From appearances Yahoo seems to be a terrible acquisition target; it is large and healthy enough to be very expensive and burdensome, but not growing rapidly or successful enough to be a major asset to someone like Microsoft.
Yahoo would be the ideal vehicle to push (force?) Silverlight out to millions of people in one foul swoop. Note the system requirements in the link -- linux users are not welcome.
Do you think it really matters to the underprivileged kids in Africa whether their software is free as in speech or free as in beer or just a license to use?
Probably not, because a lot of those underprivileged areas have a long history of slavery and corporate exploitation.
Except that the Notes implementation worked according to the article. It wasn't until Bush decided to "get rid of everything Clinton" that it was broken due to switching over to MS based solutions.
According to an old saying, "nobody ever got fired for choosing microsoft."
Maybe the old saying will have to be *upgraded* to say, "somebody's going to jail for choosing microsoft."
While the quote is funny, I fear that the truth may not be. Microsoft's announcement times neatly with the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) move to windows-only:
The OLPC XO laptop has developed very effective Mesh Network. To see how it works, click on the demo on this page.
This technology was made usable by the same "open source fundamentalists" that Nicholas Negroponte now marginalizes now that he's benefited from their tireless efforts and financial contributions.
I wonder if this technology found it's way to Microsoft and into "Live Mesh"?
Thank you for taking the time to explain the MySQL AB rationale. Perfectly sane to my eyes.
You have good eyes.
Marten, I would like to also thank you for your informative posts. Even though I use postgresql (I need the postgis extensions), I think that MySQL is on the right track with it's business model development.
MySQL has made controversial decisions in the past (such as the SCO deal), but you have always been very straightforward with the open source community about the rationale behind the decisions, and taken the time to address their concerns. Most important, you have always kept your word regarding your commitment to the open source community.
There are many situations where special extensions are needed by a small or select subset of the general user base (a niche, per se), but would not really be of use to the rest. As long as things like bug-fixes and identical add-on capability (i.e. you can write your own equivalent add ons) remain in the community edition, maybe your business model will work. Perhaps the "secret" recipe for the open-source business model isn't really "secret" at all, and has been staring at everyone all the time -- just be open and honest with the community, and honor your commitments to the same.
Taking invention as an example, I'm essentially a nobody, if I come up with a fantastic idea tomorrow that's easy for me to get to market, it's even easier for an established company to copy it and get it there with more inovations before I grab any market share at all. And I won't have the option of selling the idea since someone can just copy it for free.
There's a difference between an idea and an invention.
...companies that make money from code need to protect it somehow...
Or change the way they make money.
Candlemakers weren't able to patent light. Software patents block the true potential of human communication and knowledge, and serve no benefit to society. They are the ultimate totalitarian construct, serving only to raise barriers to advances in utilization of technologies such as solid state electronic devices (which, by the way, are already patented).
Just as the candlemakers' market dwindled when the light bulb came along, so should the market for those companies who think that their precious "ip" has any more value than the time it takes to code it originally. If the code is useful, the coder can make more money by making it better, if there is a market desire to do so. Or, they can make it better just because they want to write good code. If a coder doesn't think they are getting enough money, they can stop coding, find another job, or start a company and work for themselves. They can also copyright the code if they think it's that elegant.
Computer code enables a new form of literacy and communication never even dreamed of before in human history. Software patents are a nightmare, helping bring to life Orwell's picture* of the future. If the world doesn't wake up now it may be too late to prevent it. There's a lot more at stake than a few coders' or lawyers' business plans.
When it comes to political influence, MS was one of the LAST old school major Technology companies to even have any D.C. lobbyists.
Try telling that to these guys. Note the "Gates" in "Preston Gates & Ellis" refers to William H. Gates, Sr., the father of Microsoft's very own Bill Gates. They've had offices in Washington DC since 1973.
At the same time, Microsoft partner companies are complaining to the standardization organization officials about their critics in ways which are easy for the standardization organization officials to understand and accept.
Yeah, bribes and kickbacks. Plus, Microsoft has instructed their people on how to stack and rig committees and bribe "experts":
Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?
If governments start using OOXML for storing and processing public records, the public will have to use it to view public documents. I see this bogus "you don't have to use it" argument spread around the internet like fertilizer every time someone tries to justify the perversion of the standard setting process.
It stinks.
The parent post really seems to try to quickly skip across the "if" part of "if OOXML is accepted...". The acceptance process is supposed to prevent bad quality, unworkable standards from being accepted. A standard should work.
...the apalling sequels to Rendevous with Rama (an excellent work and a science-fiction classic) were basically entirely Gentry Lee's doing...
Good illustration of the difference between art and commercial media. A good analogy is what happened to the "Conan" stories. Robert E. Howard's works were classic; L. Sprague DeCamp's were smote full of shit.
I agree with the original poster. It's best to stick to the original works that spur the imagination, and avoid the commercially destroyed versions that pick your pocket.
That would have been you, or your daughter since nobody forced you to buy it. Hell, 512MB on a laptop with XP is barely adequate so it should be no surprise that it's barely adequate for Vista.
Yeah, like the average shopper at Best Buy is supposed to know this. They don't. And the stickers were supposed to relieve the shopper of the uncertainty regarding the hardware's ability to run the latest Windows operating system. Microsoft said, "trust us," and the shoppers who did got fucked. But that's no surprise, either. It's the Microsoft way.
MS can afford to offer deeply discounted prices to advertisers in order to to eat up Google's marketshare.
They can cut the price all they want in order to get more ads and advertisers, but that doesn't mean they'll get more traffic. Marketing is based on the number of people who see the ad and their demographic. If MS cuts the price without a significant increase in traffic, they'll only be reducing the value of their existing base.
So either they'll have to do like they did with Hotmail, and let it run on FreeBSD until they've basically re-written in from scratch to use their technology.
No, they'll just switch to Novell and hail the operation as a great success for interoperability using MS patent encumbered SUSE.
Slashdot Mirror
*whoosh*
Microsoft has "embraced" the OLPC XO in order to "extend" its (XO's) market. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
Maybe the old saying will have to be *upgraded* to say, "somebody's going to jail for choosing microsoft."
OLPC to scrap Linux for Windows
The OLPC XO laptop has developed very effective Mesh Network. To see how it works, click on the demo on this page.
This technology was made usable by the same "open source fundamentalists" that Nicholas Negroponte now marginalizes now that he's benefited from their tireless efforts and financial contributions.
I wonder if this technology found it's way to Microsoft and into "Live Mesh"?
Marten, I would like to also thank you for your informative posts. Even though I use postgresql (I need the postgis extensions), I think that MySQL is on the right track with it's business model development.
Thanks for your post, Marten.
MySQL has made controversial decisions in the past (such as the SCO deal), but you have always been very straightforward with the open source community about the rationale behind the decisions, and taken the time to address their concerns. Most important, you have always kept your word regarding your commitment to the open source community.
There are many situations where special extensions are needed by a small or select subset of the general user base (a niche, per se), but would not really be of use to the rest. As long as things like bug-fixes and identical add-on capability (i.e. you can write your own equivalent add ons) remain in the community edition, maybe your business model will work. Perhaps the "secret" recipe for the open-source business model isn't really "secret" at all, and has been staring at everyone all the time -- just be open and honest with the community, and honor your commitments to the same.
Seems to me like that's what you're doing.
Looks pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.
:)
By the way, I'm not being polite. I just wanted to reply so I could find the link to the game again.
Candlemakers weren't able to patent light. Software patents block the true potential of human communication and knowledge, and serve no benefit to society. They are the ultimate totalitarian construct, serving only to raise barriers to advances in utilization of technologies such as solid state electronic devices (which, by the way, are already patented).
Just as the candlemakers' market dwindled when the light bulb came along, so should the market for those companies who think that their precious "ip" has any more value than the time it takes to code it originally. If the code is useful, the coder can make more money by making it better, if there is a market desire to do so. Or, they can make it better just because they want to write good code. If a coder doesn't think they are getting enough money, they can stop coding, find another job, or start a company and work for themselves. They can also copyright the code if they think it's that elegant.
Computer code enables a new form of literacy and communication never even dreamed of before in human history. Software patents are a nightmare, helping bring to life Orwell's picture* of the future. If the world doesn't wake up now it may be too late to prevent it. There's a lot more at stake than a few coders' or lawyers' business plans.
*
Crawl back under your rock, troll.
Apple is very committed to the vendor lock-in strategy.
Just like the ISO.
It stinks.
The parent post really seems to try to quickly skip across the "if" part of "if OOXML is accepted...". The acceptance process is supposed to prevent bad quality, unworkable standards from being accepted. A standard should work.
I agree with the original poster. It's best to stick to the original works that spur the imagination, and avoid the commercially destroyed versions that pick your pocket.