That way, instead of my browser connecting to Gmail's servers every 60 seconds to check for new mail, Gmail's servers can connect to my browser and tell me only when I have new email.
What if you close your browser, or visit a different page? What about spam, google is pretty trustworthy but can you say the same about www.sux0rzharozZLOl111.com? Can you opt out? Besides, this isn't really something Google can do its own, you need to build something like this into browsers. There's no standrad protocol defined, its not going to happen anytime soon.
They want to pretend to 'sell' us their product, but they don't want us to actually have it.
I like the way he put that.
I'm usually very 'liberal' with respect to the way companies protect their IP but as a customer I deffinately feel alienated by some of their tactics. I've been harping for a while that I wouldn't mind DRM as much if I didn't notice it. That is, if I bought a song off iTunes and I could transfer it to any device capable of mp3 playback (iRiver, PDA, whatever) everything would be fine. As is the case now, its iPod, iTunes, CD or nothing.
Are you trying to keep up with the Jone's or something? What is up with this rampant consumerism in American anyway? How does the release of a new product by some other company change what you already have? Does it somehow transform into a useless piece of junk?
If the iPod performs the job it was intended for well, why should you care that a new player opens cans and walks your dog?
I could give you a whole list of reasons why I might want to buy a new mp3 player, but I'm not going to because frankly its none of your business how I choose to spend my money.
The only point I was making was that if I invest in music from iTMS then any mp3 player I buy (for any reason) would have to be an iPod. I don't like being locked into iPods even though they are pretty cool.
And what if Creative or iriver releases a new kickass player that blows the iPod out of the water? You're stuck with your sub-par iPod and your large collection of DRMed music that plays on nothing but.
The truth is there is no answer. Apple, Sony and MS don't seem to get the fact that if you're going to go DRM make it standard across all devices. I don't give a crap if its Fairplay or WMA or whatever, if i buy a song somewhere I want it to play everywhere.
So no, I don't want ITMs becuase I don't want to be locked into an iPod.
Until content providers and middlemen (Apple/MS) get their act together, its Limewire for me.
Pray tell, what are these? It's a very simple theory, and if it has holes its pretty worthless.
If you think about it, the theory of Evolution via Natural Selection attempts to generalize 4 billion years of history and encompasses concepts from chemistry, molecular-biology, behavioural sciences and more. It is neither obvious nor simple. Why are you attacking the Grandparent, his comments were spot on. Like everything else in Science the theory of Evolution is (currently) good enough to explain certain phenomena, it might not be tomorrow.
Its a nice publicity stunt by Linspire. But lets be serious here; a 100% to Linux (Linspire) would be devastating for S.Korea (and for Microsoft's image abroad). It won't happen.
Besides S.Korea has a huge gaming culture and within 12 hours of moving to Linux you would have thousands of teenagers shivering from game withdrawal symptoms.
Anyway, Microsoft is an easy target to push around and this is another money EU-style money grab. I mean, first it was the media player that was the big problem, and now MSN Messenger (or rather the really crappy Windows Messenger as MSN has to actually be downloaded). I'm still waiting for the SP2 Firewall lawsuit and the Disk Defrag lawsuit. Why not? Its Microsoft after all and, everything is fair game. Ridiculous.
Price is not an issue. As long as downloads are less than or equal to store bought DVDs its cool with me.
What is an issue is DRM. I understand we can't get away from it and most likely some form of copy protection will be included However I don't want another iTunes crap, where an iTunes song only works with an iPod. This sucks and is the #1 reason I got no songs from iTunes (even the free ones I was eligible for from the Pepsi deal).
If you're going to have DRM then have it be standard across all devices. If I purchase a movie, I don't even want to notice it. I don't want to crack my own movies (as it is the case currently with DVDs) so that they i can watch them on a device that the original supplier does not offer.
...reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down...
Which is how it should be. The ideology that the documents generated by a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People should always be available TO the people, not at the whim of a corporate entity. That is what it boils down to. The people should not be required to pay a fee, license a patent or buy specific software to interact with their government or review the documentation created by said government.
They don't have to. They can download a document viewer(free from Microsoft) or even OpenOffice.
I stand by my statement that the move to OpenDocument is purely based on ideology and here's why:
1) MS Office cannot read or open OpenDocument format (conversly OpenOffice can). 2) MS Office is used by 90% of the market. Which means most state documents will not be able to be read by outside parties without extra effort (and a bit of tech savy-yes downloading OpenOffice implies tech savy) 3) OpenDocument is not accessible to Blind and Deaf users. Here in Canada accessability for the disabled is taken very seriously. 4) #3 implies that a subset of users will need to continue using MS Office and will require OpenDocument documents converted to an Word-readble format. Which means you are not really supporting one format, but now must contend with two and the products that read them. How will you pass documents around when you have different users using different largely incompatible products?
All this sounds like OpenDocument is just not the way to go *right now*.
I really believe an open document format is the way of the future and sooner or later this move will be necessary, but clearly the time is not right now.
Linda Hamel, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Information Technology Department (ITD), suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft.
So the *only* reason someone might think that sticking with a product that is used by 90% of market (formats included) is that they were influenced by Microsoft?
There are pros and cons of going either way (MS or OSS) but this decision sounds like it was made by pure ideology.
acheco took exception to Hamel's remarks and first asked if she believed these groups were in fact "wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft," before asking if she believed they had been "bought" by the software giant.
"Those are your words, not mine senator," Hamel replied to both questions.
Yes, but thats clearly what you wanted to imply isn't Linda?
Yes I have actually, but while Atari was a monopoly, it was also first to market, which is always a monopoly for a short time.
So was Microsoft =)
Thanks to MS it took nearly five years for users to get tabbed browsing, if that isn't holding progress back then I'm a lemur.
I had tabbed browsing 5 years ago. Any user in the world could have downloaded Opera or Mozilla. You are a lemur.
Hell, I still have to design web pages to conform to partially implemented six year old specifications because IE still does not support any of the newer HTML, XHTML, or CSS specifications since that time.
Thats not a crime.
They are single-handedly holding internet technologies back and that is bad for everyone. The only reason they can do that is because they have a monopoly and are abusing it.
Specs from W3C and other such organization are neither mandatory, nor is their lack of implementation against the law. Microsoft isn't stopping anyone from developing products according to any standard's body.
Dell has no power to threaten MS.
And yet they do. They both need each other. MS can't afford to lose Dell and neither can Dell afford to lose Microsoft. Its business.
Yeah, I get it... you don't care if MS breaks the law or behaves unfairly because you worship Bill Gates or something. You don't care if the entire computing industry rots, because innovation is stifled.
As far as I can see innovation proceeds in a quick pace with or without Microsoft. Have you heard of Linux? Java? Google? Firefox? Apple? Google them, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Since 1980 the industry has seen enormous growth and tons of innovation.
That will kill them. What do you think Dell can do, pre-intall linux and sell it? Sorry but the market is just not there. 99% of people want a Windows box from them and if they can't offer that at the best price, they die.
Blame the users, there are alternatives. I spend some of my time in Ubuntu, so does my sister (email,internet, word processing). We *can* survive without Windows... I choose not too though. I like Windows (and Linux and Apple).
You've spent a great deal of time here apologizing for the illegal behaviors of a corporation that has done huge amounts of damage to the computing industry and held back progress in the field as long as possible.
I never apologized, that would imply some wrong was done. If you compare MS to say.. Haliburton. They aren't that bad. They have no sweat shops, don't profit from war, don't discriminate, have excellent benefits and pay and contribute tons to charity. I mean really, some perspective please. Its just software.
One could argue the case for this being anticompetitive, but it is a grey area. What is your point?
That all of it is a grey area, and hence none of it. Media Player was included in Windows since Win95 (and possibly some version of it in 3.1), why now and why Media Player when you could essentially take any app (disk defrag for example) and argue it is anti-competative by the definition that I'm getting from people here on slashdot (definition being Microsoft can't include ANYTHING with Windows). BTW, I'm pretty sure Media Player pre-dates Real Player. I could be wrong.
As for people moving away from monopolies, that is not supported by history or economics.
Really? Played some Atari lately?
Monopolies come and go as new technologies replace them. Microsoft has to tred carefully not lose is market share. Look at IE, MS got arrogant and lost 10% of the market to Firefox. If MS gets too arrogant with Windows it will lose to Linux.
First because OEMs have no choice but to pre-install WMP, whereas Real has to provide them with incentives to do the same with Realplayer. Second, it is rumored that part of the large settlement is due to evidence Real has of MS disallowing OEMs to include Realplayer under penalty of higher Windows prices for that OEM. Third, by refusing advertising dollars from Real to advertise Realplayer on MSN because Real was a competitor.
Poor..Real
Yes, in some cases because MS does not have to pay, they have an unfair advantage.
And in some cases MS pays out huge subsidies because a manufacturer like Dell jiggles the "Linux-bell"..You see, business, like life, is not fair.
Creating an improved filesystem is unlikely to fun afoul of antitrust laws because it is an integral part of the system, because one already existed before MS gained a monopoly, and because their is no market for desktop filesystems. Building advanced searching is likewise an improvement of already existing searching
A filesystem which searches in seconds versus one that searches in minutes is as integral as a media player that plays all formats available. Considering Windows is a user-centric OS, I would say its more important.
WinFS (when released) will severly cut into desktop search products from Yahoo and Google, in fact there will be no need from products from Yahoo and Google.
As for what is and what isn't integral to the Operating System, its not that easy. I would venture to say that Antivirus and Antispyware software is integral, yet I would guess that if Microsoft bundled antivirus software they would get hit with lawsuits from Novell and McAfee.
The truth is MS sucks ass even more and broke the law because they could and have shut down and locked out more small companies than anyone can count.
So? Microsoft is already paying for this, not by the fines, but by the speedy adoption of Linux on desktop and server systems. In the short term, monopoly wins, in the long-term it loses because people do move to alternatives. My friend never used a Windows machine in his life (mac, BSD, BeOS, Linux and now OSX). He.. gasp.. survived. And btw, I do like Windows Media Player.
And how is Windows locking out Real? Anyone can download it anytime.
The point is MS should have to compete on equal footing with all the other media player creators when talking to Dell.
Would those be the same companies that either pay Dell or severly subsidize their software to be include on a Dell system? My Dell laptop came with the full version of MusicMatch and had Novell Anti-virus 30-day trial on it. Do you not think Dell got money for those?(Hint: yes). Your defintion of 'equal footing' seems to imply they can buy off Dell to reach a wider audience but not Microsoft.
So you tell me.. What is this "Operating System" thing. Because I don't think you know. Because I always thought an Operating System is the kernel and layers of services and applications on top of it. Its the overall user experience.
Should MS bundle a defrag tool, a partition tool, or a disk scan tool with Windows? By your definition.. no. The partition tool is in direct competition with something like ParitionMagic. They can't do that they are a Monopoly. Hmm.. maybe thats another billion dollar lawsuit coming. Can you use your monopoly laws to tell me why they wouldn't get sued for that? Truth is you can't.. monopoly laws are very subjective. The side with the better lobby team wins.
What about desktop search and WinFS.. should Microsoft stop development on WinFS forever because it essentially kills desktop search products from Google or Yahoo? Probably.. another billion dollars here we come. Maybe MS should drop.NET because it competes with Java. I don't know.. probably
So you're telling me, a user friendly, mass-market operating system should not even come with an application to support rudimentary audio-playback by default? Or should it come with one, but be crippled enough that users will hate it and look for alternatives?
Truth is Real sucks ass and they are doing this only because they can. $750 million is incentitve enough to cry anyone a river.
If the electric company (a local monopoly)
Electric companies are government ordained monopolies hence they are not subject to market pressure. If MS raised Windows price to $5000, Linux/Apple adoption would sky-rocket. This MS monopoly garbage is rediculous since MS has to tread really really slowly not to lose market share, if it f@cks up there is competition to replace it.
DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government.
By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.
If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.
Non DRM'ed Media is freely available to be viewed however you wish. DRM ONLY affects media which makes use if it. That is if some encrypted and DRM'ed mp3 file has a 'do not view if X' (where X is some condition) flag set it probably means its creator does not wish this file to be opened or played if X. If you're the content creator you can easily either a) ignore DRM and just release a vanilla non DRM'ed mp3 or b) release a DRM'ed mp3 with a flag set to 'allow to be viewed/modified by all under any conditions'.
DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.
That's censorship by proxy
No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech. Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.
We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.
They can also be molded to fit *any* conclusion since the creator of the study controls and defines the conditions from which he basis his conclusions. These initial conditions are very subjective.
TCO studies looking at Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac vs. Unix are especially bad because of the zealotry involved. Besides this, their results only apply to scenarios (like every TCO study), "If I have setup A, these people working for me, and I want to accomplish B, C and D then X is the best OS for me". The conclusion you extracted from this might be right, however it is right only for this particular scenario. Its impossible to generalize it over a range of scenarios.
Truth is, sometimes Windows TCO is lower, and sometimes Linux TCO is lower.
Q: What's better C++, Java, Perl, C, PHP or C#? A: What do you want to do?
The apt-get methodology just seems kind of stupid to me as it side-steps the problem. You'll never be able to provide a comprehensive list of all the application someone will ever want to install.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications. The author points out that there are a bunch of freeware programs for Linux. Of course, almost all the ones he lists have equal or better counterparts freely available for Windows.
What people tend to alwasy miss is the fact that most Open Source apps (especially the bigger and more popular ones) are released under Linux and under Windows. Is OpenOffice great..sure..does it mean you have to switch to Linux to use it..no friggen way... install it under Windows.
The LAMP package can easily be converted into a WAMP package. Why does it always have to be all Open Source or all proprietary?
Even with the KDE and GNOME graphical windowing interfaces, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit a configuration file.
Its actually very probable that you will have to visit ye ol'd shell to install anything, and installing anything under linux is a total bitch. I'm sorry, it hasn't gotten easier. Apt-get is nice when the package or the library is provided, if not, forget it. I don't know why every god-damn program under Windows seems to use InstallShield or InstallAnywhere, but none actully do under Linux (well InstallShield only works for Windows).
I had no problems installing and setting up Apache under Windows, no problems at all (literally next->next->next->.. and then just mod the config text file). I had a butt-load of trouble doing the same under Linux (dependency issues). I am obviously not a Linux guru, but I do consider myself tech-savy in general.
There is a problem when the same application is so much easier to install and setup on one platform than it is on the other.
I always wondered why linux apps don't come bundled with all the libraries they need. Is there some sort of downside to doing it this way?
Slashdot Mirror
That way, instead of my browser connecting to Gmail's servers every 60 seconds to check for new mail, Gmail's servers can connect to my browser and tell me only when I have new email.
What if you close your browser, or visit a different page? What about spam, google is pretty trustworthy but can you say the same about www.sux0rzharozZLOl111.com? Can you opt out? Besides, this isn't really something Google can do its own, you need to build something like this into browsers. There's no standrad protocol defined, its not going to happen anytime soon.
They want to pretend to 'sell' us their product, but they don't want us to actually have it.
I like the way he put that.
I'm usually very 'liberal' with respect to the way companies protect their IP but as a customer I deffinately feel alienated by some of their tactics. I've been harping for a while that I wouldn't mind DRM as much if I didn't notice it. That is, if I bought a song off iTunes and I could transfer it to any device capable of mp3 playback (iRiver, PDA, whatever) everything would be fine. As is the case now, its iPod, iTunes, CD or nothing.
So I choose nothing.
Are you trying to keep up with the Jone's or something? What is up with this rampant consumerism in American anyway? How does the release of a new product by some other company change what you already have? Does it somehow transform into a useless piece of junk?
If the iPod performs the job it was intended for well, why should you care that a new player opens cans and walks your dog?
I could give you a whole list of reasons why I might want to buy a new mp3 player, but I'm not going to because frankly its none of your business how I choose to spend my money.
The only point I was making was that if I invest in music from iTMS then any mp3 player I buy (for any reason) would have to be an iPod. I don't like being locked into iPods even though they are pretty cool.
And what if Creative or iriver releases a new kickass player that blows the iPod out of the water? You're stuck with your sub-par iPod and your large collection of DRMed music that plays on nothing but.
The truth is there is no answer. Apple, Sony and MS don't seem to get the fact that if you're going to go DRM make it standard across all devices. I don't give a crap if its Fairplay or WMA or whatever, if i buy a song somewhere I want it to play everywhere.
So no, I don't want ITMs becuase I don't want to be locked into an iPod.
Until content providers and middlemen (Apple/MS) get their act together, its Limewire for me.
Pray tell, what are these? It's a very simple theory, and if it has holes its pretty worthless.
If you think about it, the theory of Evolution via Natural Selection attempts to generalize 4 billion years of history and encompasses concepts from chemistry, molecular-biology, behavioural sciences and more. It is neither obvious nor simple. Why are you attacking the Grandparent, his comments were spot on. Like everything else in Science the theory of Evolution is (currently) good enough to explain certain phenomena, it might not be tomorrow.
Its a nice publicity stunt by Linspire. But lets be serious here; a 100% to Linux (Linspire) would be devastating for S.Korea (and for Microsoft's image abroad). It won't happen.
Besides S.Korea has a huge gaming culture and within 12 hours of moving to Linux you would have thousands of teenagers shivering from game withdrawal symptoms.
Anyway, Microsoft is an easy target to push around and this is another money EU-style money grab. I mean, first it was the media player that was the big problem, and now MSN Messenger (or rather the really crappy Windows Messenger as MSN has to actually be downloaded). I'm still waiting for the SP2 Firewall lawsuit and the Disk Defrag lawsuit. Why not? Its Microsoft after all and, everything is fair game. Ridiculous.
Price is not an issue. As long as downloads are less than or equal to store bought DVDs its cool with me.
What is an issue is DRM. I understand we can't get away from it and most likely some form of copy protection will be included However I don't want another iTunes crap, where an iTunes song only works with an iPod. This sucks and is the #1 reason I got no songs from iTunes (even the free ones I was eligible for from the Pepsi deal).
If you're going to have DRM then have it be standard across all devices. If I purchase a movie, I don't even want to notice it. I don't want to crack my own movies (as it is the case currently with DVDs) so that they i can watch them on a device that the original supplier does not offer.
oh ok.. i'm thinking back to initial release (beta 1 i guess - without sidebar).
But can it actually run under a Limited User account?
It couldn't before, so I installed MSN offering (note: its not bad).
...reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down...
We're all geeks here, no need to deny it.
Short answer: when it makes sense to.
Longer answer: When most people will be able to actually open and read the documents you create.
Which is how it should be. The ideology that the documents generated by a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People should always be available TO the people, not at the whim of a corporate entity. That is what it boils down to. The people should not be required to pay a fee, license a patent or buy specific software to interact with their government or review the documentation created by said government.
They don't have to. They can download a document viewer(free from Microsoft) or even OpenOffice.
I stand by my statement that the move to OpenDocument is purely based on ideology and here's why:
1) MS Office cannot read or open OpenDocument format (conversly OpenOffice can).
2) MS Office is used by 90% of the market. Which means most state documents will not be able to be read by outside parties without extra effort (and a bit of tech savy-yes downloading OpenOffice implies tech savy)
3) OpenDocument is not accessible to Blind and Deaf users. Here in Canada accessability for the disabled is taken very seriously.
4) #3 implies that a subset of users will need to continue using MS Office and will require OpenDocument documents converted to an Word-readble format. Which means you are not really supporting one format, but now must contend with two and the products that read them. How will you pass documents around when you have different users using different largely incompatible products?
All this sounds like OpenDocument is just not the way to go *right now*.
I really believe an open document format is the way of the future and sooner or later this move will be necessary, but clearly the time is not right now.
Linda Hamel, the general counsel for the Massachusetts Information Technology Department (ITD), suggested that groups that oppose the OpenDocument file format standard might be influenced by Microsoft.
So the *only* reason someone might think that sticking with a product that is used by 90% of market (formats included) is that they were influenced by Microsoft?
There are pros and cons of going either way (MS or OSS) but this decision sounds like it was made by pure ideology.
acheco took exception to Hamel's remarks and first asked if she believed these groups were in fact "wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft," before asking if she believed they had been "bought" by the software giant.
"Those are your words, not mine senator," Hamel replied to both questions.
Yes, but thats clearly what you wanted to imply isn't Linda?
Yes I have actually, but while Atari was a monopoly, it was also first to market, which is always a monopoly for a short time.
So was Microsoft =)
Thanks to MS it took nearly five years for users to get tabbed browsing, if that isn't holding progress back then I'm a lemur.
I had tabbed browsing 5 years ago. Any user in the world could have downloaded Opera or Mozilla. You are a lemur.
Hell, I still have to design web pages to conform to partially implemented six year old specifications because IE still does not support any of the newer HTML, XHTML, or CSS specifications since that time.
Thats not a crime.
They are single-handedly holding internet technologies back and that is bad for everyone. The only reason they can do that is because they have a monopoly and are abusing it.
Specs from W3C and other such organization are neither mandatory, nor is their lack of implementation against the law. Microsoft isn't stopping anyone from developing products according to any standard's body.
Dell has no power to threaten MS.
And yet they do. They both need each other. MS can't afford to lose Dell and neither can Dell afford to lose Microsoft. Its business.
Yeah, I get it... you don't care if MS breaks the law or behaves unfairly because you worship Bill Gates or something. You don't care if the entire computing industry rots, because innovation is stifled.
As far as I can see innovation proceeds in a quick pace with or without Microsoft. Have you heard of Linux? Java? Google? Firefox? Apple? Google them, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Since 1980 the industry has seen enormous growth and tons of innovation.
That will kill them. What do you think Dell can do, pre-intall linux and sell it? Sorry but the market is just not there. 99% of people want a Windows box from them and if they can't offer that at the best price, they die.
Blame the users, there are alternatives. I spend some of my time in Ubuntu, so does my sister (email,internet, word processing). We *can* survive without Windows... I choose not too though. I like Windows (and Linux and Apple).
You've spent a great deal of time here apologizing for the illegal behaviors of a corporation that has done huge amounts of damage to the computing industry and held back progress in the field as long as possible.
I never apologized, that would imply some wrong was done. If you compare MS to say.. Haliburton. They aren't that bad. They have no sweat shops, don't profit from war, don't discriminate, have excellent benefits and pay and contribute tons to charity. I mean really, some perspective please. Its just software.
One could argue the case for this being anticompetitive, but it is a grey area. What is your point?
That all of it is a grey area, and hence none of it. Media Player was included in Windows since Win95 (and possibly some version of it in 3.1), why now and why Media Player when you could essentially take any app (disk defrag for example) and argue it is anti-competative by the definition that I'm getting from people here on slashdot (definition being Microsoft can't include ANYTHING with Windows). BTW, I'm pretty sure Media Player pre-dates Real Player. I could be wrong.
As for people moving away from monopolies, that is not supported by history or economics.
Really? Played some Atari lately?
Monopolies come and go as new technologies replace them. Microsoft has to tred carefully not lose is market share. Look at IE, MS got arrogant and lost 10% of the market to Firefox. If MS gets too arrogant with Windows it will lose to Linux.
First because OEMs have no choice but to pre-install WMP, whereas Real has to provide them with incentives to do the same with Realplayer. Second, it is rumored that part of the large settlement is due to evidence Real has of MS disallowing OEMs to include Realplayer under penalty of higher Windows prices for that OEM. Third, by refusing advertising dollars from Real to advertise Realplayer on MSN because Real was a competitor.
Poor..Real
Yes, in some cases because MS does not have to pay, they have an unfair advantage.
And in some cases MS pays out huge subsidies because a manufacturer like Dell jiggles the "Linux-bell"..You see, business, like life, is not fair.
Creating an improved filesystem is unlikely to fun afoul of antitrust laws because it is an integral part of the system, because one already existed before MS gained a monopoly, and because their is no market for desktop filesystems. Building advanced searching is likewise an improvement of already existing searching
.. gasp.. survived. And btw, I do like Windows Media Player.
A filesystem which searches in seconds versus one that searches in minutes is as integral as a media player that plays all formats available. Considering Windows is a user-centric OS, I would say its more important.
WinFS (when released) will severly cut into desktop search products from Yahoo and Google, in fact there will be no need from products from Yahoo and Google.
As for what is and what isn't integral to the Operating System, its not that easy. I would venture to say that Antivirus and Antispyware software is integral, yet I would guess that if Microsoft bundled antivirus software they would get hit with lawsuits from Novell and McAfee.
The truth is MS sucks ass even more and broke the law because they could and have shut down and locked out more small companies than anyone can count.
So? Microsoft is already paying for this, not by the fines, but by the speedy adoption of Linux on desktop and server systems. In the short term, monopoly wins, in the long-term it loses because people do move to alternatives. My friend never used a Windows machine in his life (mac, BSD, BeOS, Linux and now OSX). He
And how is Windows locking out Real? Anyone can download it anytime.
The point is MS should have to compete on equal footing with all the other media player creators when talking to Dell.
Would those be the same companies that either pay Dell or severly subsidize their software to be include on a Dell system? My Dell laptop came with the full version of MusicMatch and had Novell Anti-virus 30-day trial on it. Do you not think Dell got money for those?(Hint: yes). Your defintion of 'equal footing' seems to imply they can buy off Dell to reach a wider audience but not Microsoft.
So you tell me.. What is this "Operating System" thing. Because I don't think you know. Because I always thought an Operating System is the kernel and layers of services and applications on top of it. Its the overall user experience.
.NET because it competes with Java. I don't know.. probably
Should MS bundle a defrag tool, a partition tool, or a disk scan tool with Windows? By your definition.. no. The partition tool is in direct competition with something like ParitionMagic. They can't do that they are a Monopoly. Hmm.. maybe thats another billion dollar lawsuit coming. Can you use your monopoly laws to tell me why they wouldn't get sued for that? Truth is you can't.. monopoly laws are very subjective. The side with the better lobby team wins.
What about desktop search and WinFS.. should Microsoft stop development on WinFS forever because it essentially kills desktop search products from Google or Yahoo? Probably.. another billion dollars here we come. Maybe MS should drop
So you're telling me, a user friendly, mass-market operating system should not even come with an application to support rudimentary audio-playback by default? Or should it come with one, but be crippled enough that users will hate it and look for alternatives?
Truth is Real sucks ass and they are doing this only because they can. $750 million is incentitve enough to cry anyone a river.
If the electric company (a local monopoly)
Electric companies are government ordained monopolies hence they are not subject to market pressure. If MS raised Windows price to $5000, Linux/Apple adoption would sky-rocket. This MS monopoly garbage is rediculous since MS has to tread really really slowly not to lose market share, if it f@cks up there is competition to replace it.
http://mp3.baidu.com/m?f=ms&tn=baidump3&ct=1342177 28&lf=&rn=&word=maroon+5
In #4, "Hacking is Cool", he obviously means "cracker."
He probably meant both. Ideally you don't even want a 'hacker' gaining access to your network, even if he is just snooping around.
DRM is socialism too. Its just run by the corporations rather than the government.
By definition socialism implies government involvment. There is no such thing as 'corporate socialism'.
If all computers systems are using "Trusted Computing" and you can only run "DRM'ed Media" then what happens to the media that corporations do not allowed to be DRM'ed? Obviously this can be used to stamp out competition or quash views that hurt the companies giving out DRM keys.
Non DRM'ed Media is freely available to be viewed however you wish. DRM ONLY affects media which makes use if it. That is if some encrypted and DRM'ed mp3 file has a 'do not view if X' (where X is some condition) flag set it probably means its creator does not wish this file to be opened or played if X. If you're the content creator you can easily either a) ignore DRM and just release a vanilla non DRM'ed mp3 or b) release a DRM'ed mp3 with a flag set to 'allow to be viewed/modified by all under any conditions'.
DRM lets content creators decide how their ip gets used.
That's censorship by proxy
No such thing. Censorship ONLY applies to government limits on free speech. Me kicking you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying is NOT censorship.
We are talking about large mainstream organizations destroying anything that a committee deems non-acceptable for public consumption.
No.
If only PayPal didn't suck....
=)
TCO studies are frequently misleading.
They can also be molded to fit *any* conclusion since the creator of the study controls and defines the conditions from which he basis his conclusions. These initial conditions are very subjective.
TCO studies looking at Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac vs. Unix are especially bad because of the zealotry involved. Besides this, their results only apply to scenarios (like every TCO study), "If I have setup A, these people working for me, and I want to accomplish B, C and D then X is the best OS for me". The conclusion you extracted from this might be right, however it is right only for this particular scenario. Its impossible to generalize it over a range of scenarios.
Truth is, sometimes Windows TCO is lower, and sometimes Linux TCO is lower.
Q: What's better C++, Java, Perl, C, PHP or C#?
A: What do you want to do?
Would this work under Fedora?
The apt-get methodology just seems kind of stupid to me as it side-steps the problem. You'll never be able to provide a comprehensive list of all the application someone will ever want to install.
3. Linux doesn't have enough applications.
The author points out that there are a bunch of freeware programs for Linux. Of course, almost all the ones he lists have equal or better counterparts freely available for Windows.
What people tend to alwasy miss is the fact that most Open Source apps (especially the bigger and more popular ones) are released under Linux and under Windows. Is OpenOffice great..sure..does it mean you have to switch to Linux to use it..no friggen way... install it under Windows.
The LAMP package can easily be converted into a WAMP package. Why does it always have to be all Open Source or all proprietary?
They messed up on the following point
Reason number one: Linux is too complicated
Even with the KDE and GNOME graphical windowing interfaces, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit a configuration file.
Its actually very probable that you will have to visit ye ol'd shell to install anything, and installing anything under linux is a total bitch. I'm sorry, it hasn't gotten easier. Apt-get is nice when the package or the library is provided, if not, forget it. I don't know why every god-damn program under Windows seems to use InstallShield or InstallAnywhere, but none actully do under Linux (well InstallShield only works for Windows).
I had no problems installing and setting up Apache under Windows, no problems at all (literally next->next->next->.. and then just mod the config text file). I had a butt-load of trouble doing the same under Linux (dependency issues). I am obviously not a Linux guru, but I do consider myself tech-savy in general.
There is a problem when the same application is so much easier to install and setup on one platform than it is on the other.
I always wondered why linux apps don't come bundled with all the libraries they need. Is there some sort of downside to doing it this way?
I.. want.. to...like.. Linux.. but.. it..hates.. me.