Consequently, it is in VMWare best interest to produce perfect software. Perfect software requires very few support staff, meaning all those support and services fees are almost pure profit and no overhead.
Not necessarily. If VMWare writes perfect code and gives it away for free, then eventually customers will catch on, and will refuse to get support contracts. After all, if you are reasonably confident that the software you just downloaded is perfect, why on earth would you go through the unecessary trouble and expense of getting a support contract?
And what's to stop people from wiping the hard drives and installing Linux, thereby using the computer without seeing the targetted advertising?
I suppose you'd use some kind of trusted computing to lock down the hardware, making installing new software more difficult. You could also configure some kind of check-in server that would monitor the computer usage by having the computer contact it every time it got connected to the internet. An extended time without a check-in would prompt some kind of intervention.
Agreed. Another good example of brand devaluation through overuse is Kleenex. Now, whenever someone wants a facial tissue, they say, "Could you give me a Kleenex?" You don't hear people saying, "Hey, give me a facial tissue." The same thing has also happened to a lesser extent with Xerox.
While this router probably will be a valid competitor to Cisco/Juniper in many areas, it probably won't be able to compete in the very high end market where these companies have made a name for themselves. Cisco routers, at least do a lot of processing using ASICs, which are specifically optimized to make the kinds of decisions needed for routing packets. I'm not sure whether traditional x86 can match that level of performance.
You can take out a patent on something then give a rolayty-free licence to anyone who wants one to implement the patented tech.
Yes, a company could do that. But can you see Microsoft doing it? And, in any case, once the software is patented, many wouldn't consider the standard to be open anymore, since you'd have to get permission from the single patent holder. The patent holder could also deny the licenses to whomever he or she wished and could put all sorts of arbitrary restrictions on those licenses. The patent holder could also revoke licenses that had already been issued, creating a nice scenario for extortion, where one would either have to meet demands or potentially have the core technology ripped out of one's software. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to implement some of these strategies, if they ever get a patent on one of their standards.
figure you get Microsoft, Mozilla and Opera to the table, you'd have some pretty interesting standards developed that the browsers might stick to.
That sounds great in theory, but what would probably happen in reality is that Microsoft would end up writing the standard, and adding proprietary, patented extensions onto it in order to ensure permanent dominance for Internet Explorer.
I would much rather have a somewhat supported open standard, rather than having a closed standard perfectly supported by one company.
I think the problem is that McAfee mislabeled the patch as "offering new functionality" rather than "fixing design flaw". There are customers who may put off installing patches of the first type while the full consequences of the new functionality are explored, while the second type of patch would get put into production, because of the fact that it fixes a potential security breach.
The original poster distincly said hardware performance issues. Algorithm efficiency is something that I'd probably characterize as software performace. I think the OP was trying to point out that, if your hardware is fast enough to run a Java VM comfortably, it'll be fast enough for you to not worry about the performance impact of "low level" design decisions.
would like to see solid evidence that they are effective and that they eliminate a threat before the government pours billions into this technology.
I'd like to see that too, but I also acknowledge that this is the same government that has invested billions in an anti-ballistic missile system that fails to meet the above criteria.
Given the fact that the vast majority of computers in schools are Macs, and Windows is the dominant home desktop environment, I don't see how your "capture them early" theory holds water.
Much as I hate to admit it, the parent has a point. The Saturn is a pretty advanced booster, and releasing its design would teach unfriendly countries (read Iran, North Korea, etc) a lot about rocket design (especially guidance and control) that they may not know.
No, it can't. Redstone could only launch an astronaut on a very short suborbital hop. A substantially larger rocket is needed to get a human into orbit.
Ok, so the Redstone's no good anymore. But why scrap Gemini? That was good enough for orbital flight. Why scrap the Saturn? That was good for going to the moon, and it could have "retired" as a heavy-lift cargo vehicle. Rutan's main point remains: why did NASA scrap the older launch systems (like Saturn) after the advent of the new system? Even if they didn't have the money to maintain 2 concurrent launch systems, they could have released the plans to private industry, so that these "tried and true" vehicles could be put to commercial use.
having a GUI often speeds things up and saves you time.
While I agree, that, initially having a GUI saves time, I think that over the long term I can accomplish task more quickly over the command line once I know how to do the task that way. Having a GUI is nice, but it should not be mandatory. I should be able to open up a shell and do everything over the command line if I need to.
Isn't marketing and propaganda one and the same? In both you're trying to play up your own strengths and make the other side look either evil or ineffective (or both).
How is this fundamental? Stardock's WindowBlinds has been offering the ability to create a custom start-menu for years.
the "everybody's a user" security model,
Microsoft had the ability to implement this in Windows XP. They've supported Limited User Accounts since Windows 2000. Its a change in default user settings, not an earthshaking new security model.
Oh, you mean new skins for Minesweeper, Wordpad, and Solitaire? Or do you mean 3-d chess? Last I heard they weren't even including a basic office suite. For a 7-gig disc, I expect more.
Face it, Vista includes little that's especially new, even for Microsoft.
Apple is not FOSS but it is part of for OSS movement.
Since when did releasing a proprietary OS that happens to include an X Server and FreeBSD userspace tools make Apple a part of the open source movement? Sure, Apple benefits from OSS, but they hardly do anything to give back to the community.
That's assuming that this particular OEM carries Windows at all. I think a purely Linux computer store could be done. Apple's done it with OSX for years.
The thing is that Apple's hardware is proprietary. Unless you're buying from Apple or a cerified reseller, you can't get Apple hardware. Now, there's no such thing as proprietary Linux hardware. If you try to sell "Linux certified" hardware you'll find yourself competing with the likes of Newegg, who can easily undercut you due to their volume discounts and thinner profit margins. The only real thing you can offer is support. However, most Linux companies, like Red Hat and SuSE already offer support for the boxed versions of their products. And any person savvy enough to install and configure a free, community-supported version is savvy enough to not need your help anyway.
The only thing you're offering is computer assembly to a population which likes to assemble their own hardware anyway. Where's your revenue going to come from?
Sole? Sole proprietorships and very narrowly, privately held corporations, partnerships, etc. make up a large percentage of businesses, and many of them operate in accord with interests of their owners beyond simply maximizing financial return or market value of the business.
Sole Proprietorships make make up the majority of businesses, but, if you look at it in terms of revenue, I think you will find the largest businesses make most of the money, and have the greatest economic impact.
In short, 'they' refers to the executive branch of the government. Police, FBI, and the various intelligence agencies could all potentially use this tool to collect unauthorized information.
UAVs are rather hard to see when painted correctly, and can be difficult to hear as well, especially in a noisy city environment. And even if you could see the thing and draw a bead on it, you'd require something more than your average handgun to hit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. If VMWare writes perfect code and gives it away for free, then eventually customers will catch on, and will refuse to get support contracts. After all, if you are reasonably confident that the software you just downloaded is perfect, why on earth would you go through the unecessary trouble and expense of getting a support contract?
I suppose you'd use some kind of trusted computing to lock down the hardware, making installing new software more difficult. You could also configure some kind of check-in server that would monitor the computer usage by having the computer contact it every time it got connected to the internet. An extended time without a check-in would prompt some kind of intervention.
Agreed. Another good example of brand devaluation through overuse is Kleenex. Now, whenever someone wants a facial tissue, they say, "Could you give me a Kleenex?" You don't hear people saying, "Hey, give me a facial tissue." The same thing has also happened to a lesser extent with Xerox.
While this router probably will be a valid competitor to Cisco/Juniper in many areas, it probably won't be able to compete in the very high end market where these companies have made a name for themselves. Cisco routers, at least do a lot of processing using ASICs, which are specifically optimized to make the kinds of decisions needed for routing packets. I'm not sure whether traditional x86 can match that level of performance.
Yes, a company could do that. But can you see Microsoft doing it? And, in any case, once the software is patented, many wouldn't consider the standard to be open anymore, since you'd have to get permission from the single patent holder. The patent holder could also deny the licenses to whomever he or she wished and could put all sorts of arbitrary restrictions on those licenses. The patent holder could also revoke licenses that had already been issued, creating a nice scenario for extortion, where one would either have to meet demands or potentially have the core technology ripped out of one's software. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to implement some of these strategies, if they ever get a patent on one of their standards.
That sounds great in theory, but what would probably happen in reality is that Microsoft would end up writing the standard, and adding proprietary, patented extensions onto it in order to ensure permanent dominance for Internet Explorer.
I would much rather have a somewhat supported open standard, rather than having a closed standard perfectly supported by one company.
Are these "bad proteins" anything like the prions that cause mad-cow or Crutzfeld-Jacob disease?
I think the problem is that McAfee mislabeled the patch as "offering new functionality" rather than "fixing design flaw". There are customers who may put off installing patches of the first type while the full consequences of the new functionality are explored, while the second type of patch would get put into production, because of the fact that it fixes a potential security breach.
The original poster distincly said hardware performance issues. Algorithm efficiency is something that I'd probably characterize as software performace. I think the OP was trying to point out that, if your hardware is fast enough to run a Java VM comfortably, it'll be fast enough for you to not worry about the performance impact of "low level" design decisions.
I'd like to see that too, but I also acknowledge that this is the same government that has invested billions in an anti-ballistic missile system that fails to meet the above criteria.
Well, if the world ends and takes you along with it, then you won't be around to care anymore, will you?
Problem solved.
Eclipse is multi-platform, with versions available for Windows, Linux and OS X.
Given the fact that the vast majority of computers in schools are Macs, and Windows is the dominant home desktop environment, I don't see how your "capture them early" theory holds water.
Much as I hate to admit it, the parent has a point. The Saturn is a pretty advanced booster, and releasing its design would teach unfriendly countries (read Iran, North Korea, etc) a lot about rocket design (especially guidance and control) that they may not know.
Ok, so the Redstone's no good anymore. But why scrap Gemini? That was good enough for orbital flight. Why scrap the Saturn? That was good for going to the moon, and it could have "retired" as a heavy-lift cargo vehicle. Rutan's main point remains: why did NASA scrap the older launch systems (like Saturn) after the advent of the new system? Even if they didn't have the money to maintain 2 concurrent launch systems, they could have released the plans to private industry, so that these "tried and true" vehicles could be put to commercial use.
While I agree, that, initially having a GUI saves time, I think that over the long term I can accomplish task more quickly over the command line once I know how to do the task that way. Having a GUI is nice, but it should not be mandatory. I should be able to open up a shell and do everything over the command line if I need to.
Isn't marketing and propaganda one and the same? In both you're trying to play up your own strengths and make the other side look either evil or ineffective (or both).
Yes, because spending money on AIDS research would be just pointless.
Yes, because we know the OLPC project and AIDS funding are 100% mutually exclusive.
Unless you count the new start menu
How is this fundamental? Stardock's WindowBlinds has been offering the ability to create a custom start-menu for years.
the "everybody's a user" security model,
Microsoft had the ability to implement this in Windows XP. They've supported Limited User Accounts since Windows 2000. Its a change in default user settings, not an earthshaking new security model.
the sidebar
Does Google Desktop ring a bell? How about ObjectDock?
the bundle of included apps
Oh, you mean new skins for Minesweeper, Wordpad, and Solitaire? Or do you mean 3-d chess? Last I heard they weren't even including a basic office suite. For a 7-gig disc, I expect more.
Face it, Vista includes little that's especially new, even for Microsoft.
Wrong! The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.
Apple is not FOSS but it is part of for OSS movement.
Since when did releasing a proprietary OS that happens to include an X Server and FreeBSD userspace tools make Apple a part of the open source movement? Sure, Apple benefits from OSS, but they hardly do anything to give back to the community.
The thing is that Apple's hardware is proprietary. Unless you're buying from Apple or a cerified reseller, you can't get Apple hardware. Now, there's no such thing as proprietary Linux hardware. If you try to sell "Linux certified" hardware you'll find yourself competing with the likes of Newegg, who can easily undercut you due to their volume discounts and thinner profit margins. The only real thing you can offer is support. However, most Linux companies, like Red Hat and SuSE already offer support for the boxed versions of their products. And any person savvy enough to install and configure a free, community-supported version is savvy enough to not need your help anyway.
The only thing you're offering is computer assembly to a population which likes to assemble their own hardware anyway. Where's your revenue going to come from?
Sole Proprietorships make make up the majority of businesses, but, if you look at it in terms of revenue, I think you will find the largest businesses make most of the money, and have the greatest economic impact.
In short, 'they' refers to the executive branch of the government. Police, FBI, and the various intelligence agencies could all potentially use this tool to collect unauthorized information.
UAVs are rather hard to see when painted correctly, and can be difficult to hear as well, especially in a noisy city environment. And even if you could see the thing and draw a bead on it, you'd require something more than your average handgun to hit it.