This whole move by Microsoft confuses me. Surely they would know that the Open source community would basically hit back with "Show us the code", "Your patents won't hold up in court" and "Whatever you have, we will work around it". My guess is that either: Steve Ballmer really is an idiot and doesn't understand what is happening, or that there is some other end game in this. I refuse to believe that such an idiot at least wouldn't be stopped by someone else in Microsoft's camp with a simple "Just think about it first", so my guess is that there is another end game. Yes, this is bad publicity for open source through mainstream media (as, like it or not, most people don't get their tech news from people that can program), and yes, this will scare some companies into buying MS software in their next cycle, but really... what is the end game?
I saw an interesting comment here: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/microsoft-linux-pate nt-violations/ that basically, MS's won't reveal the infringing source code because it will get traced back to MS agents. Either way though, it doesn't explain this.
Like it or not, Microsoft, as a company, are as smart as they are evil. There is something else behind this.
I would think that Microsoft throwing around these sort of claims, spreading the FUD, would count as libel? If thats right, then shouldn't the Linux community threaten MS with a lawsuit, especially due to the repeated "show us the code and we will remove it" message sent by the open source software community?
You can't just go throwing around claims like that without expecting some sort of action. Unless, of course Microsoft thinks that the open source community can't/won't/doesn't want to do anything about this...
By the way, I heard Microsoft once burnt down an orphange because they thought the ophans were using illegal software...
I'd imagine the benifit of having a happy customer broadcasting the message across to an audience would boost the open source industry well. Some people are programmers, some are designers, some spread the message...
Seriously, whenever I hear about massive layoffs, the same question pops into my mind:
Why are the employees being punished when this is so obviously a management issue?
If the managers were doing their job correctly, then one of two things would of happened:
1) Either the projects would generate enough revenue to keep the current workforce, or
2) the workforce wouldn't of got "so large" that they need to cull it.
Call it cost saving if you will, but if I were working for IBM and got to keep my job, I wouldn't be turning up Monday. Or any other day for that. If these stories turn out to be true, I'll never buy something from IBM again. If IBM isn't being managed properly, get new managers, not cheaper staff.
I always thought IBM had built its empire on quality and innovation rather then being the cheapest.
Perhaps there is another reason why my Windows installations fail only after installing Quicktime. But, its a program I do not need, which installs a bunch of crap that I do not want, when I already have other programs to play movies and music that in my view, do a better opinion (Winamp for one, even WMP is better).
Because of that, I am not going to waste my time trying to get quicktime stable on my system so I can watch one particular codec. I did give Quicktime a chance. I really did. The first failure I put down to something else. The next, wasn't sure, but after that, I gave up on it. I can live without it.
Quicktime has always caused me problems with any version of Windows at home. I have perfectly stable systems Windows systems (I know, it's weird) until I install Quicktime and then it's only a matter of time.
I've never understood the reason why Quicktime needs to be installed in the system tray anyway. I play movies with it from time to time, I don't use it otherwise, and I doubt many do.
Thanks for the replies, it seems I have alot to read.
I am going to head off to Linux From Scratch and start with what they have there, and see how that goes. Depending on how that goes, I'll go to Slackware and see what it has.
Thanks also for the suggestions for books. Despite what is available on the net, theres always something extra when reading it from a book.
I have to admit, there is a large culture of games where the gameplay isn't that great, so they use unlockables to "overcome" (or do they add it in place of..?) these shortcomings in the game.
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I hate to do this (I REALLY do). We currently live in a gaming world where graphics is king. It's our (the customers) fault really. We get excited about games that make good screenshots. I can't belive there was so much fuss made over the Halo 3 trailer at E3. IT WAS A FREAKING TRAILER. It didn't even have any gameplay related material. The last Halo 2 trailer was much better. It had gameplay, and showed off one of the new features: DUAL weapons! But still, a pointless 2 minute trailer for a new game still generates fuss. Why? I don't know, I've never been a graphiliac. And in this world where graphics are king, gameplay suffers. It doesn't need to be this way, but when games cost so much to make now, budgets are tight, and if the companies have a choice between adding a graphical artist or a gameplay artist, well there isn't much of an argument, the game is going to look prettier.
A good game should start as fun and get REALLY fun at the end, and give you great satisfaction when completed. Games shouldn't suck to start with before getting fun. I don't play car games because I don't like wasting my time with crap cars. I play first person shooters because most of them I play tend to get you into them straight away (sure, I can't get the rocket launcher until level 15, but I can still shoot this guy in the back of the head). I play RPG/Adventure because theres always something new to explore at the start, and something new to dominate in battle at the end.
Without unlockable content however, a game quickly ends. But there are limits. Super Smash Brothers had something like 1000 multiplayer fights to unlock a character. That is easy the first time, but when your data gets erased and you have to do it again, well, I really just can't be bothered.
Good gameplay these days is a fine line that has been covered by pretty sand.
As much as everyone here loves to create their own programs and websites, for professional jobs, it must be known that those that create the software should NOT be responsible for designing the interface. Its a challenging field. While almost everybody here can create a good design without thinking, creating a great design is alot harder.
Its the same with everything. Using certain software, ANYONE can create a good website. It takes skill to create the great ones though. Using certain software, the company I work for has their interns creating press releases. They work, but they aren't great. Anyone can design a logo, but theres a reason the big companies hire design artists. The very same is true in interface design. If you are worried about it and your budget can afford it (it should be budgeted for anyway), hire an interface designer.
Making an anology doesn't make the first point valid. Heck, even your analogy has flaws. having more models would mean that they have to compete with each other. And if safety is on the consumers mind, the safest car will get sold. Meaning the next batch of cars will look to be safer.
The problem isn't with the one program. It's with the locking in of end users. If everyone (users AND software companies) used OpenDocument, and say, OpenOffice had a huge bug in it that didn't look like it could be solved. No problem. Change our office software to another program, and all our files are in tact.
With MS Office, if we wanted to do this, we would have to reformat documents, resave as another format (not always possible, with some of the "extended standards", reconfigure data sources. What would be a week long process (or even overnight, using things such Windows software configurations) at most for many corporations (changing software) will turn into a multi-million dollar, several month long (if you're lucky) project.
Im not sure that the latest exploit is the "bomb" its being built as. Yes, it's bad, really bad. But it comes at a time when most people look at the new item: "NEW EXPLOIT FOUND, ITS REALLY SERIOUS THIS TIME" and just say "if I remember, I'll have to patch next time". Nobody cares until it happens to them. And when it does, they get pissed off that they have to reformat, but they'll likely just put the same software on as they did before.
As much as I'd love it to be, this isn't the "everyone move away from MS Office" moment. My boss is just waiting for the patch. So (at least our company) will still be using MS Office for a while yet.
The thing is, we don't always WANT to have smart/unpredictable AI. IN Goldeneye64 for example, half of the fun was learning where everyone was, and trying to beat your previous time for that level. If the NPCs are going to be in different spots everytime, then I can't be sure that my 2.20min run was any better or worse then my friend's 2.15min run, since I may have had to overcome more obsticles.
Great storylines and AI make a great game. Time trials, high scores, and the ability to compete with other humans (whether comparing high scores or multiplayer) makes for an everlasting one.
That being said though, AI for first person shooters NPC "grunts" should be easy to defeat. I don't want to have to do too much to escape from my jail cell in teh first level. I want to be able to defeat the guard by sidestepping his first shot and knocking him out. After that however, I want the opponent's force's higher characters to sidestep MY shots and knock ME out if I'm not careful enough. Games like Unreal Tournament have the right idea: the ability to shout orders at your NPC teammates in battle to get them to do things you want. Now, we may be a full console generation from being able to plug in a microphone and literally tell the AI that you want it to follow you around this corner and give you some cover fire, but I should be able to input a key sequence to tell it that. Likewise, the AI should be able to work out what your strengths have been throughout the last couple of deathmatchs and tell you that maybe you are better off going up top and snipering, which the AI covers you.
OK, to summarise:
At the start, I want predictability. Past those levels, I want the AI to play according to how I play, minimise the effects of my strengths, maximise the damage to my weaknesses.
As well as the above comment, in general, if it's wireless, it is less secure. Yes, the security measures are extremely secure, but I know I would prefer a wired connection to handle my money any day.
In America, or any "western" country for that sake, if the people WANT legalized drugs, they can get it? How: They demand the government for it. They throw out a government that won't give them what they want and bring in a government that will.
Alot of people are looking at the effect and not the cause: Yes, China is censoring information at a level that is unacceptable to most western people. But why? To stop those that don't want the government to get any power. Im sure there are lots of people in China that want a democratic society. Who knows? It might be enough people that could overthrow the government if they worked together. But the Chinese government isn't letting them do this. They are forcing these people to hide rather then discuss.
If the people of China want a communist country that censors their information, good for them. But they should at least have a choice about it.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I tend to agree, to an extent. I don't visit sites with ads that make noise or come over the screen. banner and text ads are acceptable though, as they make (most of) the internet free.
Yes, this is a perfect option for those of us who actually know how to do such things. The popularity of USB drives of late has been that its a true plug-and-play device. You plug it in. It works. No messing about. If MS starts to enforce this, it means a rise in the cost of these products, or the releasing of drivers with these products which sell primarily as "plug and play usb drives". Either way, MS enforces, sales drop, price increases more and more.
It really is confusing why MS would make such a money grab, the only resonable suggestion has been "you try sue us, and we bill you for those 100,000 FAT partitions you didn't pay us for". A "power move" such as when they got the state of California to verify all it's copies of windows, just because they "thought" there was some illegal copies. It was more a move to threaten any other governments.
My god! Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet?
The main problem is although the two formats are similar (blue lasers etc) they are mainly NOT compatable, and a dual read player would be priced close to the equivilent of buying the two seperate players and sticky-taping them together.
This will not work for several reasons, some already posted:
1) People will find ways to fake the information on these chips. Anonymity is regained. If everyone has the same information, it will be impossible to track a user.
2) People sell computers. If they do start tracking illegal activity using these, what happens when CriminalX sells their comptuer to InnocentY? InnocentY suddenly has a criminal record, for legitimatly buying a computer.
3) Like many others, I will never buy a technology that uses this.
I have a feeling that measures like this will slowly turn people away from the Dell "Buy a PC like you buy your whitegoods" prepackaged systems. I would rather build my own computer, because then I know whats in it. If I didn't know how to do that, I'd happily pay someone I know to do it for me.
I dont see a contest. Google Maps wins hands down for several reasons:
- It loads 3x quicker for me
- It's interface is better (simpler design, less clutter, better looking)
- Up to date maps
Sometimes, I don't know why MS even bother...
"is this too harsh, even considering the billions in damage that is sometimes caused?"
Since when can a person's life legally been measured by money? It's sick.
Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for developers (read: MS) who don't release patches for these viruses and harmful bugs as soon as possible. It's as much their fault for late patches as it is the people that make the tools to exploit them.
But the difference, often the DNA scanner can be shown how it works. Then expert witnesses can argue that the method is correct. The article says that you cannot get the information on how breath scanners work, and therefore, it cannot be proven in court that the scanners actually work.
The death of Microsoft will come, there is little question about that. The only problem is that they will fight it, and not just go down.
The browser wars will be decided shortly after IE7 comes out (more importantly: if a major security flaw is found), the console wars will be won when Nintendo realise there is a different market now days, sony will keep them out for at least another generation to come... the OS wars could be won by these computers, but its more likely to come when *nix becomes a computer that is more compatable with windows (i know the problem is the other way around, but thats not the general perception).
Basically, in most areas, Microsoft has two things going for them: lock-u-in style formats, and the perception that it just works (if it doesnt work, of course its another companies fault). As more and more governments (slowly) get turned to open source for security, more and more companies are going to need programs that can read more then MSOffice documents. These computers (I would assume) are another big step to getting rid of the "MS Office files by default" mindset that 90% of the world is in right now. Once that is gone, it will be only a matter of time before the giant is killed and order will return to the force... er computing industry
Slashdot Mirror
This whole move by Microsoft confuses me. Surely they would know that the Open source community would basically hit back with "Show us the code", "Your patents won't hold up in court" and "Whatever you have, we will work around it". My guess is that either: Steve Ballmer really is an idiot and doesn't understand what is happening, or that there is some other end game in this. I refuse to believe that such an idiot at least wouldn't be stopped by someone else in Microsoft's camp with a simple "Just think about it first", so my guess is that there is another end game.
e nt-violations/ that basically, MS's won't reveal the infringing source code because it will get traced back to MS agents. Either way though, it doesn't explain this.
Yes, this is bad publicity for open source through mainstream media (as, like it or not, most people don't get their tech news from people that can program), and yes, this will scare some companies into buying MS software in their next cycle, but really... what is the end game?
I saw an interesting comment here: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/microsoft-linux-pat
Like it or not, Microsoft, as a company, are as smart as they are evil. There is something else behind this.
I would think that Microsoft throwing around these sort of claims, spreading the FUD, would count as libel?
If thats right, then shouldn't the Linux community threaten MS with a lawsuit, especially due to the repeated "show us the code and we will remove it" message sent by the open source software community?
You can't just go throwing around claims like that without expecting some sort of action. Unless, of course Microsoft thinks that the open source community can't/won't/doesn't want to do anything about this...
By the way, I heard Microsoft once burnt down an orphange because they thought the ophans were using illegal software...
I'd imagine the benifit of having a happy customer broadcasting the message across to an audience would boost the open source industry well. Some people are programmers, some are designers, some spread the message...
Seriously, whenever I hear about massive layoffs, the same question pops into my mind:
Why are the employees being punished when this is so obviously a management issue?
If the managers were doing their job correctly, then one of two things would of happened:
1) Either the projects would generate enough revenue to keep the current workforce, or
2) the workforce wouldn't of got "so large" that they need to cull it.
Call it cost saving if you will, but if I were working for IBM and got to keep my job, I wouldn't be turning up Monday. Or any other day for that. If these stories turn out to be true, I'll never buy something from IBM again. If IBM isn't being managed properly, get new managers, not cheaper staff.
I always thought IBM had built its empire on quality and innovation rather then being the cheapest.
Perhaps there is another reason why my Windows installations fail only after installing Quicktime. But, its a program I do not need, which installs a bunch of crap that I do not want, when I already have other programs to play movies and music that in my view, do a better opinion (Winamp for one, even WMP is better).
Because of that, I am not going to waste my time trying to get quicktime stable on my system so I can watch one particular codec. I did give Quicktime a chance. I really did. The first failure I put down to something else. The next, wasn't sure, but after that, I gave up on it. I can live without it.
Quicktime has always caused me problems with any version of Windows at home. I have perfectly stable systems Windows systems (I know, it's weird) until I install Quicktime and then it's only a matter of time.
I've never understood the reason why Quicktime needs to be installed in the system tray anyway. I play movies with it from time to time, I don't use it otherwise, and I doubt many do.
Thanks for the replies, it seems I have alot to read. I am going to head off to Linux From Scratch and start with what they have there, and see how that goes. Depending on how that goes, I'll go to Slackware and see what it has. Thanks also for the suggestions for books. Despite what is available on the net, theres always something extra when reading it from a book.
I have to admit, there is a large culture of games where the gameplay isn't that great, so they use unlockables to "overcome" (or do they add it in place of..?) these shortcomings in the game.
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I hate to do this (I REALLY do). We currently live in a gaming world where graphics is king. It's our (the customers) fault really. We get excited about games that make good screenshots. I can't belive there was so much fuss made over the Halo 3 trailer at E3. IT WAS A FREAKING TRAILER. It didn't even have any gameplay related material. The last Halo 2 trailer was much better. It had gameplay, and showed off one of the new features: DUAL weapons! But still, a pointless 2 minute trailer for a new game still generates fuss. Why? I don't know, I've never been a graphiliac. And in this world where graphics are king, gameplay suffers. It doesn't need to be this way, but when games cost so much to make now, budgets are tight, and if the companies have a choice between adding a graphical artist or a gameplay artist, well there isn't much of an argument, the game is going to look prettier.
A good game should start as fun and get REALLY fun at the end, and give you great satisfaction when completed. Games shouldn't suck to start with before getting fun. I don't play car games because I don't like wasting my time with crap cars. I play first person shooters because most of them I play tend to get you into them straight away (sure, I can't get the rocket launcher until level 15, but I can still shoot this guy in the back of the head). I play RPG/Adventure because theres always something new to explore at the start, and something new to dominate in battle at the end.
Without unlockable content however, a game quickly ends. But there are limits. Super Smash Brothers had something like 1000 multiplayer fights to unlock a character. That is easy the first time, but when your data gets erased and you have to do it again, well, I really just can't be bothered.
Good gameplay these days is a fine line that has been covered by pretty sand.
As much as everyone here loves to create their own programs and websites, for professional jobs, it must be known that those that create the software should NOT be responsible for designing the interface. Its a challenging field. While almost everybody here can create a good design without thinking, creating a great design is alot harder. Its the same with everything. Using certain software, ANYONE can create a good website. It takes skill to create the great ones though. Using certain software, the company I work for has their interns creating press releases. They work, but they aren't great. Anyone can design a logo, but theres a reason the big companies hire design artists. The very same is true in interface design. If you are worried about it and your budget can afford it (it should be budgeted for anyway), hire an interface designer.
Making an anology doesn't make the first point valid. Heck, even your analogy has flaws. having more models would mean that they have to compete with each other. And if safety is on the consumers mind, the safest car will get sold. Meaning the next batch of cars will look to be safer. The problem isn't with the one program. It's with the locking in of end users. If everyone (users AND software companies) used OpenDocument, and say, OpenOffice had a huge bug in it that didn't look like it could be solved. No problem. Change our office software to another program, and all our files are in tact. With MS Office, if we wanted to do this, we would have to reformat documents, resave as another format (not always possible, with some of the "extended standards", reconfigure data sources. What would be a week long process (or even overnight, using things such Windows software configurations) at most for many corporations (changing software) will turn into a multi-million dollar, several month long (if you're lucky) project. Im not sure that the latest exploit is the "bomb" its being built as. Yes, it's bad, really bad. But it comes at a time when most people look at the new item: "NEW EXPLOIT FOUND, ITS REALLY SERIOUS THIS TIME" and just say "if I remember, I'll have to patch next time". Nobody cares until it happens to them. And when it does, they get pissed off that they have to reformat, but they'll likely just put the same software on as they did before. As much as I'd love it to be, this isn't the "everyone move away from MS Office" moment. My boss is just waiting for the patch. So (at least our company) will still be using MS Office for a while yet.
The thing is, we don't always WANT to have smart/unpredictable AI. IN Goldeneye64 for example, half of the fun was learning where everyone was, and trying to beat your previous time for that level. If the NPCs are going to be in different spots everytime, then I can't be sure that my 2.20min run was any better or worse then my friend's 2.15min run, since I may have had to overcome more obsticles. Great storylines and AI make a great game. Time trials, high scores, and the ability to compete with other humans (whether comparing high scores or multiplayer) makes for an everlasting one. That being said though, AI for first person shooters NPC "grunts" should be easy to defeat. I don't want to have to do too much to escape from my jail cell in teh first level. I want to be able to defeat the guard by sidestepping his first shot and knocking him out. After that however, I want the opponent's force's higher characters to sidestep MY shots and knock ME out if I'm not careful enough. Games like Unreal Tournament have the right idea: the ability to shout orders at your NPC teammates in battle to get them to do things you want. Now, we may be a full console generation from being able to plug in a microphone and literally tell the AI that you want it to follow you around this corner and give you some cover fire, but I should be able to input a key sequence to tell it that. Likewise, the AI should be able to work out what your strengths have been throughout the last couple of deathmatchs and tell you that maybe you are better off going up top and snipering, which the AI covers you. OK, to summarise: At the start, I want predictability. Past those levels, I want the AI to play according to how I play, minimise the effects of my strengths, maximise the damage to my weaknesses.
As well as the above comment, in general, if it's wireless, it is less secure. Yes, the security measures are extremely secure, but I know I would prefer a wired connection to handle my money any day.
"Nintendo in trouble: First child abusers using the DS, now playing with your Wii linked to blindness"
In America, or any "western" country for that sake, if the people WANT legalized drugs, they can get it? How: They demand the government for it. They throw out a government that won't give them what they want and bring in a government that will. Alot of people are looking at the effect and not the cause: Yes, China is censoring information at a level that is unacceptable to most western people. But why? To stop those that don't want the government to get any power. Im sure there are lots of people in China that want a democratic society. Who knows? It might be enough people that could overthrow the government if they worked together. But the Chinese government isn't letting them do this. They are forcing these people to hide rather then discuss. If the people of China want a communist country that censors their information, good for them. But they should at least have a choice about it.
I tend to agree, to an extent. I don't visit sites with ads that make noise or come over the screen. banner and text ads are acceptable though, as they make (most of) the internet free.
Yes, this is a perfect option for those of us who actually know how to do such things. The popularity of USB drives of late has been that its a true plug-and-play device. You plug it in. It works. No messing about. If MS starts to enforce this, it means a rise in the cost of these products, or the releasing of drivers with these products which sell primarily as "plug and play usb drives". Either way, MS enforces, sales drop, price increases more and more. It really is confusing why MS would make such a money grab, the only resonable suggestion has been "you try sue us, and we bill you for those 100,000 FAT partitions you didn't pay us for". A "power move" such as when they got the state of California to verify all it's copies of windows, just because they "thought" there was some illegal copies. It was more a move to threaten any other governments.
My god! Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet? The main problem is although the two formats are similar (blue lasers etc) they are mainly NOT compatable, and a dual read player would be priced close to the equivilent of buying the two seperate players and sticky-taping them together.
This will not work for several reasons, some already posted: 1) People will find ways to fake the information on these chips. Anonymity is regained. If everyone has the same information, it will be impossible to track a user. 2) People sell computers. If they do start tracking illegal activity using these, what happens when CriminalX sells their comptuer to InnocentY? InnocentY suddenly has a criminal record, for legitimatly buying a computer. 3) Like many others, I will never buy a technology that uses this. I have a feeling that measures like this will slowly turn people away from the Dell "Buy a PC like you buy your whitegoods" prepackaged systems. I would rather build my own computer, because then I know whats in it. If I didn't know how to do that, I'd happily pay someone I know to do it for me.
When the page loads for me, the first stock is GOOG. You know, thats AFTER the page loads... I've seen faster loading from geocities.
I dont see a contest. Google Maps wins hands down for several reasons: - It loads 3x quicker for me - It's interface is better (simpler design, less clutter, better looking) - Up to date maps Sometimes, I don't know why MS even bother...
"is this too harsh, even considering the billions in damage that is sometimes caused?" Since when can a person's life legally been measured by money? It's sick. Personally, I'd like to see the death penalty for developers (read: MS) who don't release patches for these viruses and harmful bugs as soon as possible. It's as much their fault for late patches as it is the people that make the tools to exploit them.
But the difference, often the DNA scanner can be shown how it works. Then expert witnesses can argue that the method is correct. The article says that you cannot get the information on how breath scanners work, and therefore, it cannot be proven in court that the scanners actually work.
Hopefully this starts a global trend
The death of Microsoft will come, there is little question about that. The only problem is that they will fight it, and not just go down. The browser wars will be decided shortly after IE7 comes out (more importantly: if a major security flaw is found), the console wars will be won when Nintendo realise there is a different market now days, sony will keep them out for at least another generation to come... the OS wars could be won by these computers, but its more likely to come when *nix becomes a computer that is more compatable with windows (i know the problem is the other way around, but thats not the general perception). Basically, in most areas, Microsoft has two things going for them: lock-u-in style formats, and the perception that it just works (if it doesnt work, of course its another companies fault). As more and more governments (slowly) get turned to open source for security, more and more companies are going to need programs that can read more then MSOffice documents. These computers (I would assume) are another big step to getting rid of the "MS Office files by default" mindset that 90% of the world is in right now. Once that is gone, it will be only a matter of time before the giant is killed and order will return to the force... er computing industry
c'mon, that would just confuse people :-p