But if MS is found to be linked to SCO, and Novell/SUSE winds up being owed serious cash, will they be able to go after MS, even while the IBM case is ongoing?
But can MS get caught in all that? I mean, that's a lot of liability to hit a tight wallet (SCO's basically broke, I think). So if the Baystar/MS funding angle that IBM is working pans out, is there a way some of the "leftover" liability can hit Microsoft?
That's fine for you, but some people can afford only one computer, and have to go on the road. Or just don't have the technical skills to SSH or network into their desktop from business hotels.
iTMS TV shows can be downloaded and played, instead of streamed. This allows you to watch them while commuting, or on an iPod, and it lets you watch them again without clogging up your internet pipe several times, which may or may not have bandwidth limits.
Personally, I'd prefer that, because it means that more is getting done. I'd rather have 10 "B" apps on Linux that are feature complete but bloated, then 3 that are A grade, because those bloated ones can always be optimized, and they at least exist for people with higher-end processors. The work that gets done on F/OSS is the work that the developers want done. If it's developers with fast machines, they'll write bigger code. Now Negroponte could either edit some of the apps to make them smaller, pay someone to do it, or guilt someone into doing it. He's trying option C, which is probably the best one overall.
Yes the geeks among the rural population might be able to build a better computer cheaper
I highly, highly, highly doubt that. You might con someone into giving your their old desktop (like a iMac G3 or a PII or something) clocked higher with a harddrive, but in terms of laptops and the quality/price factor, you simply can't beat that value. Sure, it won't run GIMP, but it'll run office stuff OK.
Concur. Puppy Linux with OO.o is like 120ish MB. I figure they can download a kernel without support for PPC or AMD64/EMT64 (which I understand Puppy Linux already has dropped), and then drop various unnecessary printer and video card drivers. Of course, they then have to add stuff back in for their new screen, and support for the new hardware stuff they're making, but being designed for a single computer model has to help.
Here's a better idea. Announce "OS X will only run on certain high quality compatible hardware", and publish a list of video cards, processors, hard drives, network cards, printers, etc. that work with it. HP, Dell, and Sony could make computers with these components, slap an "OS X ready" sticker on it, and charge $50 more.
People might move to Cocoa, assuming you can get people to throw out the code they already have. Companies rarely start from scratch in programming. They'll have revisions and rewrites of sections of their old code. Adobe going from CodeWarrior to XCode for their Mac version is a mess, and it's still at least similar APIs, as I understand it.
I would love to see all of the marketing and R&D dollars poured into these stupid, stupid features go instead into producing smaller phones that have increased range, longer battery life and a user interface not designed by a team of raccoons. Is that so ridiculous?
Can't they build and then link to completely separate binaries? If they write a closed source library or program, and make their advancements dependent on that, won't that slow re-implementers down?
People don't think that way. Yes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but most people put off fixing things like that. Just like "One of these days I'll paint the kitchen", or the inevitable promise to eventually "clean out the garage", people might eventually plan on "figuring out that darn computer thing better", but as everyone knows, first there's the game on, then they have gardening to do, or walking the dog, or anything other than doing that, always promising to do it next week. Sort of like me and this paper due in an hour...
yes, but then you need to hire hitmen to do the original hitmen (in case they think of talking), and then legal counsel for the second-degree hitmen, and it's just a big mess.
No. RIM deserved to win. The patents were being thrown out. But they still had to pay NTP for patents that were invalid.
Between NTP and SCO, I've lost almost all faith in the patent/copyright IP system. I mean, in both cases, the two companies didn't have much to go with, and they're costing legitimate innovators (RIM and IBM) serious time and money, and spreading a lot of FUD. Then there's the really stupid patents, like "One Click Shopping" or "Buy it Now" or doubleclicking.
Further review indicates that the script opens Google, redirects or opens another secunia page, then goes to the test page with the text, and the intermediary page has some Flash on it, which displays a big red-on-grey "Secunia" sign.
I have the flash-player extension or something, so it gave a flash-icon (click to play) for a second, then switched to just the Secunia text, so either it auto-executed (annoying, but not troubling), or it didn't play the flash.
The original poster claimed that people knew the difference between IE and Firefox. I gave him that assumption, which you are correct in disputing. I just like to argue on the grounds of "even if you're right, I still win" as a strategy. So even if everyone knows what FF is, my point still stands.
really? I just did it in a build optimized for my G4 on my iBook, and the google address came up for a second then went to the right Secunia web address, which is the correct behavior.
Deerpark G4, Mac OS 10.4.5 Had to disable noscript in order to do the test though. I did have adblock and flashblock still on.
1) A lot of users only know how IE does things. It could be scary to have to deal with a different layout, or a different set of commands, or a different method of bookmarking or whatever.
2) They don't want to take the time. It takes like 10 minutes to download Firefox, then time to install, and then they have to set it as the default browser, and change shortcuts, and then get all their bookmarks and passwords and everything into Firefox, so it is honestly not a 3 minute process, more like 30 minutes, and more if you take into account getting the right extensions, like ad-block and flashblock and noscript
Fundamentally, the problem is that most users don't see computers as something to configure, they see it as a tool to use. They don't bother with the "Top 10 list for making Windows faster" because it requires registry edits or going deep into the preferences or something. They're not dumb, it's just that computers aren't their field, and they don't like the idea of spending an hour changing something.
The concern here is that the ISPs expressed interest in doing it, and Congress had a chance to preempt them, and chose not to. That means that if the ISPs chose to implement it, it'll be months to a year before Congress can outlaw it now.
Slashdot Mirror
But if MS is found to be linked to SCO, and Novell/SUSE winds up being owed serious cash, will they be able to go after MS, even while the IBM case is ongoing?
But can MS get caught in all that? I mean, that's a lot of liability to hit a tight wallet (SCO's basically broke, I think). So if the Baystar/MS funding angle that IBM is working pans out, is there a way some of the "leftover" liability can hit Microsoft?
That's fine for you, but some people can afford only one computer, and have to go on the road. Or just don't have the technical skills to SSH or network into their desktop from business hotels.
I read the SciAm article that started all this. It's pretty obvious. "A decade and a half" means 15 years, not 10.5
iTMS TV shows can be downloaded and played, instead of streamed. This allows you to watch them while commuting, or on an iPod, and it lets you watch them again without clogging up your internet pipe several times, which may or may not have bandwidth limits.
Personally, I'd prefer that, because it means that more is getting done. I'd rather have 10 "B" apps on Linux that are feature complete but bloated, then 3 that are A grade, because those bloated ones can always be optimized, and they at least exist for people with higher-end processors. The work that gets done on F/OSS is the work that the developers want done. If it's developers with fast machines, they'll write bigger code. Now Negroponte could either edit some of the apps to make them smaller, pay someone to do it, or guilt someone into doing it. He's trying option C, which is probably the best one overall.
Yes the geeks among the rural population might be able to build a better computer cheaper
I highly, highly, highly doubt that. You might con someone into giving your their old desktop (like a iMac G3 or a PII or something) clocked higher with a harddrive, but in terms of laptops and the quality/price factor, you simply can't beat that value. Sure, it won't run GIMP, but it'll run office stuff OK.
Concur. Puppy Linux with OO.o is like 120ish MB. I figure they can download a kernel without support for PPC or AMD64/EMT64 (which I understand Puppy Linux already has dropped), and then drop various unnecessary printer and video card drivers. Of course, they then have to add stuff back in for their new screen, and support for the new hardware stuff they're making, but being designed for a single computer model has to help.
but did you change the wikipedia entry to reflect that? :-) Thanks for pointing it out, I'm headed there now. Mind if I link you on the talk page?
I meant that if it has a processor and storage, someone will eventually port Linux to it. It was a joke.
If it has a processor and any sort of storage, it can run Linux
Here's a better idea. Announce "OS X will only run on certain high quality compatible hardware", and publish a list of video cards, processors, hard drives, network cards, printers, etc. that work with it. HP, Dell, and Sony could make computers with these components, slap an "OS X ready" sticker on it, and charge $50 more.
That said, it'll never happen
People might move to Cocoa, assuming you can get people to throw out the code they already have. Companies rarely start from scratch in programming. They'll have revisions and rewrites of sections of their old code. Adobe going from CodeWarrior to XCode for their Mac version is a mess, and it's still at least similar APIs, as I understand it.
I would love to see all of the marketing and R&D dollars poured into these stupid, stupid features go instead into producing smaller phones that have increased range, longer battery life and a user interface not designed by a team of raccoons. Is that so ridiculous?
Yes
Can't they build and then link to completely separate binaries? If they write a closed source library or program, and make their advancements dependent on that, won't that slow re-implementers down?
People don't think that way. Yes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but most people put off fixing things like that. Just like "One of these days I'll paint the kitchen", or the inevitable promise to eventually "clean out the garage", people might eventually plan on "figuring out that darn computer thing better", but as everyone knows, first there's the game on, then they have gardening to do, or walking the dog, or anything other than doing that, always promising to do it next week. Sort of like me and this paper due in an hour...
yes, but then you need to hire hitmen to do the original hitmen (in case they think of talking), and then legal counsel for the second-degree hitmen, and it's just a big mess.
No. RIM deserved to win. The patents were being thrown out. But they still had to pay NTP for patents that were invalid.
Between NTP and SCO, I've lost almost all faith in the patent/copyright IP system. I mean, in both cases, the two companies didn't have much to go with, and they're costing legitimate innovators (RIM and IBM) serious time and money, and spreading a lot of FUD. Then there's the really stupid patents, like "One Click Shopping" or "Buy it Now" or doubleclicking.
Further review indicates that the script opens Google, redirects or opens another secunia page, then goes to the test page with the text, and the intermediary page has some Flash on it, which displays a big red-on-grey "Secunia" sign.
I have the flash-player extension or something, so it gave a flash-icon (click to play) for a second, then switched to just the Secunia text, so either it auto-executed (annoying, but not troubling), or it didn't play the flash.
The original poster claimed that people knew the difference between IE and Firefox. I gave him that assumption, which you are correct in disputing. I just like to argue on the grounds of "even if you're right, I still win" as a strategy. So even if everyone knows what FF is, my point still stands.
really? I just did it in a build optimized for my G4 on my iBook, and the google address came up for a second then went to the right Secunia web address, which is the correct behavior.
Deerpark G4, Mac OS 10.4.5 Had to disable noscript in order to do the test though. I did have adblock and flashblock still on.
People keep IE because of two factors:
1) A lot of users only know how IE does things. It could be scary to have to deal with a different layout, or a different set of commands, or a different method of bookmarking or whatever.
2) They don't want to take the time. It takes like 10 minutes to download Firefox, then time to install, and then they have to set it as the default browser, and change shortcuts, and then get all their bookmarks and passwords and everything into Firefox, so it is honestly not a 3 minute process, more like 30 minutes, and more if you take into account getting the right extensions, like ad-block and flashblock and noscript
Fundamentally, the problem is that most users don't see computers as something to configure, they see it as a tool to use. They don't bother with the "Top 10 list for making Windows faster" because it requires registry edits or going deep into the preferences or something. They're not dumb, it's just that computers aren't their field, and they don't like the idea of spending an hour changing something.
The concern here is that the ISPs expressed interest in doing it, and Congress had a chance to preempt them, and chose not to. That means that if the ISPs chose to implement it, it'll be months to a year before Congress can outlaw it now.
Why can't I pick FreeDOS when I look at orders from Dell? Is it business only?