What proof do you have of that? First, there are lots of companies that are opponents to Open Source, not just Microsoft. OSS inconveniences any company that lives off billing for intelectual property on software.
Second, it might be the case that there are other reasons why these politicians don't like Open Source. Or it might be just illegal as it is because of a conflict with some other preexisting law. The fact that this whole thing is stupid doesn't mean it's the black hand of Microsoft.
I always found this line of thinking silly: Microsoft is Evil because they do these things. And I'm sure Microsoft did this because they are Evil.
BTW, there were Wordperfect viruses (maybe you weren't using computers ten or twenty years ago, but I was and saw them). And at that time there were NO Windows viruses!!!
There's something I don't get. There are companies making mass destruction weapons, using slave labor, making unhealthy food, committing fiscal fraud, bribing politicians, installing rootkits on your computer to sell ads, polluting the environment, destroying natural resources, designing campaigns to convince children of buying violent products... and the evil one is the one that makes a product you don't like, because it's not absolutely impossible to break by a malicious thief????
Please, tell me what are your basis for claiming that MS has played dirty on EVERY CHANCE they had. I can think of at least many times when they did the right thing, and every time somebody wants to give examples of bad things they've done I hear the same bunch of cr#p about bundling IE with Windows (as if other OSs didn't come with a browser), overpricing products (as if you could buy lots of things for $50) and being a monopoly (which isn't bad per se).
Since when being a monopoly is intrinsically bad? It's legal and in certain cases (not all, and not even the majority, but still some) can be beneficial.
Being a monopoly is a market result. If you make a product that's vastly superior to your competitors and sell it at a lower price than them, you'll probably end up with a monopoly. And that makes you bad?
We might argue about playing dirty (which I don't agree with, based on my knowledge Microsoft doesn't play dirty more often than the average company) but being a monopoly doesn't have anything to do with it.
OK, it sounds reasonable to request that the updates to a product should be paid by continuing sales, but only if those sales were of the same product, and the enhancements were applicable to the product being sold.
But the vast majority of those fixes and updates are issued for products that are no longer for sale. Of course, newer versions are being sold, but those require a completely new set of fixes, and there is no basis to request that part of that money to be used to pay for fixes of old versions that don't apply to the product. Put it another way, if I'm paying for a new product, why should I be paying more than I should have to, only to subsidize maintenance for purchasers of old products?
Additionally, I think the whole point of this debate is flawed. Nobody is asking users to pay several times the price of a product. What software companies are asking is for a rental or a lease of the software, which I don't see as bad in any way. If what you are complaining is that the total price paid in this model is substantially more than what you would have paid buying the license up front (and I say substantially because there are advantages to the "rental" model that should be factored in, such as being able not to renew if you are not satisfied or decide to switch to other product), then you should complain about the price, not the model.
That seems fair, but how do you define a fault?
A product not being able to resist attack from malicious crooks using sophisticated tools?
An application failing to do things it was not tested for?
An application not preventing the user from doing something stupid (such as giving an unknown person critical private information just because he claims to be from his bank)?
Does ANY industry provide that time of warranty? No, they don't. I certainly didn't try, but when my car got stolen even when it was locked, I probably wouldn't have obtained a refund from the company (even if returned my car, which showed up a few days later).
The problem with software is that we ask it to do very complex things, and we expect to do all it flawlessly, even if it is under very adverse conditions such as receiving thousands of malicious attacks per day. Which is not an unreasonable request, but not something we've been told to expect, something we can consider a mandate, especially since that requires lots of continuous work from the manufacturer, because the conditions change every day. But considering that a product is flawed to the point of asking for a refund just because it didn't resist the millionth attack from a hacker is asking for way more to the manufacturer than what we demand of car builders, or the manufacturers of any other product.
THe manufacturer of a product only has to offer a refund if the product doesn't perform as advertised, or if it doesn't work as defined by its contract. Software that doesn't claim to be hacker proof or to never fail doesn't need to offer such a refund. Though you should be able to ask for a refund from Oracle, since they used to claim their products were unbreakable. Other manufacturers usually claim their products are "secure" or "reliable", but I've never, other than in the case of Oracle, heard one of them claiming their products are "absolutely secure" or "flawlessly reliable", which wouls be base for demands for a refund or a free repair.
So now Microsoft should be FORCED to build an Operating System and sell it in the shape or form each one wants?
Microsoft is being abusive by deciding not to sell a product in a country that's not profitable to them?
Any government can require any company to build a product to their liking, and the company cannot even refuse or they would be being bullies?
The guy disqualified himself with that comment.
Maybe people around him aren't. But go to the streets and look around. Go to your office payroll department and look around. Even go to the White House and look around.
You'll find lots of stupid people there. And, unfortunately, they are the vast majority.
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity
-- Harlan Ellison.
There are 10 kinds of people.
Those who understand binary.
and those who don't.
While it's interesting to know price/perf for the CPU per se, it would be a much more interesting metric the TCO/Perf.
At least, adding the CPU price to the motherboard and other components and then dividing that amount by the raw power of the configuration would be a much better metric than the CPU alone.
Additionally, factoring other costs such as energy and cooling might give a more complete metric.
Slashdot Mirror
What proof do you have of that? First, there are lots of companies that are opponents to Open Source, not just Microsoft. OSS inconveniences any company that lives off billing for intelectual property on software. Second, it might be the case that there are other reasons why these politicians don't like Open Source. Or it might be just illegal as it is because of a conflict with some other preexisting law. The fact that this whole thing is stupid doesn't mean it's the black hand of Microsoft. I always found this line of thinking silly: Microsoft is Evil because they do these things. And I'm sure Microsoft did this because they are Evil.
BTW, there were Wordperfect viruses (maybe you weren't using computers ten or twenty years ago, but I was and saw them). And at that time there were NO Windows viruses!!! There's something I don't get. There are companies making mass destruction weapons, using slave labor, making unhealthy food, committing fiscal fraud, bribing politicians, installing rootkits on your computer to sell ads, polluting the environment, destroying natural resources, designing campaigns to convince children of buying violent products... and the evil one is the one that makes a product you don't like, because it's not absolutely impossible to break by a malicious thief???? Please, tell me what are your basis for claiming that MS has played dirty on EVERY CHANCE they had. I can think of at least many times when they did the right thing, and every time somebody wants to give examples of bad things they've done I hear the same bunch of cr#p about bundling IE with Windows (as if other OSs didn't come with a browser), overpricing products (as if you could buy lots of things for $50) and being a monopoly (which isn't bad per se).
Since when being a monopoly is intrinsically bad? It's legal and in certain cases (not all, and not even the majority, but still some) can be beneficial. Being a monopoly is a market result. If you make a product that's vastly superior to your competitors and sell it at a lower price than them, you'll probably end up with a monopoly. And that makes you bad? We might argue about playing dirty (which I don't agree with, based on my knowledge Microsoft doesn't play dirty more often than the average company) but being a monopoly doesn't have anything to do with it.
OK, it sounds reasonable to request that the updates to a product should be paid by continuing sales, but only if those sales were of the same product, and the enhancements were applicable to the product being sold. But the vast majority of those fixes and updates are issued for products that are no longer for sale. Of course, newer versions are being sold, but those require a completely new set of fixes, and there is no basis to request that part of that money to be used to pay for fixes of old versions that don't apply to the product. Put it another way, if I'm paying for a new product, why should I be paying more than I should have to, only to subsidize maintenance for purchasers of old products? Additionally, I think the whole point of this debate is flawed. Nobody is asking users to pay several times the price of a product. What software companies are asking is for a rental or a lease of the software, which I don't see as bad in any way. If what you are complaining is that the total price paid in this model is substantially more than what you would have paid buying the license up front (and I say substantially because there are advantages to the "rental" model that should be factored in, such as being able not to renew if you are not satisfied or decide to switch to other product), then you should complain about the price, not the model.
That seems fair, but how do you define a fault? A product not being able to resist attack from malicious crooks using sophisticated tools? An application failing to do things it was not tested for? An application not preventing the user from doing something stupid (such as giving an unknown person critical private information just because he claims to be from his bank)? Does ANY industry provide that time of warranty? No, they don't. I certainly didn't try, but when my car got stolen even when it was locked, I probably wouldn't have obtained a refund from the company (even if returned my car, which showed up a few days later). The problem with software is that we ask it to do very complex things, and we expect to do all it flawlessly, even if it is under very adverse conditions such as receiving thousands of malicious attacks per day. Which is not an unreasonable request, but not something we've been told to expect, something we can consider a mandate, especially since that requires lots of continuous work from the manufacturer, because the conditions change every day. But considering that a product is flawed to the point of asking for a refund just because it didn't resist the millionth attack from a hacker is asking for way more to the manufacturer than what we demand of car builders, or the manufacturers of any other product. THe manufacturer of a product only has to offer a refund if the product doesn't perform as advertised, or if it doesn't work as defined by its contract. Software that doesn't claim to be hacker proof or to never fail doesn't need to offer such a refund. Though you should be able to ask for a refund from Oracle, since they used to claim their products were unbreakable. Other manufacturers usually claim their products are "secure" or "reliable", but I've never, other than in the case of Oracle, heard one of them claiming their products are "absolutely secure" or "flawlessly reliable", which wouls be base for demands for a refund or a free repair.
So now Microsoft should be FORCED to build an Operating System and sell it in the shape or form each one wants? Microsoft is being abusive by deciding not to sell a product in a country that's not profitable to them? Any government can require any company to build a product to their liking, and the company cannot even refuse or they would be being bullies?
The guy disqualified himself with that comment. Maybe people around him aren't. But go to the streets and look around. Go to your office payroll department and look around. Even go to the White House and look around. You'll find lots of stupid people there. And, unfortunately, they are the vast majority. The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity -- Harlan Ellison. There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary. and those who don't.
While it's interesting to know price/perf for the CPU per se, it would be a much more interesting metric the TCO/Perf. At least, adding the CPU price to the motherboard and other components and then dividing that amount by the raw power of the configuration would be a much better metric than the CPU alone. Additionally, factoring other costs such as energy and cooling might give a more complete metric.