The link to the article on degree.net really sucks. Why? Linkrot. When people try to get to this information in the future, it probably won't be there because other news will come along to replace it.
The solution is to put the information on both the "news" page and the archive. That is something all web sites posting news should do. The user should then be responsible for finding the news article in the archive, as an individual page, so that it will last when people go back at a later time.
While degree.net does not have the MIT degree news in their archive right now, I hope they place it there soon. Better still would be an indvidual page dedicated to the MIT degree news, so that it could be directly linked, rather than using the news page or the archive.
Linkrot sucks. Understand what it is, and understand how to prevent it. If you are a webmaster or publisher, make it easy to find information and set up permanent URLs. To do otherwise is poor practice. And users, look for permanent URLs. Use them when you find them. Try to prevent spreading linkrot.
*I* am the original poster of the comment due to some misconfiguration I posted anonymous.
You are still anonymous.
Let me clarify please:
OK
I do not support and do not agree with the series of events which happened in New York.
That is good. However, it is kind of an empty statement. Few people support or agree with the WTC deaths.
Still I do think that this way of retaliating will not make your country (or mine) your family.
...safer?
Actually I think it will make it unsafer and more prone for such actions. Someone with enough determination will eventually be able to do the same thing again (eg flying a airplane in to a building).
If the people that want to kill you are dead, they cannot get you. The people with the determination are trying to kill us, right now.
What we are doing now is giving them a lot more determination:
We are not "giving" anyone determination. We are preventing terrorists from trying to kill us. As another Anonymous Coward put it, they can hate us, but they shouldn't kill us.
- A lot of suicide activists are doing it for the money, not for themselves but for their family. They know their family will be good taken care of!
They are still terrorists. Should we ignore them and let them kill us too? What is the point?
- When they get caught they probably get a death sentence anyway, so what is the difference?
The difference, again, is that if they are dead, they cannot kill us.
A reader asked don't I love my oil etc? Yes, but at what cost? A lot of the rulers in the middle east came to power because of us! The population of these countries knows that and they are not getting a fair share of the oil-money do they?
Fine. That doesn't mean they should kill us.
We don't allow importing grain for example from third world countries because that would harm our farmers (or we subsidise our farmers so much that it renders the effect the same), but yet we impose strong regulation on what those countries should import from us (nuclear waste?)
Really? Where is the data? I've heard this argument before, yet there is very little evidence that this is true.
The idea that we won't import grain seems silly. We are one of the world's largest exporters of grain. I think you have your facts wrong.
You talk about freedom? How can you feel free if 75% of the world population is not?
How is the U.S. preventing other countries from having freedom? Your comment makes no sense. We allow people into the U.S. so they can be free. We also try to help countries that want to have democratic governments. Sure, this is a blanket statement, but in general, the U.S. supports freedom.
Other countries are like alcoholics -- we can only help them if they want to be helped, and want to help themselves.
A lot of people are being hurt by American weapons (isreal --> palestina to name one) People dont forget that.
Good point. This is true, from what I have read.
A big part of the World economy thrives on selling weapons, so is the American economy.
As I said above, this is true, to my knowledge.
But wait, exactly what do this have to do with people killing Americans? Because we sell guns? Seems like a feeble argument.
Where somone gets rich someone else gets poor.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If you think otherwise, provide some evidence.
Now this happened in your backgarden and you are rightfully outragous about it, but please dont think your country's hands are any cleaner than theirs.
The other readers are making the point that you should not kill other people. If they are killing you, how should you react? Even if policies are changed, do you sincerely think they will stop trying to kill us? I thought the main question one Anonymous Coward wrote was spot on the mark:
"If these fsckers are willing and able to kill you, and they will not negotiate, how should we deal with them?"
Here are some interesting charts showing how war and technology are blood brothers. As technology advances, we increase our ability to kill more people, at a faster rate.
Indeed, this idea applies even to non-war machines and technology that is not directly tied to war. For example, with the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, the killing was made possible using a regular old plane. However, the plane is a technology exemplar. The plane, in many ways, defines so much technology. The commercial planes were not meant for war or killing, yet they did kill many people.
As technology increases, we will see more death. However, the death will come from humans using and abusing technology. That is always the way it has been. Humans kill other humans. Technology just helps.
Register: "Sources familiar with the W3C's patent policy have confirmed that demands for the standards body to adopt RAND licensing were initiated by IBM."
This is not a change in the fundamental technology. They don't seem to indicate that IIS itself will change, only that the default settings will yield more secure servers. This is only one type of security issue. What about all of the others?
Another thing to consider is that they are not doing this to be kind, gentle, or nice. They are doing it to shore up their marketing of Hailstorm, Passport, and so forth. This is not a response to "what the users want" or they would have done this ages ago. It is a marketing ploy. It is the right thing to do, but it is a marketing ploy. Managers, CIOs, CEOs, and so forth will be able to sleep better at night.
The device itself doesn't need to be ultra sturdy or water-tight. Instead, you can have a normal device protected with something that can withstand a nasty environment, including coffee, Mountain Dew, and CmdrTaco flatulence. While the PDA-Pak isn't the perfect answer, it should get you thinking.
"It's important to note with respect to the coordinated terrorist attack that this was not an Internet crime per se. It could have taken place without coordination across the Internet."
One other thing, didn't Katz just cover this topic? Whatever.
This is only going to be a short term effect. Banners generally suck. No matter how bad they get, people will start to ignore them. Our perceptual systems are built to handle this kind of crap.
Aside: It is unfortunate that you always have to watch out for crappy research like you see in this article. How do you know what is good and bad? Ack!
By the way, I actually likeGoogle's Adwords program. Very fast loading pages are still possible, the results are not disrupted, and the sponsored links sometimes match my search. Bravo for usability!
I'm not a Java programmer (IANAJP), but how is Bandera different than Java Pathfinder?
From the Java Pathfinder page: "In keeping with this philosophy we have developed a verification and testing environment for Java which integrates model checking, program analysis and testing. Part of this work has consisted of building a new Java Virtual Machine that interprets Java bytecode. JPF is the second Java Model Checker developed by the Automated Software Engineering group at NASA Ames - JPF1 used a translation from Java to PROMELA in order to do model checking with the SPIN model checker."
While your enthusiam is great, I do not think it will revolutionize software development. The tool would have to be amazing. And yes, I do mean amazing. If it was amazing right now, which it is not, you'd have a chance to change the software development world. It also seems very academic and not truly practical. I could be totally wrong about this -- remember, IANAJP!
Bottom line: It is a good idea and sounds interesting so keep your chin up. But, try to be a bit more realistic.
Richard Heeks states that in dealing with information systems, there are eight areas of responsibility: information systems planning, organisational structures and staffing, data management, computing and data management architecture, information systems development, information technology acquisition, training, and technical support.
In my mind, Heeks makes the point that it takes more than technology to make techology work. It is not a self-licking ice cream cone. Dave is really only talking about protocols and infrastructure. While I say bravo!, this is not enough. Microsoft has both technology and infrastructure behind Passport and.Net, but they also have an organization. Do not discount this. Also remember that they are motivated to win in the marketplace, whereas with a decentralized system, there is no such drive.
While technology is the focus here, and while technology is crucial, I hope that people start looking beyond the walls. This is about economics, not technology. Remember that Microsoft wins not because of superior technology but because they have better marketing. Any attempt to "beat them" will only work if some organziation or some true movement competes against them. Since the forces are divided (because they are decentralized), it will be almost impossible to compete with Microsoft.
Where will the marketing money come from to fight against Microsoft? Or, perhaps that makes no sense. Perhaps you expect there to be three or four authentication mechansism. I suppose that is possible, but where does that leave us? With choice? Don't fool yourself. Large corporations will invariably go with the Microsoft solution. Why? Marketing again. You will probably not be able to cleanse yourself of Micrsoft.
Maybe you care, maybe not. Just remember this: The day will come when Microsoft drops the ball and your personal, private data will be exposed. You will wish you thought beyond the technology.
Link Festival (Karma Whore Warning!)
on
Wireless Freenets
·
· Score: 3
1. While Passport is not required, it will make life very easy for users. It is easy to sign up and requires no brains to use. That makes it perfect. The more users use Passport, the more they will like it. The mindless masses will eat it up and the intelligent folks will have to follow suit. Inertia will drag us into Passport, just like Internet Explorer, Windows, Office, and so forth.
2. Integration and standardization. More and more of Microsoft's services, and data storage systems, will work with Passport. Passport with Hotmail, Passport for MSDN support, Passport for product support, Passport for MSNBC, and so forth. It is a slippery slope (via integration on all fronts, just like Office). Start to use one service, you are hooked and keep on sinking in deeper. Microsoft will make this too damn easy for people and it will simply happen. It will become the de facto standard. No wars with any companies; it will just happen.
3. I'm not saying that Microsoft will make money directly from services. Instead, they will make money from Passport by providing access (which I suppose is a form of service). However, they will be in a position to "transcend and profit" because all services will require access to your data via Microsoft. If they abuse their monopoly and they do indeed become the central data store, they will own you and they will tax you. And, they'll do it through Passport and related mechanisms.
While.NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
1. As a monopoly, Microsoft is in a position to twist the standards. In particular, they will be able to add proprietary hooks into their tools and services.
2. So, you send back XML. Is there a possibility that there will be extra Microsoft tags thrown in? You bet. No one will prevent Microsoft from throwing in extra, "user-friendly" tags. If developers exclude these tags, for whatever reason, then they will not get the full benefit of the network.
Of course, both of these items are speculation. All disclaimers should be noted. Until we all know more, we are both blowing smoke out our asses.
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
There is something missing here. XML is a W3C standard, but no one is saying that Microsoft will control XML. They might control certain types of tags, as I mention above, but it is not likely that they own XML. Indeed, they don't own HTML either. HOWEVER, they do own the browser market. They used their monopoly position to gain marketshare.
Now, it is obvious that you cannot easily tax a standard. That is a silly idea and I am not saying that it is possible. Instead, I am saying that you can easily tax access to servers and to data. If Microsoft has your data, and they control the pipes into that data and out of it, then they can make big money.
Here's an analogy. Microsoft doesn't need to control the water in the pipes (XML), and they might not even to control the physical pipe itself. If they own the values and the water meters, then they can charge people and companies whatever they want. Ultimately, they own the water, even though people are able to drink it and move it where they want, if they have the money.
Let's stick with the analogy. If Microsoft gets people to build more pipes and supply more water, then they are going to make more money. Therefore, Microsoft will help Ximian because Ximian is not working with valves and meters, they are working on the pipes that move the water in and out of Microsoft.
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
(1) Yes, absolutely. Microsoft has made it clear that they plan on making money from services, and therefore Passport and Instant Messenger. Indeed, the Hailstorm whitepaper makes it blatantly clear the IM is one of the backbone technologies for developers to move data in and out of Microsoft.
(2) No, I don't think that Microsoft plans on making a ton of money from Office. Possible, but not probable. I think users want to keep Office activites on their systems and networks, not on the web. There doesn't seem to be an opportunity for this kind of service or ASP model.
Microsoft is not helping Ximian. Instead, they are helping themsleves. This is quite clear when you think about what is going on.
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
Microsoft to Ximian: Sure, we'll help you build your software. Sure, we'll get you integrated into.Net, no problem. We're here to help. We're the new Microsoft.
Microsoft to Microsoft: Ha ha ha! Fools! Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise. World domination... Ha ha ha!
"Microsoft doesn't care much about shared source or Smart Tags and we are wasting our time following their marketing trail. We need to focus on Microsoft's true goal, which is to completely dominate the internet services market. We should pay attention to how they are building a services infrastructure, not a technology infrastructure. We should figure out how they are going to use tools like Passport and Microsoft Messenger to control our personal information and various internet transactions."
Re:Like most unix people, he probably doesn't care
on
Interview w/Jim Gettys
·
· Score: 2
This is a really great posting. I wish that it was not anonymous so that I could contact you.
I do a lot of usability work. I'd be more than happy to help folks, but I have had a hard time figuring out who needs help and on what. I'm not a programmer, at least not a good one, so I am out of the loop on projects. Sure, I visit places like SourceForge but that doesn't help me much.
If you have an Open Source project with an interface I can look at, let me know. I might be able to run a few tests and we'll improve the interface. I'd be especially pleased if there was some way to earn some money doing this, but that is probably a capitalistic pipe dream.
Slashdot Mirror
The link to the article on degree.net really sucks. Why? Linkrot. When people try to get to this information in the future, it probably won't be there because other news will come along to replace it.
The solution is to put the information on both the "news" page and the archive. That is something all web sites posting news should do. The user should then be responsible for finding the news article in the archive, as an individual page, so that it will last when people go back at a later time.
While degree.net does not have the MIT degree news in their archive right now, I hope they place it there soon. Better still would be an indvidual page dedicated to the MIT degree news, so that it could be directly linked, rather than using the news page or the archive.
Linkrot sucks. Understand what it is, and understand how to prevent it. If you are a webmaster or publisher, make it easy to find information and set up permanent URLs. To do otherwise is poor practice. And users, look for permanent URLs. Use them when you find them. Try to prevent spreading linkrot.
Thanks.
It was on the topic -- war! Yes, a different type of war, but war nevertheless.
I guess the moderators have small brains and cannot understand that a word can mean different things in different contexts.
I better stop using words such as "bank" on Slashdot. The moderators might get confused by my complex use of the English language.
*I* am the original poster of the comment due to some misconfiguration I posted anonymous.
You are still anonymous.
Let me clarify please:
OK
I do not support and do not agree with the series of events which happened in New York.
That is good. However, it is kind of an empty statement. Few people support or agree with the WTC deaths.
Still I do think that this way of retaliating will not make your country (or mine) your family.
...safer?
Actually I think it will make it unsafer and more prone for such actions. Someone with enough determination will eventually be able to do the same thing again (eg flying a airplane in to a building).
If the people that want to kill you are dead, they cannot get you. The people with the determination are trying to kill us, right now.
What we are doing now is giving them a lot more determination:
We are not "giving" anyone determination. We are preventing terrorists from trying to kill us. As another Anonymous Coward put it, they can hate us, but they shouldn't kill us.
- A lot of suicide activists are doing it for the money, not for themselves but for their family. They know their family will be good taken care of!
They are still terrorists. Should we ignore them and let them kill us too? What is the point?
- When they get caught they probably get a death sentence anyway, so what is the difference?
The difference, again, is that if they are dead, they cannot kill us.
A reader asked don't I love my oil etc? Yes, but at what cost? A lot of the rulers in the middle east came to power because of us! The population of these countries knows that and they are not getting a fair share of the oil-money do they?
Fine. That doesn't mean they should kill us.
We don't allow importing grain for example from third world countries because that would harm our farmers (or we subsidise our farmers so much that it renders the effect the same), but yet we impose strong regulation on what those countries should import from us (nuclear waste?)
Really? Where is the data? I've heard this argument before, yet there is very little evidence that this is true.
The idea that we won't import grain seems silly. We are one of the world's largest exporters of grain. I think you have your facts wrong.
You talk about freedom? How can you feel free if 75% of the world population is not?
How is the U.S. preventing other countries from having freedom? Your comment makes no sense. We allow people into the U.S. so they can be free. We also try to help countries that want to have democratic governments. Sure, this is a blanket statement, but in general, the U.S. supports freedom.
Other countries are like alcoholics -- we can only help them if they want to be helped, and want to help themselves.
A lot of people are being hurt by American weapons (isreal --> palestina to name one) People dont forget that.
Good point. This is true, from what I have read.
A big part of the World economy thrives on selling weapons, so is the American economy.
As I said above, this is true, to my knowledge.
But wait, exactly what do this have to do with people killing Americans? Because we sell guns? Seems like a feeble argument.
Where somone gets rich someone else gets poor.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If you think otherwise, provide some evidence.
Now this happened in your backgarden and you are rightfully outragous about it, but please dont think your country's hands are any cleaner than theirs.
The other readers are making the point that you should not kill other people. If they are killing you, how should you react? Even if policies are changed, do you sincerely think they will stop trying to kill us? I thought the main question one Anonymous Coward wrote was spot on the mark:
"If these fsckers are willing and able to kill you, and they will not negotiate, how should we deal with them?"
Here are some interesting charts showing how war and technology are blood brothers. As technology advances, we increase our ability to kill more people, at a faster rate.
Indeed, this idea applies even to non-war machines and technology that is not directly tied to war. For example, with the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, the killing was made possible using a regular old plane. However, the plane is a technology exemplar. The plane, in many ways, defines so much technology. The commercial planes were not meant for war or killing, yet they did kill many people.
As technology increases, we will see more death. However, the death will come from humans using and abusing technology. That is always the way it has been. Humans kill other humans. Technology just helps.
...this kind of war!
It is there. Right click, Open With...
Register: "Sources familiar with the W3C's patent policy have confirmed that demands for the standards body to adopt RAND licensing were initiated by IBM."
Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents, Patents....
This is not a change in the fundamental technology. They don't seem to indicate that IIS itself will change, only that the default settings will yield more secure servers. This is only one type of security issue. What about all of the others?
Another thing to consider is that they are not doing this to be kind, gentle, or nice. They are doing it to shore up their marketing of Hailstorm, Passport, and so forth. This is not a response to "what the users want" or they would have done this ages ago. It is a marketing ploy. It is the right thing to do, but it is a marketing ploy. Managers, CIOs, CEOs, and so forth will be able to sleep better at night.
Yes, I said no.
Here are my files, if you care...
WebWord.com RSS 0.92
WebWord.com RSS 1.0
- John
The device itself doesn't need to be ultra sturdy or water-tight. Instead, you can have a normal device protected with something that can withstand a nasty environment, including coffee, Mountain Dew, and CmdrTaco flatulence. While the PDA-Pak isn't the perfect answer, it should get you thinking.
This is a much better article on this topic, if you ask me. Shit, even if you don't ask me, it is still a better article on the topic.
Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11
"It's important to note with respect to the coordinated terrorist attack that this was not an Internet crime per se. It could have taken place without coordination across the Internet."
One other thing, didn't Katz just cover this topic? Whatever.
Boy, you are right. That really sucked. Big time.
I still think Root Mean Squared when I see RMS. Obviously, I am RMS challenged because RMS stands for Really Mean Sausage. Duh!
Take a chance to laugh. It's funny.
This is only going to be a short term effect. Banners generally suck. No matter how bad they get, people will start to ignore them. Our perceptual systems are built to handle this kind of crap.
Aside: It is unfortunate that you always have to watch out for crappy research like you see in this article. How do you know what is good and bad? Ack!
By the way, I actually like Google's Adwords program. Very fast loading pages are still possible, the results are not disrupted, and the sponsored links sometimes match my search. Bravo for usability!
Resources
What is banner blindness?
Banner Blindness: Web Searchers Often Miss "Obvious" Links
Commentary: Banner Blindness, Human Cognition and Web Design
Usability Perspective on Banner Ads
Banner Blindness: What Searching Users Notice and Do Not Notice on the World Wide Web
I'm not a Java programmer (IANAJP), but how is Bandera different than Java Pathfinder?
From the Java Pathfinder page: "In keeping with this philosophy we have developed a verification and testing environment for Java which integrates model checking, program analysis and testing. Part of this work has consisted of building a new Java Virtual Machine that interprets Java bytecode. JPF is the second Java Model Checker developed by the Automated Software Engineering group at NASA Ames - JPF1 used a translation from Java to PROMELA in order to do model checking with the SPIN model checker."
While your enthusiam is great, I do not think it will revolutionize software development. The tool would have to be amazing. And yes, I do mean amazing. If it was amazing right now, which it is not, you'd have a chance to change the software development world. It also seems very academic and not truly practical. I could be totally wrong about this -- remember, IANAJP!
Bottom line: It is a good idea and sounds interesting so keep your chin up. But, try to be a bit more realistic.
Richard Heeks states that in dealing with information systems, there are eight areas of responsibility: information systems planning, organisational structures and staffing, data management, computing and data management architecture, information systems development, information technology acquisition, training, and technical support.
.Net, but they also have an organization. Do not discount this. Also remember that they are motivated to win in the marketplace, whereas with a decentralized system, there is no such drive.
In my mind, Heeks makes the point that it takes more than technology to make techology work. It is not a self-licking ice cream cone. Dave is really only talking about protocols and infrastructure. While I say bravo!, this is not enough. Microsoft has both technology and infrastructure behind Passport and
While technology is the focus here, and while technology is crucial, I hope that people start looking beyond the walls. This is about economics, not technology. Remember that Microsoft wins not because of superior technology but because they have better marketing. Any attempt to "beat them" will only work if some organziation or some true movement competes against them. Since the forces are divided (because they are decentralized), it will be almost impossible to compete with Microsoft.
Where will the marketing money come from to fight against Microsoft? Or, perhaps that makes no sense. Perhaps you expect there to be three or four authentication mechansism. I suppose that is possible, but where does that leave us? With choice? Don't fool yourself. Large corporations will invariably go with the Microsoft solution. Why? Marketing again. You will probably not be able to cleanse yourself of Micrsoft.
Maybe you care, maybe not. Just remember this: The day will come when Microsoft drops the ball and your personal, private data will be exposed. You will wish you thought beyond the technology.
I Network, Therefore I Am by Robert Cringely
Reach Out and Touch Someone by Robert Cringely
More resources from his two articles:
As long as Microsoft's Passport is built into it, I'll buy one!
Let me try answering this again. Three parts:
1. While Passport is not required, it will make life very easy for users. It is easy to sign up and requires no brains to use. That makes it perfect. The more users use Passport, the more they will like it. The mindless masses will eat it up and the intelligent folks will have to follow suit. Inertia will drag us into Passport, just like Internet Explorer, Windows, Office, and so forth.
2. Integration and standardization. More and more of Microsoft's services, and data storage systems, will work with Passport. Passport with Hotmail, Passport for MSDN support, Passport for product support, Passport for MSNBC, and so forth. It is a slippery slope (via integration on all fronts, just like Office). Start to use one service, you are hooked and keep on sinking in deeper. Microsoft will make this too damn easy for people and it will simply happen. It will become the de facto standard. No wars with any companies; it will just happen.
3. I'm not saying that Microsoft will make money directly from services. Instead, they will make money from Passport by providing access (which I suppose is a form of service). However, they will be in a position to "transcend and profit" because all services will require access to your data via Microsoft. If they abuse their monopoly and they do indeed become the central data store, they will own you and they will tax you. And, they'll do it through Passport and related mechanisms.
While .NET does allow developers to create web services, so does any other development tool that allows you to create web applications. Instead of sending back HTML, you're sending back XML.
1. As a monopoly, Microsoft is in a position to twist the standards. In particular, they will be able to add proprietary hooks into their tools and services.
2. So, you send back XML. Is there a possibility that there will be extra Microsoft tags thrown in? You bet. No one will prevent Microsoft from throwing in extra, "user-friendly" tags. If developers exclude these tags, for whatever reason, then they will not get the full benefit of the network.
Of course, both of these items are speculation. All disclaimers should be noted. Until we all know more, we are both blowing smoke out our asses.
Back to the question, how does Microsoft levy taxes on a W3C standard?
There is something missing here. XML is a W3C standard, but no one is saying that Microsoft will control XML. They might control certain types of tags, as I mention above, but it is not likely that they own XML. Indeed, they don't own HTML either. HOWEVER, they do own the browser market. They used their monopoly position to gain marketshare.
Now, it is obvious that you cannot easily tax a standard. That is a silly idea and I am not saying that it is possible. Instead, I am saying that you can easily tax access to servers and to data. If Microsoft has your data, and they control the pipes into that data and out of it, then they can make big money.
Here's an analogy. Microsoft doesn't need to control the water in the pipes (XML), and they might not even to control the physical pipe itself. If they own the values and the water meters, then they can charge people and companies whatever they want. Ultimately, they own the water, even though people are able to drink it and move it where they want, if they have the money.
Let's stick with the analogy. If Microsoft gets people to build more pipes and supply more water, then they are going to make more money. Therefore, Microsoft will help Ximian because Ximian is not working with valves and meters, they are working on the pipes that move the water in and out of Microsoft.
Are you under the assumption Microsoft is going to capture revue from Passport and Instant Messaging, or are you misguided assuming MS Office is going to become a web service? (Note: MS Office may not become subscription software, but this doesn't make it a web service)
(1) Yes, absolutely. Microsoft has made it clear that they plan on making money from services, and therefore Passport and Instant Messenger. Indeed, the Hailstorm whitepaper makes it blatantly clear the IM is one of the backbone technologies for developers to move data in and out of Microsoft.
(2) No, I don't think that Microsoft plans on making a ton of money from Office. Possible, but not probable. I think users want to keep Office activites on their systems and networks, not on the web. There doesn't seem to be an opportunity for this kind of service or ASP model.
Microsoft is not helping Ximian. Instead, they are helping themsleves. This is quite clear when you think about what is going on.
.Net, no problem. We're here to help. We're the new Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't care as much about software as they do controlling network services and collecting payments from various transactions. The idea in this case is to get Ximian to play along so that, ultimately, Microsoft will be able to extract fees from users. Ximian will merely be a small part of the infrastructure that Microsoft controls. That infrastruture will be used to extract new "taxes" from people.
Microsoft to Ximian: Sure, we'll help you build your software. Sure, we'll get you integrated into
Microsoft to Microsoft: Ha ha ha! Fools! Don't they understand that we are kind of like a giant cable company now? We don't care that much about the software and hardware, we care about capturing data from stupid users so that we can extract big money. We know that the margins on software are great now, but they are probably going to decline. However, the margins in services are on the rise. World domination... Ha ha ha!
Services First, Technology Second, People Third
"Microsoft doesn't care much about shared source or Smart Tags and we are wasting our time following their marketing trail. We need to focus on Microsoft's true goal, which is to completely dominate the internet services market. We should pay attention to how they are building a services infrastructure, not a technology infrastructure. We should figure out how they are going to use tools like Passport and Microsoft Messenger to control our personal information and various internet transactions."
This is a really great posting. I wish that it was not anonymous so that I could contact you.
I do a lot of usability work. I'd be more than happy to help folks, but I have had a hard time figuring out who needs help and on what. I'm not a programmer, at least not a good one, so I am out of the loop on projects. Sure, I visit places like SourceForge but that doesn't help me much.
If you have an Open Source project with an interface I can look at, let me know. I might be able to run a few tests and we'll improve the interface. I'd be especially pleased if there was some way to earn some money doing this, but that is probably a capitalistic pipe dream.
Cheers,
- John