Now we have all these misleading labels on keyboards. Those labels cause me mental stress, which as we all know is very debilitating. I smell lawsuit! Repetitive Warning Label Stress Syndrome
There are these things called "Patent Libraries" that contain (now follow me here, it gets tricky) "patent information"...
You are oversimplifying. First, there can be patents filed but not yet issued -- you don't have access to them until the issue. Second, doing a "real" patent search is an expensive proposition (I'm not talking about your boss doing a 2 minute google search on a few key phrases). No company can do that type of search on every little thing that comes along.
Regarding submarine patents, I believe there have been changes made to the law to address this problem. Apparently the way submarine patents worked was the filer would stall the patent before it issued -- sometimes for many years. Then, once another company (with money) was clearly infringing they would push ahead to get the patent issued. There was no time limit on how long they could stall the process, and since the date of the original filing was the date used to decide first invention, the second company got "torpedoed" with no way of protecting themselves. The law change, as I understand it, is to now give the filer protection for 20 years from the date of filing, rather than 17 years from the date of issue.
Clearly the deciding factor in which platforms became cheap and ubiquitous and which either limped along with small marketshare (Apple) or disappeared altogether (everyone else) is Microsoft. I think people fail to recognize the significant role MS played in the evolution of what we now call the PC. By offering an OS that could run on many vendor's hardware they broke the lock hardware vendors had up until that point. This, in turn, led to tremendous competition, and the cheap, incredibly powerful (and compatible) machines we enjoy today.
Note, before you break out the flamethrowers, I didn't say MS is great, or they were innovative, or ethical, or anything of the sort. But there is no denying the role they played in getting us to where we are today. In many ways, Linux owes its very existence to MS - ironic, isn't it?
If you're the owner of one of the 80 million non-cable, non-digital TV sets in the U.S., you're running out of time: according to consumer advocates, when the government gives the OK to shut off all analog broadcasts -- possibly by January 1, 2009...
FTA: "These nests provide attachment factors for the tumor cells to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed metastatic site or secondary tumor," said Lyden.
I think this is how Windows spreads also. Check out this mildly re-written version of the above:
"These proprietary APIs provide attachment factors for the 3rd party applications to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed legacy application or secondary reason not to get rid of Windows," said LaughingCoder.
Actually, all versions of Vista come bundled with IE, Messenger, MP, and lots of other things. Additionally they are layering on even more bundled capabilities, differing by version. Over time some of those will "stick" and be bundled across all Windows versions. Others will fade away or remain nichy on a particular flavor of Windows (Server versions, for example). Good developers understand that and plan accordingly. If a version of Vista with a particular capabiity is targeted, the application will require that version of Windows. There are many examples of applications that require Windows 2000/XP to run. That is reasonable. To expand the required platform to include a requirement for media player 9 or greater, IE 6.0 or greater, Messenger 4.0 or greater, XML parser 3.5 or greater,... gets to be a bit cumbersome both for the product developer and the end user, don't you think?
Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. Unfortunatetly, the legal remedies to the lack of Linux desktop adoption *seems* to be bringing Microsoft down to the level of all those distros, rather than acknowledging that a broadly capable OS that can be exploited by multiple applications is a vastly better environment both for end users and for application developers. I hesitate to say this, but it almost seems to me that a better approach than forcing MS to downgrade their OS, would be to declare Windows a regulated utility. The free market works well while innovation is rampant and things are being sorted out. But, once things stabilize, standardization and regulation are oftentimes necessary. Consider phone systems, or the electrical grid, or the internet for that matter. All of these started out as "wild wild west" free-for-alls, eventually evolved into some sort of defacto-standard (aka monopoly which basically means the market picked a winner), and then became regulated. Maybe it's time to declare that Windows has won and get on with the next phase? Or, we could rip Windows apart and force the market to choose a new winner...
From a consumer convenience standpoint the former two are preferable
On this we agree. So I can put myself at a competitive disadvantage by choosing the "high road" that promotes open standards. Or, I can bundle and please all but those customers who are informed about these matters (ie about 0.01% of the market). That's an easy one.
My point is that the consumer will suffer *more* given these types of decisions. It isn't about me as a developer. It's about what developers will end up doing... either turf the problem to the end-user (as some have suggested here) or require broadband, or install stuff (perhaps redundantly).
Acrobat Reader? Why not choose a different PDF reader? Oh, yeah, they're ALLOWED to be a monopoly so that we can have some consistency and not annoy the end-user with 5 different PDF readers. Sometimes it's hard to keep all the *special* rules straight.
Yes, I *could* simply assume the end user had broadband and solve it that way. Doesn't work so well in the US though (where all the paying customers are).
Could it be the translation? That error would make a lot more sense if it was translated as "Unknown device detected". Perhaps the translator made a mistake? This never happens in any other operating system I bet.
So perhaps you can explain to me, should my application need to play a video, how "open standards" solves this problem. My point (which you obviously missed) was that, since I won't know that there is a media player installed, I will be forced to provide one with my application. True, I *could* query the system using *open* standards and detect and use a pre-existing player. But, what if there isn't one? To cover that corner case (real developers cover corner cases, unlike OSS where they often blow them off) I would need to also provide a media player with my installer. I can't simply rely on downloading one because (here comes another nasty corner case typically ignored by OSS) not everybody has broadband. So, as long as I have to provide a media player anyhow, the path of least resistance would be to resign myself to providing one with my installer and not bother with any pre-installed player. Get it?
This is more bad news. I dread the day when there will be 50 different versions of Windows out there. Some will have MP, some will have IM, some will have IE... what's a developer to do? We will be forced to bundle all of these service-level applications with our installer. The poor user will end up with 5 different browsers, instant messengers, media players, constantly answering the "Firefox is not your default browser" questions. This type of decision, in my opinion, is very bad for the industry, and especially bad for the end users.
According to the article, some OSS vendors are indemnifying their customers from patent lawsuits "at their own expense". Imagine how this will all play out. Microsoft has a huge patent portfolio they can use to defend themselves from others who sue them for infringement (cross licensing, mutual assured destruction). But Redhat and other OSS vendors, by virtue of the fact that their code is open and shared, do not have such a portfolio. They must instead pay settlements and license fees. In the end, it seems to me, Redhat's products will be more expensive than Microsoft's, just due to their legal fees.
If the third world gets $100 laptops using open source software, this will be really bad news for harware manufacturers and the end of the road for many closed source software manufacturers.
Man, this must be the 10th time I've read that such-and-such means the end of the road for many closed source software manufacturers. It makes me wonder how they could *still* exist in this day and age.
Oh, and I don't see alot of people giving up their high-end gaming, video crunching, widescreen laptops for a $100 windup (in your choice of putrid green colors) anytime soon.
And frankly, if I am a software maker I applaud this -- it expands my potential market. There is no way I am going to ever sell software to somebody with no computer. At least there is a chance if they have a machine.
The Herald, Herald-Tribune, and many other (if not most) local newspapers seem to think that they are still their readers' primary source of national and international news, just as they were 20 years ago. So that's what fills their front pages most of the time, with local and regional news stuck in a "B" or "C" section.
This really resonated with me. It reminded me of all the times I wondered why in the world every major newspaper and TV station in the US felt compelled to send a reporter to the Super Bowl or the World Series, or to the White House for press conferences. How is it beneficial for there to be 200 sets of ears hearing Barry Bonds say his "knee is feeling better", rather than having one (or two for verification) sets of ears hearing it and reporting it? The engineer in me values efficiency, and given that, it makes much more sense for local reporters to gather local information and report it. When the Super Bowl comes to Chicago, the local Chicago reporters can adequately cover and report what's going on. Sure, the other 2 cities involved (this year it's Indy and Seattle) can send reporters as well since there may be a "local" angle. But why does the Boston Globe and the LA Times, etc need to send reporters? This would also seem to significantly reduce their costs, which will help with the reduced circulation a local emphasis will bring about.
Come on! If they are coming out with it a few weeks after Google, don't you think they had it in the works for a long time. In fact, given Microsoft's size and slowness, most likely Google copied Microsoft on this one -- they just finished first.
I read the article, and there was a link to a page that demonstrates the exploit. Now, am I the only one who is afraid to click such a link? There is something about seeing a link that basically says "click here to see how we can take over your machine" that sends chills down my spine. I don't know about you, but I never click those demonstration links on *MY* machine.
You could go out and pick 6 new admins and get totally diffrent results, this study is a joke!.
I agree that the people chosen to configure/administer the systems have a big effect on the results of this study. I would hasten to point out, however, *that* in and of itself is valuable information. It seems to me that with Windows, given that Microsoft has "made many of the decisions for you", and built easy-to-use wizards to aid the less-experienced admin, a company can be less dependent on the particular admin staff who sets up their systems.
An analogy might be, which is the better car - a Porsche or a Hyundai? Well, who is driving it? What is the car being used for? If you are looking for basic, reliable and safe transportation for a family of 4, the Hyundai probably wins because it's ability to deliver that is much less dependent upon who drives. If you are trying to win a road race, the Hyundai might *still* win -- a poor or inexperienced driver is more likely to lose control of a Porsche and crash.
I agree that a broader-based study would produce more accurate results. And probably we would find a much wider standard deviation in the Linux world than we would find in the Windows world. As to where the mean ends up -- well that depends on how many of the Linux admins are top-notch, now doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Now we have all these misleading labels on keyboards. Those labels cause me mental stress, which as we all know is very debilitating. I smell lawsuit! Repetitive Warning Label Stress Syndrome
There are these things called "Patent Libraries" that contain (now follow me here, it gets tricky) "patent information"...
You are oversimplifying. First, there can be patents filed but not yet issued -- you don't have access to them until the issue. Second, doing a "real" patent search is an expensive proposition (I'm not talking about your boss doing a 2 minute google search on a few key phrases). No company can do that type of search on every little thing that comes along.
Regarding submarine patents, I believe there have been changes made to the law to address this problem. Apparently the way submarine patents worked was the filer would stall the patent before it issued -- sometimes for many years. Then, once another company (with money) was clearly infringing they would push ahead to get the patent issued. There was no time limit on how long they could stall the process, and since the date of the original filing was the date used to decide first invention, the second company got "torpedoed" with no way of protecting themselves. The law change, as I understand it, is to now give the filer protection for 20 years from the date of filing, rather than 17 years from the date of issue.
Clearly the deciding factor in which platforms became cheap and ubiquitous and which either limped along with small marketshare (Apple) or disappeared altogether (everyone else) is Microsoft. I think people fail to recognize the significant role MS played in the evolution of what we now call the PC. By offering an OS that could run on many vendor's hardware they broke the lock hardware vendors had up until that point. This, in turn, led to tremendous competition, and the cheap, incredibly powerful (and compatible) machines we enjoy today.
Note, before you break out the flamethrowers, I didn't say MS is great, or they were innovative, or ethical, or anything of the sort. But there is no denying the role they played in getting us to where we are today. In many ways, Linux owes its very existence to MS - ironic, isn't it?
Scientists have added 100,000 human brain cells to mice
Now I don't even want to touch my mouse! I guess it's back to the command line for me.
One might question their timing ...
...
If you're the owner of one of the 80 million non-cable, non-digital TV sets in the U.S., you're running out of time: according to consumer advocates, when the government gives the OK to shut off all analog broadcasts -- possibly by January 1, 2009
Source: http://hdtv.engadget.com/entry/1234000027048954/
They might have these widely deployed just in time for the analog broadcasts to go dark. Hey look at me, I'm watching static on my cell phone!
Redundancy is key...
I keep hearing this over and over so it must be true.
FTA: "These nests provide attachment factors for the tumor cells to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed metastatic site or secondary tumor," said Lyden.
I think this is how Windows spreads also. Check out this mildly re-written version of the above:
"These proprietary APIs provide attachment factors for the 3rd party applications to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed legacy application or secondary reason not to get rid of Windows," said LaughingCoder.
Actually, all versions of Vista come bundled with IE, Messenger, MP, and lots of other things. Additionally they are layering on even more bundled capabilities, differing by version. Over time some of those will "stick" and be bundled across all Windows versions. Others will fade away or remain nichy on a particular flavor of Windows (Server versions, for example). Good developers understand that and plan accordingly. If a version of Vista with a particular capabiity is targeted, the application will require that version of Windows. There are many examples of applications that require Windows 2000/XP to run. That is reasonable. To expand the required platform to include a requirement for media player 9 or greater, IE 6.0 or greater, Messenger 4.0 or greater, XML parser 3.5 or greater, ... gets to be a bit cumbersome both for the product developer and the end user, don't you think?
Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. Unfortunatetly, the legal remedies to the lack of Linux desktop adoption *seems* to be bringing Microsoft down to the level of all those distros, rather than acknowledging that a broadly capable OS that can be exploited by multiple applications is a vastly better environment both for end users and for application developers. I hesitate to say this, but it almost seems to me that a better approach than forcing MS to downgrade their OS, would be to declare Windows a regulated utility. The free market works well while innovation is rampant and things are being sorted out. But, once things stabilize, standardization and regulation are oftentimes necessary. Consider phone systems, or the electrical grid, or the internet for that matter. All of these started out as "wild wild west" free-for-alls, eventually evolved into some sort of defacto-standard (aka monopoly which basically means the market picked a winner), and then became regulated. Maybe it's time to declare that Windows has won and get on with the next phase? Or, we could rip Windows apart and force the market to choose a new winner ...
From a consumer convenience standpoint the former two are preferable
On this we agree. So I can put myself at a competitive disadvantage by choosing the "high road" that promotes open standards. Or, I can bundle and please all but those customers who are informed about these matters (ie about 0.01% of the market). That's an easy one.
My point is that the consumer will suffer *more* given these types of decisions. It isn't about me as a developer. It's about what developers will end up doing ... either turf the problem to the end-user (as some have suggested here) or require broadband, or install stuff (perhaps redundantly).
In other words turf the problem to the end-user? This is an improvement?
Acrobat Reader? Why not choose a different PDF reader? Oh, yeah, they're ALLOWED to be a monopoly so that we can have some consistency and not annoy the end-user with 5 different PDF readers. Sometimes it's hard to keep all the *special* rules straight.
Yes, I *could* simply assume the end user had broadband and solve it that way. Doesn't work so well in the US though (where all the paying customers are).
Could it be the translation? That error would make a lot more sense if it was translated as "Unknown device detected". Perhaps the translator made a mistake? This never happens in any other operating system I bet.
So perhaps you can explain to me, should my application need to play a video, how "open standards" solves this problem. My point (which you obviously missed) was that, since I won't know that there is a media player installed, I will be forced to provide one with my application. True, I *could* query the system using *open* standards and detect and use a pre-existing player. But, what if there isn't one? To cover that corner case (real developers cover corner cases, unlike OSS where they often blow them off) I would need to also provide a media player with my installer. I can't simply rely on downloading one because (here comes another nasty corner case typically ignored by OSS) not everybody has broadband. So, as long as I have to provide a media player anyhow, the path of least resistance would be to resign myself to providing one with my installer and not bother with any pre-installed player. Get it?
This is more bad news. I dread the day when there will be 50 different versions of Windows out there. Some will have MP, some will have IM, some will have IE ... what's a developer to do? We will be forced to bundle all of these service-level applications with our installer. The poor user will end up with 5 different browsers, instant messengers, media players, constantly answering the "Firefox is not your default browser" questions. This type of decision, in my opinion, is very bad for the industry, and especially bad for the end users.
That's a good thing because I have 3 teenage boys and I don't want them dating Intel bigots. ;-)
According to the article, some OSS vendors are indemnifying their customers from patent lawsuits "at their own expense". Imagine how this will all play out. Microsoft has a huge patent portfolio they can use to defend themselves from others who sue them for infringement (cross licensing, mutual assured destruction). But Redhat and other OSS vendors, by virtue of the fact that their code is open and shared, do not have such a portfolio. They must instead pay settlements and license fees. In the end, it seems to me, Redhat's products will be more expensive than Microsoft's, just due to their legal fees.
In the past year and a half I converted all my home machines (12) over to AMD. Then I put a sticker on my front door - "Intel Outside".
If the third world gets $100 laptops using open source software, this will be really bad news for harware manufacturers and the end of the road for many closed source software manufacturers.
Man, this must be the 10th time I've read that such-and-such means the end of the road for many closed source software manufacturers. It makes me wonder how they could *still* exist in this day and age.
Oh, and I don't see alot of people giving up their high-end gaming, video crunching, widescreen laptops for a $100 windup (in your choice of putrid green colors) anytime soon.
And frankly, if I am a software maker I applaud this -- it expands my potential market. There is no way I am going to ever sell software to somebody with no computer. At least there is a chance if they have a machine.
'Local' is the Key Word
The Herald, Herald-Tribune, and many other (if not most) local newspapers seem to think that they are still their readers' primary source of national and international news, just as they were 20 years ago. So that's what fills their front pages most of the time, with local and regional news stuck in a "B" or "C" section.
This really resonated with me. It reminded me of all the times I wondered why in the world every major newspaper and TV station in the US felt compelled to send a reporter to the Super Bowl or the World Series, or to the White House for press conferences. How is it beneficial for there to be 200 sets of ears hearing Barry Bonds say his "knee is feeling better", rather than having one (or two for verification) sets of ears hearing it and reporting it? The engineer in me values efficiency, and given that, it makes much more sense for local reporters to gather local information and report it. When the Super Bowl comes to Chicago, the local Chicago reporters can adequately cover and report what's going on. Sure, the other 2 cities involved (this year it's Indy and Seattle) can send reporters as well since there may be a "local" angle. But why does the Boston Globe and the LA Times, etc need to send reporters? This would also seem to significantly reduce their costs, which will help with the reduced circulation a local emphasis will bring about.
Come on! If they are coming out with it a few weeks after Google, don't you think they had it in the works for a long time. In fact, given Microsoft's size and slowness, most likely Google copied Microsoft on this one -- they just finished first.
I read the article, and there was a link to a page that demonstrates the exploit. Now, am I the only one who is afraid to click such a link? There is something about seeing a link that basically says "click here to see how we can take over your machine" that sends chills down my spine. I don't know about you, but I never click those demonstration links on *MY* machine.
You could go out and pick 6 new admins and get totally diffrent results, this study is a joke!.
I agree that the people chosen to configure/administer the systems have a big effect on the results of this study. I would hasten to point out, however, *that* in and of itself is valuable information. It seems to me that with Windows, given that Microsoft has "made many of the decisions for you", and built easy-to-use wizards to aid the less-experienced admin, a company can be less dependent on the particular admin staff who sets up their systems.
An analogy might be, which is the better car - a Porsche or a Hyundai? Well, who is driving it? What is the car being used for? If you are looking for basic, reliable and safe transportation for a family of 4, the Hyundai probably wins because it's ability to deliver that is much less dependent upon who drives. If you are trying to win a road race, the Hyundai might *still* win -- a poor or inexperienced driver is more likely to lose control of a Porsche and crash.
I agree that a broader-based study would produce more accurate results. And probably we would find a much wider standard deviation in the Linux world than we would find in the Windows world. As to where the mean ends up -- well that depends on how many of the Linux admins are top-notch, now doesn't it?