Interesting theory - any actual proof to back it up?
There was nothing wrong with the speed of WordPerfect, the feature set just wasn't as good as Word provided and that has nothing to do with the APIs.
The vast majority of Microsoft consumers couldn't care less about closed source, it is only a small, vocal minority that whines about it.
Microsoft gained market power in the Office Suites because it offered a better product for most consumers than the competition did.
And yet they are still a small fraction of the total machines on the internet.
The only reason that they are harder to get into is that they are, generally, managed by experienced administrators. Windows web servers are also difficult to get into.
Windows desktops are a plentiful soft target - if there were millions of user run linux machines on the 'net you would see far more exploits for linux.
The same goes for Linux boxes - the only difference is that there are not enough Linux boxes on the internet for hackers to waste a lot of time writing exploits for them, but they do exist.
Putting a computer, of any OS, on the Internet without a firewall is trouble.
Users should be educated about the risks of conencting to the Internet - there is no doubt about that. Microsoft, however, has made huge strides in making its OS's secure by default and they have been widely succesfull in accomplishing it.
The only "true" solution, would be to force all of those people to go out and by new PCs that came with XP SP2.
The vast majority (99%) of people will never switch to open source software - cause it sucks. The interfaces are weak and there is no support and the technology is typically far behind the retail stuff.
The people that purposefully seek out pirated software just want something for nothing. If "nothing" were not available they would probably buy the retail version or stick with whatever they have (ME, 2000, 9x whatever).
I'm not sure where you are at, but most (if not all) ISPs that I am aware of charge a flat fee regardless if you use streaming video or email once a month.
And when the costs of upgrading exceed the benefits (i.e. profit) what will happen? No more expansion and networks everywhere will be saturated with crap.
RE:Online OS - for you, perhaps nothing. For everyone else? Who knows. Thats the wonderful thing about markets - people try to sell new things and each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not its worth it.
I think that the chances of a world war on the scale that Einstein was fearful of have decreased substantially. Unless China and the US start rattling cages (increasinly unlikely, IMHO) I think the world is safe.
Terrorists are still a threat, and a growing threat, but I don't think they can cause global destruction.
There is an implicit assumption that if we don't do something humans won't survive next 100 years. I see no evidence to suggest that to be the case. In 100 years the world will be richer, there will be less poverty and technology will be providing goods and services that we couldn't even imagine having today.
So, I guess, the answer is to keep doing what we are doing and the world will be a better place in 100 years than it is today.
Meanwhile, everyone else's wages are utterly failing to keep up with inflation.
That is simply not true. Wages are flat (or slightly up) across the US economy while totaly compensation has increased.
It's interesting (on a side note) that Americans work more hours than almost anyone else, and yet still have shit production.
Also not true. Increases in production efficiency is a large factor in GDP growth over the last 20 years.
This is necessary because in a totally free system, you'd have people who can live on almost nothing (or who are willing to) taking all the jobs, living on jack shit, not purchasing anything, thus contributing far less to the GNP, making our economy weaker
Also not true. Humans are inately selfish - always wanting more, this drives wages up, not down. People compete for jobs by offering more (in the way of skills) not by accepting lower wages.
This is because instead of rewarding hard work, we fire people when they've been around long enough to actually get a decent wage, and hire some monkey with no skills to do their job.
You make bold assertions without any evidence to back them up. Hard work is rewarded - unless, of course, you work for a union, then laziness is rewarded.
Total compensation has grown and there is substantial mobility between classes (in the US). Of course calling the US a free-market country is all but laughable - we bury the advantages of capitalism under a mountain of rules and regulations that benefit large corporations at the expense of small ones. The fact remains that capitalism is, by far, the most successfull economic system to date.
Of course you are missing the point. The lesson to be learned from capitalism is that incentives matter. Incentives will cause contributors to produce more or better, incentives will cause software makers to provide products that will meet the needs of consumers.
Actually, I think you are missing his point. The lesson to be learned from capitalism isn't that making money is better than not making money - its that incentives matter.
If the project leaders of OSS had an incentive system (whether its money or something completely different is irrelevant) the result will be higher quality. Creating an incentive system that replaces money would be hard to accomplish since it would need to create incentives to produce quality as well as respond to consumer preferences, but its probably not impossible.
Or do we want them to charge the third parties where you would only pay for the infrastructure if you subscribe to those services and you give up some of your right to decide what provider will work for the possibility of your ISP implementing the infrastructure sooner?
I think that people that use high bandwidth apps should pay for infrastructure upgrades before all broadband users.
Do you believe QoS won't be implemented unless the ISPs can charge services instead of their customers for it? Maybe just delayed? How much of a delay would be OK. 5 Yrs? 6 months?
Network nuetrality would forbid QoS from being implemented. All packets are created equal.
What are the chances all VoIP companies are going to pay? How big does a VoIP provider need to be before Comcast will even be willing to deal with them? What are your chances of getting a fair deal if you are competing with one of the ISPs existing services? It's only a wash if all VoIP providers are signed up.
Are you proposing that ISPs would decide not to take money from providers because they aren't big enough? I find that highly implausible. I also think that if an ISP entered into an exclusive arrangment with on app provider they would open themselves up to anti-trust litigation.
1) But open source can't provide a ton of money to buy infrastructure.
2) If purchasing QoS from ISPs gives MSN a competitive advantage (not something that I am convinced is true) then Google, Yahoo, et al will purchase QoS leveling the playing field once again.
Microsoft has never claimed that its software is great for routers - it simply offers the capability. Microsoft does use all of its own software in house. If they are using non-MS software to accomplish something it just means that MS software can't accomplish the same thing.
If carriers aren't able to re-coup the costs for infrastructure upgrades all VoIP is going to have QoS problems. However, if those VoIP providers pay for QoS the carriers will ensure that they get it. And if all VoIP companies have to pay to guarantee quality then the competition is a wash since it is a cost that they are all burdened with and consumers benefit by having a high quality service as opposed to having their voice traffic competing with every pirate on the internet trying to get the latest copy of Eminem's latest album.
The power is shifted from every tom, dick and harry on the internet to the high value applications, not the ISP. Still a good thing, I would argue.
1) OpenSource is not going to offer services that requires the infrastructure necessary for high-bandwidth applications.
2) You talk as if carriers are going to depracate all service that doesn't pay-to-play, that simply isn't going to happen.
Telcos prices are set by regulators - this price is below what competition could provide so their can be no competition. I am fine (I think) with mandating shared access to last mile, but let prices be set by market rates.
Cable companies have government provided monopolies as well via franchise fees, with many of the same protections that are provided to telcos.
On top of this are large and cumbersome regulations that increase the costs of providing service so that small companies simply can't comply and be profitable. This creates a very large protection for the large telcos and cable companies and should, largely, be dismantled.
All you have done is described competition. Companies change their behavior to provide consumers more value for the money (whether its by lowering prices, adding features or providing value added services) because they are scared that the competition will steal their companies.
That is precisely how it is supposed to work. You are trying to tie it up in some grand conspiracy but this is simply capitalism at work.
I don't see how this inhibits the next generation of software at all. This is an expense that some companies will have to pay as part of their business plan. It is little different than new companies having to pay high rent in a mall as opposed to locating off-the-beaten-path if that is what their business requires.
Proponents of net nuetrality claim that competitors will not be able to compete with this scheme and empirical evidence all over the economy simply doesn't support that point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting theory - any actual proof to back it up? There was nothing wrong with the speed of WordPerfect, the feature set just wasn't as good as Word provided and that has nothing to do with the APIs.
The vast majority of Microsoft consumers couldn't care less about closed source, it is only a small, vocal minority that whines about it. Microsoft gained market power in the Office Suites because it offered a better product for most consumers than the competition did.
And yet they are still a small fraction of the total machines on the internet. The only reason that they are harder to get into is that they are, generally, managed by experienced administrators. Windows web servers are also difficult to get into. Windows desktops are a plentiful soft target - if there were millions of user run linux machines on the 'net you would see far more exploits for linux.
The same goes for Linux boxes - the only difference is that there are not enough Linux boxes on the internet for hackers to waste a lot of time writing exploits for them, but they do exist. Putting a computer, of any OS, on the Internet without a firewall is trouble.
Users should be educated about the risks of conencting to the Internet - there is no doubt about that. Microsoft, however, has made huge strides in making its OS's secure by default and they have been widely succesfull in accomplishing it. The only "true" solution, would be to force all of those people to go out and by new PCs that came with XP SP2.
Actually, new Windows systems come with the firewall on by default. None of the attacks that the BBC witnessed would have had an effect.
Actually, it will run - MS just won't support it. They do support several flavors of linux, mostly RedHat I think.
The vast majority (99%) of people will never switch to open source software - cause it sucks. The interfaces are weak and there is no support and the technology is typically far behind the retail stuff. The people that purposefully seek out pirated software just want something for nothing. If "nothing" were not available they would probably buy the retail version or stick with whatever they have (ME, 2000, 9x whatever).
I'm not sure where you are at, but most (if not all) ISPs that I am aware of charge a flat fee regardless if you use streaming video or email once a month.
Why should everyone pay for expansion of bandwidth as opposed to the users of the most bandwidth?
And when the costs of upgrading exceed the benefits (i.e. profit) what will happen? No more expansion and networks everywhere will be saturated with crap. RE:Online OS - for you, perhaps nothing. For everyone else? Who knows. Thats the wonderful thing about markets - people try to sell new things and each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not its worth it.
GM already has incentives for car manufacturing - the people that are using the product are the same ones making the purchase.
I think that the chances of a world war on the scale that Einstein was fearful of have decreased substantially. Unless China and the US start rattling cages (increasinly unlikely, IMHO) I think the world is safe. Terrorists are still a threat, and a growing threat, but I don't think they can cause global destruction.
There is an implicit assumption that if we don't do something humans won't survive next 100 years. I see no evidence to suggest that to be the case. In 100 years the world will be richer, there will be less poverty and technology will be providing goods and services that we couldn't even imagine having today. So, I guess, the answer is to keep doing what we are doing and the world will be a better place in 100 years than it is today.
Meanwhile, everyone else's wages are utterly failing to keep up with inflation. That is simply not true. Wages are flat (or slightly up) across the US economy while totaly compensation has increased. It's interesting (on a side note) that Americans work more hours than almost anyone else, and yet still have shit production. Also not true. Increases in production efficiency is a large factor in GDP growth over the last 20 years. This is necessary because in a totally free system, you'd have people who can live on almost nothing (or who are willing to) taking all the jobs, living on jack shit, not purchasing anything, thus contributing far less to the GNP, making our economy weaker Also not true. Humans are inately selfish - always wanting more, this drives wages up, not down. People compete for jobs by offering more (in the way of skills) not by accepting lower wages. This is because instead of rewarding hard work, we fire people when they've been around long enough to actually get a decent wage, and hire some monkey with no skills to do their job. You make bold assertions without any evidence to back them up. Hard work is rewarded - unless, of course, you work for a union, then laziness is rewarded.
Total compensation has grown and there is substantial mobility between classes (in the US). Of course calling the US a free-market country is all but laughable - we bury the advantages of capitalism under a mountain of rules and regulations that benefit large corporations at the expense of small ones. The fact remains that capitalism is, by far, the most successfull economic system to date. Of course you are missing the point. The lesson to be learned from capitalism is that incentives matter. Incentives will cause contributors to produce more or better, incentives will cause software makers to provide products that will meet the needs of consumers.
Actually, I think you are missing his point. The lesson to be learned from capitalism isn't that making money is better than not making money - its that incentives matter. If the project leaders of OSS had an incentive system (whether its money or something completely different is irrelevant) the result will be higher quality. Creating an incentive system that replaces money would be hard to accomplish since it would need to create incentives to produce quality as well as respond to consumer preferences, but its probably not impossible.
Or do we want them to charge the third parties where you would only pay for the infrastructure if you subscribe to those services and you give up some of your right to decide what provider will work for the possibility of your ISP implementing the infrastructure sooner? I think that people that use high bandwidth apps should pay for infrastructure upgrades before all broadband users. Do you believe QoS won't be implemented unless the ISPs can charge services instead of their customers for it? Maybe just delayed? How much of a delay would be OK. 5 Yrs? 6 months? Network nuetrality would forbid QoS from being implemented. All packets are created equal. What are the chances all VoIP companies are going to pay? How big does a VoIP provider need to be before Comcast will even be willing to deal with them? What are your chances of getting a fair deal if you are competing with one of the ISPs existing services? It's only a wash if all VoIP providers are signed up. Are you proposing that ISPs would decide not to take money from providers because they aren't big enough? I find that highly implausible. I also think that if an ISP entered into an exclusive arrangment with on app provider they would open themselves up to anti-trust litigation.
1) But open source can't provide a ton of money to buy infrastructure. 2) If purchasing QoS from ISPs gives MSN a competitive advantage (not something that I am convinced is true) then Google, Yahoo, et al will purchase QoS leveling the playing field once again.
Microsoft has never claimed that its software is great for routers - it simply offers the capability. Microsoft does use all of its own software in house. If they are using non-MS software to accomplish something it just means that MS software can't accomplish the same thing.
If carriers aren't able to re-coup the costs for infrastructure upgrades all VoIP is going to have QoS problems. However, if those VoIP providers pay for QoS the carriers will ensure that they get it. And if all VoIP companies have to pay to guarantee quality then the competition is a wash since it is a cost that they are all burdened with and consumers benefit by having a high quality service as opposed to having their voice traffic competing with every pirate on the internet trying to get the latest copy of Eminem's latest album. The power is shifted from every tom, dick and harry on the internet to the high value applications, not the ISP. Still a good thing, I would argue.
1) OpenSource is not going to offer services that requires the infrastructure necessary for high-bandwidth applications. 2) You talk as if carriers are going to depracate all service that doesn't pay-to-play, that simply isn't going to happen.
Telcos prices are set by regulators - this price is below what competition could provide so their can be no competition. I am fine (I think) with mandating shared access to last mile, but let prices be set by market rates. Cable companies have government provided monopolies as well via franchise fees, with many of the same protections that are provided to telcos. On top of this are large and cumbersome regulations that increase the costs of providing service so that small companies simply can't comply and be profitable. This creates a very large protection for the large telcos and cable companies and should, largely, be dismantled.
All you have done is described competition. Companies change their behavior to provide consumers more value for the money (whether its by lowering prices, adding features or providing value added services) because they are scared that the competition will steal their companies. That is precisely how it is supposed to work. You are trying to tie it up in some grand conspiracy but this is simply capitalism at work.
I don't see how this inhibits the next generation of software at all. This is an expense that some companies will have to pay as part of their business plan. It is little different than new companies having to pay high rent in a mall as opposed to locating off-the-beaten-path if that is what their business requires. Proponents of net nuetrality claim that competitors will not be able to compete with this scheme and empirical evidence all over the economy simply doesn't support that point of view.