I recall that in its dying days Napster was talking about adding this to appease the recording industry. The variation then was from a company called Relatable. Sounds like Shawn is stuck in a recursive loop.
"Oh yeah...Jimmy...yeah he's a real stickler about standards, documentation, and designing every element of the appliation to be infinitely versatile. Unfortunately he could never see the fallacy of his 'design for the world' approach, and the vast majority of his projects were utter failures, although he'll tell you that it was because of external factors beyond his control, and his desire for it to be 'done right'. By the time we finally got one of his projects out the door, 6x past the scheduled date, with loads of documentation, and code so well commented that you could let a monkey learn C++ on it, we discovered that it wasn't quite what the marketplace wanted, and technology had advanced anyways. His COBOL program has really good formatting though."
First, as someone else in this thread stated, the first version of whatever you crank out, no matter how well-thought-out, isn't going to be ideal. Until the product has hit the real world, and real people have used it to perform their work, there will be unidentified inadequacies, design problems, shortcuts needed, etc.
Completely correct. An old saying is that you should plan to program it twice, because you will be reprogramming it, no matter how large the pile of documentation and hours of planning sessions. Spending multiples more time "doing it right" when it, with pretty much certainty, will be rewritten is just a waste of time and effort (the same premise holds for all of the composite components that make the application as well).
The point of this analysis was that when people used unencrypted wifi in public places, they used open and unencrypted channels to communicate sensitive information such as email passwords. i.e. They didn't establish an encrypted VPN session first, or their organizations don't use IPSec/POP3 SSL. The net effect is that they're publicly broadcasting all of their information.
Of course I wouldn't see it much differently if the conference hall had CAT5 jacks that you could plug into: You still should have no faith in the people running the show, or anyone capable of putting in a wire shunt, who have every ability to log and trace all of you messages: You should always presume that someone is listening. This is just another reminder that the world needs to move to secured application layer transport protocols as mandatory (or blocking external access apart from through a VPN) as quickly as possible, because the human element will always take the easiest route, and the natural human instinct, barring a case of paranoia, is to presume that nothing will ever happen to them- Every victim is someone who thinks it'll only happen to the next guy.
A similar survey would be to test how many POP3 servers out there support SSL. I suspect that it's on the low side of 3%. POP3 with SSL is a trivial, easy alteration that many POP3 clients support, instantly securing the network without layering on a secondary encryption layer (VPN/PPTP/IPSec) when all you want is to check you email, which is what probably 99% of the users do at trade shows like this.
Then again he included PHP, which has pretty much nothing to do with the browser (unless someone has PHPScript running as the client side browser script, which I'm unaware of being a common practice). The technologies used on the server end aren't relevant in discussions of browsers.
As per DHTML and ActiveX, obviously DHTML is one of the most important breakthroughs in browsing, and the standardizing and finally widespread implementation has improved web usability considerably. ActiveX obviously imposes a lot of security problems (ActiveX relies upon you trusting a company and then giving them basically free reign on your PC, and there are only a few companies whose software I trust on my PC in the era that we live in today when there appears to be no moral, or legal, bounds in what they can do. "Well didn't you read sentence 3-5 in paragraph 139 of our EULA? It clearly states that we can gather statistics on when you use your computer to cross-promote with home security vendors"..NET improves on this considerable with task specific rights).
Personally I think one of the greatest innovations in browsers is SVG, a standardized vector graphic format with a full standardized DOM interfacing system.
Only buy when it's no longer cost-effective to rig something together with existing purchases......but such belt-tightening keeps companies afloat these days
Therein lies the crunch: Very few people actually do the math. I worked in one organization where we had 3 basically desktop systems in the field running antiquated processors: For months they had several programmers working on optimizing the code to allow it to run effectively on this underpowered hardware. The total cost to replace the hardware with machines 3x as powerful was around $6000 (and was necessary for further expansion plans), while refactoring the code came in at at least $24000. These sorts of idiotic refusals to do the cost analysis are common, and it's how many organizations spend far more by spending less.
As a sidenote, am I the only one that finds the Microsoft commercials running right now to be absolutely hilarious? In one of them you see an IT department apparently learning to dance between Windows 2003 makes life so much easier and "saves money". What they apparently fail to see is that the cost savings in manpower savings, and they're lambadaing themselves some pink slips. I'm all for efficiency, but that commercial just amazed me in the paradox of the message.
You have to actually *commit* a crime before you arrest people.
Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime as well. If you don't believe this, head down to your local donut shop with your friends and plot out plans for robbing an armoured car: About 15 minutes later you'll be in cuffs, though probably ignorantly claiming that you've done nothing (yet). Plenty of people get arrested before they've actually committed the crime.
As a sidenote, if you carry a weapon with the provable intent of committing a crime with it, you can be charged. If you have burglary tools, such as a screwdriver, and you're sneaking around someone's house at night, you can be charged.
Actually you're either misunderstanding the article, or you're just a very bad observer: The vast majority (i.e. 99.99%) of situations in which the word irony is coined, it is "incorrect" from a pedant's perspective. For instance the grandparent posts is a "bummer" situation, and many would say that it doesn't fit the bill of an "ironic" situation whatsoever. The Alanis Morisette song "Isn't it ironic" is often held up as the greatest example of the misuse of the word, though really it's a great example of average everyday uses of the word.
Of course, there is a "loophole" in many definitions of ironic. Dictionary.com tells us that ironic includes the definition
"- Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. -An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity"
To me this definition includes humorous bummers like the grandparent post, but again the pedants would beg to differ.
COMDEX became largely irrelevant because of a change of technology that we're all using right now: The Internet. Prior to the Internet, COMDEX was where every vendor would show off their latest wares to the collected media (literally holding its release until the big trade show), and all of the writers for PC Week, PC Magazine, Compute!, STart, and every other magazine would run to the banks of phones to call in their reports about the new Diamond Speedstar 24x or new MFM hard drive. I remember all of the COMDEX special editions packed full of revolutionary new products. With the internet, however, vendors no longer hold their releases, and vendor information is as easy as http://www.somecompany.com. The Internet changed the world more than many of us realize (because it was gradual), and the decline of COMDEX is just another reality of a "new world order".
I went to the LV COMDEX in maybe 1999 and it was, quite literally, a waste of time. No companies were actually releasing products, but instead it was a bunch of brochures that were less comprehensive than you could find on the net, with representatives that barely knew the product. The halls were filled with end users (i.e. non decision makers) who were more concerned with scoring a 5 cent pen or cheesy bag.
COMDEX will never be what it was again, but if they did limit attendance to decision makers at corporations they might have a chance of getting a niche.
Seriously, though, the majority of average Joe's spend 4 or more days watching television every night, and that is absolutely okay. In the grand hierarchy of "worthwhile things to do", I'd cast playing a highly social, challenging, creative online game several parsecs above mindless sitcom watching. (I'm not trying to claim that you're supporting television watching, but am just pointing out the hypocrisy of media types that point out what to them is "unhealthy" periods of computer time ["Addiction!"] to a readership that is largely sedentary couch warts).
I take it you weren't around when this whole "internet" thing took off, now were you? Instead your take on the history of the Internet is what you've read on sites like Slashdot...explaining your ignorance. I hardly believe that you're going to believe what I'm saying here, your vision is so clouded, but hopefully some other young jedi on the path of enlightenment might be turned back from the side of FUD before it's too late.
For the hundredth time: At the time that Netscape came out with their variation of the Mosaic browser, Spyglass had an actual business model selling browsers in places like Electronic Boutique: You couldn't download a copy for free. Suddenly along came Netscape with a copy that anyone and everyone could download and use by checking a radio box on the website saying that they were an "educational user" or a "charity". Even though it was technically piracy, literally everyone did this (I doubt Netscape sold more than a pittance of end-user copies of Netscape). This limitation on their website had one single purpose: To have dual-pricing that allowed them to give a free product to consumers to obtain a stranglehold on the market, while simultaneously charging hefty licensing fees to corporations. Spyglass soon exited the browser market because they couldn't compete with Netscape's dumping. At this time, it should be mentioned, Microsoft not only charged for a copy of Windows 95 ($150+ is hardly free), they also charged for the Plus! pack to get Internet Explorer. Finally after they were mocked for charging so much (effectively) compared to what Netscape was dumping basically for free, and after listening to Andreeson talking about how Netscape would be your new operating system, Microsoft released Internet Explorer for "free" (although it is only free for people not using MS Windows. For those of us using Windows I think you'd have to be a fool to not think that you paid for it in the cost of the OS).
Heh, I just realized that I got two references mixed (Strouds Worst just didn't sound right...). The one big site was Strouds Winsock apps where you could download your email clients, IRC clients, etc, and the other was Mirsky's Worst of the Web, which was a brilliant and absolutely hilarious site.
It might look like the browser war is over on M$ platforms, but the server war is not. Microsoft's only advantage in selling servers is the number of M$ browsers out there.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What advantage, whatsoever, do IE clients have in selling IIS server boxes? About the only thing that IE does that makes it a better client, or vice versa, in concert with IIS is challenge/response, yet if Microsoft was so focused on utilizing that advantage, wouldn't they have publicized the technology? Mozilla Firebird just added challenge/response, and I believe it's the first. You can imagine whatever altered reality you want, but the reality is that in a lot of showdowns, Microsoft technology simply comes out on top. Whether it's a shop going with SQL Server 2000, or IIS 6 with.NET, or Exchange server, if you delude yourself that Microsoft only wins because they have a browser lead then you really need to reassess your take on the world.
Adding the Mac share to the free software share, web sites may soon see IE use dip below 90%.
Your whole argument makes absolutely no sense in any case: If Microsoft was so dependent upon their browser lock-in, then wouldn't they put all their forces behind making the best damn browser in the Mac market, instead of just saying "Bah, go make your own. It really doesn't matter to us"? Of course your standard reply will naturally be that they just can't stand the heat, having only been the company that turned ship and dominated the browser market, both technologically and marketwise, virtually overnight. It is that sort of fictitious reality that makes so many misunderstand Microsoft.
That was the theorey for quit some time. Now, even MS states that OSS is its biggest competitor.
The public lip service is not always the same as the reality behind the scenes. When Microsoft comes out with Windows XP, who do you think they're selling to? Generally they aren't selling to OSS users (which comprise, at best, That was the theorey for quit some time. Now, even MS states that OSS is its biggest competitor.
I highly, highly doubt that it's because they're quivering in their boots about OSS. Instead, if the sell-offs were fear induced (people do sell off simply because they've been with something for so long they need change), it's a fear that it's going to get harder and harder to convince people to upgrade from product A to product A 2.0.
Umm, yes really. Everyone, and I mean everyone, downloaded and used Netscape for free as an "Educational User", while at the same time Spyglass saw their revenue stream collapse because, for all intents and purposes, Netscape flooded the market with a free browser. What was Microsoft doing? Well when they came out with a browser with Windows 95 they put it in the "Plus" pack for $69 or whatever, until they realized that the effective market value of a web browser was $0 and followed suit.
BTW: Netscape lost their userbase not because of Microsoft, but because they lost their momentum (completely). I'm not sure where you're getting your revisionist history, but in the days of Strouds Worst of the Web, Netscape rules. When IE 1.0 came out, there was no doubt that Netscape ruled. Netscape could have continued their dominance, but their development went from the stunning 3.0, to the marginally different though grossly bloated 4.0, to a state of stasis: They ceased any innovation at all. If you want to really understand why Netscape died, quit looking to Microsoft and read about what happened to the culture at Netscape. Netscape died from within.
Oh really? So the internet never changes does it? The original IE does not display content exactly the same as the present incarnation. If you want the internet in the future you'll have to upgrade your whole system.
Did that copy of Windows 95 come with a support contract for "all future internet technologies"? The whole point of new OS versions is that they incorporate new user interface and technology elements. Let's face it: The kernel, or core of the OS, has changed at a very slow pace while the GUI and accessory tools change rapidly.
In any case, I've yet to see a copy of Windows that refuses to run Mozilla, or Opera, or SmartFTP, or any of thousands of other internet technology tools: Just because Microsoft makes a snazzy new browser doesn't mean it's any prior customer's right to receive it for free.
Wow you make a great case as to why the company should be broken up. How is it fair to be forced to buy every product when all you want it one?
Sigh, this argument has been rehashed a million times. Who decides what is an operating system? Why can't I buy the OS X gui to install on my Windows 98 machine? Ironically Microsoft has claimed for years that IE is a "part of the operating system", and now they're just making true on their promise.
They could release it seperately and still charge for it if they wished. This is not about competing with themselves, this is about forcing people to upgrade.
No, they can't charge for it: Netscape pioneered the tradition of free browsers (we were all educational users), and it's ingrained in people's minds. Perhaps we could get government sanction to ban free software, but barring that the competitive nature of the industry is already corrupted.
As far as forcing people to upgrade, that is total nonsense. It isn't "forcing" if people really want the features of OS X.X, and one of those features is an improved filesystem, and a new, extra snazzy browser now with goobygobs.
Hah. A little competition.....and Microsoft bails out.
Does anyone really believe this? If you do then I've got a couple of landmarks and bridges for sale if you're interested.
Safari, and Apple's access to the OS, is just lip service done by a PR rep looking for some reason to excuse themselves from the Mac market. The Mac port of IE simply makes no business sense anymore -- In the era of the struggle between Netscape and Microsoft, when Netscape had the monopoly on web browsers basically by giving it out for free, it made sense from a PR perspective to get as big of a marketshare however possible, even if it meant dumping millions into developing software for users who don't add a penny to your revenue stream. Microsoft won the browser war quite handily, now capturing some 90%+ of web browser clients. That's old news, and the web browser wars don't get media or investor interest anymore, so it isn't even justified via indirect reasons.
Indeed, the last major browser update from Microsoft was, what, 3 years ago? Clearly Microsoft either has something very large underway (just as Mozilla catches up), and again the Mac market doesn't represent revenue potential, or the arena in general just doesn't hold much interest right now.
When is Microsoft going to realize that tying their products into the operating system isn't synonymous with competition.
How is it contrary to competition?
It is possible that Microsoft's biggest competitor is themselves, and releasing lots of untied, free (but subsidized) browsers that people can install in their old operating systems is self-defeating (they're costing themselves sales). One of the first steps is tying browsers to specific operating systems as a "part of the operating system" (as Microsoft has claimed all along), eliminating non-revenue producing projects that were merely for market dominance (which was what the MacIE was, in my opinion). Windows NextVersion will likely garner a lot more interest if it comes with New Shiny Browser 9.0...interest that would be diluted if you could download 9.0 and install it on your Windows 95 machine.
The alternative, of course, is that Internet Explorer becomes a separate, pay browser, but the market for the same would be limited given the market flooding from companies like Mozilla (Netscape).
Having said all of that, I suspect it is highly likely that there is nothing Microsoft could do to please the Slashdot community (nor do I think that is their goal in any of these maneuvers). Any action they can take will receive the same scorn and criticism, by the same group of people.
Good reference, but lazy. How long would it take to plug a couple of phrases into google against snpp.com? In about 7 seconds I found this page, which clarifies the section as:
Oh, Captain Janeway... Lace -- the final brassiere! -- Comic Book Guy downloads porn, "Das Bus"
% Despite having found what he wants, his modem is very slow and he's % impatient.
Ugh, this high-speed modem is intolerably slow! -- Comic Book Guy, "Das Bus"
% The picture slowly appears, line by line, but as soon as it gets to the % cleavage, an ad for "Internet King" (Homer) appears and covers any nudity % on the screen.
What the-- the Internet King... I wonder if he can provide faster nudity. -- Comic Book Guy sees one of Homer's ads on a porn site, "Das Bus"
Ideally I'd like to see Microsoft provide a really stripped-down of Visual Basic free with the OS. And it should be installed by default, and placed prominently on the Start Menu.
Placed predominately on the Start menu? Uh huh. >99% of people don't want to program...ever. Presuming that it needs to be shoved in people's face to encourage people to pick it up is rather presumptuous. Maybe all new Honda cars should come with a wratchet set mounted on the dashboard.
This would provide something simple for kids (or newbies of all ages) to start playing around with.
If they don't have the initiative to download one of the thousands of programming tools, including the full.NET SDK, then they'll never be programmers (if that is their hindrance, then they might as well give up now).
and with more kids overall discovering coding you'd have more total kids "graduating" to more advanced stuff like real programming languages and alternative OS's like Linux, etc
No, you'd have more hacks. People who would be interested in programming can spend the 15 minutes downloading the tools and putting their own shortcut on the desktop. We don't need a "Programming for Dummies" to make great programmers. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall that in its dying days Napster was talking about adding this to appease the recording industry. The variation then was from a company called Relatable. Sounds like Shawn is stuck in a recursive loop.
Of course the alternative is always
"Oh yeah...Jimmy...yeah he's a real stickler about standards, documentation, and designing every element of the appliation to be infinitely versatile. Unfortunately he could never see the fallacy of his 'design for the world' approach, and the vast majority of his projects were utter failures, although he'll tell you that it was because of external factors beyond his control, and his desire for it to be 'done right'. By the time we finally got one of his projects out the door, 6x past the scheduled date, with loads of documentation, and code so well commented that you could let a monkey learn C++ on it, we discovered that it wasn't quite what the marketplace wanted, and technology had advanced anyways. His COBOL program has really good formatting though."
First, as someone else in this thread stated, the first version of whatever you crank out, no matter how well-thought-out, isn't going to be ideal. Until the product has hit the real world, and real people have used it to perform their work, there will be unidentified inadequacies, design problems, shortcuts needed, etc.
Completely correct. An old saying is that you should plan to program it twice, because you will be reprogramming it, no matter how large the pile of documentation and hours of planning sessions. Spending multiples more time "doing it right" when it, with pretty much certainty, will be rewritten is just a waste of time and effort (the same premise holds for all of the composite components that make the application as well).
Oh, and several thousand pounds of batteries, or maybe a engine running a generator...
The point of this analysis was that when people used unencrypted wifi in public places, they used open and unencrypted channels to communicate sensitive information such as email passwords. i.e. They didn't establish an encrypted VPN session first, or their organizations don't use IPSec/POP3 SSL. The net effect is that they're publicly broadcasting all of their information.
Of course I wouldn't see it much differently if the conference hall had CAT5 jacks that you could plug into: You still should have no faith in the people running the show, or anyone capable of putting in a wire shunt, who have every ability to log and trace all of you messages: You should always presume that someone is listening. This is just another reminder that the world needs to move to secured application layer transport protocols as mandatory (or blocking external access apart from through a VPN) as quickly as possible, because the human element will always take the easiest route, and the natural human instinct, barring a case of paranoia, is to presume that nothing will ever happen to them- Every victim is someone who thinks it'll only happen to the next guy.
A similar survey would be to test how many POP3 servers out there support SSL. I suspect that it's on the low side of 3%. POP3 with SSL is a trivial, easy alteration that many POP3 clients support, instantly securing the network without layering on a secondary encryption layer (VPN/PPTP/IPSec) when all you want is to check you email, which is what probably 99% of the users do at trade shows like this.
Then again he included PHP, which has pretty much nothing to do with the browser (unless someone has PHPScript running as the client side browser script, which I'm unaware of being a common practice). The technologies used on the server end aren't relevant in discussions of browsers.
.NET improves on this considerable with task specific rights).
As per DHTML and ActiveX, obviously DHTML is one of the most important breakthroughs in browsing, and the standardizing and finally widespread implementation has improved web usability considerably. ActiveX obviously imposes a lot of security problems (ActiveX relies upon you trusting a company and then giving them basically free reign on your PC, and there are only a few companies whose software I trust on my PC in the era that we live in today when there appears to be no moral, or legal, bounds in what they can do. "Well didn't you read sentence 3-5 in paragraph 139 of our EULA? It clearly states that we can gather statistics on when you use your computer to cross-promote with home security vendors".
Personally I think one of the greatest innovations in browsers is SVG, a standardized vector graphic format with a full standardized DOM interfacing system.
Only buy when it's no longer cost-effective to rig something together with existing purchases... ...but such belt-tightening keeps companies afloat these days
Therein lies the crunch: Very few people actually do the math. I worked in one organization where we had 3 basically desktop systems in the field running antiquated processors: For months they had several programmers working on optimizing the code to allow it to run effectively on this underpowered hardware. The total cost to replace the hardware with machines 3x as powerful was around $6000 (and was necessary for further expansion plans), while refactoring the code came in at at least $24000. These sorts of idiotic refusals to do the cost analysis are common, and it's how many organizations spend far more by spending less.
As a sidenote, am I the only one that finds the Microsoft commercials running right now to be absolutely hilarious? In one of them you see an IT department apparently learning to dance between Windows 2003 makes life so much easier and "saves money". What they apparently fail to see is that the cost savings in manpower savings, and they're lambadaing themselves some pink slips. I'm all for efficiency, but that commercial just amazed me in the paradox of the message.
You have to actually *commit* a crime before you arrest people.
Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime as well. If you don't believe this, head down to your local donut shop with your friends and plot out plans for robbing an armoured car: About 15 minutes later you'll be in cuffs, though probably ignorantly claiming that you've done nothing (yet). Plenty of people get arrested before they've actually committed the crime.
As a sidenote, if you carry a weapon with the provable intent of committing a crime with it, you can be charged. If you have burglary tools, such as a screwdriver, and you're sneaking around someone's house at night, you can be charged.
Conspiracy to commit
Actually you're either misunderstanding the article, or you're just a very bad observer: The vast majority (i.e. 99.99%) of situations in which the word irony is coined, it is "incorrect" from a pedant's perspective. For instance the grandparent posts is a "bummer" situation, and many would say that it doesn't fit the bill of an "ironic" situation whatsoever. The Alanis Morisette song "Isn't it ironic" is often held up as the greatest example of the misuse of the word, though really it's a great example of average everyday uses of the word.
Of course, there is a "loophole" in many definitions of ironic. Dictionary.com tells us that ironic includes the definition
"- Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
-An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity"
To me this definition includes humorous bummers like the grandparent post, but again the pedants would beg to differ.
What, is that so you can logon? Or are your jokes circa 1995?
COMDEX became largely irrelevant because of a change of technology that we're all using right now: The Internet. Prior to the Internet, COMDEX was where every vendor would show off their latest wares to the collected media (literally holding its release until the big trade show), and all of the writers for PC Week, PC Magazine, Compute!, STart, and every other magazine would run to the banks of phones to call in their reports about the new Diamond Speedstar 24x or new MFM hard drive. I remember all of the COMDEX special editions packed full of revolutionary new products. With the internet, however, vendors no longer hold their releases, and vendor information is as easy as http://www.somecompany.com. The Internet changed the world more than many of us realize (because it was gradual), and the decline of COMDEX is just another reality of a "new world order".
I went to the LV COMDEX in maybe 1999 and it was, quite literally, a waste of time. No companies were actually releasing products, but instead it was a bunch of brochures that were less comprehensive than you could find on the net, with representatives that barely knew the product. The halls were filled with end users (i.e. non decision makers) who were more concerned with scoring a 5 cent pen or cheesy bag.
COMDEX will never be what it was again, but if they did limit attendance to decision makers at corporations they might have a chance of getting a niche.
...ergo he is a loser...
That's it buddy! You're going down!
Seriously, though, the majority of average Joe's spend 4 or more days watching television every night, and that is absolutely okay. In the grand hierarchy of "worthwhile things to do", I'd cast playing a highly social, challenging, creative online game several parsecs above mindless sitcom watching. (I'm not trying to claim that you're supporting television watching, but am just pointing out the hypocrisy of media types that point out what to them is "unhealthy" periods of computer time ["Addiction!"] to a readership that is largely sedentary couch warts).
I take it you weren't around when this whole "internet" thing took off, now were you? Instead your take on the history of the Internet is what you've read on sites like Slashdot...explaining your ignorance. I hardly believe that you're going to believe what I'm saying here, your vision is so clouded, but hopefully some other young jedi on the path of enlightenment might be turned back from the side of FUD before it's too late.
For the hundredth time: At the time that Netscape came out with their variation of the Mosaic browser, Spyglass had an actual business model selling browsers in places like Electronic Boutique: You couldn't download a copy for free. Suddenly along came Netscape with a copy that anyone and everyone could download and use by checking a radio box on the website saying that they were an "educational user" or a "charity". Even though it was technically piracy, literally everyone did this (I doubt Netscape sold more than a pittance of end-user copies of Netscape). This limitation on their website had one single purpose: To have dual-pricing that allowed them to give a free product to consumers to obtain a stranglehold on the market, while simultaneously charging hefty licensing fees to corporations. Spyglass soon exited the browser market because they couldn't compete with Netscape's dumping. At this time, it should be mentioned, Microsoft not only charged for a copy of Windows 95 ($150+ is hardly free), they also charged for the Plus! pack to get Internet Explorer. Finally after they were mocked for charging so much (effectively) compared to what Netscape was dumping basically for free, and after listening to Andreeson talking about how Netscape would be your new operating system, Microsoft released Internet Explorer for "free" (although it is only free for people not using MS Windows. For those of us using Windows I think you'd have to be a fool to not think that you paid for it in the cost of the OS).
Heh, I just realized that I got two references mixed (Strouds Worst just didn't sound right...). The one big site was Strouds Winsock apps where you could download your email clients, IRC clients, etc, and the other was Mirsky's Worst of the Web, which was a brilliant and absolutely hilarious site.
It might look like the browser war is over on M$ platforms, but the server war is not. Microsoft's only advantage in selling servers is the number of M$ browsers out there.
.NET, or Exchange server, if you delude yourself that Microsoft only wins because they have a browser lead then you really need to reassess your take on the world.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What advantage, whatsoever, do IE clients have in selling IIS server boxes? About the only thing that IE does that makes it a better client, or vice versa, in concert with IIS is challenge/response, yet if Microsoft was so focused on utilizing that advantage, wouldn't they have publicized the technology? Mozilla Firebird just added challenge/response, and I believe it's the first. You can imagine whatever altered reality you want, but the reality is that in a lot of showdowns, Microsoft technology simply comes out on top. Whether it's a shop going with SQL Server 2000, or IIS 6 with
Adding the Mac share to the free software share, web sites may soon see IE use dip below 90%.
Indeed, just look at how the IE share is dropping. Oh, right, it isn't. Add that to the fact that Microsoft hasn't noticably updated their browser in some 3 years.
Your whole argument makes absolutely no sense in any case: If Microsoft was so dependent upon their browser lock-in, then wouldn't they put all their forces behind making the best damn browser in the Mac market, instead of just saying "Bah, go make your own. It really doesn't matter to us"? Of course your standard reply will naturally be that they just can't stand the heat, having only been the company that turned ship and dominated the browser market, both technologically and marketwise, virtually overnight. It is that sort of fictitious reality that makes so many misunderstand Microsoft.
That was the theorey for quit some time. Now, even MS states that OSS is its biggest competitor.
The public lip service is not always the same as the reality behind the scenes. When Microsoft comes out with Windows XP, who do you think they're selling to? Generally they aren't selling to OSS users (which comprise, at best, That was the theorey for quit some time. Now, even MS states that OSS is its biggest competitor.
I highly, highly doubt that it's because they're quivering in their boots about OSS. Instead, if the sell-offs were fear induced (people do sell off simply because they've been with something for so long they need change), it's a fear that it's going to get harder and harder to convince people to upgrade from product A to product A 2.0.
Umm, not really.
Umm, yes really. Everyone, and I mean everyone, downloaded and used Netscape for free as an "Educational User", while at the same time Spyglass saw their revenue stream collapse because, for all intents and purposes, Netscape flooded the market with a free browser. What was Microsoft doing? Well when they came out with a browser with Windows 95 they put it in the "Plus" pack for $69 or whatever, until they realized that the effective market value of a web browser was $0 and followed suit.
BTW: Netscape lost their userbase not because of Microsoft, but because they lost their momentum (completely). I'm not sure where you're getting your revisionist history, but in the days of Strouds Worst of the Web, Netscape rules. When IE 1.0 came out, there was no doubt that Netscape ruled. Netscape could have continued their dominance, but their development went from the stunning 3.0, to the marginally different though grossly bloated 4.0, to a state of stasis: They ceased any innovation at all. If you want to really understand why Netscape died, quit looking to Microsoft and read about what happened to the culture at Netscape. Netscape died from within.
Oh really? So the internet never changes does it? The original IE does not display content exactly the same as the present incarnation. If you want the internet in the future you'll have to upgrade your whole system.
Did that copy of Windows 95 come with a support contract for "all future internet technologies"? The whole point of new OS versions is that they incorporate new user interface and technology elements. Let's face it: The kernel, or core of the OS, has changed at a very slow pace while the GUI and accessory tools change rapidly.
In any case, I've yet to see a copy of Windows that refuses to run Mozilla, or Opera, or SmartFTP, or any of thousands of other internet technology tools: Just because Microsoft makes a snazzy new browser doesn't mean it's any prior customer's right to receive it for free.
Wow you make a great case as to why the company should be broken up. How is it fair to be forced to buy every product when all you want it one?
Sigh, this argument has been rehashed a million times. Who decides what is an operating system? Why can't I buy the OS X gui to install on my Windows 98 machine? Ironically Microsoft has claimed for years that IE is a "part of the operating system", and now they're just making true on their promise.
They could release it seperately and still charge for it if they wished. This is not about competing with themselves, this is about forcing people to upgrade.
No, they can't charge for it: Netscape pioneered the tradition of free browsers (we were all educational users), and it's ingrained in people's minds. Perhaps we could get government sanction to ban free software, but barring that the competitive nature of the industry is already corrupted.
As far as forcing people to upgrade, that is total nonsense. It isn't "forcing" if people really want the features of OS X.X, and one of those features is an improved filesystem, and a new, extra snazzy browser now with goobygobs.
Hah. A little competition.....and Microsoft bails out.
Does anyone really believe this? If you do then I've got a couple of landmarks and bridges for sale if you're interested.
Safari, and Apple's access to the OS, is just lip service done by a PR rep looking for some reason to excuse themselves from the Mac market. The Mac port of IE simply makes no business sense anymore -- In the era of the struggle between Netscape and Microsoft, when Netscape had the monopoly on web browsers basically by giving it out for free, it made sense from a PR perspective to get as big of a marketshare however possible, even if it meant dumping millions into developing software for users who don't add a penny to your revenue stream. Microsoft won the browser war quite handily, now capturing some 90%+ of web browser clients. That's old news, and the web browser wars don't get media or investor interest anymore, so it isn't even justified via indirect reasons.
Indeed, the last major browser update from Microsoft was, what, 3 years ago? Clearly Microsoft either has something very large underway (just as Mozilla catches up), and again the Mac market doesn't represent revenue potential, or the arena in general just doesn't hold much interest right now.
That is a desired goal? There's a benefit in reduced consumer choice? Sorry, I'm not buying that.
When is Microsoft going to realize that tying their products into the operating system isn't synonymous with competition.
How is it contrary to competition?
It is possible that Microsoft's biggest competitor is themselves, and releasing lots of untied, free (but subsidized) browsers that people can install in their old operating systems is self-defeating (they're costing themselves sales). One of the first steps is tying browsers to specific operating systems as a "part of the operating system" (as Microsoft has claimed all along), eliminating non-revenue producing projects that were merely for market dominance (which was what the MacIE was, in my opinion). Windows NextVersion will likely garner a lot more interest if it comes with New Shiny Browser 9.0...interest that would be diluted if you could download 9.0 and install it on your Windows 95 machine.
The alternative, of course, is that Internet Explorer becomes a separate, pay browser, but the market for the same would be limited given the market flooding from companies like Mozilla (Netscape).
Having said all of that, I suspect it is highly likely that there is nothing Microsoft could do to please the Slashdot community (nor do I think that is their goal in any of these maneuvers). Any action they can take will receive the same scorn and criticism, by the same group of people.
Good reference, but lazy. How long would it take to plug a couple of phrases into google against snpp.com? In about 7 seconds I found this page, which clarifies the section as:
Oh, Captain Janeway... Lace -- the final brassiere!
-- Comic Book Guy downloads porn, "Das Bus"
% Despite having found what he wants, his modem is very slow and he's
% impatient.
Ugh, this high-speed modem is intolerably slow!
-- Comic Book Guy, "Das Bus"
% The picture slowly appears, line by line, but as soon as it gets to the
% cleavage, an ad for "Internet King" (Homer) appears and covers any nudity
% on the screen.
What the-- the Internet King... I wonder if he can provide faster nudity.
-- Comic Book Guy sees one of Homer's ads on a porn site, "Das Bus"
Ideally I'd like to see Microsoft provide a really stripped-down of Visual Basic free with the OS. And it should be installed by default, and placed prominently on the Start Menu.
.NET SDK, then they'll never be programmers (if that is their hindrance, then they might as well give up now).
Placed predominately on the Start menu? Uh huh. >99% of people don't want to program...ever. Presuming that it needs to be shoved in people's face to encourage people to pick it up is rather presumptuous. Maybe all new Honda cars should come with a wratchet set mounted on the dashboard.
This would provide something simple for kids (or newbies of all ages) to start playing around with.
If they don't have the initiative to download one of the thousands of programming tools, including the full
and with more kids overall discovering coding you'd have more total kids "graduating" to more advanced stuff like real programming languages and alternative OS's like Linux, etc
No, you'd have more hacks. People who would be interested in programming can spend the 15 minutes downloading the tools and putting their own shortcut on the desktop. We don't need a "Programming for Dummies" to make great programmers. Quite the contrary, in fact.