographs?), but you're worried about some legal technicality in Yahoo's Terms of Service? Are you serious?
I wouldn't call this "abandoning" anybody. They're asking users to use a (free) Yahoo login. It's not what I'd call a big deal. Yahoo did this when they acquired Launch (launch.com). Why would this bother anybody other than the tinfoil-hat types? What am I missing?
Another big piece that's missing (which is what is keeping my business from moving) is the lack of a basic accounting package that runs on Linux that has even *most* of the functionality of my $200 copy of Quickbooks (or Peachtree, or any of the 100's of accounting applications) that you can buy at Wal-Mart. I know that there are giant packages available for Fortune 500 companies, but there's nothing that's remotely useful for small businesses (please don't say GnuCash... I've looked into it, and it sucks...badly). I don't know what other businesses do for their accounting. Maybe a lot more businesses than I thought farm out all of their bookeeping and accounting to bookeepers and accountants running Quickbooks or something similar. Until there's at least several good accounting apps for Linux, Linux is in no way an option for us. And yes, there have to be SEVERAL good apps, not just one. One working application = lock-in.
Linux and OS X can easily take care of much of the market.
OS X is viable, assuming you don't mind paying twice as much for your hardware and software, and having draconian vendor lock-in, the likes of which MS hasn't even attempted. Linux doesn't even have a decent accounting package that runs on it. So, unless you do all of your accounting with pencil and paper, Linux isn't really all that viable for most companies, I'd think.
"Customers" who don't pay are not customers that any business wants.
Who says that "customers" who don't pay for their software from Microsoft are going to be any more likely to pay for OSS? If the OSS companies want to compete for non-paying customers, I'm sure that MS wouldn't mind in the least bit. But, it certainly says something about the state of OSS when people have the choice of using MS software illegally without paying, will choose that over using OSS legally without paying. What this says to me is that many companies would rather risk a lawsuit than use OSS software.
It's extortion to ask people to pay for a product that they're using? Well, then I guess all of us poor slobs in retail should be prosecuted for extortion as well, since nobody leaves our store with products that they haven't paid for!
How dare Microsoft sue companies who don't pay for their software! The nerve!
That's it. I'm switching to Apple. Could somebody point me in the direction of Apple software that I don't have to pay for?
Good God, no. Or at least I hope not. Even the most verbose XML couldn't come close to the unbelievable bloat that is.PDF. I got sick of PDF's taking forever to loading, and the reader hanging constantly on our PC's at work, so I banned them from from the office. It shouldn't take a bleeding edge machine to open plain old documents in a reasonable amount of time.
I've got to wonder... is there ANY wireless technology that's worth a damn? Cell phones are finally, after several decades, starting to work well, but even those have massive security holes. (My parents had their personal info stolen on a trip to NYC a year ago via their cell phone, and the cell phone company told them that it's very common, and that there's nothing my parents could have done to prevent it).
I'm not so sure, due to the very nature of data floating around where anybody can grab it, that we'll see any kind of secure wireless connection any time in the near future.
And then there's reliability. Cell phones are probably the most reliable type of wireless connection out there, but even those still aren't great.
(Only a fool would rely on 802.11x for anything even remotely critical.)
Wireless. Blech. Nice idea, but not so hot in practice.
You're right. I'm not saying that it's not fraudulent. It is fraudulent, in many cases, when you buy a CD you expect to work in "CD players", and it doesn't. But selling a fraudulent or defective product is a LOT different from saying that our "Freedoms" are being violated.
As someone who makes a living from copyright, I am quite worried by DRM, because I see a significant potential for backlash against copyright holders when the public realises that we are not keeping up our end of the bargain.
The public doesn't know DRM from DRAM. The vast majority of the public will go right along with it, and not complain. But as a copyright holder, you should be in excellent shape if DRM somehow does become a public issue, because you know better than to sell your stuff with DRM attached to it. I think that your fears of massive boycotts of all creative work is about as likely as me hitting the lottery.
This isn't about "Freedom". There is no right for anybody to be able to purchase a movie without DRM. Nobody's rights are being violated. All that's happening is that for anti-DRM fanatics, there are fewer and fewer things available for them to buy.
So what?
That sucks for them, true. But how about my rights to buy a new car with an eight-track player built in? Is my "Freedom" being trampled? No.
Discussing movies with secret codes that only let you play them on certain players with the same vocabulary that is used to discuss "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" does nothing but belittle real, actual freedoms. Somebody please point to me where Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Constitution our Inalienable Right to Buy DVD's without Digital Rights Management.
That's my story as well. The only difference is that I'm in the US, where somebody that doesn't have a TV on in front of them during every waking hour is considered a bit crazy. I can't imagine paying to watch advertisements with some crappy programs squeezed in between the ads. That sounds crazy to me.
Yeah dude. Net income of one Billion dollars. Sony's just fine. What, you think that they don't make money from, oh I dunno, movies, televisions, stereos, and everything else they make?
Saying "use an alternative" is a nice way to feel good about yourself, and get moderated up. It's also a cop-out, since the sad reality is that there are not any alternatives for many applications.
That's not in any way true. Multiple Apple's sales by 3, and their profit by 4, and you got Sony. Sony has $32B in short term assets. Sony is quite healthy, financially. I don't know where you got your information.
Re:My Talk With Richard Stallman About This
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Really? Then show me where I can get a software player not made by Microsoft capable of playing PlaysForSure Media! In particular, show me where I can get one that works on operating systems other than Windows!
My Sansa connects to Winamp because of Playsforsure.
All ya' do is just load a bunch of torrents into your bit torrent client, and just let it run when you're not using the machine (or throttle it while you're using it). Forget about it, and in a few days, you'll have a whole new batch of movies to burn to DVD (or so I'm told by friends who do this).
Slashdot Mirror
If it was SOOOOOOOO important, perhaps she should have made a local copy of it on her machine.
That, or pay a few bucks for the premium service.
But before Windows 95, you could could the number of people on the Net on one hand. It was a neat toy (I was using Gopher and Usenet in the early 90's), but in no, way, shape, or form was the Net the same after Windows 95. Before that, you had Unix geeks at universities using it, and the few, the brave, and the determined fighting with Trumpet Winsock and Mosaic on Windows 3.1. That's like saying we had "PC"'s in the 1970's. Sure, you're technically right, but the reality is that Windows is what made Net usage and access ubiquitous. We didn't have to deal with all kinds of hostile traffic before MS made it cheap and easy because there simply weren't that many people using it.
Yeah, but those are all US government jobs, and I don't know how well those pay. But who knows? Shoot down enough real science, and maybe you'll get a job as head of FEMA!
You forget one big thing... the Internet happened largely because of Microsoft. Hostile traffic from the Internet (made popular by cheap, easy to use computers) was practially invented to attack Windows. They're the first line for every single new security threat in IT today, for the most part (Cisco is coming into this position, now), so it's a bit tough to respond when whole new kinds of crime are being invented specifically to target only your product. Nobody, including Microsoft, could have forseen the amount of absolute shit that is being generated by assholes in the general population (spam, worms, etc.). I think the sheer amount of "hostile" traffic online has taken *everybody* by surprise.
I have a Yahoo ID which I sign onto about once a month to delete the THOUSANDS of spam messages that have accumulated there
Why? You get an email account that you don't like and you don't use. So.... what's the point? Don't use it. End of story.
Hang on... you dumped your Yahoo account, and you're upset, that they... dumped your Yahooo account?
Every business gets suggestions from their customers. Many are implemented, many are not. If your suggestion is 1. Just plain dumb 2. Too expensive 3. Too difficult or 4. Something that only a tiny fraction of users care about, it won't get adopted. I'm sure that Yahoo knows about the handful of "Old Skool" (whatever that means) users, and quite honestly don't care. If you've got millions of customers, and a hundred are asking for this bizarre request, why would they care? Every business gets wacky requests from some of its customers from time to time (mine is no different). It's up to the business if it's worth the time, money, and effort to fulfill those requests. If they don't, and those customers making those wacky requests leave, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It might even be a good thing, because every business has customers that are more trouble than they're worth. I gotta imagine that people moaning about going through "all of the trouble" to get a Yahoo account fall in the category of being more trouble than they're worth.
So, what you're saying is that Flickr is the best thing out there for whatever Flickr does (I can't figure out what the point is... to show off your own photographs?), but you're worried about some legal technicality in Yahoo's Terms of Service? Are you serious?
No, I haven't tried any of those with Wine. I couldn't figure out how to use Wine. :|
I wouldn't call this "abandoning" anybody. They're asking users to use a (free) Yahoo login. It's not what I'd call a big deal. Yahoo did this when they acquired Launch (launch.com). Why would this bother anybody other than the tinfoil-hat types? What am I missing?
Another big piece that's missing (which is what is keeping my business from moving) is the lack of a basic accounting package that runs on Linux that has even *most* of the functionality of my $200 copy of Quickbooks (or Peachtree, or any of the 100's of accounting applications) that you can buy at Wal-Mart. I know that there are giant packages available for Fortune 500 companies, but there's nothing that's remotely useful for small businesses (please don't say GnuCash... I've looked into it, and it sucks...badly). I don't know what other businesses do for their accounting. Maybe a lot more businesses than I thought farm out all of their bookeeping and accounting to bookeepers and accountants running Quickbooks or something similar. Until there's at least several good accounting apps for Linux, Linux is in no way an option for us. And yes, there have to be SEVERAL good apps, not just one. One working application = lock-in.
Linux and OS X can easily take care of much of the market.
OS X is viable, assuming you don't mind paying twice as much for your hardware and software, and having draconian vendor lock-in, the likes of which MS hasn't even attempted. Linux doesn't even have a decent accounting package that runs on it. So, unless you do all of your accounting with pencil and paper, Linux isn't really all that viable for most companies, I'd think.
"Customers" who don't pay are not customers that any business wants.
Who says that "customers" who don't pay for their software from Microsoft are going to be any more likely to pay for OSS? If the OSS companies want to compete for non-paying customers, I'm sure that MS wouldn't mind in the least bit. But, it certainly says something about the state of OSS when people have the choice of using MS software illegally without paying, will choose that over using OSS legally without paying. What this says to me is that many companies would rather risk a lawsuit than use OSS software.
That's something to think about.
It's extortion to ask people to pay for a product that they're using? Well, then I guess all of us poor slobs in retail should be prosecuted for extortion as well, since nobody leaves our store with products that they haven't paid for! How dare Microsoft sue companies who don't pay for their software! The nerve! That's it. I'm switching to Apple. Could somebody point me in the direction of Apple software that I don't have to pay for?
Good God, no. Or at least I hope not. Even the most verbose XML couldn't come close to the unbelievable bloat that is .PDF. I got sick of PDF's taking forever to loading, and the reader hanging constantly on our PC's at work, so I banned them from from the office. It shouldn't take a bleeding edge machine to open plain old documents in a reasonable amount of time.
The cell phone info was used to bill calls to. Many calls, in fact. Don't ask me how. I'm not a cell phone security expert.
I've got to wonder... is there ANY wireless technology that's worth a damn? Cell phones are finally, after several decades, starting to work well, but even those have massive security holes. (My parents had their personal info stolen on a trip to NYC a year ago via their cell phone, and the cell phone company told them that it's very common, and that there's nothing my parents could have done to prevent it).
I'm not so sure, due to the very nature of data floating around where anybody can grab it, that we'll see any kind of secure wireless connection any time in the near future.
And then there's reliability. Cell phones are probably the most reliable type of wireless connection out there, but even those still aren't great.
(Only a fool would rely on 802.11x for anything even remotely critical.)
Wireless. Blech. Nice idea, but not so hot in practice.
You're right. I'm not saying that it's not fraudulent. It is fraudulent, in many cases, when you buy a CD you expect to work in "CD players", and it doesn't. But selling a fraudulent or defective product is a LOT different from saying that our "Freedoms" are being violated.
As someone who makes a living from copyright, I am quite worried by DRM, because I see a significant potential for backlash against copyright holders when the public realises that we are not keeping up our end of the bargain.
The public doesn't know DRM from DRAM. The vast majority of the public will go right along with it, and not complain. But as a copyright holder, you should be in excellent shape if DRM somehow does become a public issue, because you know better than to sell your stuff with DRM attached to it. I think that your fears of massive boycotts of all creative work is about as likely as me hitting the lottery.
This isn't about "Freedom". There is no right for anybody to be able to purchase a movie without DRM. Nobody's rights are being violated. All that's happening is that for anti-DRM fanatics, there are fewer and fewer things available for them to buy. So what? That sucks for them, true. But how about my rights to buy a new car with an eight-track player built in? Is my "Freedom" being trampled? No. Discussing movies with secret codes that only let you play them on certain players with the same vocabulary that is used to discuss "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" does nothing but belittle real, actual freedoms. Somebody please point to me where Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Constitution our Inalienable Right to Buy DVD's without Digital Rights Management.
That's my story as well. The only difference is that I'm in the US, where somebody that doesn't have a TV on in front of them during every waking hour is considered a bit crazy. I can't imagine paying to watch advertisements with some crappy programs squeezed in between the ads. That sounds crazy to me.
Yeah dude. Net income of one Billion dollars. Sony's just fine. What, you think that they don't make money from, oh I dunno, movies, televisions, stereos, and everything else they make?
Saying "use an alternative" is a nice way to feel good about yourself, and get moderated up. It's also a cop-out, since the sad reality is that there are not any alternatives for many applications.
"Sony is hanging by a thread financially."
That's not in any way true. Multiple Apple's sales by 3, and their profit by 4, and you got Sony. Sony has $32B in short term assets. Sony is quite healthy, financially. I don't know where you got your information.
Really? Then show me where I can get a software player not made by Microsoft capable of playing PlaysForSure Media! In particular, show me where I can get one that works on operating systems other than Windows!
My Sansa connects to Winamp because of Playsforsure.
All ya' do is just load a bunch of torrents into your bit torrent client, and just let it run when you're not using the machine (or throttle it while you're using it). Forget about it, and in a few days, you'll have a whole new batch of movies to burn to DVD (or so I'm told by friends who do this).