You're partially right. We at least won't give it a chance for a *long* time. I'm not too keen on putting all of my most mission critical data in a database that *just* got all of these important things tacked on in the past few months. Call me crazy, but I don't trust my data to just any old program. But then, my data (that runs my business) is probably much more critical than what most people use MySQL for (I hope). I'd much rather go with something like Oracle or SQL Server or DB2, all of which have been around for quite a bit longer, and have been tested much, much more than MySQL has been. If you're just using MySQL for a blog or your mom's recipies or something like that, I say go right ahead. No big deal if you encounter a glitch. If I encounter a glitch, I've got at least a dozen people's livelihoods on the line.
If people start doing that.... I can't see people still using MySQL:)
I agree. Especially since Postgre costs the same thing, and even Oracle offers free personal version of their RDBMS, and MS has it's MSDE, and I'm betting that even DB2 has a free/cheap one for something as lightweight as a web site.
I can't stress strongly enough that people NOT buy a MySQL book. Buy a SQL book. Even better, buy a RDBMS book. We have enough people doing stupid things with data. We don't need any more. You might as well suggest that somebody buy a Windows 95 book.
The same kind of law that the DMCA is, you mean? Arbitrary and pointless? What's your point? Are you another person who trots out "law" when it fits his argument? If so, you probably should try to avoid being so hypocritical in the same post.
Don't buy or use or recommend M$.
That's influential. I like the childish use of "M$". What are you going to do next, call them "poopy heads"?
It takes a single computer and one person to make high quality software.
Name a single person that has built a high quality OS by themselves. Just one. How about a high quality office suite? How about a high quality accounting package?
Slashdot has *long* since stopped caring about quality. It's all about pageviews and clickthroughs. They know that even if they post 5 of the same stories in a row, that they'll get the same amount of traffic (maybe more?). If you see a crappy article or a dupe, the BEST way that you can send a message to the editors that you want quality is to spend time NOT viewing Slashdot for that day/week/whatever. Don't browser, don't post. THEN, maybe they'll realize that they can't just rest on momentum forever.
Hi, I own a small software company (http://www.dreamsyssoft.com/), can I sue my competitors for doing well too????
It would seem so... especially since the/. fanboys apparently are *all* experts in anti-trust law. It seems that your competitor doesn't even have to have a monopoly any more. All you have to prove is that they're doing better than you, and the gov't will punish. We saw them to it to MS, we'll see them do it to Intel.
It's called "good faith". The courts will probably determine whether or not it's reasonable to expect Google to protect you from fraud, and to what extent.
There are health & safety regulations involving food outlets and the quality of the food you serve. As in laws.
You're talking about civil vs. legal. Two completely different things. If McDonald's sells me a rotten hamburger, I can sue, and the Dept of Health & Human Svcs. can shut them down. The safety laws have nothing to do with the transaction between myself and McDonald's.
They don't have to sued Google over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each click, it's never mentionned that Google will ensure that all clicks are legits... I don't think they have the slightest chance to make a point in court.
They don't have to sued McDonald's over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each hamburger, it's never mentionned that McDonald's will ensure that all hamburgers are not rotten... I don't think they have the slightest chance to make a point in court.
Their designs are ugly and clunky on a desktop computer
It's called retro or "old school". Personally, I like the way they look: the exact opposite of the ultra-slick yuppie Apples. Sun boxes *look* like they mean business, even if some of them are purple.
Just keep in mind that Sun has a very consistent track record of trying out the low end market, only to decide that they'd be better off sticking with the high end, after all. You may end up stuck with no support in just a few months. Really, Sun should just keep doing what they're good at, instead of continually trying to break into the hyper-competitive (read: profitless) consumer market. The just got finished discontinuing their brand new Java Desktop (today), and they've tried PC's numerous times. Of course, they could've used their Java Desktop on their new laptop, but that would require more than one weeks' foresight, which is obviously more than the management can handle.
It's not about power. Not only do most people not care what's in their PS2/XBox, most people don't even realize that they're essentially just super-optimized tiny PC's. It's about putting a shiny silver disk in the slot, and pushing the power button. PC games would have to be *significantly* better to make me (or anybody else I know) go through the *huge* pain in the ass of dealing with games on even modern Windows boxes.
Case in point... I've been trying to get the Sims 2 working on my GF's new, fast PC. It's been more than 2 weeks of tech support, and it's still not fixed. On top of that, she doesn't like me fucking with her work machine *that* much. She said that she doesn't care if the PC version is better. She's fed up with it (as am I), and she's returning it for a PS2 version.
In fact, when *I'm* looking at modern consoles, I can't figure out why in the hell anybody would want a hard drive in their console. That just adds a shitload of unnecessary complexity that I'm trying to get away from by turning on my PS2 and turning my computer off.
As long companies that could make a difference with Linux vs. Microsoft take such a Hokey-Pokey (you put the left foot in, you take the left foot out...) attitude towards the market, there will be no major progress. There will only continue to be piecemeal progress done by users with the occasional company riding on their backs.
You're exactly right. The problem is that investing in something as relatively unknown as Linux on the desktop is a *huge* risk, and so far, nobody has been willing to take that risk. Honestly, if all of the people at various companies who've looked at the possiblity of Linux on the desktop have decided either "no", or "Maybe, but let's just try a little bit at first", then that's gotta say something about either the quality of the product itself or the market for it. One of the two (or both) just aren't there yet.
Whether or not it's true, I have no idea, but Linux on the desktop isn't all that esoteric. People know that it exists. If there's money to be made on it, then somebody would've have gone at it with 200% effort by now. I still think that a company may go for it one day once Linux makes some major improvements, and there's still got to be an actual *demand* for such products. Even if Linux improves, there's still got to be a good reason for people to want to use Linux on the desktop (hence, demand). But, I think that we won't see anybody willing to stick their neck out for Linux for at least several more years (if ever... OSX is beating the pants off Linux on the desktop in the non-Windows market).
Hang on... you want to compare statistics on Apple usage between Forbes, and a website called "Zicos" that is referencing a non-existent article from somewhere called "MacDailyNews"? Are you kidding me?
They have to first overcome the problem that people like Google and don't like MS.
Why do geeks have such a hard time understanding that geeks are a *tiny subset* of the entire population. Are geeks really so ignorant to think, "Well, I think this way, so everybody else must, too"? What's up with that?
Naturally limited choice is a perfectly legitimate thing, because the consumer still benefits. It is artificially limited choice that is bad for the end customer.
So, giving the consumer a wide array of choices is more important than maintaining property rights? Essentially, the gov't is punishing Intel for being successful (by becoming large enough to exert this much pressure on their customers) AMD can benefit. You can't say that this is for the benefit of the customers, because who says that crippling Intel won't raise prices across the board, or decrease quality? This is a case of the government punishing Intel for being too successful, and handing money/customers/business to AMD because they are less efficient/cannot compete. In the long run, this is always a bad thing.
1. It dissuades companies (or even individuals) from doing business in the US. At a certain point, your personal property is simply no longer yours. You actually are *penalized* for being successful. If I were running Intel and this case was successful, I'd say, "Fuck you, US", and move all business operations to another country that doesn't penalize success.
2. You're sending the message to companies that may not be as efficient that they can continue, because the gov't will help them out. For all we know, AMD isn't able to compete as well because the CEO's are simply pocketing too much money. Whatever the reason, AMD isn't as successful as a company as Intel, and they stand to benefit from this.
3. The slippery slope. Already, we can see this happening. Intel is in no sense of the word, a monopoly. Yet, the fact that we're even talking about this shows that virtually any company can cry, "no fair" and get a government handout. Our company is somewhat impacted by Petsmart moving in the street. They're a big, successful company. Can I call Petsmart a "monopoly" and sue them for protection?
4. The consumers will be hurt. Sure, in the short run, AMD will do better. Customers will be able to buy Dells with AMD chips (big deal). In the long run, they'll pay more and get poorer quality because the pressure for AMD to perform is lifted. They simply don't have to worry about going under.
I see this as a lose-lose-lose situation for everybody involved, except in the immediate short term.
Because of Windows being the majority, and the rest of the market will want compariblity to this platform, windows can afford to charge more, at the same time using lock in tactic to make sure more windows installed PC will be sold. Which is exactly what this Law is trying to address. The fact that there are some competition surviving have nothing to do with the fact that domination of windows combinated with lock in tactic can hurt competition.
But Windows got to be the prevalent OS BECAUSE of competition. MS earned it. It wasn't handed to them. Are you saying that in the US, you should be allowed to earn a set amount of money, and everything you make after that, you have to give up? If so, how is that determined, and whose job is it? And, how is punishing a company for being successful a good thing? That sends a message to business owners (such as myself) that says, "You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
1. How, in any sense of the word, is Intel a monopoly? I can easily buy AMD chips and AMD computers anywhere.
2. True, it is bad for the consumer when there's a monopoly. But you're only looking at one side of the coin. What about the company that owns that monopoly? You're asking the government to quite literally, take amay profit from them. How is that fair or right? Of sure, it may benefit more people, but the job of the gov't should be to maintain fairness, and taking something away from one person (no matter how powerful or wealthy that person is) to give it to another is clearly not fair. It's the same as the current progressive tax system we have... Tax the rich at 33%, and tak the poor at 0%.
Whether or not they "deserve" it is irrelevant... it's theirs, and a modern society is built on the basis of ownership, not the government deciding who "deserves" what.
Thanks for the thought out reply... the thing is that what about grocery stores? Every square inch of shelf space is critical (as it is in our store), so manufacturers will do whatever it takes to get shelf space in the store. Obviously, a grocery store, even a giant, nasty Wal-Mart one, can't carry everything, so they're going to pick and choose what they offer to sell. Now this may very well be influenced by rebates, etc. Often, it comes with terms such as "carry our entire line, and we'll give you a x% discount". Well, clearly, in order for that to happen, somebody is going to have to get bumped. So in essence, the same thing happens there on a daily basis.
And true, if the consumer wants to buy a Dell, they have to get one with an Intel chip (I'm assuming this is true... I haven't bought a Dell in a loooooong time). But what's to prevent the consumer from going to another vendor? Dell made their choice to stick with Intel only. So a customer who likes AMD chips can't buy at Dell. It's not so much a loss for AMD, as it is for Dell. If AMD is truly that valuable (and I have no idea... I haven't cared about chips until this case, and now I just won't buy AMD on principle), then why won't that consumer just buy an AMd machine elsewhere? Hell, I can go down to Best Buy, Staples, Wal-Mart, my local shop (where I actually do spend my money), etc. to get an AMD-based computer from somebody else.
The consumer certainly has no right to buy a Dell machine with an AMD chip in it any more than I have a right to buy a Ford truck with Toyo Tires. Ford doesn't have any responsibility to offer me a truck with Toyo tires, either.
So then, are you saying that AMD has a right to sell chips to Dell? I contend that they still DO have that right, but of course Dell may not choose to buy from AMD. Now what's the difference between Dell not buying AMD because Intel gives them a massive volume discount, making them cheaper than AMD, and Intel NOT giving them a volume discount because they also sell AMD's? I think it's splitting hairs, and certainly doesn't require any sort of government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
You're partially right. We at least won't give it a chance for a *long* time. I'm not too keen on putting all of my most mission critical data in a database that *just* got all of these important things tacked on in the past few months. Call me crazy, but I don't trust my data to just any old program. But then, my data (that runs my business) is probably much more critical than what most people use MySQL for (I hope). I'd much rather go with something like Oracle or SQL Server or DB2, all of which have been around for quite a bit longer, and have been tested much, much more than MySQL has been. If you're just using MySQL for a blog or your mom's recipies or something like that, I say go right ahead. No big deal if you encounter a glitch. If I encounter a glitch, I've got at least a dozen people's livelihoods on the line.
If people start doing that.... I can't see people still using MySQL :)
I agree. Especially since Postgre costs the same thing, and even Oracle offers free personal version of their RDBMS, and MS has it's MSDE, and I'm betting that even DB2 has a free/cheap one for something as lightweight as a web site.
I can't stress strongly enough that people NOT buy a MySQL book. Buy a SQL book. Even better, buy a RDBMS book. We have enough people doing stupid things with data. We don't need any more. You might as well suggest that somebody buy a Windows 95 book.
...MySQL! There are a few of us who hang around /. who know databases (a very few), and we've always got to chime in whenever MySQL is mentioned.
Oh yeah...
MySQL sucks. Not a real RDBMS. Very limited. Not ACID compliant. blah, blah, blah.
It's not "clout" it's ability to break the law
The same kind of law that the DMCA is, you mean? Arbitrary and pointless? What's your point? Are you another person who trots out "law" when it fits his argument? If so, you probably should try to avoid being so hypocritical in the same post.
Don't buy or use or recommend M$.
That's influential. I like the childish use of "M$". What are you going to do next, call them "poopy heads"?
It takes a single computer and one person to make high quality software.
Name a single person that has built a high quality OS by themselves. Just one. How about a high quality office suite? How about a high quality accounting package?
If this smartass comment wasn't posted by an AC, I'd ask to compare financials with this shitheel.
Microsoft software runs my business. I'm pretty happy with their stuff, thanks.
1. That's business. It's been re-hashed in all of the previous AMD threads.
2. Since when have Slashdotters become such rabid law-following people? DMCA = Bad, Clayton Anti-trust Act = good? WTF?
Slashdot has *long* since stopped caring about quality. It's all about pageviews and clickthroughs. They know that even if they post 5 of the same stories in a row, that they'll get the same amount of traffic (maybe more?). If you see a crappy article or a dupe, the BEST way that you can send a message to the editors that you want quality is to spend time NOT viewing Slashdot for that day/week/whatever. Don't browser, don't post. THEN, maybe they'll realize that they can't just rest on momentum forever.
the illeterate computer user
Like yourself, and the rest of the anti-"M$" fanboys? Hahaha... what a joke!
Hi, I own a small software company (http://www.dreamsyssoft.com/), can I sue my competitors for doing well too????
/. fanboys apparently are *all* experts in anti-trust law. It seems that your competitor doesn't even have to have a monopoly any more. All you have to prove is that they're doing better than you, and the gov't will punish. We saw them to it to MS, we'll see them do it to Intel.
It would seem so... especially since the
It's called "good faith". The courts will probably determine whether or not it's reasonable to expect Google to protect you from fraud, and to what extent.
There are health & safety regulations involving food outlets and the quality of the food you serve. As in laws.
You're talking about civil vs. legal. Two completely different things. If McDonald's sells me a rotten hamburger, I can sue, and the Dept of Health & Human Svcs. can shut them down. The safety laws have nothing to do with the transaction between myself and McDonald's.
I'd say the analogy is pretty good, actually.
They don't have to sued Google over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each click, it's never mentionned that Google will ensure that all clicks are legits... I don't think they have the slightest chance to make a point in court.
They don't have to sued McDonald's over this, but the people commiting click fraud... I mean, they sign a contract in which they agree to pay for each hamburger, it's never mentionned that McDonald's will ensure that all hamburgers are not rotten... I don't think they have the slightest chance to make a point in court.
Their designs are ugly and clunky on a desktop computer
It's called retro or "old school". Personally, I like the way they look: the exact opposite of the ultra-slick yuppie Apples. Sun boxes *look* like they mean business, even if some of them are purple.
Just keep in mind that Sun has a very consistent track record of trying out the low end market, only to decide that they'd be better off sticking with the high end, after all. You may end up stuck with no support in just a few months. Really, Sun should just keep doing what they're good at, instead of continually trying to break into the hyper-competitive (read: profitless) consumer market. The just got finished discontinuing their brand new Java Desktop (today), and they've tried PC's numerous times. Of course, they could've used their Java Desktop on their new laptop, but that would require more than one weeks' foresight, which is obviously more than the management can handle.
It's not about power. Not only do most people not care what's in their PS2/XBox, most people don't even realize that they're essentially just super-optimized tiny PC's. It's about putting a shiny silver disk in the slot, and pushing the power button. PC games would have to be *significantly* better to make me (or anybody else I know) go through the *huge* pain in the ass of dealing with games on even modern Windows boxes.
Case in point... I've been trying to get the Sims 2 working on my GF's new, fast PC. It's been more than 2 weeks of tech support, and it's still not fixed. On top of that, she doesn't like me fucking with her work machine *that* much. She said that she doesn't care if the PC version is better. She's fed up with it (as am I), and she's returning it for a PS2 version.
In fact, when *I'm* looking at modern consoles, I can't figure out why in the hell anybody would want a hard drive in their console. That just adds a shitload of unnecessary complexity that I'm trying to get away from by turning on my PS2 and turning my computer off.
As long companies that could make a difference with Linux vs. Microsoft take such a Hokey-Pokey (you put the left foot in, you take the left foot out...) attitude towards the market, there will be no major progress. There will only continue to be piecemeal progress done by users with the occasional company riding on their backs.
You're exactly right. The problem is that investing in something as relatively unknown as Linux on the desktop is a *huge* risk, and so far, nobody has been willing to take that risk. Honestly, if all of the people at various companies who've looked at the possiblity of Linux on the desktop have decided either "no", or "Maybe, but let's just try a little bit at first", then that's gotta say something about either the quality of the product itself or the market for it. One of the two (or both) just aren't there yet.
Whether or not it's true, I have no idea, but Linux on the desktop isn't all that esoteric. People know that it exists. If there's money to be made on it, then somebody would've have gone at it with 200% effort by now. I still think that a company may go for it one day once Linux makes some major improvements, and there's still got to be an actual *demand* for such products. Even if Linux improves, there's still got to be a good reason for people to want to use Linux on the desktop (hence, demand). But, I think that we won't see anybody willing to stick their neck out for Linux for at least several more years (if ever... OSX is beating the pants off Linux on the desktop in the non-Windows market).
Hang on... you want to compare statistics on Apple usage between Forbes, and a website called "Zicos" that is referencing a non-existent article from somewhere called "MacDailyNews"? Are you kidding me?
This article is talking about blowing off 12% of a customer base. Apple, by most accounts, only counts for 3% of all PC users
They have to first overcome the problem that people like Google and don't like MS.
Why do geeks have such a hard time understanding that geeks are a *tiny subset* of the entire population. Are geeks really so ignorant to think, "Well, I think this way, so everybody else must, too"? What's up with that?
Regardless of why you and other geeks think this, you couldn't be more wrong.
I suggest that you and other geeks crawl out of your holes once in a while to see what the whole world is all about.
Anyone else notice that Yahoo Search looks and acts EXACTLY like Google's? (That's probably redudant...)
Nope, that's not true at all. Very different results.
Naturally limited choice is a perfectly legitimate thing, because the consumer still benefits. It is artificially limited choice that is bad for the end customer.
So, giving the consumer a wide array of choices is more important than maintaining property rights? Essentially, the gov't is punishing Intel for being successful (by becoming large enough to exert this much pressure on their customers) AMD can benefit. You can't say that this is for the benefit of the customers, because who says that crippling Intel won't raise prices across the board, or decrease quality? This is a case of the government punishing Intel for being too successful, and handing money/customers/business to AMD because they are less efficient/cannot compete. In the long run, this is always a bad thing.
1. It dissuades companies (or even individuals) from doing business in the US. At a certain point, your personal property is simply no longer yours. You actually are *penalized* for being successful. If I were running Intel and this case was successful, I'd say, "Fuck you, US", and move all business operations to another country that doesn't penalize success.
2. You're sending the message to companies that may not be as efficient that they can continue, because the gov't will help them out. For all we know, AMD isn't able to compete as well because the CEO's are simply pocketing too much money. Whatever the reason, AMD isn't as successful as a company as Intel, and they stand to benefit from this.
3. The slippery slope. Already, we can see this happening. Intel is in no sense of the word, a monopoly. Yet, the fact that we're even talking about this shows that virtually any company can cry, "no fair" and get a government handout. Our company is somewhat impacted by Petsmart moving in the street. They're a big, successful company. Can I call Petsmart a "monopoly" and sue them for protection?
4. The consumers will be hurt. Sure, in the short run, AMD will do better. Customers will be able to buy Dells with AMD chips (big deal). In the long run, they'll pay more and get poorer quality because the pressure for AMD to perform is lifted. They simply don't have to worry about going under.
I see this as a lose-lose-lose situation for everybody involved, except in the immediate short term.
Because of Windows being the majority, and the rest of the market will want compariblity to this platform, windows can afford to charge more, at the same time using lock in tactic to make sure more windows installed PC will be sold. Which is exactly what this Law is trying to address. The fact that there are some competition surviving have nothing to do with the fact that domination of windows combinated with lock in tactic can hurt competition.
But Windows got to be the prevalent OS BECAUSE of competition. MS earned it. It wasn't handed to them. Are you saying that in the US, you should be allowed to earn a set amount of money, and everything you make after that, you have to give up? If so, how is that determined, and whose job is it? And, how is punishing a company for being successful a good thing? That sends a message to business owners (such as myself) that says, "You can only be so successful, because after that point, we're taking it away from you".
1. How, in any sense of the word, is Intel a monopoly? I can easily buy AMD chips and AMD computers anywhere.
2. True, it is bad for the consumer when there's a monopoly. But you're only looking at one side of the coin. What about the company that owns that monopoly? You're asking the government to quite literally, take amay profit from them. How is that fair or right? Of sure, it may benefit more people, but the job of the gov't should be to maintain fairness, and taking something away from one person (no matter how powerful or wealthy that person is) to give it to another is clearly not fair. It's the same as the current progressive tax system we have... Tax the rich at 33%, and tak the poor at 0%.
Whether or not they "deserve" it is irrelevant... it's theirs, and a modern society is built on the basis of ownership, not the government deciding who "deserves" what.
Thanks for the thought out reply... the thing is that what about grocery stores? Every square inch of shelf space is critical (as it is in our store), so manufacturers will do whatever it takes to get shelf space in the store. Obviously, a grocery store, even a giant, nasty Wal-Mart one, can't carry everything, so they're going to pick and choose what they offer to sell. Now this may very well be influenced by rebates, etc. Often, it comes with terms such as "carry our entire line, and we'll give you a x% discount". Well, clearly, in order for that to happen, somebody is going to have to get bumped. So in essence, the same thing happens there on a daily basis.
And true, if the consumer wants to buy a Dell, they have to get one with an Intel chip (I'm assuming this is true... I haven't bought a Dell in a loooooong time). But what's to prevent the consumer from going to another vendor? Dell made their choice to stick with Intel only. So a customer who likes AMD chips can't buy at Dell. It's not so much a loss for AMD, as it is for Dell. If AMD is truly that valuable (and I have no idea... I haven't cared about chips until this case, and now I just won't buy AMD on principle), then why won't that consumer just buy an AMd machine elsewhere? Hell, I can go down to Best Buy, Staples, Wal-Mart, my local shop (where I actually do spend my money), etc. to get an AMD-based computer from somebody else.
The consumer certainly has no right to buy a Dell machine with an AMD chip in it any more than I have a right to buy a Ford truck with Toyo Tires. Ford doesn't have any responsibility to offer me a truck with Toyo tires, either.
So then, are you saying that AMD has a right to sell chips to Dell? I contend that they still DO have that right, but of course Dell may not choose to buy from AMD. Now what's the difference between Dell not buying AMD because Intel gives them a massive volume discount, making them cheaper than AMD, and Intel NOT giving them a volume discount because they also sell AMD's? I think it's splitting hairs, and certainly doesn't require any sort of government intervention.