What are you talking about? There are plenty of companies making money off of selling Android devices. Google isn't one of them because Google doesn't manufacture phones or charge for Android.
Consumers get the iPhone for the OS/interface. The underlying hardware is largely irrelevant. What this data tells us is that consumers are embracing a smartphone OS outside of the iPhone. Apple isn't capturing the same level of market/mind share domination as it had with the iPod. The space will get even more exciting when Microsoft releases what looks to be a solid OS in Windows Phone 7.
Ultimately, this is a market that will be commoditized. Android is FREE and a viable competitor. Microsoft is a commoditizer and will charge peanuts for its plaform. If there's one thing that Microsoft does right, it is to claw its way back into a market people forgot about it in. The premium that Apple charges for its platform/phone will be eroded over the next few years.
The OS wouldn't have nearly the lock in without the monopoly of the office component. The office component has no reason to remain exclusive to Windows, and will do a better job of seeking markets in alternative operating systems.
Perhaps the best way to return value to the shareholders would be to break up into individual companies. That is, the OS part of microsoft will be its own company, the business productivity part of MSFT will be its own company, etc. Shareholders will get to own shares in all pieces, and Microsoft will not be able to leverage its monopoly in one crucial market to impose standards on the others.
I thought Red Hat just wanted their VM management software to be hypervisor agnostic. If they abstract away from having anything specific to a particular one, they could better harness forks and updates as OSS is so good at.
I do object to that as a rule of thumb. I'd imagine that there were hundreds of students with legitimate questions to ask. For example, if I were there, I'd like to ask him a tough question on why the big dig in Boston suffered such extensive delays and shortcomings, and ultimately led to the death of a young woman. I would be very angry if someone made the CHOICE to disrupt the assembly, removing precious time for people to ask legitimate questions. We have a crowd of students who made the choice to take time out of their busy schedules to hear the senator speak. The event security realized early in the situation the individual's destructive attempt, and asked him to stop. Even John Kerry seemed agitated by his preaching.
I guess that isn't particularly general, so let me try to abstract that a bit. Given an assembly where a powerful person is speaking and answering questions in a structured manner, the lack of order cheapens the experience. If one person elects to protest outside the rules to make his voice heard, why shouldn't the next person, and the next, and the next? If rules aren't enforced, we'd simply have a mob of individuals shouting.
So that I understand what you are suggesting, you don't think security personnel should interfere unless someone could be physically harmed? If someone protests in this fashion, as long as they are non-violent, they should be allowed to conduct their business?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that he was zapped. It was a dangerous move; they probably didn't know whether he had a heart condition, and frankly, it looks terrible for the police there. However, its not the first time I've seen college police botch restraining someone. A drunk, belligerent maybe 120 pound female friend of mine, who could barely stand on her own, required 4-6 university cops to drag down and handcuff. I'm not surprised that the cops in this video had trouble getting this guy under control. He looked relatively well built, and in a crowded room of people, its not like they have much room to work with. He continued to struggle, even as he realized that he could be tasered.
He was granted the opportunity to get the attention of a US senator and to ask a question. He was granted the attention of the senator and every person in the room. If he had asked a question as intended, there wouldn't have been a problem. But he abused the grant he was given by preaching to the audience. When asked to stop, he refused. When asked to leave, he resisted. He fought hard in a crowded room, and the police did what they felt they needed to.
No, first he decided to preach and was warned. If he wanted to address an audience, he should organize his own speech or rally. Then, when warned to ask his question, he continued his preaching. When he finally got around to asking the "question", there were actually a string of questions. He didn't approach the mic to ask a question; he wanted to draw attention to himself and issues that he found important. That wasn't his time to take though, and he was asked to stop. He didn't stop.
Did you notice how the audience cheered when the police grabbed him? He was wasting their time and making them look terrible in the process.
Not sure why you haven't been modded up, but you are spot on. The average windows xp user trying to deal with the tasks he outlined will need to call a techie for help, at least the first time. The average user is scared of the machine. You put Windows or Linux in front of the average user, and he'll need to call for help. Mossberg's roleplayed review is biased from the start.
Now I am conflicted. Half of my inner geek wants to laugh and take the joke, and the other wants to rail on you for creating causation from correlation. But either way, I'm posting on/.
Its worse than that for Microsoft. The cost to develop a new OS has increased exponentially (with the complexity) since their 3.1/95 days. That trend isn't going to reverse, and it is going to become impossible for Microsoft to innovate and profit from the OS alone. That is why widespread support for ODF can break them, and why they are fighting it so hard.
The OSS model is working a lot better at spreading out the complexity and costs of innovating within an OS. Its simply a more sustainable "business" model than Microsoft's.
If that makes Linux a science project, I'm not sure what we should call an OS that doesn't bother attempting to play nice with others. I'm sure most sysadmin won't need to bother with dual booting Ubuntu next to Windows, somehow...
Not sure if I agree with you there. In theory, products quality should stand alone. In reality, there are a lot of directors of IT and CIOs who believe that Linux is a science project, and not a suitable server platform for important tasks. Until that sentiment is eroded, Linux and OSS will never gain the share it deserves. Strong marketing will help to erode that sentiment faster.
I'm not convinced that this is unbiased, especially the claims that Novell adoption is slowing due to backlash. Give us the stats if you want, but let us draw our own conclusions. Also, why did the report separate Fedora and RHEL while not separating openSuSE and Novell SuSE? Certainly interesting data, but like I said, I don't really want their conclusions.
On a side note, PostgreSQL seems to be used a lot more than I originally thought.
Keep in mind, my statement was a hypothetical response to a hypothetical statement in a hypothetical scenario. We're really stretching this farther than we should be......but you are nuts if you think that Microsoft isn't losing money from the countless security vulnerabilities in XP that have allowed massive botnets to form and attack. Corporations have technology purchasing cycles, and as time goes on, I think we will continue to see backlash from those vulnerabilities and worms by way of corporations considering alternatives.
Why do you think Microsoft has tried so hard to secure Vista, especially despite the complaints from security giants like Symantec? It costs money to hire programmer and to test for problems extensively before earning any revenue off of a product. Yes, Microsoft has deep pockets and other products to earn it money. But their investment in Vista was absolutely massive, and they took a damn long time to release it. They know that another security failure like the pre-SP2 days of XP would thrash their reputation very, very badly. There wouldn't be many CIOs out there not considering an alternative OS, and that is the last thing that Microsoft wants.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? There are plenty of companies making money off of selling Android devices. Google isn't one of them because Google doesn't manufacture phones or charge for Android. Consumers get the iPhone for the OS/interface. The underlying hardware is largely irrelevant. What this data tells us is that consumers are embracing a smartphone OS outside of the iPhone. Apple isn't capturing the same level of market/mind share domination as it had with the iPod. The space will get even more exciting when Microsoft releases what looks to be a solid OS in Windows Phone 7. Ultimately, this is a market that will be commoditized. Android is FREE and a viable competitor. Microsoft is a commoditizer and will charge peanuts for its plaform. If there's one thing that Microsoft does right, it is to claw its way back into a market people forgot about it in. The premium that Apple charges for its platform/phone will be eroded over the next few years.
The OS wouldn't have nearly the lock in without the monopoly of the office component. The office component has no reason to remain exclusive to Windows, and will do a better job of seeking markets in alternative operating systems.
Perhaps the best way to return value to the shareholders would be to break up into individual companies. That is, the OS part of microsoft will be its own company, the business productivity part of MSFT will be its own company, etc. Shareholders will get to own shares in all pieces, and Microsoft will not be able to leverage its monopoly in one crucial market to impose standards on the others.
I thought Red Hat just wanted their VM management software to be hypervisor agnostic. If they abstract away from having anything specific to a particular one, they could better harness forks and updates as OSS is so good at.
Laws of physics? Are you comparing economics to science?
See, the first mistake is calling it a law. It is an old economic theory.
I do object to that as a rule of thumb. I'd imagine that there were hundreds of students with legitimate questions to ask. For example, if I were there, I'd like to ask him a tough question on why the big dig in Boston suffered such extensive delays and shortcomings, and ultimately led to the death of a young woman. I would be very angry if someone made the CHOICE to disrupt the assembly, removing precious time for people to ask legitimate questions. We have a crowd of students who made the choice to take time out of their busy schedules to hear the senator speak. The event security realized early in the situation the individual's destructive attempt, and asked him to stop. Even John Kerry seemed agitated by his preaching. I guess that isn't particularly general, so let me try to abstract that a bit. Given an assembly where a powerful person is speaking and answering questions in a structured manner, the lack of order cheapens the experience. If one person elects to protest outside the rules to make his voice heard, why shouldn't the next person, and the next, and the next? If rules aren't enforced, we'd simply have a mob of individuals shouting.
So that I understand what you are suggesting, you don't think security personnel should interfere unless someone could be physically harmed? If someone protests in this fashion, as long as they are non-violent, they should be allowed to conduct their business?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that he was zapped. It was a dangerous move; they probably didn't know whether he had a heart condition, and frankly, it looks terrible for the police there. However, its not the first time I've seen college police botch restraining someone. A drunk, belligerent maybe 120 pound female friend of mine, who could barely stand on her own, required 4-6 university cops to drag down and handcuff. I'm not surprised that the cops in this video had trouble getting this guy under control. He looked relatively well built, and in a crowded room of people, its not like they have much room to work with. He continued to struggle, even as he realized that he could be tasered.
He was granted the opportunity to get the attention of a US senator and to ask a question. He was granted the attention of the senator and every person in the room. If he had asked a question as intended, there wouldn't have been a problem. But he abused the grant he was given by preaching to the audience. When asked to stop, he refused. When asked to leave, he resisted. He fought hard in a crowded room, and the police did what they felt they needed to.
No, first he decided to preach and was warned. If he wanted to address an audience, he should organize his own speech or rally. Then, when warned to ask his question, he continued his preaching. When he finally got around to asking the "question", there were actually a string of questions. He didn't approach the mic to ask a question; he wanted to draw attention to himself and issues that he found important. That wasn't his time to take though, and he was asked to stop. He didn't stop. Did you notice how the audience cheered when the police grabbed him? He was wasting their time and making them look terrible in the process.
They probably were allowed to play rough with people resisting arrest.
The student deserved to get zapped. He went in with the intention of causing a scene and being the center of attention. Mission accomplished.
Not sure why you haven't been modded up, but you are spot on. The average windows xp user trying to deal with the tasks he outlined will need to call a techie for help, at least the first time. The average user is scared of the machine. You put Windows or Linux in front of the average user, and he'll need to call for help. Mossberg's roleplayed review is biased from the start.
Now I am conflicted. Half of my inner geek wants to laugh and take the joke, and the other wants to rail on you for creating causation from correlation. But either way, I'm posting on /.
Are you sure? Most jobs I have looked at accept PDF resumes.
Its a terrible comparison, given that microsoft and cellular providers have ENTIRELY different cost structures.
Oh I can make it think its changing channels with keyboard or remote. But it never actually goes to a new frequency.
Frustrating is an understatement. I can't even change get myth to change channels!
Its worse than that for Microsoft. The cost to develop a new OS has increased exponentially (with the complexity) since their 3.1/95 days. That trend isn't going to reverse, and it is going to become impossible for Microsoft to innovate and profit from the OS alone. That is why widespread support for ODF can break them, and why they are fighting it so hard.
The OSS model is working a lot better at spreading out the complexity and costs of innovating within an OS. Its simply a more sustainable "business" model than Microsoft's.
If that makes Linux a science project, I'm not sure what we should call an OS that doesn't bother attempting to play nice with others. I'm sure most sysadmin won't need to bother with dual booting Ubuntu next to Windows, somehow...
Not sure if I agree with you there. In theory, products quality should stand alone. In reality, there are a lot of directors of IT and CIOs who believe that Linux is a science project, and not a suitable server platform for important tasks. Until that sentiment is eroded, Linux and OSS will never gain the share it deserves. Strong marketing will help to erode that sentiment faster.
I'm not convinced that this is unbiased, especially the claims that Novell adoption is slowing due to backlash. Give us the stats if you want, but let us draw our own conclusions. Also, why did the report separate Fedora and RHEL while not separating openSuSE and Novell SuSE? Certainly interesting data, but like I said, I don't really want their conclusions. On a side note, PostgreSQL seems to be used a lot more than I originally thought.
I was about to hit the trigger on the same title. The two are not mutually exclusive, and this article is flame bait.
Keep in mind, my statement was a hypothetical response to a hypothetical statement in a hypothetical scenario. We're really stretching this farther than we should be... ...but you are nuts if you think that Microsoft isn't losing money from the countless security vulnerabilities in XP that have allowed massive botnets to form and attack. Corporations have technology purchasing cycles, and as time goes on, I think we will continue to see backlash from those vulnerabilities and worms by way of corporations considering alternatives.
Why do you think Microsoft has tried so hard to secure Vista, especially despite the complaints from security giants like Symantec? It costs money to hire programmer and to test for problems extensively before earning any revenue off of a product. Yes, Microsoft has deep pockets and other products to earn it money. But their investment in Vista was absolutely massive, and they took a damn long time to release it. They know that another security failure like the pre-SP2 days of XP would thrash their reputation very, very badly. There wouldn't be many CIOs out there not considering an alternative OS, and that is the last thing that Microsoft wants.