You do realize that there's.... Linux. MacOSX doesn't even need to be in the equation.
arivanov's post discusses Apple consumer devices that "are aimed at where Microsoft wanted to be, tried to be and failed to be." It gives examples of how iPod beat Pocket PC and Zune, iPhone beat Windows Mobile 6 phones, and Apple TV beat Windows Media Center Extenders and various crashy Windows CE set-top boxes. Besides, you said "EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM", including Mac OS X.
Look above. You are mistakenly assuming I was responding to someone else. It was not arivanov's post that I was responding to.
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the.NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
As you can see, that makes my response make a lot more sense.
You do realize that hardware for hardware, MacOSX is more expensive... but serving/performance capabilities, Windows is more expensive. [five paragraphs about servers]
You said "SERVER OR CLIENT", and I was taking you up on it by replying about the client. Is a Mac running Mac OS X less expensive for a given level of performance than a Dell, etc. running Windows Home Premium?
YES you are DEFINITELY correct. I should have clarified better. It should have read:
For client, Windows is MORE expensive than virtually any other OS when it comes to hardware costs - EXCEPT MacOSX. For SERVER, server hardware for Windows, when considering anything but trivial load, is more expensive than ANY other OS. For trivial loads, it's more expensive than anything but MacOSX.
Sorry about that. It was 7:40AM and the END of my very long day, and I was a bit tired. I clarified that later in indicating it applied only to the server marketplace.
In the Internet marketplace, the decline [of.NET Framework] should continue quite handily, while the intranet marketplace will be dependent on their continuing decline in the workplace and eventually home marketplaces. Things like Silverlight are their only chances of slowing the defection in this area as well.
I don't see much of a decline of.NET in the home market. Microsoft's TV gaming platform uses the XNA API on the.NET framework. Apple has no TV gaming platform unless it introduces apps for Apple TV.
"I dont see the.NET home market declining thanks to Microsoft's own software releases. But, I fail to take into account the fact that if Microsoft keeps losing marketshare in almost every market (or is stagnant in some) that the.NET home market will decline or see no gains as well. And I am going to pretend that the business market, previously a stronghold for.NET apps, does not enjoy that same buffer that the home market does"
Fixed that for you.
EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM, SERVER OR CLIENT, can run on lower end, cheaper hardware than Windows client or server. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
It is copyright infringement to promote hardware as capable of running Mac OS X if you are not Apple Inc. Apple v. Psystar.
Not a clue what you are saying here, so here's some possible answers.
(1) You do realize that there's.... Linux. MacOSX doesn't even need to be in the equation.
(2) You do realize that hardware for hardware, MacOSX is more expensive... but serving/performance capabilities, Windows is more expensive. Let me help you with that with a little example. Let's say I have a website with decent traffic, like the "Star Trek Phase 2 website (which is a very static site - NO dynamic content at the time, very little now) and I am running it on a Windows Server box. Now... that box gets overrun with traffic as the site gets more popular. Do I (a) add more Windows Server boxes, or (b) replace it with one Linux or OS/2 box? We chose to remove Windows Server from the equation (and no, I was NOT the one who chose to host it on that to begin with).
Now... 4 years later, we have TEN TIMES the traffic. And are serving it from ONE box (there is a backup server, but it's never been serving at the same time). Windows Server could not handle the load at 1/10th of the site's current traffic. The OS/2 and Linux box handle TEN TIMES the traffic at THE SAME OR LOWER hardware specs. At this point, we'd be at what... 5 or 10 Windows Server boxes doing load balancing? I guarantee you that a MacOSX server box would perform as well as the Linux or OS/2 box. So... what costs more? 5 Windows Server boxes, or one Linux box or one MacOSX box? See the point? If a MacOSX based server costs THREE times the cost of a Windows Server box, then the MacOSX solution STILL costs less.
Of course, this admittedly DOES NOT apply to those who are installing servers that don't do much. Then it's a one to one comparison because one can get away with one Windows Server box. But it leaves no room for growth, and if the company/website does grow, means a lot more money spent keeping up with the increased traffic (or switching off Windows Server).
And no, this isn't speculation or trolling. One can simply check the domain via NetCraft to verify what I've said about what it was hosted on (and the various uptime tools which will show the numerous times the Windows Server box was overrun). Currently, we are finding that 550Mhz is sufficient for ten times the traffic. Windows server was in the multi GHz range on a multi-core/CPU box (again, at 1/10th the traffic). The traffic stats are also researchable.
So, yes, you (and the poster I was responding to) are correct (when it comes to MacOSX) if you are talking about some small network setup with little t
I wonder which that are... until earlier this year I was doing consulting in quite a few companies, and it was all Exchange, except two who were migrating off Lotus Notes to Exchange and trying very hard to forget that. Not seen a single instance of OpenOffice either, on the server side it varies but the desktops have inevitably been Windows/Office/Exchange. At least in the good news Firefox has been there instead of or as an alternative to IE, but that's about it.
Yes, Exchange is the only software group that is not seeing a decline in marketshare. But, it is dependent on their server market. You can't run an Exchange server on Linux. So, that marketshare maintenance or gain will slowly erode away unless they can prevent their marketshare losses in other areas.
Though I was modded troll above, I actually researched the stuff. Windows marketshare is slipping slowly, with gains by Apple (and on again/off again gains by Linux). Office marketshare has decline 20 percentage points in the last ten years. Browser marketshare has dropped significantly. Microsoft's server marketshare is also dropping to Linux.
There's my point. Exchange could be the be all, end all tool in it's market, but that does not matter so much when it's dependent on other areas that Microsoft is losing (server and browser, for instance). I've worked with companies that are being forced off Windows Server (various reasons, including security, uptime, performance, etc). Many are choosing hosted solutions. While others equate that to moving from local Exchange to hosted Exchange, fact is, replacements like Google Apps is not Exchange.
I didn't say it was the norm. I didn't say it was happening in droves. None of that matters. What does matter is this: the less Windows Server installations out there, the less Exchange Servers possible. And the Windows Server market is declining. I think the only thing slowing the Windows Server market decline IS Exchange.
Mod my earlier post any way you want. Fact is, Microsoft is losing market share in virtually every market. That's not a slam against Microsoft. ITS A FACT. I simply provided some reasons why.
One cannot claim that those technologies above are going to save Microsoft when they are losing market share in them. How does that even make sense? I simply pointed it out. A "Troll" mod is not a "Gee, I wish this weren't true, so I'll mod it down" mod.
NOT enough RAM, NOT enough CPU power, NOT a capable enough CPU
Oh, well, since we are making distinctions based on computer power, I guess that PC from 1975 must not be a computer, since it has less computing resources and power than the microcontrollers I used in my undergrad courses. Hey, I know, I'll just say that because your laptop does not have as much computing power as the Cray sitting in my department's server room, your laptop is not a computer!
Clearly, you have some misconceptions about what a computer is.
Clearly you are just trolling. Just as an IBM PC IS a computer, it IS NOT a supercomputer. NOR will it run Windows 7. Just as a crappo phone IS a phone, and may have computer chips in it, it still is NOT a smartphone. It's not capable but crippled. It's NOT CAPABLE.
Go troll someplace else. You sound like an idiot when you try to pretend that a cheap, mono LCD dumbphone is capable of being a smartphone and doing all the same things.
Go ahead and open up one of those phones, and tell me what you see. Just because the phone does not allow you to extend its capabilities does not mean that it is not a computer; it is just a computer that has been locked down and severely restricted.
That is an artificial distinction. The phone has everything needed to meet the definition of "electronic computer," it just happens to have been deliberately restricted by the manufacturer and sometimes the cell phone carrier. The fact that you are only supposed to use it for sending text messages or making phone calls does not mean that it is not a computer.
No, no it most definitely is not. You're telling me I can open those phones and find a nice 800MHz or faster Qualcomm or other processor in there? Sure, by the SIMPLEST OF TERMS they technically are computers. But they are NOT capable of running those other services. If you think otherwise, then you obviously know nothing about phones, computers, microprocessors or phone software/operating systems. NOT enough RAM, NOT enough CPU power, NOT a capable enough CPU, MISSING various other hardware needed to be a smartphone. Those phones are NOT crippled smartphones. They are DUMB phones NOT CAPABLE of being a smartphone.
Active Directory
Do you mean their ever changing NETBIOS/NETBEUI implementation (with "lotsa shit" cobbled on top)? That too is dependent on them NOT losing marketshare in the server arena.
Actually, it's responsible for them not losing marketshare in the server arena. Microsoft gives you the most complete single-vendor enterprise management package save for TME10 on top of your IBM kit, or whatever it's being called these days; when I worked for Tivoli a single sale could be as much as $10M.
Yes, you are correct that it is diminishing their decline in the server arena. Sorry I wasnt clear. My point was that it becomes less relevant and WILL lose market share as they lose marketshare in the server arena because of other reasons. So, while it may be slowing the migration off Windows server, it sure isn't stopping it. And since people are moving off Windows server for reasons other than Active Directory, it too will suffer due to that.
Regardless, as already mentioned, there are alternatives, such as OpenDirectory and SAMBA (I know a few businesses who dumped their Windows server and simply use a Linux box with a SAMBA server running).
You can't do half the cool stuff you can do with a Windows server with SAMBA. SUS comes to mind immediately.
True. And most Windows Server users dont do that stuff even with Active Directory. Not till you get into big installations. Eventually, there will be competition in that marketplace (besides TME 10). There was in the past. There will be again. The big companies that actually use all the features in Active Directory will be the last holdouts.:-)
Even if they understand such a distinction (if one ever enters into ruling/precedent/law), nowadays, it's getting harder to differentiate between the two, with so many services and apps that blur the line between locally stored stuff and stuff stored in the cloud. Making the situation worse is that some of the normally locally stored stuff nowadays is often stored in the cloud (like my contacts).
In which case, your defense lawyer could try arguing that the police obtained the evidence illegally by connecting to a server they did not have a warrant to search.
IF you can afford a defense lawyer who knows technology well enough, and IF you have a judge that would understand what the hell he's talking about. It's not like the DA is going to just roll over and say "Yeah, we made a mistake... he's right".
I did not say that I agreed with the ruling, I just gave my understanding of it. As far as I can tell, the judges are equating a cell phone with a pocket notebook -- the police can look through a pocket notebook, so why not cell phones and other electronics as well?
I never said you did - you just forgot other implications. A phone is no longer a phone
As for the level of access your cell phone might give them...that is, frankly, irrelevant. First of all, the police cannot arrest you, and then use your housekeys to enter your home and perform a warrantless search of your house, so I doubt that a court would allow the police to use passwords stored on your smartphone to access computers in your home (from TFA, it appears that the case in question involved the police viewing a text message stored on the arrested person's phone).
Why would they have to do that? You have to remember, it's all really simply clicking on an app button. That's it. End of story. No looking for passwords or hunting for a computer or whatever. Just click an app.
And again, this has nothing to do with what the police did in THIS case, but EVERYTHING to do with what this ruling will allow them to do in future cases.
As for the data stored on online services, the police could search that without even informing you of the search, and may even be able to look through it without a warrant.
And then use it or not? This is where this ruling makes things difficult. Previously, such stuff could not be used unless obtained through legal methods (warrants, etc).
There is no good distinguishing characteristic of "smart phones" that could be used to differentiate them from "dumb phones" -- all modern cell phones are mobile computers,
Wow... no. They most definitely are not. There are still a bunch of phones sold that do no more than make calls and send/receive text messages. Or some WAP browsing thrown in to the mix. Regardless, even if you were correct, that does not make this ruling any better. It would make it WORSE.
some are just less restricted than others.
"Some are just regular texting phones" -fixed that for you.
...So a responsible and limited application of this ruling would be to just limit such searches to data immediately available on the phone. But I suspect that police will not really respect the distinction.
Even if they understand such a distinction (if one ever enters into ruling/precedent/law), nowadays, it's getting harder to differentiate between the two, with so many services and apps that blur the line between locally stored stuff and stuff stored in the cloud. Making the situation worse is that some of the normally locally stored stuff nowadays is often stored in the cloud (like my contacts).
And even with the most sensible of laws/precedents/etc on this, I still would not trust the police to understand how to properly implement such searches in a way that does not violate such laws - not necessarily through bad intent on their part, but due to a lack of understanding of how the technology works, and how that relates to application of the law.
The difference is that it happens to be on your person at the time of your arrest, and you lose the constitutional right to privacy when you are arrested. I suppose the original idea was that the police would be able to search your bag for weapons, or something like that, and it has (like so many others) been blown way out of proportion.
No, not entirely accurate.
That's not the difference when it comes to smartphones (regular cell phones or semi-smart phones, yeah. If someone had my Android phone, they'd have full and free access to my gMail account, PayPal account, online photo albums, social networking accounts, address book (including the non phone portion such as Google Contacts) and so much more. And for many of my friends, it would also be unrestricted access to their home and/or work computer.
Therein lies the problem with this ruling (unless the court decided to differentiate between "dumbphones" and "smartphones" - but as I've already read one linked article (albeit for a different/. post), I've already done my quota of RTFA and don't know if he made that distinction. I'll just assume he didn't, as I believe policy is here....
THUS... this is a big problem and a big privacy violation for the millions of people who have smartphones.
High market capitalization doesn't mean anything other than people are interested in owning a piece of this company. It doesn't mean that the company is successful, or even profitable. I have no idea how that applies to Apple, even though it is technically accurate for some other companies, so from this point on, since I decided NOT to research what I am talking about, I will just spout nonsense - which happens to be unrelated, just like my entire post.
(NONSENSE REMOVED)
Apple makes (NET) very close to what Microsoft does.
Apple: 2008: 4.8B, 2009: 8.2B, 2010: 14.0B
Microsoft: 2008: 17.7B, 2009: 14.6B, 2010: 18.8B
In gross income, they are 65B and 61B respectively if memory serves. (Apple/MS respectively)
I would think that's what I would call profitable. You may also note that while Microsoft is struggling to keep even in profits that Apple is almost doubling their NET profits every year for the last couple years.
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the.NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
Uh, what?
Let's go through them one at a time:
Microsoft Office LOSING marketshare virtually every year - do you expect that trend to suddenly change? Microsoft has nothing in Office that would compel a change in that trend, and (though this is speculation) I doubt they do for any future planned releases (whenever those may come out).
Visual Studio This is a bad example. This is dependent on their other markets. As Microsoft loses ground (albeit slowly) in the client and server market, the Visual Studio market will eventually decline as well.
.NET Framework By now, Microsoft has to be losing ground in that due to losses in the server marketplace (intranet and internet). In the Internet marketplace, the decline should continue quite handily, while the intranet marketplace will be dependent on their continuing decline in the workplace and eventually home marketplaces. Things like Silverlight are their only chances of slowing the defection in this area as well. On the other hand, things like cross platform apps (like the various *nix apps ported to everything else) will help continue the.NET decline.
legacy applications... Don't have a clue to what you are talking about here - isn't that a marketplace that, by definition, is expected to decline?
Active Directory Do you mean their ever changing NETBIOS/NETBEUI implementation (with "lotsa shit" cobbled on top)? That too is dependent on them NOT losing marketshare in the server arena. And as it is, those numbers are, and always have been, very skewed - when it comes to workload handled. Windows servers simply do not scale as well as... well... ANY other operating system. So, these gains for competitors will be slower as they can replace Windows servers with a far smaller quantity of non-Windows servers. That's part of what I mean when I say the numbers are skewed - it's not that they are not accurate, it's that they do not accurately portray what's going on. Retire 3 Windows server boxes, install one Linux box.
Regardless, as already mentioned, there are alternatives, such as OpenDirectory and SAMBA (I know a few businesses who dumped their Windows server and simply use a Linux box with a SAMBA server running).
"the ability to run it on hardware from the lowest bidder" To this one, I say, PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!! What the HELL are you SMOKING? EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM, SERVER OR CLIENT, can run on lower end, cheaper hardware than Windows client or server. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
So... any other ideas as to what will save Microsoft?
Apple will never replace Microsoft in the workplace, because they don't want to, there's not nearly as much money in it as replacing Microsoft in the home.
Yeah.. but from the summary:
Perhaps Wall Street is catching on that, despite the discontinuation of their underused Xserve, Apple is in fact becoming one of the key tech providers to enterprise, a position that even a year ago seemed laughable.
That made me actually read the article and it does not really indicate that Apple has anything earth shattering for enterprise at all. I have not really heard anything either, hence the quietly I guess. All it talks about is how enterprise is "figuring out" how to integrate the iPad. I hardly see that as providing key technology to enterprise which is exactly what the summary and article claims.
They have some "earth shattering" stuff, (compared to Microsoft) when it comes to the server market. But, as you noticed, the "underused" part is where the problem currently lies. IBM had hard drives since the 1950's. Pretty earth shattering - but it didn't mean a darn thing in the computer world - not for years to come.
Slowly, Apple makes inroads into various markets, and is largely succeeding in numerous of them (smartphones, tablets) while being profitable (yet making inroads much much slower) into other markets (computers (non-tablet), browsers). There will always be crossover when walking down those paths. And even if that doesnt amount to much (and gains in their smaller marketshare areas remains small), they are working (competing isn't the correct word) in those markets in a fashion that assures them their niche and a tidy profit. In gross sales, they did better than Microsoft last year. In market cap, they are pretty darn far ahead of Microsoft. They've been almost doubling their net income each year (Accounting periods ending in September of 2008: 4.8B, 2009: 8.2B, 2010: 14B). Microsoft on the other hand has been rather stagnant: 2008: 17.7B, 2009: 14.6B, 2010: 18.8B - and Apple is gaining.
I suspect that Apple will continue to gain in some markets (even if slowly) and retain a growing dominance in the markets they are on top (or close to the top) of. Microsoft on the other hand, has no where to go except where they've been or downhill. They cannot win the gaming market, that is and will remain a pretty even market (at least until the next gen, but not even planned yet gaming consoles come out). They cannot go anywhere in the desktop market: either stay the same or lose marketshare (and honestly, I do NOT think they can come out with anything compelling to help gain the few marketshare points left - much less slow defection from Windows... They've had one real release since XP, namely Vista. Then they released Windows 7, which should have been a Vista ServicePack... I betcha nothing radical will be coming out in Windows 8 to prompt marketshare gains). They are very slowly losing marketshare in the Office Suite arena. They are not (nor will Windows Phone 7 help them) going much of anywhere in the smartphone arena.
That all gives Apple no place to go but up, with their only competition really being other *nix variants. It also provides an opportunity (even if it will take quite some time) to gain footholds in other markets, like the server market. I've only played with Apple's server stuff, but, it is quite nice - and with their other technologies (streaming media and the various other stuff that's seen on iPads, iPhones and Macs), they may just be able to leverage those techs into something that gains a bigger foothold in the marketplace. And again, their only competition will be the other *nix distros, as Windows Server 20** gets slower (or needs more hardware for the same performance - you pick how y
We simply either cant spend the money, wont spend the money or cant/wont approve new infrastructure projects that will ease the traffic burden. One prime example was ripping down the West Side Highway in NYC (instead of fixing or replacing it), and then "wondering" why congestion increased when "suddenly" the drivers who used to use the WSH are now on surface streets or migrating to the FDR drive.
If you're running any kind of server that does lookups against the clients, SMTP DNSBLs for example, you can't take the chance unresolvable hosts will be given a valid DNS response. Put another way, the ISPs that bastardize DNS to server ads or whatever are breaking the protocol, and they should know better.
So standard question. Why are you throwing unresolvable queries at your ISP's DNS??
Hmmm... here's a few guesses:
(1) typo
(2) bad link from another site
(3) dead link on a search engine
(4) checking a domain that's been registered to see if it's active, parked or pointing nowhere
DNS also equals "stupid method of doing it". While most/many large ISPs have DNS servers geographically located, a number still do not. Heck, back in the 90's, UUNet ran three "public" (for their customers) DNS servers... if memory serves, they were Virginia, Chicago and Cali. Customers would use the closest two. Now... this was an ISP that was AlterDial, MSN's backbone and dial-in, AOL's backbone and dial-in, and, at the time, battling for the largest Internet backbone against IBM.
Don't know why they'd use a method known to be broken for various implementations/setups/ISPs and hope it works with larger ISPs' customers. Makes no sense at all.
>>>The threat of censorship in liberal democracies isn't as much from governments as it is from corporations which have a monopoly on their market.
What cave have you been living in? Almost every day slashdot posts a new story about the Australian or French or British or US or EU trying to censor the internet. And they have the power to enforce that censorship by throwing your body into jail, or sucking money out of your wallet (fines). Neither amazon nor any other corporation has that kind of power.
Your error is in failing to remember that some decent portion of such censorship is at the behest or with the "funding" by those corporations. Too many people keep separating the two. It's corporations and government, working on increasing censorship and control; sometimes for mutually agreeable reasons, other times for reasons specific to either party (where the other party sees a different benefit in it for them).
But that aside, I must agree with the overall gist of what I think you are trying to say. The governments should be responsible for preventing such occurrences. Instead they are working WITH corporations to enact such idiocy. In my book, that makes them more guilty.
Big differences in your examples and rebuttals. Slashdot does indeed allow for things to be taken down. Perhaps you have not participated in that procedure, but it does exist and does happen. Also, it's a lot different than continuing a crime (as ripoffreports does, if the reports are correct) by posting speech deemed illegal. It also continues the liability of the original poster who is not allowed to remove their own comment. Explain the reasoning that allows that. Or do you not realize that "continued damage" for statements not retracted/removed results in "continued sanctions". The party who made the statement cannot get ripoffreport to remove it, thus... you see where that's going hopefully.
And no, if other reports are correct, it's not ALLEGED to be illegal. It was FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL, which was the basis for the attempt to remove it from ripoffreport (the injunction) - OR, you are correct, and the other outlets that have reported this are incorrect. So... guess you can chalk that up either way. I will submit that I should not believe everything I read.
As for America's Most Wanted - that's a silly comparison. It's portraying past events, WITH a disclaimer about the innocence of the individuals. It is not acting in a fashion that creates continued harm by statements ALREADY deemed illegal and libelous and/or defamatory.
To counter a report on ripoffreport, you must pay money. You must also be vague in your countering (ie: in this case, the defamed could not post info about the lawsuit proving such that would indicate, imply or lead to the identity of the person(s) who broke the law). Your post is also subject to review and ripoffreport's "discretion" (on whether it will even be allowed to be posted).
What category does knowingly maintaining information found to be in violation of the law and then extorting money to counter it (but only if the counterclaim is vague and thus not indicative of what really is going on) fit into? No, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm serious.
Their whole business model is to allow people to post as many negative reviews as they want, with whatever content they want, with no regards to the legality of the statements, for FREE - all while extorting money from anyone who wants to defend themselves against such claims; who are then limited in the responses they can give (assuming their responses are approved) - at least that's the understanding that they have given as interpreted by numerous people who have used/visited or been a victim of their site.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that there's.... Linux. MacOSX doesn't even need to be in the equation.
arivanov's post discusses Apple consumer devices that "are aimed at where Microsoft wanted to be, tried to be and failed to be." It gives examples of how iPod beat Pocket PC and Zune, iPhone beat Windows Mobile 6 phones, and Apple TV beat Windows Media Center Extenders and various crashy Windows CE set-top boxes. Besides, you said "EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM", including Mac OS X.
Look above. You are mistakenly assuming I was responding to someone else. It was not arivanov's post that I was responding to.
It was THIS post:
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the .NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
As you can see, that makes my response make a lot more sense.
You do realize that hardware for hardware, MacOSX is more expensive... but serving/performance capabilities, Windows is more expensive. [five paragraphs about servers]
You said "SERVER OR CLIENT", and I was taking you up on it by replying about the client. Is a Mac running Mac OS X less expensive for a given level of performance than a Dell, etc. running Windows Home Premium?
YES you are DEFINITELY correct. I should have clarified better. It should have read:
For client, Windows is MORE expensive than virtually any other OS when it comes to hardware costs - EXCEPT MacOSX. For SERVER, server hardware for Windows, when considering anything but trivial load, is more expensive than ANY other OS. For trivial loads, it's more expensive than anything but MacOSX.
Sorry about that. It was 7:40AM and the END of my very long day, and I was a bit tired. I clarified that later in indicating it applied only to the server marketplace.
In the Internet marketplace, the decline [of .NET Framework] should continue quite handily, while the intranet marketplace will be dependent on their continuing decline in the workplace and eventually home marketplaces. Things like Silverlight are their only chances of slowing the defection in this area as well.
I don't see much of a decline of .NET in the home market. Microsoft's TV gaming platform uses the XNA API on the .NET framework. Apple has no TV gaming platform unless it introduces apps for Apple TV.
"I dont see the .NET home market declining thanks to Microsoft's own software releases. But, I fail to take into account the fact that if Microsoft keeps losing marketshare in almost every market (or is stagnant in some) that the .NET home market will decline or see no gains as well. And I am going to pretend that the business market, previously a stronghold for .NET apps, does not enjoy that same buffer that the home market does"
Fixed that for you.
EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM, SERVER OR CLIENT, can run on lower end, cheaper hardware than Windows client or server. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
It is copyright infringement to promote hardware as capable of running Mac OS X if you are not Apple Inc. Apple v. Psystar.
Not a clue what you are saying here, so here's some possible answers.
(1) You do realize that there's.... Linux. MacOSX doesn't even need to be in the equation.
(2) You do realize that hardware for hardware, MacOSX is more expensive... but serving/performance capabilities, Windows is more expensive. Let me help you with that with a little example. Let's say I have a website with decent traffic, like the "Star Trek Phase 2 website (which is a very static site - NO dynamic content at the time, very little now) and I am running it on a Windows Server box. Now... that box gets overrun with traffic as the site gets more popular. Do I (a) add more Windows Server boxes, or (b) replace it with one Linux or OS/2 box? We chose to remove Windows Server from the equation (and no, I was NOT the one who chose to host it on that to begin with).
Now... 4 years later, we have TEN TIMES the traffic. And are serving it from ONE box (there is a backup server, but it's never been serving at the same time). Windows Server could not handle the load at 1/10th of the site's current traffic. The OS/2 and Linux box handle TEN TIMES the traffic at THE SAME OR LOWER hardware specs. At this point, we'd be at what... 5 or 10 Windows Server boxes doing load balancing? I guarantee you that a MacOSX server box would perform as well as the Linux or OS/2 box. So... what costs more? 5 Windows Server boxes, or one Linux box or one MacOSX box? See the point? If a MacOSX based server costs THREE times the cost of a Windows Server box, then the MacOSX solution STILL costs less.
Of course, this admittedly DOES NOT apply to those who are installing servers that don't do much. Then it's a one to one comparison because one can get away with one Windows Server box. But it leaves no room for growth, and if the company/website does grow, means a lot more money spent keeping up with the increased traffic (or switching off Windows Server).
And no, this isn't speculation or trolling. One can simply check the domain via NetCraft to verify what I've said about what it was hosted on (and the various uptime tools which will show the numerous times the Windows Server box was overrun). Currently, we are finding that 550Mhz is sufficient for ten times the traffic. Windows server was in the multi GHz range on a multi-core/CPU box (again, at 1/10th the traffic). The traffic stats are also researchable.
So, yes, you (and the poster I was responding to) are correct (when it comes to MacOSX) if you are talking about some small network setup with little t
I wonder which that are... until earlier this year I was doing consulting in quite a few companies, and it was all Exchange, except two who were migrating off Lotus Notes to Exchange and trying very hard to forget that. Not seen a single instance of OpenOffice either, on the server side it varies but the desktops have inevitably been Windows/Office/Exchange. At least in the good news Firefox has been there instead of or as an alternative to IE, but that's about it.
Yes, Exchange is the only software group that is not seeing a decline in marketshare. But, it is dependent on their server market. You can't run an Exchange server on Linux. So, that marketshare maintenance or gain will slowly erode away unless they can prevent their marketshare losses in other areas.
Though I was modded troll above, I actually researched the stuff. Windows marketshare is slipping slowly, with gains by Apple (and on again/off again gains by Linux). Office marketshare has decline 20 percentage points in the last ten years. Browser marketshare has dropped significantly. Microsoft's server marketshare is also dropping to Linux.
There's my point. Exchange could be the be all, end all tool in it's market, but that does not matter so much when it's dependent on other areas that Microsoft is losing (server and browser, for instance). I've worked with companies that are being forced off Windows Server (various reasons, including security, uptime, performance, etc). Many are choosing hosted solutions. While others equate that to moving from local Exchange to hosted Exchange, fact is, replacements like Google Apps is not Exchange.
I didn't say it was the norm. I didn't say it was happening in droves. None of that matters. What does matter is this: the less Windows Server installations out there, the less Exchange Servers possible. And the Windows Server market is declining. I think the only thing slowing the Windows Server market decline IS Exchange.
Mod my earlier post any way you want. Fact is, Microsoft is losing market share in virtually every market. That's not a slam against Microsoft. ITS A FACT. I simply provided some reasons why.
One cannot claim that those technologies above are going to save Microsoft when they are losing market share in them. How does that even make sense? I simply pointed it out. A "Troll" mod is not a "Gee, I wish this weren't true, so I'll mod it down" mod.
I could name a dozen that dont have the memory to handle an email client, much less store any messages.
There's the flaw in your logic. You cannot claim that the phones are CAPABALE but CRIPPLED. They are NOT CAPABLE. PERIOD.
NOT enough RAM, NOT enough CPU power, NOT a capable enough CPU
Oh, well, since we are making distinctions based on computer power, I guess that PC from 1975 must not be a computer, since it has less computing resources and power than the microcontrollers I used in my undergrad courses. Hey, I know, I'll just say that because your laptop does not have as much computing power as the Cray sitting in my department's server room, your laptop is not a computer!
Clearly, you have some misconceptions about what a computer is.
Clearly you are just trolling. Just as an IBM PC IS a computer, it IS NOT a supercomputer. NOR will it run Windows 7. Just as a crappo phone IS a phone, and may have computer chips in it, it still is NOT a smartphone. It's not capable but crippled. It's NOT CAPABLE.
Go troll someplace else. You sound like an idiot when you try to pretend that a cheap, mono LCD dumbphone is capable of being a smartphone and doing all the same things.
Go ahead and open up one of those phones, and tell me what you see. Just because the phone does not allow you to extend its capabilities does not mean that it is not a computer; it is just a computer that has been locked down and severely restricted.
That is an artificial distinction. The phone has everything needed to meet the definition of "electronic computer," it just happens to have been deliberately restricted by the manufacturer and sometimes the cell phone carrier. The fact that you are only supposed to use it for sending text messages or making phone calls does not mean that it is not a computer.
No, no it most definitely is not. You're telling me I can open those phones and find a nice 800MHz or faster Qualcomm or other processor in there? Sure, by the SIMPLEST OF TERMS they technically are computers. But they are NOT capable of running those other services. If you think otherwise, then you obviously know nothing about phones, computers, microprocessors or phone software/operating systems. NOT enough RAM, NOT enough CPU power, NOT a capable enough CPU, MISSING various other hardware needed to be a smartphone. Those phones are NOT crippled smartphones. They are DUMB phones NOT CAPABLE of being a smartphone.
Don't forget Exchange which if a company ignores that, clients ignore that company.
I always try to forget Exchange. And so are more and more companies each year. You should look it up sometime.
Active Directory Do you mean their ever changing NETBIOS/NETBEUI implementation (with "lotsa shit" cobbled on top)? That too is dependent on them NOT losing marketshare in the server arena.
Actually, it's responsible for them not losing marketshare in the server arena. Microsoft gives you the most complete single-vendor enterprise management package save for TME10 on top of your IBM kit, or whatever it's being called these days; when I worked for Tivoli a single sale could be as much as $10M.
Yes, you are correct that it is diminishing their decline in the server arena. Sorry I wasnt clear. My point was that it becomes less relevant and WILL lose market share as they lose marketshare in the server arena because of other reasons. So, while it may be slowing the migration off Windows server, it sure isn't stopping it. And since people are moving off Windows server for reasons other than Active Directory, it too will suffer due to that.
Regardless, as already mentioned, there are alternatives, such as OpenDirectory and SAMBA (I know a few businesses who dumped their Windows server and simply use a Linux box with a SAMBA server running).
You can't do half the cool stuff you can do with a Windows server with SAMBA. SUS comes to mind immediately.
True. And most Windows Server users dont do that stuff even with Active Directory. Not till you get into big installations. Eventually, there will be competition in that marketplace (besides TME 10). There was in the past. There will be again. The big companies that actually use all the features in Active Directory will be the last holdouts. :-)
Even if they understand such a distinction (if one ever enters into ruling/precedent/law), nowadays, it's getting harder to differentiate between the two, with so many services and apps that blur the line between locally stored stuff and stuff stored in the cloud. Making the situation worse is that some of the normally locally stored stuff nowadays is often stored in the cloud (like my contacts).
In which case, your defense lawyer could try arguing that the police obtained the evidence illegally by connecting to a server they did not have a warrant to search.
IF you can afford a defense lawyer who knows technology well enough, and IF you have a judge that would understand what the hell he's talking about. It's not like the DA is going to just roll over and say "Yeah, we made a mistake... he's right".
Stop thinking we live in a perfect world.
I did not say that I agreed with the ruling, I just gave my understanding of it. As far as I can tell, the judges are equating a cell phone with a pocket notebook -- the police can look through a pocket notebook, so why not cell phones and other electronics as well?
I never said you did - you just forgot other implications. A phone is no longer a phone
As for the level of access your cell phone might give them...that is, frankly, irrelevant. First of all, the police cannot arrest you, and then use your housekeys to enter your home and perform a warrantless search of your house, so I doubt that a court would allow the police to use passwords stored on your smartphone to access computers in your home (from TFA, it appears that the case in question involved the police viewing a text message stored on the arrested person's phone).
Why would they have to do that? You have to remember, it's all really simply clicking on an app button. That's it. End of story. No looking for passwords or hunting for a computer or whatever. Just click an app.
And again, this has nothing to do with what the police did in THIS case, but EVERYTHING to do with what this ruling will allow them to do in future cases.
As for the data stored on online services, the police could search that without even informing you of the search, and may even be able to look through it without a warrant.
And then use it or not? This is where this ruling makes things difficult. Previously, such stuff could not be used unless obtained through legal methods (warrants, etc).
There is no good distinguishing characteristic of "smart phones" that could be used to differentiate them from "dumb phones" -- all modern cell phones are mobile computers,
Wow... no. They most definitely are not. There are still a bunch of phones sold that do no more than make calls and send/receive text messages. Or some WAP browsing thrown in to the mix. Regardless, even if you were correct, that does not make this ruling any better. It would make it WORSE.
some are just less restricted than others.
"Some are just regular texting phones" -fixed that for you.
...So a responsible and limited application of this ruling would be to just limit such searches to data immediately available on the phone. But I suspect that police will not really respect the distinction.
Even if they understand such a distinction (if one ever enters into ruling/precedent/law), nowadays, it's getting harder to differentiate between the two, with so many services and apps that blur the line between locally stored stuff and stuff stored in the cloud. Making the situation worse is that some of the normally locally stored stuff nowadays is often stored in the cloud (like my contacts).
And even with the most sensible of laws/precedents/etc on this, I still would not trust the police to understand how to properly implement such searches in a way that does not violate such laws - not necessarily through bad intent on their part, but due to a lack of understanding of how the technology works, and how that relates to application of the law.
The difference is that it happens to be on your person at the time of your arrest, and you lose the constitutional right to privacy when you are arrested. I suppose the original idea was that the police would be able to search your bag for weapons, or something like that, and it has (like so many others) been blown way out of proportion.
No, not entirely accurate.
That's not the difference when it comes to smartphones (regular cell phones or semi-smart phones, yeah. If someone had my Android phone, they'd have full and free access to my gMail account, PayPal account, online photo albums, social networking accounts, address book (including the non phone portion such as Google Contacts) and so much more. And for many of my friends, it would also be unrestricted access to their home and/or work computer.
Therein lies the problem with this ruling (unless the court decided to differentiate between "dumbphones" and "smartphones" - but as I've already read one linked article (albeit for a different /. post), I've already done my quota of RTFA and don't know if he made that distinction. I'll just assume he didn't, as I believe policy is here....
THUS... this is a big problem and a big privacy violation for the millions of people who have smartphones.
Rewritten to actually portray what the OP said:
High market capitalization doesn't mean anything other than people are interested in owning a piece of this company. It doesn't mean that the company is successful, or even profitable. I have no idea how that applies to Apple, even though it is technically accurate for some other companies, so from this point on, since I decided NOT to research what I am talking about, I will just spout nonsense - which happens to be unrelated, just like my entire post.
(NONSENSE REMOVED)
Apple makes (NET) very close to what Microsoft does.
Apple: 2008: 4.8B, 2009: 8.2B, 2010: 14.0B
Microsoft: 2008: 17.7B, 2009: 14.6B, 2010: 18.8B
In gross income, they are 65B and 61B respectively if memory serves. (Apple/MS respectively)
I would think that's what I would call profitable. You may also note that while Microsoft is struggling to keep even in profits that Apple is almost doubling their NET profits every year for the last couple years.
If Apple one day decides to take that it now has the resources, it can and it will and the Microsoft of today stands no chance of stopping it.
What about Office, Visual Studio, the .NET Framework (LINQ, WPF, WCF, ADO.NET, etc, etc, all designed for business), legacy applications and documents, Active Directory, the ability to run it on hardware by the lowest bidder, etc,
Uh, what?
Let's go through them one at a time:
Microsoft Office
LOSING marketshare virtually every year - do you expect that trend to suddenly change? Microsoft has nothing in Office that would compel a change in that trend, and (though this is speculation) I doubt they do for any future planned releases (whenever those may come out).
Visual Studio
This is a bad example. This is dependent on their other markets. As Microsoft loses ground (albeit slowly) in the client and server market, the Visual Studio market will eventually decline as well.
By now, Microsoft has to be losing ground in that due to losses in the server marketplace (intranet and internet). In the Internet marketplace, the decline should continue quite handily, while the intranet marketplace will be dependent on their continuing decline in the workplace and eventually home marketplaces. Things like Silverlight are their only chances of slowing the defection in this area as well. On the other hand, things like cross platform apps (like the various *nix apps ported to everything else) will help continue the
legacy applications...
Don't have a clue to what you are talking about here - isn't that a marketplace that, by definition, is expected to decline?
Active Directory
Do you mean their ever changing NETBIOS/NETBEUI implementation (with "lotsa shit" cobbled on top)? That too is dependent on them NOT losing marketshare in the server arena. And as it is, those numbers are, and always have been, very skewed - when it comes to workload handled. Windows servers simply do not scale as well as... well... ANY other operating system. So, these gains for competitors will be slower as they can replace Windows servers with a far smaller quantity of non-Windows servers. That's part of what I mean when I say the numbers are skewed - it's not that they are not accurate, it's that they do not accurately portray what's going on. Retire 3 Windows server boxes, install one Linux box.
Regardless, as already mentioned, there are alternatives, such as OpenDirectory and SAMBA (I know a few businesses who dumped their Windows server and simply use a Linux box with a SAMBA server running).
"the ability to run it on hardware from the lowest bidder"
To this one, I say, PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!! What the HELL are you SMOKING? EVERY SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM, SERVER OR CLIENT, can run on lower end, cheaper hardware than Windows client or server. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
So... any other ideas as to what will save Microsoft?
Apple will never replace Microsoft in the workplace, because they don't want to, there's not nearly as much money in it as replacing Microsoft in the home.
Yeah.. but from the summary:
Perhaps Wall Street is catching on that, despite the discontinuation of their underused Xserve, Apple is in fact becoming one of the key tech providers to enterprise, a position that even a year ago seemed laughable.
That made me actually read the article and it does not really indicate that Apple has anything earth shattering for enterprise at all. I have not really heard anything either, hence the quietly I guess. All it talks about is how enterprise is "figuring out" how to integrate the iPad. I hardly see that as providing key technology to enterprise which is exactly what the summary and article claims.
They have some "earth shattering" stuff, (compared to Microsoft) when it comes to the server market. But, as you noticed, the "underused" part is where the problem currently lies. IBM had hard drives since the 1950's. Pretty earth shattering - but it didn't mean a darn thing in the computer world - not for years to come.
Slowly, Apple makes inroads into various markets, and is largely succeeding in numerous of them (smartphones, tablets) while being profitable (yet making inroads much much slower) into other markets (computers (non-tablet), browsers). There will always be crossover when walking down those paths. And even if that doesnt amount to much (and gains in their smaller marketshare areas remains small), they are working (competing isn't the correct word) in those markets in a fashion that assures them their niche and a tidy profit. In gross sales, they did better than Microsoft last year. In market cap, they are pretty darn far ahead of Microsoft. They've been almost doubling their net income each year (Accounting periods ending in September of 2008: 4.8B, 2009: 8.2B, 2010: 14B). Microsoft on the other hand has been rather stagnant: 2008: 17.7B, 2009: 14.6B, 2010: 18.8B - and Apple is gaining.
AAPL
MSFT
I suspect that Apple will continue to gain in some markets (even if slowly) and retain a growing dominance in the markets they are on top (or close to the top) of. Microsoft on the other hand, has no where to go except where they've been or downhill. They cannot win the gaming market, that is and will remain a pretty even market (at least until the next gen, but not even planned yet gaming consoles come out). They cannot go anywhere in the desktop market: either stay the same or lose marketshare (and honestly, I do NOT think they can come out with anything compelling to help gain the few marketshare points left - much less slow defection from Windows... They've had one real release since XP, namely Vista. Then they released Windows 7, which should have been a Vista ServicePack... I betcha nothing radical will be coming out in Windows 8 to prompt marketshare gains). They are very slowly losing marketshare in the Office Suite arena. They are not (nor will Windows Phone 7 help them) going much of anywhere in the smartphone arena.
That all gives Apple no place to go but up, with their only competition really being other *nix variants. It also provides an opportunity (even if it will take quite some time) to gain footholds in other markets, like the server market. I've only played with Apple's server stuff, but, it is quite nice - and with their other technologies (streaming media and the various other stuff that's seen on iPads, iPhones and Macs), they may just be able to leverage those techs into something that gains a bigger foothold in the marketplace. And again, their only competition will be the other *nix distros, as Windows Server 20** gets slower (or needs more hardware for the same performance - you pick how y
We simply either cant spend the money, wont spend the money or cant/wont approve new infrastructure projects that will ease the traffic burden. One prime example was ripping down the West Side Highway in NYC (instead of fixing or replacing it), and then "wondering" why congestion increased when "suddenly" the drivers who used to use the WSH are now on surface streets or migrating to the FDR drive.
If you're running any kind of server that does lookups against the clients, SMTP DNSBLs for example, you can't take the chance unresolvable hosts will be given a valid DNS response. Put another way, the ISPs that bastardize DNS to server ads or whatever are breaking the protocol, and they should know better.
Very good point and very true.
"No refusal" car searches? They'll have a judge on site to issue the OK for an otherwise unconstitutional search of your car?
I think that's called claiming (or fabricating) probable cause, and does not require a warrant. It happens already, under that reasoning.
So standard question. Why are you throwing unresolvable queries at your ISP's DNS??
Hmmm... here's a few guesses:
(1) typo
(2) bad link from another site
(3) dead link on a search engine
(4) checking a domain that's been registered to see if it's active, parked or pointing nowhere
I'm sure there are other reasons...
Anycast == Hard, DNS == Easy...
DNS also equals "stupid method of doing it". While most/many large ISPs have DNS servers geographically located, a number still do not. Heck, back in the 90's, UUNet ran three "public" (for their customers) DNS servers... if memory serves, they were Virginia, Chicago and Cali. Customers would use the closest two. Now... this was an ISP that was AlterDial, MSN's backbone and dial-in, AOL's backbone and dial-in, and, at the time, battling for the largest Internet backbone against IBM.
Don't know why they'd use a method known to be broken for various implementations/setups/ISPs and hope it works with larger ISPs' customers. Makes no sense at all.
This is a very widespread practice now. Use your own ISP for DNS.
I prefer using a DNS provider who doesn't serve me a Yahoo powered by Bing search page if I try going to a bad URL - unlike my "own ISP".
>>>The threat of censorship in liberal democracies isn't as much from governments as it is from corporations which have a monopoly on their market.
What cave have you been living in? Almost every day slashdot posts a new story about the Australian or French or British or US or EU trying to censor the internet. And they have the power to enforce that censorship by throwing your body into jail, or sucking money out of your wallet (fines). Neither amazon nor any other corporation has that kind of power.
Your error is in failing to remember that some decent portion of such censorship is at the behest or with the "funding" by those corporations. Too many people keep separating the two. It's corporations and government, working on increasing censorship and control; sometimes for mutually agreeable reasons, other times for reasons specific to either party (where the other party sees a different benefit in it for them).
But that aside, I must agree with the overall gist of what I think you are trying to say. The governments should be responsible for preventing such occurrences. Instead they are working WITH corporations to enact such idiocy. In my book, that makes them more guilty.
Wow, brilliant post, with wonderful insights. I'd mod you up, but alas, I've already posted in this topic. :-(
Big differences in your examples and rebuttals. Slashdot does indeed allow for things to be taken down. Perhaps you have not participated in that procedure, but it does exist and does happen. Also, it's a lot different than continuing a crime (as ripoffreports does, if the reports are correct) by posting speech deemed illegal. It also continues the liability of the original poster who is not allowed to remove their own comment. Explain the reasoning that allows that. Or do you not realize that "continued damage" for statements not retracted/removed results in "continued sanctions". The party who made the statement cannot get ripoffreport to remove it, thus... you see where that's going hopefully.
And no, if other reports are correct, it's not ALLEGED to be illegal. It was FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL, which was the basis for the attempt to remove it from ripoffreport (the injunction) - OR, you are correct, and the other outlets that have reported this are incorrect. So... guess you can chalk that up either way. I will submit that I should not believe everything I read.
As for America's Most Wanted - that's a silly comparison. It's portraying past events, WITH a disclaimer about the innocence of the individuals. It is not acting in a fashion that creates continued harm by statements ALREADY deemed illegal and libelous and/or defamatory.
To counter a report on ripoffreport, you must pay money. You must also be vague in your countering (ie: in this case, the defamed could not post info about the lawsuit proving such that would indicate, imply or lead to the identity of the person(s) who broke the law). Your post is also subject to review and ripoffreport's "discretion" (on whether it will even be allowed to be posted).
What category does knowingly maintaining information found to be in violation of the law and then extorting money to counter it (but only if the counterclaim is vague and thus not indicative of what really is going on) fit into? No, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm serious.
Their whole business model is to allow people to post as many negative reviews as they want, with whatever content they want, with no regards to the legality of the statements, for FREE - all while extorting money from anyone who wants to defend themselves against such claims; who are then limited in the responses they can give (assuming their responses are approved) - at least that's the understanding that they have given as interpreted by numerous people who have used/visited or been a victim of their site.