>You're trolling or flaming, but in the spirit of good natured debate I'll reply:
Of course, I forgot, this is Slashdot. Anything that's considered non-anti-Microsoft or non-pro-Linux is considered "trolling or flaming". I guess they got to you too, huh?
You're following the tired old Slashdot culture of praising open source and dissing closed source products, without actually considering anything relevant. But in the spirit of good-natured debate, I'll continue:
>You're quibbling on the definition of Monopoly. There is more than one product.
>I don't have the current number, but Wiki says their share reached 3% by 2004.
>A monopoly doesn't need to be the only product; just the only viable one.
Not only are you disagreeing with define:monopoly...
-(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
-In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service.
-A market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.
...but, you did it again with the whole viability thing. You can either claim that Linux and Mac OS are NOT viable alternatives, and Microsoft has a monopoly (and thus an admission that their product is so good that it has no equal in the market); or you can claim that Linux and/or Mac are equal, if not better or worse, competitors to the Windows system "which is only for loosers (sic) and people who don't know any better" (a quote summarizing the general Linux population). But, you're getting greedy, and trying to claim that Linux is a superior OS, AND that MS has a monopoly on operating systems, which are mutually exclusive. Because then you go and say this:
>Did you actually read my post? I said we use Linux for Servers.
In the one post, you're claiming Windows has a monopoly with no viable alternative available, and then right after that, you mention that your servers run Linux as an alternative to Windows. You're double-dipping on anti-Microsoft arguments. Do you not see where I'm coming from with this argument? Is it any wonder that I called you a Linux fanboi? Was I wrong?
>When you've got
>a big customer who is exclusively a Windows shop, what do you think would
>happen if we walked in their and proposed a Mac solution?
>Answer that!
They'd say: "What does the Mac OS do that our current setup doesn't? What are the costs and benefits involved? What's that, you say? The Mac costs us thousands, doesn't provide any worthy advantages, and DOESN'T make use of structures and protocols that are easily interfaced with free SDKs? Why on earth would we want to do that? You, sir, are insane!"
That's the long, rational answer. The short, realistic answer is, of course, "It costs too much to change our setup because we're locked into a Windows setup". Reluctance to upgrade to a viable, even beneficial alternative primarily due to apathy and risk does NOT make the product a monopoly, it just makes the company short-sighted (assuming there are enought long-term financial benefits to outweigh the cost/effort of redeployment).
Me? I choose to believe that as Linux is a viable alternative to Windows for certain uses, and certain groups of users (mainly, highly competent home computer users, and back-end black-box setups), but not suitable for others (such as gamers; or Average Joe Desktop User, who has trouble with their "broken internet", much less the ability to write a driver for their hardware). But hey, what do I know, I'm just a flamebaiting troll who obviously hasn't yet learnt that Slashdot isn't about letting people do what's most suitable for themslves, but about "persuading" (
So your point is what, exactly? Governments and businesses have locked themselves into a platform, that doesn't make it a monopoly just because you say it is. In order for it to be a monopoly, Windows would have to be the ONE and only (you know, like the meaning of MONO) operating system available. If that's what you think, you clearly don't think very highly of Linux or Macs, or at least enough to consider them as viable alternatives to a Windows PC.
Coming from a blatant anti-Microsoft Linux fanboi, you're really selling yourself short there. Have your cry and get over it already, but don't use words when you clearly have no idea what they mean.
Sure, every hour you spend watching TV or playing video games is an hour you're not spending trying improving your academics. Watching TV and playing games "probably" leads to lower academic scores, because you're not specifically improving them. Well no shit, Sherlock. Sure, we could spend every minute of our free time studying, but then what are the effects of that? No social life? Check. Degrading mental health? Check. Lack of culture? Check, check and double check.
That last one is a biggie - generally, we're more tolerant and understanding of other cultures over these days. Without any relevant research to back this up, I'd be willing to say TV and gaming (well, mostly TV, unless you're particularly chatty in your online gaming adventures) are major factors in decreasing the cultural gap over the last couple generations. Experiencing other cultures is something that only TV/online gaming can do so effectively. Sure, you could submerse yourself in culture by actually visiting others, but a few hours of TV a day is certainly more feasible than taking a 2-day overseas trip every other week.
On an almost completely off-topic ramble (because I've not seen an opportunity to post it elsewhere), I wonder where Jack Thompson got to after that Amish school attack this week? Surely Rockstar's Bully is to blame for a school shooting by a devout Christian in a remote farming community who's probably never even played Pong.
"Actually, robots with "emotions" (I use the term loosely) would be a rather beneficial thing, especially in the rescue/ safety field. If a robot could sense urgency in a person by examining their facial features, it would be able to better communicate their need for help to any rescuers. (A more advanced version of those miniature treaded bots used in earthquakes, in other words)"
Well that's just great; so the rescue bot looks at the person screaming about their broken finger, and the person who's unconcious from lack of oxygen/blood, and decides to save the whinger instead.
So imagine my surprise when I heard that a lot of people SMS with phones while driving.. now peering at a tiny screen while driving is a BAD idea. What, you need to look at the screen while typing an SMS?
"I dont believe its about riding of Microsoft, I believe its about giving a fair chance for alternatives. Only with competition will the end user benefit."
I pretty much agreed with the rest of your post, but this line confuses me. How is the end user going to benefit by competition in the platforms field? Cost and features, maybe; there's the old "alternatives, open source/free or otherwise, makes corporations do better for lower cost" line. But what about application development? How many businesses, small, medium or large, are going to fail because they have to develop software for the 50% of the PC consumer base on Windows, then spend extra resources porting the code to the other 50% running Linux, but if they don't, they're going to lose half their market? Supporting more OS's just makes this situation worse.
I can't recall an actual court case, but it was decided that because time-shifting broadcast content was an ethical advantage to both parties (viewer sees their show, companies get their ads to more viewers), the case set precedent for legal recording.
I seriously think Google needs to change their naming convention. In dedication to Spaceballs:The Movie, I propose the following Google products;
Google: The Search Engine
Google: The Toolbar
Google: The Instant Messenger
Google: The Operating System
As you can see, there is no confusion over exactly what the product is, no stupid codenames, and you clearly know it's from Google. It's the perfect naming system!
Slashdot Mirror
>You're trolling or flaming, but in the spirit of good natured debate I'll reply:
...but, you did it again with the whole viability thing. You can either claim that Linux and Mac OS are NOT viable alternatives, and Microsoft has a monopoly (and thus an admission that their product is so good that it has no equal in the market); or you can claim that Linux and/or Mac are equal, if not better or worse, competitors to the Windows system "which is only for loosers (sic) and people who don't know any better" (a quote summarizing the general Linux population). But, you're getting greedy, and trying to claim that Linux is a superior OS, AND that MS has a monopoly on operating systems, which are mutually exclusive. Because then you go and say this:
Of course, I forgot, this is Slashdot. Anything that's considered non-anti-Microsoft or non-pro-Linux is considered "trolling or flaming". I guess they got to you too, huh?
You're following the tired old Slashdot culture of praising open source and dissing closed source products, without actually considering anything relevant. But in the spirit of good-natured debate, I'll continue:
>You're quibbling on the definition of Monopoly. There is more than one product.
>I don't have the current number, but Wiki says their share reached 3% by 2004.
>A monopoly doesn't need to be the only product; just the only viable one.
Not only are you disagreeing with define:monopoly...
-(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
-In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service.
-A market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.
>Did you actually read my post? I said we use Linux for Servers.
In the one post, you're claiming Windows has a monopoly with no viable alternative available, and then right after that, you mention that your servers run Linux as an alternative to Windows. You're double-dipping on anti-Microsoft arguments. Do you not see where I'm coming from with this argument? Is it any wonder that I called you a Linux fanboi? Was I wrong?
>When you've got
>a big customer who is exclusively a Windows shop, what do you think would
>happen if we walked in their and proposed a Mac solution?
>Answer that!
They'd say: "What does the Mac OS do that our current setup doesn't? What are the costs and benefits involved? What's that, you say? The Mac costs us thousands, doesn't provide any worthy advantages, and DOESN'T make use of structures and protocols that are easily interfaced with free SDKs? Why on earth would we want to do that? You, sir, are insane!"
That's the long, rational answer. The short, realistic answer is, of course, "It costs too much to change our setup because we're locked into a Windows setup". Reluctance to upgrade to a viable, even beneficial alternative primarily due to apathy and risk does NOT make the product a monopoly, it just makes the company short-sighted (assuming there are enought long-term financial benefits to outweigh the cost/effort of redeployment).
Me? I choose to believe that as Linux is a viable alternative to Windows for certain uses, and certain groups of users (mainly, highly competent home computer users, and back-end black-box setups), but not suitable for others (such as gamers; or Average Joe Desktop User, who has trouble with their "broken internet", much less the ability to write a driver for their hardware). But hey, what do I know, I'm just a flamebaiting troll who obviously hasn't yet learnt that Slashdot isn't about letting people do what's most suitable for themslves, but about "persuading" (
So your point is what, exactly? Governments and businesses have locked themselves into a platform, that doesn't make it a monopoly just because you say it is. In order for it to be a monopoly, Windows would have to be the ONE and only (you know, like the meaning of MONO) operating system available. If that's what you think, you clearly don't think very highly of Linux or Macs, or at least enough to consider them as viable alternatives to a Windows PC.
Coming from a blatant anti-Microsoft Linux fanboi, you're really selling yourself short there. Have your cry and get over it already, but don't use words when you clearly have no idea what they mean.
A monopoly product? Aha! So you finally admit it, Mac OS and Linux are clearly not good enough to be considered as alternatives.
Sure, every hour you spend watching TV or playing video games is an hour you're not spending trying improving your academics. Watching TV and playing games "probably" leads to lower academic scores, because you're not specifically improving them. Well no shit, Sherlock. Sure, we could spend every minute of our free time studying, but then what are the effects of that? No social life? Check. Degrading mental health? Check. Lack of culture? Check, check and double check.
That last one is a biggie - generally, we're more tolerant and understanding of other cultures over these days. Without any relevant research to back this up, I'd be willing to say TV and gaming (well, mostly TV, unless you're particularly chatty in your online gaming adventures) are major factors in decreasing the cultural gap over the last couple generations. Experiencing other cultures is something that only TV/online gaming can do so effectively. Sure, you could submerse yourself in culture by actually visiting others, but a few hours of TV a day is certainly more feasible than taking a 2-day overseas trip every other week.
On an almost completely off-topic ramble (because I've not seen an opportunity to post it elsewhere), I wonder where Jack Thompson got to after that Amish school attack this week? Surely Rockstar's Bully is to blame for a school shooting by a devout Christian in a remote farming community who's probably never even played Pong.
"Actually, robots with "emotions" (I use the term loosely) would be a rather beneficial thing, especially in the rescue/ safety field. If a robot could sense urgency in a person by examining their facial features, it would be able to better communicate their need for help to any rescuers. (A more advanced version of those miniature treaded bots used in earthquakes, in other words)"
Well that's just great; so the rescue bot looks at the person screaming about their broken finger, and the person who's unconcious from lack of oxygen/blood, and decides to save the whinger instead.
So imagine my surprise when I heard that a lot of people SMS with phones while driving.. now peering at a tiny screen while driving is a BAD idea.
What, you need to look at the screen while typing an SMS?
The parents are morons. I can run Win 95 perfectly fine on my old Pentium 166, 16MB RAM and a 4GB hard drive.
"I dont believe its about riding of Microsoft, I believe its about giving a fair chance for alternatives. Only with competition will the end user benefit."
I pretty much agreed with the rest of your post, but this line confuses me. How is the end user going to benefit by competition in the platforms field? Cost and features, maybe; there's the old "alternatives, open source/free or otherwise, makes corporations do better for lower cost" line. But what about application development? How many businesses, small, medium or large, are going to fail because they have to develop software for the 50% of the PC consumer base on Windows, then spend extra resources porting the code to the other 50% running Linux, but if they don't, they're going to lose half their market? Supporting more OS's just makes this situation worse.
I can't recall an actual court case, but it was decided that because time-shifting broadcast content was an ethical advantage to both parties (viewer sees their show, companies get their ads to more viewers), the case set precedent for legal recording.
I seriously think Google needs to change their naming convention. In dedication to Spaceballs:The Movie, I propose the following Google products; Google: The Search Engine Google: The Toolbar Google: The Instant Messenger Google: The Operating System As you can see, there is no confusion over exactly what the product is, no stupid codenames, and you clearly know it's from Google. It's the perfect naming system!
Google Operating System Coming!