Wouldn't you imagine that these companies would be willing to port their software over to Linux if there was a large enough to demand for it? If they hear about stories like this one often enough, and get feedback from districts willing to move to Linux, they would very likely port their apps. After all, this is their market, and if they don't respond to it, then some other company who is more Linux friendly may just come and eat their lunch. The important thing is to build demand.
If it can be shown that they can use most or all of their existing, paid-for (proprietary) software like Reader Rabbit, Carmen Sandiego, etc. then the migration will be that much easier.
You know, I bet they could score a lot of old Apple ]['s that would run these programs off of EBay. Way cheaper than a new Windows license!;-)
Seriously, are these sorts of programs still used in schools any more? I figured that all schools need these days is a web browser, since so much content seems to be done through HTML, where it used to be done in Hypercard. Sure, games like the ones you mentioned might have some educational merit, but somehow I doubt that those are a real priority.
Good for the state's case is what I meant. As someone posted elsewhere before, the point wouldn't be to say "Look, just replace Windows XP with Embedded XP" but to prove that it could be done. This is potentially very useful in simply showing the feasibility of the idea.
And yes, it would show that important functionality is dependant on the browser as well, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to remove it and replace it. That's what it's really about. Not ripping out the browser all together, but having the ability to replace it if you want (nut just running something like Mozilla instead), thereby allowing for competition.
If it's really so easy to rip out the shell, then why isn't Microsoft demonstrating this in court? If it's as easy as you imply, then this shouldn't be such an issue.
I've only known one person who ran Litestep, and it was apparently very crashy, which to me implies that it's not quite so easy a thing.
In reality, the problem isn't just ripping out IE, like you say. The problem is all the business practices surrounding it. The inability for OEM's to bundle a competing browser, like Netscape or now Opera, on their systems. I bet a lot of random desktop users would be quite pleased with a bundled Opera.
Frankly, I could care less about taking IE all the way out of my system. The libraries it brings with it provide a lot of nice functionality. I'd like for them to not be loaded at startup, but rather be loaded on demand since I use Mozilla and rarely go to help files, but that's a small thing. But what I really want as a consumer is to have some choice when I buy a system. I don't necessarily want all my bundled software to made by Microsoft, and it's quite astonishing in many ways that people are forgetting this. This is the whole point of the modular windows penalty. It's not to get rid of IE, but rather to provide choice to customers, and thereby allow competition to re-enter the market.
Perhaps the states know that whether or not they can show it can be done is more of a moot point. The point of the penalty phase is to enforce the penalty, and if the penalty is to modularize Windows then they have to pay that penalty despite the cost. Whether or not they've alredy done it with XP Embedded doesn't really matter as much.
Granted, I think showing off XP Embedded would have been a good thing (from what little I admittedly know about it) but perhaps they've got enough already. We all can acknowledge that speed is of the essence.
Sendmail does strike me as a perfect example actually. We should all remember the mantra "Open Source is not a panacea" and we'll be Ok. Open or Closed, bad engineering is bad engineering.
Classic MacOS had far far fewer security holes than Windows, despite being completely closed, simply because of the way the system was designed. Similarly, exim has had far fewer security holes than sendmail, despite them both being open. It's all about how well the program itself was written.
Hopefully Microsoft's security audit will pay off, but only if they continually pay attention to security forevermore. Currently disabling scripting in Outlook by default will go a long way as well. Microsoft's culture has to plan better for security, so that their designs are better. Open or Closed, security is about forethought and quick response.
Check your prices on Macs. The "Macs are too expensive" argument is a lie that's been refuted in just about every single Apple article on/. As such, you don't really need to buy an x86 PC.
Plus, as your argument goes, why doesn't Microsoft make Windows for PPC? Surely, if they did, there would be some market for PPC clones. No one is condemning Microsoft for this, because they do have the right to produce their OS for whatever platform(s) they wish. Apple does the same. The funamental difference in their business model, which is what has kept Apple alive and competitive mind you, is what prevents this from happening.
Apple doesn't have an Office suite to back up their OS sales. It doesn't have expensive dev tools any more. The actual money they make is in the hardware, but the software is the selling point. The Windows world is the exact opposite. Apple can't compete with Microsoft using their same business model. I know you'd love to see OSX on the x86, but that would kill any chance of having OSX around thereafter, which makes complaining about it pointless. Apple has to make money. This is the only way for them to do it.
Because of all this, I can criticize Microsoft for doing something and not Apple for doing the same thing. Apple does not have a monopoly on 3d rendering software, so shake isn't even an issue. And as for hardware, they might have a monopoly on OEM distribution for the PPC platform, but that's because they are the only one right now to try. Microsoft is free to produce Windows for PPC, and someone can build a PPC motherboard and ship Windows on their own box. Or you can even put Darwin or Linux on it. But this company will go out of business, because it's just not viable. Apple producing OSX for the x86 would kill them. Microsoft producing Windows for PPC wouldn't hurt them in the slightest. That's why I can criticize Microsoft, but not Apple. There is a difference.
How different is the Mac platform than the PC platform? Processor different, Ok. Memory? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Available for both. Hard drives? Same. USB? Both. Firewire? Available on both. 3D accelerator cards? ATI and NVidia duke it out on both. Mice? USB-driven works fine on both. Keyboards? Same. Printers/Scanners? Same. Am I missing something?
Aside from the PPC vs. x86 comparison, the Mac and Wintel platform is essentially the exact same thing. Sure, Apple's hardware might look nicer, but the underlying stuff is identical.
So, then what is it that specifically makes you want to buy a Macintosh? The look? The platform is the same, processor aside, so what real features do you get out of running on Mac hardware vs. PC hardware? None, really. So, then why are you so concerned with buying a "Mac" with no OS on it? So you can run Linux or BSD? Why not buy an x86 box, given that everything else in the box is essentially the same thing, you lose nothing.
If there really was so much to gain from buying a PPC platform with no OS on it, the product would be there. After all, all that's missing is a PPC motherboard, and someone would make it if it were profitable to do so. But it's not, and if you think it would be profitable to do so, I challenge you to start a PPC motherboard company and see how far you get.
The reality of the situation is that the hardware no longer dictates, on the desktop, what the platform is. The x86 and PPC platforms are identical, except for the chip itself, and this is indicative of the fact the the actual platform people are worried about is the OS itself. Apple is not stopping anyone from producing a blanked PPC box, they are simply unwilling to license their OS out to anyone, because the OS is where the money is. Apple might control what goes in to the default configuration of every single box, but that doesn't make them any sort of monopoly, because you can get, for all intents and purposes, the same hardware platform elsewhere. You won't get the software platform you might want, but that's the value Apple adds to their system (the value is not in PPC vs x86, that I can tell you). And personally, I don't think you can argue that Apple has the right to add value to the machines that they sell. If they didn't, they wouldn't be competitive against the Microsoft monopoly.
Ok, you try buying a Mac with no OS... can't do it.
This is absurd. Of course you can't. The only people who make Macintoshes are Apple, Apple, and Apple. There are no clones, but then, why should there be? Apple could not survive with them in the market (proven previously) and without Apple, the clones would die themselves for lack of an OS. Everyone loses in the end, except Microsoft. Microsoft does, by the way, have the entire clones market completely locked up by teaming with a rotating cast of OEM's. Apple can't get in there, so their current business model is the only way they can survive.
You can build yourself a Mac if you'd like. There are no motherboards for PPC available, as far as I know, but that's because the market for it just isn't there. But barring that, it's all standard PC components from off the shelf, thrown in to a pretty case. If you think there's a great market for building PPC motherboards for mass consumption, I challenge you to start a company to do just that. But as it stands, there's no way to make money off a generic "Mac" without the OS, because it's just not necessary. Apple adds real value to the hardware with their OS, making it more than just a pretty box. If you want an empty box, then buy an x86 machine. The performance difference won't be so great that you'll really care, I can assure you.
MS has a monopoly on X86 PC hardware Apple a monopoly on PPC PC's.
I think you completely misunderstand the actual issue at hand.
First is the issue of the Office monopoly. Somehow, I don't think Apple has any sort of monopoly on Office suites. How about Web browsers? Sure, there are competitors, but they're still measley compared to the behemoth that is IE.
While the fact that these programs are successful doesn't make them or their creators "bad" in any way, the fact that they have been used as leverage to bully others out of the market is the problem.
What happened to Netscape? They couldn't deliver a whole alternate OS that supported Microsoft's Office monopoly. What happened to Corel's Word Perfect? They couldn't bundle an OS with their Office software either. What about Apple? Well, Apple can provide these things, which is why they are able to compete, and they can only do this because Office and IE ship for the Mac. If you think Apple would survive without Office, you're kidding yourself. It's by Microsoft's good graces that other companies live and die, including Apple.
So while Apple might have a monopoly on PPC PC's and Microsoft might have one on x86 PC's, their situation is very different. In addition, you have to remember that if you wanted to, you could manufacture your own PPC motherboard and generic box and throw Linux on it. There just isn't a market for these things so no one is doing it. On x86 on the other hand, we've got every single OEM being forced to put Windows on every single PC, or face being priced out of the business by Microsoft.
In short, monopolies aren't bad. Using yours to beat other companies to death is.
OF course, if this was the Evil Empire doing it we'd all cry 'monopolist'.
Ok... I'm tired of seeing this idea on this article thread. It's obviously not Microsoft doing this. It's Apple. Not Microsoft. Apple. Not a convicted monopolist.
Yes, these actions are anticompetitive, but because Apple does not hold any sort of monopoly power, either in the OS market or the 3d rendering market, this move is not the kind of thing that makes one scream "monopolist!" Are you going to be mad at them for not producing Appleworks for Windows? Are you going to be mad at them for not making the iPod, iMovie, etc. available for Windows? These are features added to their product to make it more competitive against a court-confirmed monopoly, and they have every right to do this.
Apple is, quite simply, not to be held to the same standards as Microsoft. Get over it.
So, does this mean that after 2003 they are planning on killing the product for Irix and Linux, or just that this is the time frame that they are committing to these platforms right now? Stupid question maybe, but I think it's an important one to ask.
is there a way to discuss verbing nouns without making the noun "verb" into a verb?
Couldn't you just say "Don't use nouns as verbs" or "These people are using nouns incorrectly as verbs"? There are centuries-old patterns of speech that are in place to discuss this very thing.
Now, I know that if you are looking at porn or whatever, IE is a very tightly integrated multimedia device.
Everyone uses IE not because it is easy to use, or easy to setup, but because it is the default in windows, and as stated above, is critical for viewing porn.
You must be new around here if you haven't heard about the mighty pornzilla. Check out the modifications section to improve both your porn and general websurfing experience.
All that Agfa did is send some letters threatening legal action -- which they can do until they go blue in the face, whether or not their case has any merit.
Doesn't this constitute barratry, which is illegal?
This is very true. I'm graduating in a few months from a major university, I'm doing just this. I'm going to have my bachelor's in Molecular Biology, with an emphasis in computing. I've been programming since the beginning of high school, so the degree didn't actually get me much in the way of new skills, but the point is that I can apply it to whatever else I want to do.
Right now I'm the only person in my lab with any extensive computer knowledge. My boss is an incredibly bright, MD/PHD, who knows virology backwards and forwards, but in terms of computer work, her knowledge doesn't go much beyond Word and PowerPoint. I wanted my student research project to make use of my computer skills, so I've been working on setting up a bunch of ruby scripts and MySQL databases using the Human Genome data.
No one else in my lab, or possibly even in my building, has any idea as to how to do this.
Having programming skills provides me with a unique tool to do the most modern kind of research in biology. The crowning scientific achievment of the millenium was the completion of the Human Genome project, and in order to effectively use it one needs extensive computer skills. Very few biologists have these skills, and in order to be an effective researcher it's going to be crucial. The project I've designed for myself is really exciting, because no one in my particular field is doing it at all, simply because so few molecular biologists are also programmers.
As a side note to this, I'm also finishing a minor in English, which provides me with the writing and analytical skills that very few scientists posess. I'm always the one my boss comes to when a grant or manuscript needs proofreading.
Basically, whatever you study, don't limit yourself to one area. If all you are is a programmer, then it's much harder to expand. Learn various skill sets and ways of thinking and you'll be able to move in directions that few other people can. You might not have an obvious niche, like "Systems Programming" or "Cell Culture Expert", but you can build yourself a niche that no one else may have thought of.
Yeah, I noticed the annual fee, although I didn't really think about it as much before. The annual fee is obviously part of Microsoft's eventual plan to switch everyone over to renting their software, but it opens up a very obvious hole. When you purchase software, it is good for at least three years, longer for most schools. It's a real investment then, and it's far more long-term.
With the annual fee, schools will have this item sitting on their budget each and every year, to be re-evaluated each and every time. It makes it a lot easier to switch away if you have to renew the software yearly, because it's not a long-term investment any more. This year they could spring for the Microsoft license package to avoid even more expensive legal troubles, and spend the rest of the year carefully planning and implementing a full-fledged switch to Apple and/or Linux.
The subscription model is going to wind up being their real weakness, especially once it's enacted everywhere. The need to decide yearly whether or not to pay a fee is going to compel people, at some point in time, to switch to where they don't have to pay, or simply pay a lot less. Hopefully this will lead to very good things in the long run.
What about cost? If the competition, in this case Linux, significantly undercuts the cost of MS and shows at least parity in all the other items you've listed, don't you think that would cause some incredible movement?
Don't forget the value of the allmighty dollar. It's what got Microsoft where they are today, and it's why they're so scared of the GPL.
I'll agree with that, although it'd be hard to make them provide a reason, it would definitely lend some weight to their decision if they put something. In addition, it'd make meta-modding a lot easier. Just a quick justification string, no longer than a sig would do it. Very good idea.
Well, someone should have modded your post up if it was really modded down unfairly. Someone obviously doesn't like what you have to say there, and whether or not you are trolling there (and I don't believe at all that you are) the fact is someone doesn't like you for what you have to say, rather than for something you've done, like mod them down.
The only possible reason you could use the information you want is to mod the person who quickly modded you down to hell. What else do you want it for? Just so you know who to hate?
Let it go. The moderator obviously doesn't like your whole outlook, but that doesn't mean anything. It is just karma after all. Bitching about it is fairly moderated as offtopic, because it's just whining, and whatever karma you lose from bitching about it is well deserved.
The whole point of posting, at least to me, is to express my opinion and to see what others think. I like when I'm modded up, and I dislike being modded down, just like you, but all it does is cause me to evaluate what I've said. Have I truly thought this through? Could I be way off? Did I not express the idea well enough so that people thought I was trolling? What's better is thoughtful, intelligent, replies of course, and I'd rather be modded down as a troll with half a dozen replies than be modded up +5 with no replies. Karma is crap. Everyone knows it. What counts is that you can extract the essence of an issue raised in an article through the discussion. Use any mods you think unfair to help with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't you imagine that these companies would be willing to port their software over to Linux if there was a large enough to demand for it? If they hear about stories like this one often enough, and get feedback from districts willing to move to Linux, they would very likely port their apps. After all, this is their market, and if they don't respond to it, then some other company who is more Linux friendly may just come and eat their lunch. The important thing is to build demand.
Seriously, are these sorts of programs still used in schools any more? I figured that all schools need these days is a web browser, since so much content seems to be done through HTML, where it used to be done in Hypercard. Sure, games like the ones you mentioned might have some educational merit, but somehow I doubt that those are a real priority.
But in this case it's a (court affirmed) monopoly using its position unfairly. This is also illegal.
Good for the state's case is what I meant. As someone posted elsewhere before, the point wouldn't be to say "Look, just replace Windows XP with Embedded XP" but to prove that it could be done. This is potentially very useful in simply showing the feasibility of the idea.
And yes, it would show that important functionality is dependant on the browser as well, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to remove it and replace it. That's what it's really about. Not ripping out the browser all together, but having the ability to replace it if you want (nut just running something like Mozilla instead), thereby allowing for competition.
If it's really so easy to rip out the shell, then why isn't Microsoft demonstrating this in court? If it's as easy as you imply, then this shouldn't be such an issue.
I've only known one person who ran Litestep, and it was apparently very crashy, which to me implies that it's not quite so easy a thing.
In reality, the problem isn't just ripping out IE, like you say. The problem is all the business practices surrounding it. The inability for OEM's to bundle a competing browser, like Netscape or now Opera, on their systems. I bet a lot of random desktop users would be quite pleased with a bundled Opera.
Frankly, I could care less about taking IE all the way out of my system. The libraries it brings with it provide a lot of nice functionality. I'd like for them to not be loaded at startup, but rather be loaded on demand since I use Mozilla and rarely go to help files, but that's a small thing. But what I really want as a consumer is to have some choice when I buy a system. I don't necessarily want all my bundled software to made by Microsoft, and it's quite astonishing in many ways that people are forgetting this. This is the whole point of the modular windows penalty. It's not to get rid of IE, but rather to provide choice to customers, and thereby allow competition to re-enter the market.
Perhaps the states know that whether or not they can show it can be done is more of a moot point. The point of the penalty phase is to enforce the penalty, and if the penalty is to modularize Windows then they have to pay that penalty despite the cost. Whether or not they've alredy done it with XP Embedded doesn't really matter as much.
Granted, I think showing off XP Embedded would have been a good thing (from what little I admittedly know about it) but perhaps they've got enough already. We all can acknowledge that speed is of the essence.
Sendmail does strike me as a perfect example actually. We should all remember the mantra "Open Source is not a panacea" and we'll be Ok. Open or Closed, bad engineering is bad engineering.
Classic MacOS had far far fewer security holes than Windows, despite being completely closed, simply because of the way the system was designed. Similarly, exim has had far fewer security holes than sendmail, despite them both being open. It's all about how well the program itself was written.
Hopefully Microsoft's security audit will pay off, but only if they continually pay attention to security forevermore. Currently disabling scripting in Outlook by default will go a long way as well. Microsoft's culture has to plan better for security, so that their designs are better. Open or Closed, security is about forethought and quick response.
Glad to see that Stuart Cheshire is still around. The man deserves great accolades for creating bolo. I had wondered what happened to him.
Check your prices on Macs. The "Macs are too expensive" argument is a lie that's been refuted in just about every single Apple article on /. As such, you don't really need to buy an x86 PC.
Plus, as your argument goes, why doesn't Microsoft make Windows for PPC? Surely, if they did, there would be some market for PPC clones. No one is condemning Microsoft for this, because they do have the right to produce their OS for whatever platform(s) they wish. Apple does the same. The funamental difference in their business model, which is what has kept Apple alive and competitive mind you, is what prevents this from happening.
Apple doesn't have an Office suite to back up their OS sales. It doesn't have expensive dev tools any more. The actual money they make is in the hardware, but the software is the selling point. The Windows world is the exact opposite. Apple can't compete with Microsoft using their same business model. I know you'd love to see OSX on the x86, but that would kill any chance of having OSX around thereafter, which makes complaining about it pointless. Apple has to make money. This is the only way for them to do it.
Because of all this, I can criticize Microsoft for doing something and not Apple for doing the same thing. Apple does not have a monopoly on 3d rendering software, so shake isn't even an issue. And as for hardware, they might have a monopoly on OEM distribution for the PPC platform, but that's because they are the only one right now to try. Microsoft is free to produce Windows for PPC, and someone can build a PPC motherboard and ship Windows on their own box. Or you can even put Darwin or Linux on it. But this company will go out of business, because it's just not viable. Apple producing OSX for the x86 would kill them. Microsoft producing Windows for PPC wouldn't hurt them in the slightest. That's why I can criticize Microsoft, but not Apple. There is a difference.
How different is the Mac platform than the PC platform? Processor different, Ok. Memory? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Available for both. Hard drives? Same. USB? Both. Firewire? Available on both. 3D accelerator cards? ATI and NVidia duke it out on both. Mice? USB-driven works fine on both. Keyboards? Same. Printers/Scanners? Same. Am I missing something?
Aside from the PPC vs. x86 comparison, the Mac and Wintel platform is essentially the exact same thing. Sure, Apple's hardware might look nicer, but the underlying stuff is identical.
So, then what is it that specifically makes you want to buy a Macintosh? The look? The platform is the same, processor aside, so what real features do you get out of running on Mac hardware vs. PC hardware? None, really. So, then why are you so concerned with buying a "Mac" with no OS on it? So you can run Linux or BSD? Why not buy an x86 box, given that everything else in the box is essentially the same thing, you lose nothing.
If there really was so much to gain from buying a PPC platform with no OS on it, the product would be there. After all, all that's missing is a PPC motherboard, and someone would make it if it were profitable to do so. But it's not, and if you think it would be profitable to do so, I challenge you to start a PPC motherboard company and see how far you get.
The reality of the situation is that the hardware no longer dictates, on the desktop, what the platform is. The x86 and PPC platforms are identical, except for the chip itself, and this is indicative of the fact the the actual platform people are worried about is the OS itself. Apple is not stopping anyone from producing a blanked PPC box, they are simply unwilling to license their OS out to anyone, because the OS is where the money is. Apple might control what goes in to the default configuration of every single box, but that doesn't make them any sort of monopoly, because you can get, for all intents and purposes, the same hardware platform elsewhere. You won't get the software platform you might want, but that's the value Apple adds to their system (the value is not in PPC vs x86, that I can tell you). And personally, I don't think you can argue that Apple has the right to add value to the machines that they sell. If they didn't, they wouldn't be competitive against the Microsoft monopoly.
You can build yourself a Mac if you'd like. There are no motherboards for PPC available, as far as I know, but that's because the market for it just isn't there. But barring that, it's all standard PC components from off the shelf, thrown in to a pretty case. If you think there's a great market for building PPC motherboards for mass consumption, I challenge you to start a company to do just that. But as it stands, there's no way to make money off a generic "Mac" without the OS, because it's just not necessary. Apple adds real value to the hardware with their OS, making it more than just a pretty box. If you want an empty box, then buy an x86 machine. The performance difference won't be so great that you'll really care, I can assure you.
First is the issue of the Office monopoly. Somehow, I don't think Apple has any sort of monopoly on Office suites. How about Web browsers? Sure, there are competitors, but they're still measley compared to the behemoth that is IE.
While the fact that these programs are successful doesn't make them or their creators "bad" in any way, the fact that they have been used as leverage to bully others out of the market is the problem.
What happened to Netscape? They couldn't deliver a whole alternate OS that supported Microsoft's Office monopoly. What happened to Corel's Word Perfect? They couldn't bundle an OS with their Office software either. What about Apple? Well, Apple can provide these things, which is why they are able to compete, and they can only do this because Office and IE ship for the Mac. If you think Apple would survive without Office, you're kidding yourself. It's by Microsoft's good graces that other companies live and die, including Apple.
So while Apple might have a monopoly on PPC PC's and Microsoft might have one on x86 PC's, their situation is very different. In addition, you have to remember that if you wanted to, you could manufacture your own PPC motherboard and generic box and throw Linux on it. There just isn't a market for these things so no one is doing it. On x86 on the other hand, we've got every single OEM being forced to put Windows on every single PC, or face being priced out of the business by Microsoft.
In short, monopolies aren't bad. Using yours to beat other companies to death is.
Yes, these actions are anticompetitive, but because Apple does not hold any sort of monopoly power, either in the OS market or the 3d rendering market, this move is not the kind of thing that makes one scream "monopolist!" Are you going to be mad at them for not producing Appleworks for Windows? Are you going to be mad at them for not making the iPod, iMovie, etc. available for Windows? These are features added to their product to make it more competitive against a court-confirmed monopoly, and they have every right to do this.
Apple is, quite simply, not to be held to the same standards as Microsoft. Get over it.
So, does this mean that after 2003 they are planning on killing the product for Irix and Linux, or just that this is the time frame that they are committing to these platforms right now? Stupid question maybe, but I think it's an important one to ask.
Hell, that scene makes me want to revert to breast feeding at age 21.
You must be new around here if you haven't heard about the mighty pornzilla. Check out the modifications section to improve both your porn and general websurfing experience.
Doesn't this constitute barratry, which is illegal?
This is very true. I'm graduating in a few months from a major university, I'm doing just this. I'm going to have my bachelor's in Molecular Biology, with an emphasis in computing. I've been programming since the beginning of high school, so the degree didn't actually get me much in the way of new skills, but the point is that I can apply it to whatever else I want to do.
Right now I'm the only person in my lab with any extensive computer knowledge. My boss is an incredibly bright, MD/PHD, who knows virology backwards and forwards, but in terms of computer work, her knowledge doesn't go much beyond Word and PowerPoint. I wanted my student research project to make use of my computer skills, so I've been working on setting up a bunch of ruby scripts and MySQL databases using the Human Genome data.
No one else in my lab, or possibly even in my building, has any idea as to how to do this.
Having programming skills provides me with a unique tool to do the most modern kind of research in biology. The crowning scientific achievment of the millenium was the completion of the Human Genome project, and in order to effectively use it one needs extensive computer skills. Very few biologists have these skills, and in order to be an effective researcher it's going to be crucial. The project I've designed for myself is really exciting, because no one in my particular field is doing it at all, simply because so few molecular biologists are also programmers.
As a side note to this, I'm also finishing a minor in English, which provides me with the writing and analytical skills that very few scientists posess. I'm always the one my boss comes to when a grant or manuscript needs proofreading.
Basically, whatever you study, don't limit yourself to one area. If all you are is a programmer, then it's much harder to expand. Learn various skill sets and ways of thinking and you'll be able to move in directions that few other people can. You might not have an obvious niche, like "Systems Programming" or "Cell Culture Expert", but you can build yourself a niche that no one else may have thought of.
Yeah, I noticed the annual fee, although I didn't really think about it as much before. The annual fee is obviously part of Microsoft's eventual plan to switch everyone over to renting their software, but it opens up a very obvious hole. When you purchase software, it is good for at least three years, longer for most schools. It's a real investment then, and it's far more long-term.
With the annual fee, schools will have this item sitting on their budget each and every year, to be re-evaluated each and every time. It makes it a lot easier to switch away if you have to renew the software yearly, because it's not a long-term investment any more. This year they could spring for the Microsoft license package to avoid even more expensive legal troubles, and spend the rest of the year carefully planning and implementing a full-fledged switch to Apple and/or Linux.
The subscription model is going to wind up being their real weakness, especially once it's enacted everywhere. The need to decide yearly whether or not to pay a fee is going to compel people, at some point in time, to switch to where they don't have to pay, or simply pay a lot less. Hopefully this will lead to very good things in the long run.
What about cost? If the competition, in this case Linux, significantly undercuts the cost of MS and shows at least parity in all the other items you've listed, don't you think that would cause some incredible movement?
Don't forget the value of the allmighty dollar. It's what got Microsoft where they are today, and it's why they're so scared of the GPL.
I'll agree with that, although it'd be hard to make them provide a reason, it would definitely lend some weight to their decision if they put something. In addition, it'd make meta-modding a lot easier. Just a quick justification string, no longer than a sig would do it. Very good idea.
"What's good for Microsoft is good for America!"(tm)
Well, someone should have modded your post up if it was really modded down unfairly. Someone obviously doesn't like what you have to say there, and whether or not you are trolling there (and I don't believe at all that you are) the fact is someone doesn't like you for what you have to say, rather than for something you've done, like mod them down.
The only possible reason you could use the information you want is to mod the person who quickly modded you down to hell. What else do you want it for? Just so you know who to hate?
Let it go. The moderator obviously doesn't like your whole outlook, but that doesn't mean anything. It is just karma after all. Bitching about it is fairly moderated as offtopic, because it's just whining, and whatever karma you lose from bitching about it is well deserved.
The whole point of posting, at least to me, is to express my opinion and to see what others think. I like when I'm modded up, and I dislike being modded down, just like you, but all it does is cause me to evaluate what I've said. Have I truly thought this through? Could I be way off? Did I not express the idea well enough so that people thought I was trolling? What's better is thoughtful, intelligent, replies of course, and I'd rather be modded down as a troll with half a dozen replies than be modded up +5 with no replies. Karma is crap. Everyone knows it. What counts is that you can extract the essence of an issue raised in an article through the discussion. Use any mods you think unfair to help with that.