Ultimately I think we're going to see systems with the OS essentially in ROM on a solid state disk, with room for application installation. Data will end up being stored on a traditional disk.
I sincerely hope that the developers of next gen Windows, Linux, MacOS, and others, are taking this scenario and building an OS that is optimized for it. I think Linux certainly has a head start.
You are right, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything - however there's a heck of alot of people living outside of large metropolitan areas that demand high speed internet access. You're looking at a situation where in order to guarantee a huge chunk of bandwidth to every user over a large 10-12 state area, the investment in infrastructure is astronomically higher than implementing the same infrastructure to the same number of users in an area of a few thousand square miles.
We also have a situation where inherently most of the infrastructure is owned by a few companies, who are also the ISP's. So the environment is already hostile to ISP's who just want to buy bandwidth at wholesale and try to make money off of it.
I wish we had the ISP market that France does, unfortunately we don't.
The difference is that a European ISP only has to cover an area the size of one or two typical US States, with typically heavy concentration of population. In the US, they have to spread that infrastructure over vastly longer distances to reach all the potential customers. It's much more costly to do so, and thus we are stuck with lower speed at higher prices and a lot more shared bandwidth.
No, it most certainly affects everybody, because if the phisher is good enough he is going to dupe many merchants out of thousands of dollars, and when the credit card companies issue chargebacks, it will put small businesses out of business, take those thousands of dollars out of the hands of the middle class and put them in the hands of some worthless hacker who is probably going to blow it on dope. It has a far reaching effect.
This is not really surprising. Gamers stuck it out with Windows 98 long after XP Pro became the defacto corporate standard. It took a good 3 years for XP driver support to get to the point where XP outperformed Windows 98, and I expect nothing less from Vista. The thing that should drive Vista is DX10 and future implementations of DX, and that really falls on game developers before it will drive OS sales to gamers. By the way I am a gamer, I use Vista, and while performance is not on par to XP on this computer, in most games it isn't bad enough to be noticeable or at least not to warrant a reboot into XP.
Could it be a coincidence because for the past two years Intel has kicked AMD's butt in desktop processor sales because they were actually faster? Even in the all time rankings AMD only has 2 CPUs and 7% of the tests.
When I provide those services, I am either (1) recommending or installing a third party product to provide those services, or (2) providing damage control/cleanup to the point that a third party product can take it from there. My job is educating the consumer and providing generally available tools to improve their own security.
Again, if you read the entirety of the law, it is pretty clear that it is not aimed towards PC repair shops, despite the wild conclusion the Parent story came to.
The law very specifically states that it applies to companies doing work as a private security consultant. As a PC service shop, I certainly don't position or consider myself to be in the place of a private security consultant. Even if my customer asks me to do simple data recovery tasks, this does not fall under the umbrella of security consulting, or review and analysis of data. I may recommend security solutions or implement those solutions, but I am not providing the solutions, those are provided by 3rd party software companies. I may recommend security guidelines but I am not ultimately responsible for the carrying out of those guidelines. From what I read in the law, it is meant to prevent a company from telling customers they are providing a security solution when in fact they know nothing about security. If I was in the business of doing sitewide security analysis and consulting, maybe I could see the need for some regulation, as the state doesn't want customers getting ripped off by people promising security solutions and not really making anything secure.
Too many others to count, really. FDA approval for things that never should be put in the human body. Somebody paid somebody to satisfy somebody. Countless studies done so as to not hurt corporate profits on a product they have invested millions in, no matter what the actual consequences to people.
There's a very simple yet elusive solution to the problem as you present it. We have to figure out a way for solution providers and VARs like myself to make as much or more money selling Linux and open source. It's not like we make a huge margin reselling software anyway, that's not really a huge factor. It's a tough sell to a lot of businesses to explain that, yes, your software costs are going to be close to zero but you're going to have a huge up front investment in order to make the switch. That's assuming that apps are available for linux to replace their existing Windows apps. The real reason businesses aren't adapting Linux and OS X is the classic chicken and egg - not many software developers want to write and support for a tiny market share, let alone one where they don't make any money on software licensing, and that market share won't grow unless more software developers write for and support it. Consider also that a lot of businesses got off of Mac in the late 80's and 90's for the exact same reason - the apps they needed to do business were PC/Windows apps. Those guys are not going to be easily sold on going back to Mac.
I did not intend to imply that the government should meddle with or take over business development. I simply meant to promote and encourage local growth and small business.
Yes, I am afraid the balance will indeed correct itself, and if the current trends keep up I have heard analysts saying that the US will be the 3rd world country making goods for China within the next 20-30 years. This is why the US needs to become less goods dependent on China.
Yes, China does not have much demand for the types of goods they are making, because by and large, foreign interests have invested into China because of the cheap workforce. China does not benefit greatly by merely being a parts factory for the rest of the world. They would be much better off investing in their own private enterprise, encouraging small business development, goods they can consume locally, and services that the people can take advantage of.
On the flip side, the US should not put themselves into a economic situation where China controls the market due to the overbalance of trade, as we have already done. If China were to pull the plug on US exports for political or militaristic reasons, our economy would collapse within days. We do indeed benefit from China, and that's why we buy goods from them, as my original post stated. But to use your example, from the US perspective the situation is more like a lawyer who can practice law but not type, employing and depending upon a lawyer who is a typist. You are in danger of losing both your typist and your law practice to the employee.
Problem is, people are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand you've got a 10 year old girl working 16 hour shifts at a factory so she can provide for her parents. On the other hand we're taking that job from someone here who can no longer provide for their children. On the other hand we want to buy products that are made cheaply by the 10 year old girl. On the other hand we complain that it's unethical to make the 10 year old girl work. On the other hand we pour money into a economy that, while it has changed to some extent, still oppresses freedom of religion and speech, and has some of the worst living and working conditions in its industrial sector of any country in the world.
The answer is that both China and us the US need to become more self reliant. The US is too reliant on cheap imports, the Chinese are too reliant on capitolizing on their 3rd world demographic to create cheap exports. Our government should be working to promote local manufacturing and job creation for local consumption, and their government should be utilizing their indigenous workforce to create a better living environment for themselves.
How can one be critical of Google's business practices in China?
Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights. Why do we support financially a country with such a track record? Because we are either making money doing it, or saving money doing it. Ultimately, we care more about our own pocketbook than the plight of humans elsewhere.
If only I had mod points. This is the most insightful comment I've seen on this topic today.
Microsoft even warns quite emphatically not to install service packs on a system that may have viruses, spyware, or any other system problems. The anatomy of a MS service pack is not designed to solve problems, it's designed to update OS components. I'll be the first to admit I make a lot of money supporting Microsoft products, but obviously the design of MacOS and Linux are technically superior when it comes to updates - not that the process is foolproof and it's certainly not any easier.
Sometimes when a component is fixed to prevent a problem, those who already have the problem need to straighten out that issue first or the fix won't work. What MS should do is provide a thorough system scan that runs prior to the SP install that will tell you if you can expect any issues and recommend clean install if necessary.
Could have happened is certainly a hypothesis but yet it is not testable, therefore it lacks any scientific value. I don't have any problem with people suggesting possibilities of how things occured, but saying "it could have happened, it is the most likely to have happened, therefore it must have happened" is not science at all, it's fiction.
The reality is, anyone who calls this type of speculation "science" is living in a dream world. Unless you have some concrete evidence to back up your theory, you've got nothing - and this guy has nothing, merely a "what if".
It bloody is comparing the two - it's not just bits and bytes that differ, MS is comparing the total solution. Get your head into the big picture! Think compare "Linux Server Solution" vs. "MS Server Solution". Is Linux able to match Windows Server functionality in a 4 server, 50 user SMB? These are the comparisons MS is making.
So throw Ubuntu out of the picture - apparently you don't take much stock in that company's "server" offering. So then, what is Red Hat doing that Windows Server is not? I really am genuinely curious to know what Red Hat Enterprise would offer me that Windows Server 2003/2008 does not do? Or what does it do better? How does that benefit me overall in my business operations? In the other reply to my comment the guy seems stuck on a bit by bit feature comparison of the OS, but in reality business decision makers are far more concerned with overall results. So what's the advantage?
On the page you mentioned entitled "Find out how Windows Server compares to Linux", there are links to case studies, research, and hands on comparisons for 6 different categories of comparison. While few of the links are a feature by feature comparison, they look at the overall implementation, which is what every smart business owner is looking for. The question I am asking as a business owner when comparing a Linux solution to a MS solution is, what is Linux doing for me and at what cost? Am I losing some functionality or setting myself up for higher costs down the road if I go into a Linux system that is less expensive on the ground floor? I have to look at all my application needs and figure out which solution fits my company. Obviously MS's own website is going to be biased towards their software, but I would expect the same level of bias from a Linux vendor.
Could you point out some specific features or functionality that a new version of Linux on the server would provide, that is an advantage over the old versions of Linux or even over older versions of Windows Server? In a computerworld.com article just a couple of weeks ago, Ubuntu's server was trumpeted as having the key new features of two virtualization environments and a greater number of ISV certifications for enterprise software that is certified for Ubuntu server. Not a lot to hang your hat on.
I think the point that MS is making is that they are actually developing new features into the new server software that provide additional functionality for businesses, considering not just the server OS but also application servers. Remember they are not only selling to convert Novell and Linux servers to Windows, they are also trying to sell upgrades of their own OS, and for legitimate functional reasons.
Lets put it this way - Gore isn't exactly hurting for cash by doing what he is doing. It may not be the only reason he is doing this, but the point is he doesn't have the scientific background to be a viable voice for the global warming crowd anymore than I do.
I wasn't aware that Spencer was a supporter of ID.
I also think you overestimate the actual number of scientists who are actually studying the effects of humanity on climate changes, vs. those who are simply pointing out that the climate is changing and assuming that humans are the cause because that is the popular current viewpoint, or "consensus".
What is scientific consensus? Making your point loud enough and long enough that you get the majority of the scientific community on your side? Where has the actual science gone? It has nothing to do with consensus, it has to do with truthful (or untruthful) interpretation of facts. The main weapon against opponents of scientific theories such as human caused global warming, is not to dispute facts, but to dispute credentials, and that is borderline unethical.
"And there are few climate scientists saying that it is extremely unlikely that climate change is not happening or that is completely decoupled from human activity."
No one disagrees that climate change is happening. The disagreement is about why, and many scientists and meteorologists disagree on the level that humans have affected the natural climate cycles. Some are very high profile and have very intelligent writings on the subject. Want names? Roy Spencer recently wrote a book entitled Climate Confusion, in which he states that we cannot attribute warming solely to human devices and we in fact have little to no effect on the climate cycle for which we created the global warming buzzword.
No, the problem comes primarily from people who are not scientists at all, like Al Gore, who goes around trumpeting what he calls facts which are in reality just marketing slogans for his own personal gain. He states that humans are the problem, when in reality the greenhouse gasses we release are a micro-minute fraction of total greenhouse gasses on the planet and have no actual measurable affect on the climate. This type of media manipulation is why global warming is such a hot topic, not because of a genuine uproar in the scientific community, who are quite split over interpretation of data and just how much humans are affecting climate cycles.
Not Really. If you complain, the merchant bank will issue a chargeback to their bank account and they will take money from them. You'll get back whatever was charged to your credit card. However the taxpayer will be out their $40 (just why do all the rich people have to pay so poor people can have DTV, I don't know) which is what really stinks. They should have a special place in jail for scammers like this.
Did you even read the article? It is very obvious that MS plans to support legacy apps via VM's. What will really be interesting is how they support things like DX and other AV intensive apps that currently are not supported in VM.
This is a dangerous course for software development. The only thing this type of business model favors is the pocketbook of the original patent holder.
I guess I'll patent "Hello World" (nobody has patented that yet, have they?) and license it out to everyone who ever has or will use it.
We've seen how much grief existing software patents have caused the technology industry, simply because one company's idea comes too close to another that has been patented. Case in point the whole Blackberry/RIM vs. NTP fiasco. Why should I be in violation of a patent and forced to pay millions of dollars just because another company already came up with a software program that does what mine does? Who is going to patent the Word Processor, the Spreadsheet, etc?
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately I think we're going to see systems with the OS essentially in ROM on a solid state disk, with room for application installation. Data will end up being stored on a traditional disk. I sincerely hope that the developers of next gen Windows, Linux, MacOS, and others, are taking this scenario and building an OS that is optimized for it. I think Linux certainly has a head start.
You are right, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything - however there's a heck of alot of people living outside of large metropolitan areas that demand high speed internet access. You're looking at a situation where in order to guarantee a huge chunk of bandwidth to every user over a large 10-12 state area, the investment in infrastructure is astronomically higher than implementing the same infrastructure to the same number of users in an area of a few thousand square miles. We also have a situation where inherently most of the infrastructure is owned by a few companies, who are also the ISP's. So the environment is already hostile to ISP's who just want to buy bandwidth at wholesale and try to make money off of it. I wish we had the ISP market that France does, unfortunately we don't.
The difference is that a European ISP only has to cover an area the size of one or two typical US States, with typically heavy concentration of population. In the US, they have to spread that infrastructure over vastly longer distances to reach all the potential customers. It's much more costly to do so, and thus we are stuck with lower speed at higher prices and a lot more shared bandwidth.
No, it most certainly affects everybody, because if the phisher is good enough he is going to dupe many merchants out of thousands of dollars, and when the credit card companies issue chargebacks, it will put small businesses out of business, take those thousands of dollars out of the hands of the middle class and put them in the hands of some worthless hacker who is probably going to blow it on dope. It has a far reaching effect.
This is not really surprising. Gamers stuck it out with Windows 98 long after XP Pro became the defacto corporate standard. It took a good 3 years for XP driver support to get to the point where XP outperformed Windows 98, and I expect nothing less from Vista. The thing that should drive Vista is DX10 and future implementations of DX, and that really falls on game developers before it will drive OS sales to gamers.
By the way I am a gamer, I use Vista, and while performance is not on par to XP on this computer, in most games it isn't bad enough to be noticeable or at least not to warrant a reboot into XP.
Could it be a coincidence because for the past two years Intel has kicked AMD's butt in desktop processor sales because they were actually faster? Even in the all time rankings AMD only has 2 CPUs and 7% of the tests.
When I provide those services, I am either (1) recommending or installing a third party product to provide those services, or (2) providing damage control/cleanup to the point that a third party product can take it from there. My job is educating the consumer and providing generally available tools to improve their own security.
Again, if you read the entirety of the law, it is pretty clear that it is not aimed towards PC repair shops, despite the wild conclusion the Parent story came to.
The law very specifically states that it applies to companies doing work as a private security consultant. As a PC service shop, I certainly don't position or consider myself to be in the place of a private security consultant. Even if my customer asks me to do simple data recovery tasks, this does not fall under the umbrella of security consulting, or review and analysis of data. I may recommend security solutions or implement those solutions, but I am not providing the solutions, those are provided by 3rd party software companies. I may recommend security guidelines but I am not ultimately responsible for the carrying out of those guidelines.
From what I read in the law, it is meant to prevent a company from telling customers they are providing a security solution when in fact they know nothing about security. If I was in the business of doing sitewide security analysis and consulting, maybe I could see the need for some regulation, as the state doesn't want customers getting ripped off by people promising security solutions and not really making anything secure.
Vioxx anyone?
Too many others to count, really. FDA approval for things that never should be put in the human body. Somebody paid somebody to satisfy somebody. Countless studies done so as to not hurt corporate profits on a product they have invested millions in, no matter what the actual consequences to people.
There's a very simple yet elusive solution to the problem as you present it. We have to figure out a way for solution providers and VARs like myself to make as much or more money selling Linux and open source. It's not like we make a huge margin reselling software anyway, that's not really a huge factor.
It's a tough sell to a lot of businesses to explain that, yes, your software costs are going to be close to zero but you're going to have a huge up front investment in order to make the switch. That's assuming that apps are available for linux to replace their existing Windows apps.
The real reason businesses aren't adapting Linux and OS X is the classic chicken and egg - not many software developers want to write and support for a tiny market share, let alone one where they don't make any money on software licensing, and that market share won't grow unless more software developers write for and support it. Consider also that a lot of businesses got off of Mac in the late 80's and 90's for the exact same reason - the apps they needed to do business were PC/Windows apps. Those guys are not going to be easily sold on going back to Mac.
I did not intend to imply that the government should meddle with or take over business development. I simply meant to promote and encourage local growth and small business. Yes, I am afraid the balance will indeed correct itself, and if the current trends keep up I have heard analysts saying that the US will be the 3rd world country making goods for China within the next 20-30 years. This is why the US needs to become less goods dependent on China. Yes, China does not have much demand for the types of goods they are making, because by and large, foreign interests have invested into China because of the cheap workforce. China does not benefit greatly by merely being a parts factory for the rest of the world. They would be much better off investing in their own private enterprise, encouraging small business development, goods they can consume locally, and services that the people can take advantage of. On the flip side, the US should not put themselves into a economic situation where China controls the market due to the overbalance of trade, as we have already done. If China were to pull the plug on US exports for political or militaristic reasons, our economy would collapse within days. We do indeed benefit from China, and that's why we buy goods from them, as my original post stated. But to use your example, from the US perspective the situation is more like a lawyer who can practice law but not type, employing and depending upon a lawyer who is a typist. You are in danger of losing both your typist and your law practice to the employee.
Problem is, people are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand you've got a 10 year old girl working 16 hour shifts at a factory so she can provide for her parents. On the other hand we're taking that job from someone here who can no longer provide for their children. On the other hand we want to buy products that are made cheaply by the 10 year old girl. On the other hand we complain that it's unethical to make the 10 year old girl work. On the other hand we pour money into a economy that, while it has changed to some extent, still oppresses freedom of religion and speech, and has some of the worst living and working conditions in its industrial sector of any country in the world. The answer is that both China and us the US need to become more self reliant. The US is too reliant on cheap imports, the Chinese are too reliant on capitolizing on their 3rd world demographic to create cheap exports. Our government should be working to promote local manufacturing and job creation for local consumption, and their government should be utilizing their indigenous workforce to create a better living environment for themselves.
How can one be critical of Google's business practices in China?
Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights.
Why do we support financially a country with such a track record? Because we are either making money doing it, or saving money doing it. Ultimately, we care more about our own pocketbook than the plight of humans elsewhere.
If only I had mod points. This is the most insightful comment I've seen on this topic today.
Microsoft even warns quite emphatically not to install service packs on a system that may have viruses, spyware, or any other system problems. The anatomy of a MS service pack is not designed to solve problems, it's designed to update OS components. I'll be the first to admit I make a lot of money supporting Microsoft products, but obviously the design of MacOS and Linux are technically superior when it comes to updates - not that the process is foolproof and it's certainly not any easier.
Sometimes when a component is fixed to prevent a problem, those who already have the problem need to straighten out that issue first or the fix won't work. What MS should do is provide a thorough system scan that runs prior to the SP install that will tell you if you can expect any issues and recommend clean install if necessary.
Could have happened is certainly a hypothesis but yet it is not testable, therefore it lacks any scientific value. I don't have any problem with people suggesting possibilities of how things occured, but saying "it could have happened, it is the most likely to have happened, therefore it must have happened" is not science at all, it's fiction.
The reality is, anyone who calls this type of speculation "science" is living in a dream world. Unless you have some concrete evidence to back up your theory, you've got nothing - and this guy has nothing, merely a "what if".
It bloody is comparing the two - it's not just bits and bytes that differ, MS is comparing the total solution. Get your head into the big picture! Think compare "Linux Server Solution" vs. "MS Server Solution". Is Linux able to match Windows Server functionality in a 4 server, 50 user SMB? These are the comparisons MS is making.
So throw Ubuntu out of the picture - apparently you don't take much stock in that company's "server" offering. So then, what is Red Hat doing that Windows Server is not? I really am genuinely curious to know what Red Hat Enterprise would offer me that Windows Server 2003/2008 does not do? Or what does it do better? How does that benefit me overall in my business operations? In the other reply to my comment the guy seems stuck on a bit by bit feature comparison of the OS, but in reality business decision makers are far more concerned with overall results. So what's the advantage?
On the page you mentioned entitled "Find out how Windows Server compares to Linux", there are links to case studies, research, and hands on comparisons for 6 different categories of comparison. While few of the links are a feature by feature comparison, they look at the overall implementation, which is what every smart business owner is looking for.
The question I am asking as a business owner when comparing a Linux solution to a MS solution is, what is Linux doing for me and at what cost? Am I losing some functionality or setting myself up for higher costs down the road if I go into a Linux system that is less expensive on the ground floor? I have to look at all my application needs and figure out which solution fits my company. Obviously MS's own website is going to be biased towards their software, but I would expect the same level of bias from a Linux vendor.
Could you point out some specific features or functionality that a new version of Linux on the server would provide, that is an advantage over the old versions of Linux or even over older versions of Windows Server? In a computerworld.com article just a couple of weeks ago, Ubuntu's server was trumpeted as having the key new features of two virtualization environments and a greater number of ISV certifications for enterprise software that is certified for Ubuntu server. Not a lot to hang your hat on.
I think the point that MS is making is that they are actually developing new features into the new server software that provide additional functionality for businesses, considering not just the server OS but also application servers. Remember they are not only selling to convert Novell and Linux servers to Windows, they are also trying to sell upgrades of their own OS, and for legitimate functional reasons.
Lets put it this way - Gore isn't exactly hurting for cash by doing what he is doing. It may not be the only reason he is doing this, but the point is he doesn't have the scientific background to be a viable voice for the global warming crowd anymore than I do.
I wasn't aware that Spencer was a supporter of ID.
I also think you overestimate the actual number of scientists who are actually studying the effects of humanity on climate changes, vs. those who are simply pointing out that the climate is changing and assuming that humans are the cause because that is the popular current viewpoint, or "consensus".
What is scientific consensus? Making your point loud enough and long enough that you get the majority of the scientific community on your side? Where has the actual science gone? It has nothing to do with consensus, it has to do with truthful (or untruthful) interpretation of facts. The main weapon against opponents of scientific theories such as human caused global warming, is not to dispute facts, but to dispute credentials, and that is borderline unethical.
"And there are few climate scientists saying that it is extremely unlikely that climate change is not happening or that is completely decoupled from human activity."
No one disagrees that climate change is happening. The disagreement is about why, and many scientists and meteorologists disagree on the level that humans have affected the natural climate cycles. Some are very high profile and have very intelligent writings on the subject. Want names? Roy Spencer recently wrote a book entitled Climate Confusion, in which he states that we cannot attribute warming solely to human devices and we in fact have little to no effect on the climate cycle for which we created the global warming buzzword.
No, the problem comes primarily from people who are not scientists at all, like Al Gore, who goes around trumpeting what he calls facts which are in reality just marketing slogans for his own personal gain. He states that humans are the problem, when in reality the greenhouse gasses we release are a micro-minute fraction of total greenhouse gasses on the planet and have no actual measurable affect on the climate. This type of media manipulation is why global warming is such a hot topic, not because of a genuine uproar in the scientific community, who are quite split over interpretation of data and just how much humans are affecting climate cycles.
Not Really. If you complain, the merchant bank will issue a chargeback to their bank account and they will take money from them. You'll get back whatever was charged to your credit card. However the taxpayer will be out their $40 (just why do all the rich people have to pay so poor people can have DTV, I don't know) which is what really stinks. They should have a special place in jail for scammers like this.
Did you even read the article? It is very obvious that MS plans to support legacy apps via VM's. What will really be interesting is how they support things like DX and other AV intensive apps that currently are not supported in VM.
This is a dangerous course for software development. The only thing this type of business model favors is the pocketbook of the original patent holder.
I guess I'll patent "Hello World" (nobody has patented that yet, have they?) and license it out to everyone who ever has or will use it.
We've seen how much grief existing software patents have caused the technology industry, simply because one company's idea comes too close to another that has been patented. Case in point the whole Blackberry/RIM vs. NTP fiasco. Why should I be in violation of a patent and forced to pay millions of dollars just because another company already came up with a software program that does what mine does? Who is going to patent the Word Processor, the Spreadsheet, etc?