Re:Environmentalist wackos ...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
And I'm sure that story (real or not) has been recounted by a million environment killing, seal slashing maven. The reality is that not all environmentalists are reasonable, logical, or rational, but the individual in no way degrades the whole. I respect someone willing to stand up for his beliefs much more than I respect someone who does what will get him $, justifying along the way.
Definitely agreed that we can't be sure on the total cost per page served, etc (there should be a TPC for active-content webpages...or is there?). I have found Windows 2000 to be incredibly stable as a core OS (in other words I have never seen a BSOD or any critical fault on 2000, nor has it slowed down over time or shown any metric that there is an appreciable resource leak), however there are some things that irritate me. For instance previously explorer.exe would crash probably twice a day on me (which would necessitate a task manager/kill process/run process explorer.exe cycle), though with SP2 that has disappeared (I think it's related to ICQ's constant cycling of the toolbar icon), however that is not even remotely a critical OS fault and it would have zero effect on a server.
Indeed, it may be speculated that MS _need_ the server-side.NET on BSD, because Win2000 sure isn't up to the amount of traffic MS's own.NET servers will be able to take:-) - chances are, they'll use BSD servers identifying themselves as win2000 (they've done it before...)
Windows 2000 can handle as much or more traffic than any other server. Microsoft.com, one of the most trafficked sites, is Windows 2000. Unfortunately there are lots of clueless newbies out there who fuxxor the system up significantly and then claim that "Windows 2000 sucks!", but you learn to filter that out.
It's already screwed up - C# itself might be "standardised", but without the full implementation of the.NET APIs it won't be very useful
To port the.Net Framework would be a massive bitch because that Framework largely relies upon the underpinnings of the Windows platform (which is why the framework hasn't been submitted to any universal authority). For example OLEDB, MSMQ, security ACLs, etc. I am very impressed at how amazingly comprehensive the.Net Framework is, and it might shut-up the anti-Win32 wankers out there (bah who am I kidding? Those wankers haven't bothered with facts since day one, so they'll still be going strong).
Point of fact factboy: Each "side" of a DVD is actually 9GB given that it's multilayer in about 99.99% of cases (which anyone who owns a DVD player knows as there's a microscopic delay during the layer change in movies).
However, I will cede that indeed I miscalculated the data rate for DVDs and I do humbly prostrate myself for this error. Please forgive me.
Re:The GPL is about as un-American as it gets.
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Your comments regarding my caps and swearing proves your sophistication, so you must be right.
As far as the GPL and the contribution of code, it is the express stated reason for the GPL that the payment for code is code in kind (in other words it's a new economy of code rather than $), and the GPL is the contract enforcing payment, and my point is that the overwhelming majority of GPLd code users never and will never contribute an iota of code. It's the myth of the GPL fantasy versus the reality. Personally I am a huge believer in the *BSD/Apache license (oh but wait: Soon MS is going to release Apache++, Apache#, Apache.Net, etc, or so the author of the pathetic and completely naive article writes) and the license is founded around a give and give freely attitude : There is no expectation of payment (unlike the GPL).
The GPL isn't revolution at all: It's some very old and unworkable ideas that became a fad but is now a falling star (at a very rapid rate). Read the quote attributed to Mr. Stallman at the bottom of http://gnomewww.sunet.se/news/fullitems/102.shtml to really understand what the GPL is all about.
This is because when the GPL was written, dynamic linking, object brokers, and operating systems kernels that were split into separate processes were not as common. In my opinion these gaps should be addressed in the next version of the GPL.
I guess the GPL just isn't viral enough? This is hilarious because so many GPL crusaders stood up for the GPL in recent arguments relating to how GPLd and non-GPLd code can coexist...not for long. BTW: Doesn't the GPL state that the current GPL license is the legal force, so that they could change it all they want and retroactively affect every GPL license toting application?
Of course that particular factoid is bogus. i.e. They took the data rate of DVD (~8MB/second) and divided it into the throughput, and then state that that's how many simultaneous streams can be played. Of course anyone who's ever actually tried that knows that the constant seeking between the streams absolutely BRUTALIZES throughput, so unless you had 8 streams encoded intertwined there isn't a chance in hell.
Re:The GPL is about as un-American as it gets.
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
And we'll live in Dumpster(TM) brand dumpsters and eat the shit they throw out the back of the Chinese place for dinner.
Blegh. Anyone who spouts your shit hasn't programmed a line of code in their lives, and they love consuming and not giving. I read another interesting comment that indicated that the payment for GPL code was other code: HOW GOD DAMN NAIVE. 99.99999+% of Linux (l)users haven't ever contributed a single iota of code, nor will they ever. Who cares about reality though...VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
And there's a constantly growing crowd of others like me, who switch to free software and stay with it. We're forming a community, we have a voice loud enough to make governments listen. People are becoming more aware of critical issues in the software world, and less likely to blindly believe everything Microsoft throws at them.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The world is yours! Soon the tide will turn and the GPLers will run the show! (Yikes! There's some nasty visions there)
While from the story it appears that the routers were configured in an odd manner, evidence has shown us that the site obviously worked before this outage. So the question then is what changed that caused the system to collapse? Did someone try their hand at playing with the settings?
Again: Obviously the OSDN network was working with this configuration, so what happened that caused the collapse? Was the router 0wZ3d?
Agree with you to a point, however there is lots of equipment out there (Cisco switches definitely being among them...especially with the older software versions) where a problem suddenly crops up yet there has been zero changes in configuration or demands: whether it's a bit that was changed in volitile RAM by a solar disturbances, or a power fluctuation that disturbed the microprocessor, or an errant software pathway that is seldom travelled that a particular piece of data "exploited", and in these cases a reboot does fix the problem (I've seen this in network switches, routers, phone PBXs, and of course PC machines). It's hardly a scientific method, but when you don't have qualified staff to evluate the system sometimes it's your best hope.
Where I do agree with your assessment is the classic where someone modifies a couple of settings/wires/configurations and then problems occur, and then they think rebooting will fix them (usually while telling coworkers that they didn't touch a thing...it just "went wonky"). Correlation/causation.
BTW: Before I get misinterpreted (understandable given the wording), when I said "the reality is that if you have the motivation, curiousity and time Linux is not at all insurmountable, it's merely not efficient", note that I'm talking about the average desktop user. For a lot of purposes such as setting up a firewall, DNS or web server it is very efficient because of the process one normally goes through and the nature of the goal.
You've just contradicted yourself buddy. Why don't you put a little more thought before you start typing.
Uh, no I didn't "buddy", and obviously that point flew right over your head. My point was that to most people a computer is a tool that facilitates a means and nothing more, and the obscure and ridiculous has no merit for them. So when Linux wankers try to portray a sense of elitism by portraying Windows as being the current leader merely because of the average Joe being "ignorant", compared to Linux users who are of course 31337 hackers who'll ownz j00, that is offensive and grossly incorrect, and the laughable part is that this ridiculous arrogance is so common here on \. The reality, and it was the reason that I made reference to Apache, is that if you have the motivation, curiousity and time Linux is not at all insurmountable (anyone with an average intelligence can easily be a super elite Linux master given the motivation), it's merely not efficient so to people without a religious belief in OSS or other such nonsense, Windows is just fine and it's the logical choice for them. For all the gobbling that goes on on Slashdot about all those "ignorant" Windows users, there are millions of users who are getting their work done day in and day out extremely efficiently. At the same time though for advanced programmers and administrators Windows is extremely complex, though only because the needs facilitate it: The vast majority of Slashdot regulars don't know the slightest bit about the advanced workings of Windows 2000/NT4 (though they'll certainly proclaim themselves as experts).
Parallel: I like a standard transmission in my car because I like the feeling of control it gives me. However I would never walk around yapping about how those dumb normal people with their automatic transmissions are too stupid/lazy/whatever to handle a standard (and damnit they're even paying a $1000 premium for it! Those dumb people!): Instead I realize that to them the car is merely a tool that gets you from point A to point B, and the more convenient the better, and neither choice is inherently the better choice but it depends on the person: I enjoy driving, but that's a personal trait that I happen to have that a lot of other people don't have. By the same token to the vast majority of people the computer is nothing more than a tool: They don't give a shit about OSS, the GPL, or how ESR or Stallman are trying to get themselves in the news today. They don't care about KDE, Gnome, or file systems. They care about results. This is something that so many Linux fanatics fail to understand: It's a tool people, not a destination.
Did you notice the recent story about the lines of code required to write different operating systems? Linux has made most of it's recent progress in the last 3 or 4 years.
Wow it's pretty sad when lines of code is held up as a standard of progress, however tell me: What exactly is the "lines of code" metric? The kernel? Every included utility? Every product that runs with Linux or comes with a distro? There are _HUNDREDS_OF_THOUSANDS_ of Windows developers out there plugging out code for the Windows platform, and there are tens of thousands of extreme expertise, full-time, professional programmers at Microsoft and partners working on the core OS and components. However in the land of open source I have found (through being involved in a couple of projects) that almost always the overwhelming majority of the work was done by a few people. We're talking >95%. Even ESR, in his Cathedral and the Bazaar, basically touts about his accomplishments with a sidenote it appears to a couple of people who offered some help here and there.
Thank you for giving me your completely `objective' "score" on my points though.
StarOffice is one of the poster children of the open source revolution and as such I'm very curious about its origins: Did StarOffice start as an open source project or was it a commercial project that went open source because it didn't have a chance against the existing products otherwise (sort of like how Corel priced their supposed competitor to office down to about nothing as it was included with many machines for free, only to be promply deleted)? How many contributors to StarOffice are there are there?
I saw one particular posting where the person mentioned that the dod could modify it for their custom needs right after mentioning that this was a great cost savings for the DOD (ignoring that said modifications generally end up taking years and millions of dollars of development. As if the DOD is going to let Jimmy the Haxer make his custom StarOffice install that they'll put on 25,000 DOD machines [espionage anyone?]). I'm curious if anyone out there is running a copy of StarOffice that you have modified in any manner? i.e. I'm not asking if it's great that you have the ability to, but rather I'm asking if you actually have?
As for FUD, I'm just picking up on fact here. Why do you think Mundie didn't respond? You obviously haven't looked at the discussions since you mention the concept of "7.2.7.12b" - the responses I was talking about where the most prominant points raised after Mundie's opening comments - surely that deserves some discussion?
My point # was being facetious, however my comment was more in regards to a number of posts regarding Mr. Mundie's failure to respond to each and every point made by any OSS advocate either inside of or outside of the roundtable.
With the headway made by GNU/FSF, I find it hard to believe that in ten years, the average computer user will still be the same old ignorant follower. I don't blame people for using what's easy, Windows IS easy. But with the curve of advancement of free software, I don't think the closed-source model will be effective at creating top-tier software.
BULLSHIT. You know you open source fanatics spout far more FUD than MS ever does. 3 years ago pundits from far and wide were proclaiming that MS was dead and open source was going to ride the wave to the top and take over the world. 2 years ago pundits were saying the same thing. 1 year ago the same thing. This year the same thing. Yet while Linux marketshare actually is dropping in several areas, Microsoft continues to sell more and more software each year. Remember Mr. Stallman and friends have been at this for a long, long time (this is not a new initiative): This whole crazy FSF/open source thing has been going on for at least two DECADES now. Of course most open source fanatics just don't realize that this isn't a great new ideology they've joined, but rather it's some old ideas by a lot of educational welfare recipients who have no grasp of the real world (as many of those living under the umbrella of academia are prone to believing. Most of the most hilariously unworkable and unreasonable ideologies come from ivory towers). At the same time open source fanatics like to geometrically map progression of software into the future to dream of the great world of amazing software, yet in reality most open source software starts with a bang and then either dies, or settles into an extremely slow update cycle. Linux is currently at that point.
In addition the comment about Windows being "easy" just makes me laugh: It's the classic UNIX elitism that tries to correlate inefficient with skillful. For most users Windows does exactly what they want in a very efficient manner, and as not everyone is a "computer professional" the computer is a tool not a hobby. For Tom the CEO he wants something that will let him send emails and pull up a spreadsheet. Perhaps you might say that with certain installs Linux offers this functionality and ease, yet that makes the whole elitism "Widnows IS easy" bullshit. Guess what: You're not special. It took me about 30 minutes to have an advanced install of Apache going with PHP & P5 webpages, yet it's amazing how often something as trivial as this as held as some great accomplishment of the supposed super IQ masses of Linux fanatics (I would love to see a study done at a Linux expo to clarify this. Of course if it points to the opposite of what you all want to hear it's "FUD").
Seeing as Microsoft is at an inherent disadvantage, I don't expect their software to rise to the level of OSS. It's just not feasible for them; They don't have the manpower.
Another hilarious piece of FUD based upon that bogus belief that there are millions of selfless programmers out there working like busy beavers making open source perfect. In reality most open source projects are ~4 primary developers (if not a single one that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of it: This is the case with most well known projects) and a couple of random people who look at the source for a day or two until they get bored and move onto something more exciting. Microsoft doesn't have an awful lot to fear except in the realm of trivial services like HTTP.
As for the suggestion that the existence of free software is dangerous to business, this also is clearly refuted. Sleepy Cat and Reiser which are both referenced offer commercial liscenses. And other (BSD, MIT) liscenses can be used if the author just wants his or her software to be as widely used as possible. The other thing is why I like Perl for example, or any of the other tools in GNU/Linux. They work. I can get the job done, and get into a wide development community of leading edge technologists with minimum investment. I also don't have to pay MS money every time I need to do something, just remembering someone I know who had to pay $2000 for VB to get a little component that would let him download a web page. I know a bunch of ways to that with Perl/GNU/Linux. So I respect the desire of a company to make a profit but not if the only company allowed to be successful is Microsoft.
That component was most certainly a third-party company (not MS. I am unaware of any extra "components" that you can buy from MS for any of the MS tools, yet there exists a huge swath of healthy development companies making components and employing thousands of programmers) that is in the business of writing little components to help VB programmers, and obviously that little component saved your friend over $2000 worth of development, etc. because he paid for it. At the same time there are COUNTLESS freeware components for Visual Basic, Delphi, etc., however because they're free you get no guarantees, minimal support, and almost always a lesser grade product. Your example is pretty bad anyways though as the MSXML (free) kit allows you to grab webpages through SSL, with authentication, and in an asynchronous manner. Of course it's free from MS.
Do you think that there's a chance that perhaps you're looking at the article with completely pre-formed opinions and you want nothing more than to find reasons to attack Craig? Sorry but this whole discussion just seems ridiculous, and so far I've seen several messages like yours that attack that Mr. Mundie isn't directly addressing every single comment every single person might make, and that is absolutely absurd. Of course he focuses on things that he thinks are the crux of the issue, and if he skips point 7.2.7.12b perhaps it's because they're not writing a contract, but rather they're discussing philosophies and development contexts. Mr. Mundie is giving his belief and he is not INDEBTED to any of you to answer each and every point put forth
Do you have any idea how many MS development newsgroups/webboards/user groups there are? It's amazing how the Linux community with throw rocks at Microsoft for "FUD" when you're all just as guilty of it yourself.
Re:Vertical markets with nice profit margins
on
Compaq Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 1
As with #38, I do agree that there are a lot of cases like this, but at the same time that generic explanation is used to justify an enormous range of grossly overpriced hardware (i.e. see $10,000 nuts and bolts sold to the US Army : 90% of the time they're standard run of the mill, but when explaining every vendor will talk about the super high requirements of the military that apply to 10% of it). In the case of the medical collection device it was a standard clone PC with a serial cable (not isolated) running to a medical device (and the software was billed separately). This is very common in niche markets, and I'm sure if they asked they were told that this run of the mill clone was specially built to handle the rugged 23C temperature and desktop environment.
Re:Vertical markets with nice profit margins
on
Compaq Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 1
I absolutely agree, however there are many cases where it is completely stock equipment. In the case of the medical equipment it was a clone PC running Windows 95 & MS Excel and a DDE driver(i.e. this wasn't realtime, but rather the downloading and analysis of medical data).
Vertical markets with nice profit margins
on
Compaq Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 3
Niche markets are sweet in that companies can get away with charging absolutely ridiculous prices for otherwise generic hardware. As a case in point I've seen medical equipment where the hardware company charges $15,000 for an interfacing PC, and said PC is nothing more than a $700 clone PC. Pretty standard in the business. Look on any oil rig, medical shop, mineral company, steel mill, etc, and you'll see standard technology selling at super premiums.
At the same time though is this really nothing more than a "please don't pay attention to our results for the next couple of quarters because we're pursuing this great new business" type initiative that is so common in public companies? Given the size of compaq I find it very hard to believe they will do anything to threaten their hardware market.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure that story (real or not) has been recounted by a million environment killing, seal slashing maven. The reality is that not all environmentalists are reasonable, logical, or rational, but the individual in no way degrades the whole. I respect someone willing to stand up for his beliefs much more than I respect someone who does what will get him $, justifying along the way.
Yeah well your mother called. She said...bah... ;-)
Definitely agreed that we can't be sure on the total cost per page served, etc (there should be a TPC for active-content webpages...or is there?). I have found Windows 2000 to be incredibly stable as a core OS (in other words I have never seen a BSOD or any critical fault on 2000, nor has it slowed down over time or shown any metric that there is an appreciable resource leak), however there are some things that irritate me. For instance previously explorer.exe would crash probably twice a day on me (which would necessitate a task manager/kill process/run process explorer.exe cycle), though with SP2 that has disappeared (I think it's related to ICQ's constant cycling of the toolbar icon), however that is not even remotely a critical OS fault and it would have zero effect on a server.
YAFLA!
Indeed, it may be speculated that MS _need_ the server-side .NET on BSD, because Win2000 sure isn't up to the amount of traffic MS's own .NET servers will be able to take :-) - chances are, they'll use BSD servers identifying themselves as win2000 (they've done it before...)
Windows 2000 can handle as much or more traffic than any other server. Microsoft.com, one of the most trafficked sites, is Windows 2000. Unfortunately there are lots of clueless newbies out there who fuxxor the system up significantly and then claim that "Windows 2000 sucks!", but you learn to filter that out.
It's already screwed up - C# itself might be "standardised", but without the full implementation of the .NET APIs it won't be very useful
To port the .Net Framework would be a massive bitch because that Framework largely relies upon the underpinnings of the Windows platform (which is why the framework hasn't been submitted to any universal authority). For example OLEDB, MSMQ, security ACLs, etc. I am very impressed at how amazingly comprehensive the .Net Framework is, and it might shut-up the anti-Win32 wankers out there (bah who am I kidding? Those wankers haven't bothered with facts since day one, so they'll still be going strong).
Point of fact factboy: Each "side" of a DVD is actually 9GB given that it's multilayer in about 99.99% of cases (which anyone who owns a DVD player knows as there's a microscopic delay during the layer change in movies).
However, I will cede that indeed I miscalculated the data rate for DVDs and I do humbly prostrate myself for this error. Please forgive me.
Your comments regarding my caps and swearing proves your sophistication, so you must be right.
As far as the GPL and the contribution of code, it is the express stated reason for the GPL that the payment for code is code in kind (in other words it's a new economy of code rather than $), and the GPL is the contract enforcing payment, and my point is that the overwhelming majority of GPLd code users never and will never contribute an iota of code. It's the myth of the GPL fantasy versus the reality. Personally I am a huge believer in the *BSD/Apache license (oh but wait: Soon MS is going to release Apache++, Apache#, Apache.Net, etc, or so the author of the pathetic and completely naive article writes) and the license is founded around a give and give freely attitude : There is no expectation of payment (unlike the GPL).
The GPL isn't revolution at all: It's some very old and unworkable ideas that became a fad but is now a falling star (at a very rapid rate). Read the quote attributed to Mr. Stallman at the bottom of http://gnomewww.sunet.se/news/fullitems/102.shtml to really understand what the GPL is all about.
Check out http://forums.siliconvalley.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboa rd=5968009897410465&msg=2968245722915407&page=1&id DispSub=5145094516046185 where Bruce Perens says something quite interesting and disturbing....
This is because when the GPL was written, dynamic linking, object brokers, and operating systems kernels that were split into separate processes were not as common. In my opinion these gaps should be addressed in the next version of the GPL.
I guess the GPL just isn't viral enough? This is hilarious because so many GPL crusaders stood up for the GPL in recent arguments relating to how GPLd and non-GPLd code can coexist...not for long. BTW: Doesn't the GPL state that the current GPL license is the legal force, so that they could change it all they want and retroactively affect every GPL license toting application?
Of course that particular factoid is bogus. i.e. They took the data rate of DVD (~8MB/second) and divided it into the throughput, and then state that that's how many simultaneous streams can be played. Of course anyone who's ever actually tried that knows that the constant seeking between the streams absolutely BRUTALIZES throughput, so unless you had 8 streams encoded intertwined there isn't a chance in hell.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
And we'll live in Dumpster(TM) brand dumpsters and eat the shit they throw out the back of the Chinese place for dinner.
Blegh. Anyone who spouts your shit hasn't programmed a line of code in their lives, and they love consuming and not giving. I read another interesting comment that indicated that the payment for GPL code was other code: HOW GOD DAMN NAIVE. 99.99999+% of Linux (l)users haven't ever contributed a single iota of code, nor will they ever. Who cares about reality though...VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
And there's a constantly growing crowd of others like me, who switch to free software and stay with it. We're forming a community, we have a voice loud enough to make governments listen. People are becoming more aware of critical issues in the software world, and less likely to blindly believe everything Microsoft throws at them.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The world is yours! Soon the tide will turn and the GPLers will run the show! (Yikes! There's some nasty visions there)
While from the story it appears that the routers were configured in an odd manner, evidence has shown us that the site obviously worked before this outage. So the question then is what changed that caused the system to collapse? Did someone try their hand at playing with the settings?
Again: Obviously the OSDN network was working with this configuration, so what happened that caused the collapse? Was the router 0wZ3d?
Agree with you to a point, however there is lots of equipment out there (Cisco switches definitely being among them...especially with the older software versions) where a problem suddenly crops up yet there has been zero changes in configuration or demands: whether it's a bit that was changed in volitile RAM by a solar disturbances, or a power fluctuation that disturbed the microprocessor, or an errant software pathway that is seldom travelled that a particular piece of data "exploited", and in these cases a reboot does fix the problem (I've seen this in network switches, routers, phone PBXs, and of course PC machines). It's hardly a scientific method, but when you don't have qualified staff to evluate the system sometimes it's your best hope.
Where I do agree with your assessment is the classic where someone modifies a couple of settings/wires/configurations and then problems occur, and then they think rebooting will fix them (usually while telling coworkers that they didn't touch a thing...it just "went wonky"). Correlation/causation.
Ironically apparently this story was pulled (I got here by a direct link). Anyone else envisioning a fist fight happening in the OSDN server room?
BTW: Before I get misinterpreted (understandable given the wording), when I said "the reality is that if you have the motivation, curiousity and time Linux is not at all insurmountable, it's merely not efficient", note that I'm talking about the average desktop user. For a lot of purposes such as setting up a firewall, DNS or web server it is very efficient because of the process one normally goes through and the nature of the goal.
You've just contradicted yourself buddy. Why don't you put a little more thought before you start typing.
Uh, no I didn't "buddy", and obviously that point flew right over your head. My point was that to most people a computer is a tool that facilitates a means and nothing more, and the obscure and ridiculous has no merit for them. So when Linux wankers try to portray a sense of elitism by portraying Windows as being the current leader merely because of the average Joe being "ignorant", compared to Linux users who are of course 31337 hackers who'll ownz j00, that is offensive and grossly incorrect, and the laughable part is that this ridiculous arrogance is so common here on \. The reality, and it was the reason that I made reference to Apache, is that if you have the motivation, curiousity and time Linux is not at all insurmountable (anyone with an average intelligence can easily be a super elite Linux master given the motivation), it's merely not efficient so to people without a religious belief in OSS or other such nonsense, Windows is just fine and it's the logical choice for them. For all the gobbling that goes on on Slashdot about all those "ignorant" Windows users, there are millions of users who are getting their work done day in and day out extremely efficiently. At the same time though for advanced programmers and administrators Windows is extremely complex, though only because the needs facilitate it: The vast majority of Slashdot regulars don't know the slightest bit about the advanced workings of Windows 2000/NT4 (though they'll certainly proclaim themselves as experts).
Parallel: I like a standard transmission in my car because I like the feeling of control it gives me. However I would never walk around yapping about how those dumb normal people with their automatic transmissions are too stupid/lazy/whatever to handle a standard (and damnit they're even paying a $1000 premium for it! Those dumb people!): Instead I realize that to them the car is merely a tool that gets you from point A to point B, and the more convenient the better, and neither choice is inherently the better choice but it depends on the person: I enjoy driving, but that's a personal trait that I happen to have that a lot of other people don't have. By the same token to the vast majority of people the computer is nothing more than a tool: They don't give a shit about OSS, the GPL, or how ESR or Stallman are trying to get themselves in the news today. They don't care about KDE, Gnome, or file systems. They care about results. This is something that so many Linux fanatics fail to understand: It's a tool people, not a destination.
Did you notice the recent story about the lines of code required to write different operating systems? Linux has made most of it's recent progress in the last 3 or 4 years.
Wow it's pretty sad when lines of code is held up as a standard of progress, however tell me: What exactly is the "lines of code" metric? The kernel? Every included utility? Every product that runs with Linux or comes with a distro? There are _HUNDREDS_OF_THOUSANDS_ of Windows developers out there plugging out code for the Windows platform, and there are tens of thousands of extreme expertise, full-time, professional programmers at Microsoft and partners working on the core OS and components. However in the land of open source I have found (through being involved in a couple of projects) that almost always the overwhelming majority of the work was done by a few people. We're talking >95%. Even ESR, in his Cathedral and the Bazaar, basically touts about his accomplishments with a sidenote it appears to a couple of people who offered some help here and there.
Thank you for giving me your completely `objective' "score" on my points though.
Excellent! Thank you very much for the information.
StarOffice is one of the poster children of the open source revolution and as such I'm very curious about its origins: Did StarOffice start as an open source project or was it a commercial project that went open source because it didn't have a chance against the existing products otherwise (sort of like how Corel priced their supposed competitor to office down to about nothing as it was included with many machines for free, only to be promply deleted)? How many contributors to StarOffice are there are there?
I saw one particular posting where the person mentioned that the dod could modify it for their custom needs right after mentioning that this was a great cost savings for the DOD (ignoring that said modifications generally end up taking years and millions of dollars of development. As if the DOD is going to let Jimmy the Haxer make his custom StarOffice install that they'll put on 25,000 DOD machines [espionage anyone?]). I'm curious if anyone out there is running a copy of StarOffice that you have modified in any manner? i.e. I'm not asking if it's great that you have the ability to, but rather I'm asking if you actually have?
As for FUD, I'm just picking up on fact here. Why do you think Mundie didn't respond? You obviously haven't looked at the discussions since you mention the concept of "7.2.7.12b" - the responses I was talking about where the most prominant points raised after Mundie's opening comments - surely that deserves some discussion?
My point # was being facetious, however my comment was more in regards to a number of posts regarding Mr. Mundie's failure to respond to each and every point made by any OSS advocate either inside of or outside of the roundtable.
With the headway made by GNU/FSF, I find it hard to believe that in ten years, the average computer user will still be the same old ignorant follower. I don't blame people for using what's easy, Windows IS easy. But with the curve of advancement of free software, I don't think the closed-source model will be effective at creating top-tier software.
BULLSHIT. You know you open source fanatics spout far more FUD than MS ever does. 3 years ago pundits from far and wide were proclaiming that MS was dead and open source was going to ride the wave to the top and take over the world. 2 years ago pundits were saying the same thing. 1 year ago the same thing. This year the same thing. Yet while Linux marketshare actually is dropping in several areas, Microsoft continues to sell more and more software each year. Remember Mr. Stallman and friends have been at this for a long, long time (this is not a new initiative): This whole crazy FSF/open source thing has been going on for at least two DECADES now. Of course most open source fanatics just don't realize that this isn't a great new ideology they've joined, but rather it's some old ideas by a lot of educational welfare recipients who have no grasp of the real world (as many of those living under the umbrella of academia are prone to believing. Most of the most hilariously unworkable and unreasonable ideologies come from ivory towers). At the same time open source fanatics like to geometrically map progression of software into the future to dream of the great world of amazing software, yet in reality most open source software starts with a bang and then either dies, or settles into an extremely slow update cycle. Linux is currently at that point.
In addition the comment about Windows being "easy" just makes me laugh: It's the classic UNIX elitism that tries to correlate inefficient with skillful. For most users Windows does exactly what they want in a very efficient manner, and as not everyone is a "computer professional" the computer is a tool not a hobby. For Tom the CEO he wants something that will let him send emails and pull up a spreadsheet. Perhaps you might say that with certain installs Linux offers this functionality and ease, yet that makes the whole elitism "Widnows IS easy" bullshit. Guess what: You're not special. It took me about 30 minutes to have an advanced install of Apache going with PHP & P5 webpages, yet it's amazing how often something as trivial as this as held as some great accomplishment of the supposed super IQ masses of Linux fanatics (I would love to see a study done at a Linux expo to clarify this. Of course if it points to the opposite of what you all want to hear it's "FUD").
Seeing as Microsoft is at an inherent disadvantage, I don't expect their software to rise to the level of OSS. It's just not feasible for them; They don't have the manpower.
Another hilarious piece of FUD based upon that bogus belief that there are millions of selfless programmers out there working like busy beavers making open source perfect. In reality most open source projects are ~4 primary developers (if not a single one that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of it: This is the case with most well known projects) and a couple of random people who look at the source for a day or two until they get bored and move onto something more exciting. Microsoft doesn't have an awful lot to fear except in the realm of trivial services like HTTP.
As for the suggestion that the existence of free software is dangerous to business, this also is clearly refuted. Sleepy Cat and Reiser which are both referenced offer commercial liscenses. And other (BSD, MIT) liscenses can be used if the author just wants his or her software to be as widely used as possible. The other thing is why I like Perl for example, or any of the other tools in GNU/Linux. They work. I can get the job done, and get into a wide development community of leading edge technologists with minimum investment. I also don't have to pay MS money every time I need to do something, just remembering someone I know who had to pay $2000 for VB to get a little component that would let him download a web page. I know a bunch of ways to that with Perl/GNU/Linux. So I respect the desire of a company to make a profit but not if the only company allowed to be successful is Microsoft.
That component was most certainly a third-party company (not MS. I am unaware of any extra "components" that you can buy from MS for any of the MS tools, yet there exists a huge swath of healthy development companies making components and employing thousands of programmers) that is in the business of writing little components to help VB programmers, and obviously that little component saved your friend over $2000 worth of development, etc. because he paid for it. At the same time there are COUNTLESS freeware components for Visual Basic, Delphi, etc., however because they're free you get no guarantees, minimal support, and almost always a lesser grade product. Your example is pretty bad anyways though as the MSXML (free) kit allows you to grab webpages through SSL, with authentication, and in an asynchronous manner. Of course it's free from MS.
Do you think that there's a chance that perhaps you're looking at the article with completely pre-formed opinions and you want nothing more than to find reasons to attack Craig? Sorry but this whole discussion just seems ridiculous, and so far I've seen several messages like yours that attack that Mr. Mundie isn't directly addressing every single comment every single person might make, and that is absolutely absurd. Of course he focuses on things that he thinks are the crux of the issue, and if he skips point 7.2.7.12b perhaps it's because they're not writing a contract, but rather they're discussing philosophies and development contexts. Mr. Mundie is giving his belief and he is not INDEBTED to any of you to answer each and every point put forth
Do you have any idea how many MS development newsgroups/webboards/user groups there are? It's amazing how the Linux community with throw rocks at Microsoft for "FUD" when you're all just as guilty of it yourself.
As with #38, I do agree that there are a lot of cases like this, but at the same time that generic explanation is used to justify an enormous range of grossly overpriced hardware (i.e. see $10,000 nuts and bolts sold to the US Army : 90% of the time they're standard run of the mill, but when explaining every vendor will talk about the super high requirements of the military that apply to 10% of it). In the case of the medical collection device it was a standard clone PC with a serial cable (not isolated) running to a medical device (and the software was billed separately). This is very common in niche markets, and I'm sure if they asked they were told that this run of the mill clone was specially built to handle the rugged 23C temperature and desktop environment.
I absolutely agree, however there are many cases where it is completely stock equipment. In the case of the medical equipment it was a clone PC running Windows 95 & MS Excel and a DDE driver(i.e. this wasn't realtime, but rather the downloading and analysis of medical data).
Niche markets are sweet in that companies can get away with charging absolutely ridiculous prices for otherwise generic hardware. As a case in point I've seen medical equipment where the hardware company charges $15,000 for an interfacing PC, and said PC is nothing more than a $700 clone PC. Pretty standard in the business. Look on any oil rig, medical shop, mineral company, steel mill, etc, and you'll see standard technology selling at super premiums.
At the same time though is this really nothing more than a "please don't pay attention to our results for the next couple of quarters because we're pursuing this great new business" type initiative that is so common in public companies? Given the size of compaq I find it very hard to believe they will do anything to threaten their hardware market.