I can confirm what Jonnythan is saying. At CompUSA, we used a number of MS's tools for back end functions. All our reports were Excel/Access based, pulling from a variety of sources.
Is it an ideal solution? In my opinion no. Having used MySQL for years, and knowing the size of the data sets that CompUSA used, almost anything would have been a better, faster, more reliable solution. A simple database query by Excel with a few functions to tally the results shouldnt take enough time to go get lunch, come back and watch it finish.
Perhaps that is due to poor implementation, though CompUSA spent tons of money and many years working on the stuff - with barely any discernable performance improvement.
(I've run) Larger queries (to an MySQL database), to web based forms, through a web server, calculated on that server using REXX, on older (slower) hardware, takes fractions of seconds to seconds... not half an hour to 45 minutes - including serving the info to the web based client. I've got some reports that generate over 80,000 lines of html (and a far larger number of variables in the REXX scripts that are created on the fly) for enormous data sets, that only take 3 or 4 seconds to generate.
Jonnythan is correct in this statement too...
There's a *lot* of functionality present in OO or MS Office and it's not all trivial to use.
But, again, I think the learning curve would be very similar for either... and in the case of OO, and (choose your database to connect to); I think the "end-user" has a much larger choice of what tools they want to use - many of which are very compatible with each other (for instance, going to or from PostGres/MySQL is relatively painless if your existing queries follow the SQL standard - and your tables will likely be importable from one to the other with minimal of work and a minor script to do that work).
"The first, with Open Office, is compatibility -- sharing information with Microsoft products, both within the organisation and with external parties."
Which it does pretty decently. Compatibility with the next release of MS Office is a moot point (as I also touch on in the third section below) especially when no one knows when the next release will be out. This same compatibility is an issue with every new release of MS Office - so how is that any different? Go open an Office 2007 document in Office 2000 or Word 98 or any previous version. Sure, you can save the document in Office 2007 using an older format - but the same capabilities exist in OO. Thus, moot point.
"A dual world is complicated and, whether people like it or not, Microsoft is a standard."
MS is NOT a standard. A standard does not change every release. MS creates a new "standard" to drive their upgrade market with each release. That's not a standard - that's driving a market upgrade cycle. There is a big difference.
"Second, you have no idea where open-source products are going, whereas vendors like Microsoft provide a roadmap for the future."
Microsoft has NEVER provided a roadmap for ANYTHING. They have provided sometimes vague promises, sometimes very detailed promises that they continually break. Their broken promises include every area of software expectations from functionality (like Vista and its lack of many promised features) to delivery dates (like virtually every MS product in the last 10 years). That is NOT a roadmap. That's announcing vapourware. The Open-Source community is a lot more likely (and a lot more apt to) live up to the roadmaps they outline for future software development of most major products, most especially including OpenOffice.
So, the person quoted is basing his decision off promises that will in all probability be broken both in terms of functionality, interoperability, release schedule, compatibility and the need for re-training. All of which are much lesser issues for OO.
"It's about futures, planning and integration."
See above.
Wilson says Microsoft Office is not any cheaper, but that it was almost impossible to work out what open-source was actually costing because of issues such as incompatibility and training.
I've already touched on the "incompatibility" issues... so, lets dive into the training one. Anyone with any training experience (ie: anyone who should be in a position at a company to train employees on software) should easily be able to "learn" and train people on OpenOffice. When a new version comes out, the learning curve for that trainer should be minimal to allow that trainer to disseminate that information to the other employees. Please tell me how the massive changes to Office 2007 are easier in terms of training? And what added benefit offsets that? The added cost of the software? The incompatibility with older versions - that now have to be upgraded as well?
Any "trainer" who has the ability to learn the differences, and thus train people on them, for going from an earlier version of Office to Office 2007 should easily be able to take up the task of training someone on OpenOffice - current, past and future versions.
I tend to agree with the GP poster that some sort of kickback was offered. One was already indicated in the article (the allowance of copies of Office to be run dual location at no additional cost). I'd speculate there were others. This seems more like a publicity piece for MS showing that open-source software isnt worth it - all based off erroneous and downright idiotic claims (of compatibility, delivery roadmaps, functionality roadmaps, availability of people to train, and training costs).
But if they're paying out huge legal fees, it's more likely people will spend more in opposition to the RIAA rather than settling. While losing $68K isn't going to kill the RIAA, it certainly sets a bad precedent for them.
Does it really? I dont necessarily thinks so. The RIAA is hip deep in promoting legal changes (new laws) to allow them the ability to engage in all sorts of questionable or currently illegal actions to "protect" their "property" - this case and others like it can easily be twisted into justification for these new laws they are trying to get foisted on the general public (the CanSpy law being just one of many).
Either way, the RIAA can win this one.
None of this even covers the fact that the RIAA and many similar "companies" are trying to get other laws changed to make ISPs, OSPs and TelCo's liable for all such alleged actions that happen through their network (heck, I seem to remember them trying to strike the "Safe Harbor" provision out of the DMCA, as well as trying to get it interpretted differently - and that doesnt even include current "new law"/"new precedent" attempts). If they have their way in that respect, then every ISP between alleged file-sharer and alleged downloader becomes liable for that traffic... which means the RIAA (and other similar entities) can go after the deeper pockets as well as the John and Jane Doe's they are currently chasing.
If they lose enough cases, they use it as ammunition to change the law. If they win enough cases, they use it to support the basis for future cases. They are fighting this little battle on multiple fronts, and whichever way these cases go, they stand a good chance of losing - at least as long as corporations can promote laws at the expense of the public without sufficient public interaction to prevent such absurdity.
Just my two cents on the matter... and IANAL... so I might be wrong on the legal/illegal aspects of it...
but also made you wonder why they didn't wear them for away missions all the time, keeping them safe from all those nasty plagues they kept running into.
DUH! For the same reason that made it possible for the Enterprise at Warp Speed (any version, any series) to travel at the Speed of Plot!!!
;-)
C'mon, that's like asking "Why didnt Voltron just 'Form Blazing Sword' in the beginning of the episode and cut the idiotic Robeasts in half and end the episode right then?"
Well, just a thought... but I think the answer is the same. It would be a pretty boring episode...;-)
It has also happened on XP... and as someone else pointed out (not going to take the credit for it), it seems to happen more frequently on pre-installs, where the bundleware is what is suddenly uninstallable - perhaps that's a bug - or perhaps a defect-by-design.
On XP, when this problem occurred, the problem most frequently asserted itself as a failed uninstall (nothing happened, uninstaller crashed or errored out), and occassionally as no uninstall option.
I think the situation here is either (a) the problem is occurring in more frequency than in previous versions, or (b) because of all the disdain (and possibly even hate? - deserved or otherwise) for Vista, there is a bigger stink being made about this problem with Vista that's happened in the past on other versions of the OS (or maybe a combination of the two).
While your post is very insightful, and accurate in many respects, including customer expectations, and what customers should expect (but have been taught not to), there is another side to this - which I suspect will be the other shoe dropping in the near future.
Anyone remember the "extremely small quantities" of XBox360's (and XBox's) with defects? Somewhere here on/. are the figures MS touted as being so small at the time people first started to gripe. Now, we know that such a large number of them (XBox360s - last week on/.) have had issues, that MS has had to set aside a small fortune (at least in my definition of the amount) to continue and extend support because their figures at the initial announcement were taken from some weird MS-FantasyLand. So, if MS is claiming that only 5% of PCs are experiencing this problem, how many actually are?
In this case, we may never actually know, as this issue can be addressed in a later patch - as opposed to a product recall, or warranty extension, etc... but from past track record (XBox, XBox360, various Windows exploits), I have learned that when MS says y%, you need to multiply that y by some number making the result much larger.
Of course, even 5% of a massive number (MS's touted Vista numbers - as innaccurate as they are) is still a pretty massive number... over a million installs?
Either way, focusing on finding a fix may be better than debating either MS's (probably hugely) innacurate #s, or "Gee, I had no problems"... "Gee, I did". If MS is trivializing this issue, it may mean a semi-silent patch, or it may mean no action on their part until enough gripes make the news.
I dont run Vista, and only work on it when a customer has it (or demands it) installed... so I cant play with it to figure anything out (and have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry, or watching grass grow)... but others here have suggested a few great tips that may help users solve these issues themselves, like certain registry keys to check for corruption/lack of/incorrect settings... (for uninstall keys)
Perhaps someone with Vista experiencing this problem could check those tips out and post something useful for others here with similar problems. If/when one of my (few) Vista using customers runs into the problem, (if this isnt solved/patched), I will do so and post back...
I know/. is supposed to be a "Bash MS forum"... but I still remember back in the day, on my ancient 5 digit user account when instead people would actually respond back with helpful feedback and tips...;-)
Is there a slim chance this will either get tied up in the PO because of the personal privacy concerns? Openly admitting to scanning a user's personal information seems rather audacious.
IANAL, but I doubt it. Getting a patent for something is different than using it within the confines of the law - which is not part of the jurisdiction of the patent office. There are legal ways this "technology" could be used... MS doesnt seem to be interested in using it in such a fashion - but that doesnt make the idea any less patentable. Afterwards, it will be up to the courts to determine if MS has inappropriately used the technology in a questionable or illegal method.
From what I have seen, these tools already exist in Vista (and to a decent extent in XP).
A month or so ago, when MS China announced a new method of ascertaining identifying information about Windows users for the purpose of ad serving, I stated this was the method they were most likely to use. I was told, it wouldnt happen, it wasnt legal and MS couldnt give the info to anyone else.
Now, MS announces that this is exactly what they have (had) planned... guess I was right.
I also pointed out (in that post and numerous others) parts of MS' EULA that state they have the right to share such information with their "Partners" which is a vague term that MS uses to cover anyone they have a business relationship with - such as those they serve ads for.
Even without disseminating the information to a third party "Partner", MS can use that information for the serving of the ads themselves through their "Live Search" system - though that doesnt seem to be all they have in mind.
The other thing that worries me is MS seems to have a habit of concluding that if granted a patent on some insane idea, using said idea suddenly becomes legal - they never seem to stop and consider that while an idea may be patentable, the implementation (they have in mind) may not be legal. I can patent an idea for a gun that can shoot multiple, pre-selected targets with one pull of the trigger - but that doesnt make it legal for me to go out there and shoot people with it... except in some very narrow instances covered by law - such as self defense, and assuming I have a permit/license to carry and use said gun. MS seems to keep skipping the "gee, is the implementation legal?" aspect of these issues - as is evidenced by the numerous lawsuits brought against them.
In addition, regardless of the EULA, such things (the EULA) have never been truly tested in a court of law... a very weak crutch MS is going to be standing on... but nonetheless, one that they have sufficient money and legal teams to possibly win. This would be a precedent set that would destroy consumer rights. Perhaps that is the direction they are hoping this goes.
Of course, the anti-trust allegations brought against them for such actions may forestall things - but then again who knows? They can argue that their "search" market share being what it is, puts them in no danger of this being considered leveraging one monopoly to create another - which of course wont be true (except to a court that doesnt understand the dynamics of what they are doing and how it will affect the search engine market).
Of course, this also seems to be an attempt by MS to make legal their current actions with Vista (as also discussed on/.) of accumulating way more info than they are intimating in their EULA - using way more components in Vista to do so than people expected. First patent it, then win some idiotic case that supports certain parts of their EULA allowing them to do so.
IANAL, but I dont think I have to be to see the shady direction MS is going with this one... their previous track record and all... oh, and wait!!! - The fact that this time they came right out and said they'll be using this system to parse your private documents and emails...
I guess there shouldnt be any more debating that matter... they've announced their intent (through patenting the method) of doing so, and their EULA covers such things "allowing" them to do so... heck, there are sections of their EULA that allow them to then sell or give away the info or documents that you have created using their services or software (also pointed out in other posts by me).
Here's a question... how many people have disabled every "report back to MS" feature in WMP11 and then had it look for media content on their hard drive - and then stopped to watch their machine "report back to MS" anyway? Even if they closed WMP? (it still continues in the background).
I'm curious... did anyone really stop to consider if this is to bolster Zune sales?
Because if so, then they all seem to have missed one major point/possibility that could be going on behind the scenes...
What if MS is negotiating something with the RIAA? What if the advent of a device like this - that only MS can provide - is the content lock that the RIAA accepts? What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry?
Just a thought. It could happen... and what two companies are better suited for each other than Microsoft and the RIAA?
No, they are gonna err on the side of making as much money off controlling other people's content as possible - regardless of the legality of any aspect of it (The CRB giving them the right, Creative Commons stuff that they shouldnt - but still will - be collecting fees for, etc).
"(BTW, I choose to believe that the word "buttflies" in the parent was an accidental mis-spelling...)"
Indeed it was a typo. I really *DO* need to start using preview first...and then actually re-reading it in the preview mode.
Either that or you know some really rank, smelly, nasty people... having worked in retail, I've met some people I am sure have buttflies... didnt stay around them long enough (or close enough) to find out though.
You know, carbon is also in cigarettes. So I guess carbon is bad too, and promotes smoking. I guess we should eliminate anything with carbon in it, to ensure we don't become a society of smokers....
That is a good idea... we'd solve global warming, end wars, stop overpopulation and much more; if we got rid of the major carbon based life form on this planet...;-)
On a serious note though, even not being funded by the cigarette companies, I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it - or try to job onboard so they can claim they helped with this.
Not much I can argue about in your post. Also keep in mind, in most of my posts in this thread, I have been pushing people to realize that yes the current system is broken, and yes the methods of artist reimbursement is broken, and yes some of the tactics ASCAP and BMI use are coercion - but not nearly at the level of the RIAA and it's members. Hence my lesser of two evils statement in an earlier post. And with ASCAP/BMI being pretty easy to scare away (if you are "in the right" - by today's legal standards) the situation isnt that grim.
Like another poster pointed out, I (too) think the original article should have focused on perhaps three issues
1. ASCAP/BMI not allowing a more flexible licensing model
2. ASCAP/BMI's coercive tactics against small business owners
3. The numerous maybe real/maybe scam companies trying to coerce businesses into similar licenses that they dont have the authority to grant.
I really do think there was a good story there - but that the writer totally missed it.
In DVDs, the media layer is in the middle, between two layers of plastic. My guess is that they learned from their experience with CDs, and won't be placing the media layer close to the surface in future.
My misuse of punctuation aside, yes, (most?) DVDs are this way, CDs arent - but were. (ooops, forgot another apostrophe).
The basic point was, scratch resistant coatings, like what is used on eye glasses, wont (there I go again) protect a DVD or CD from being scratched (in a harmful way) any better than they do glasses - which they don't. I was pointing out that while it seems like and sounds like a good idea, the reality usually is, the minor scratches such a coating would protect CDs and DVDs from aren't serious enough to require such a coating, while the more major scratches (as my eyeglasses attest to) wont (oops) be prevented by such a coating.
And yeah, their tactics arent the best, and can be described as shakedown (as I can confirm from personal experience and indicated in another post):-(
But, they can be scared away pretty easily - unlike the RIAA.
The amounts they seem to want arent lots of money - but nonetheless, if not owed to them, it's money that shouldnt be paid.
Telling them "No, I dont play music of any sort (radio, CDs or otherwise) anyplace my customers can hear it." and "Here's my lawyer's number" generally gets rid of them - unless you are obviously and blatantly violating the respective laws governing such things (for instance, they walk in while you are playing music for - or in the presence of - your customers) - as has been indicated by others.
Telling them only the first part seems to continue the harrassment though. Oddly, the suits dont seem to happen - just continued harrassment till you pay or refer them to your lawyer. Of course, I am expecting in the cases of the businesses who actually should be paying, telling them no will generate a lawsuit.
Exactly.. most such bands are in control of their own music and arent signed to an RIAA company. But I wonder how many more people would get to hear them if the playing field were levelled and Indie labels could generate/get as much exposure. As I said, Maiden is a rarity for a band on an RIAA label. They too have endorsed "bootlegging" their concerts - at one concert, Nicko McBrain's bass drum head broke, and while it was being replaced, Bruce Dickensen went on a rant about Metallica and how retarted they were to be prosecuting their fans... here's what he said
"The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small digital recorders, mp3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it."
Bruce Dickinson, Oslo, Norway - 2nd July 2003
"about 43,700" results for Iron Maiden videos on YouTube... up from 20,000 or so a few months ago. And nary a complaint from them...
"He even added "We're not like Metallica" to further stress that those who are openly against mp3s have a losing battle on their hands. Iron Maiden simply have a very sane and sensible attitude towards evolving technology and they have realised the positive potential of it. MP3s should be about sampling the music and then buying the album if you liked what you heard, not about stealing someone's intellectual property. This is merely what Bruce meant."
A lot of ska/reggae bands can afford a similar attitude. Most "big label" bands either cant, or arent permitted to due to who actually owns their works and performances.
This I find really annoying... you know where I get to listen to ska/reggae? At (the rare) concert (that comes to my area with such bands). Sure as heck cant find it in my local record store. I guess I can dig online... there needs to be a more easily accessible way that **AA groups dont own or control through idiotic legislation. So much for Internet Radio being the answer...
Sad, really. The music industry needs to be dissassembled and recreated BY the artists and fans.
If they play music, I can almost guarantee you they pay a license to one or more of them. At many you can find the sticker someplace on the establishment or in the office.
Many years back when I worked for Taco Bell, we had ours on our music system... I forget the name of the stupid thing, but it's the one made fun of for being played in elevators (no vocals, some crappy rendition of the music). And we'd get and pay the ASCAP/BMI bills when they came in.
In addition to the other wonderful posts in response to yours, ASCAP and BMI are companies the artists CHOOSE to join - full knowing what types of returns the artists will see. And even then, you can contact an artist to obtain performance rights to their music bypassing the need to obtain a license from ASCAP/BMI/etc.
The RIAA's methods FORCE artists to join them to get paid (next to nothing) for their own music being played on the Internet (read the SoundExchange topics), FORCE Internet Radio to pay them for playing ANYTHING (whether one of their labels or not), FORCE dead people and grandmothers to pay them for music they never stole, and for some reason SKIP the big companies doing mass pirating that would tie the RIAA up in court making those suits unprofitable, and their member companies FORCE the artists to create drivel in the hopes of ever getting paid.
What you say is probably very true. Unfortunately, there probably are musicians that love this sort of thing, while others dont seem to care. Iron Maiden, for one, often promote cover bands that play their music. I guess they see the benefit of people getting to hear their music, and then want to find and buy the originals... though they dont even go apeshit about that part (the buying part) as YouTube, with thousands of Maiden performances prove, and their own statements telling their fans feel free to share our music with each other.
Keep in mind though, many bands are in a different boat than them. Maiden owns the rights to their songs - which is rare. Maiden does their own production - which is rare. They arent indebted to a record label with insane contracts. If the label wants them, it's on Maiden's terms - and so far never at the detriment of their fans. Most musicians, unfortunately, like you said, rely on revenue from ASCAP/BMI - as they dont get much (any?) from their label. Maiden is lucky enough to be able to do what they want... when it became widely known that India bootlegs tons of Maiden stuff (that they'll never see a dime for) they announced they were thrilled that their music was reaching India - through whatever means, then re-arranged their tour to play down there because they realized they had so many fans - and in the end, after airlifting (literally) tons of stage and show props/equipment to India, chances are, even with a massive sold out show, they lost money - to which they responded it didnt matter, the people in India deserved it for being so loyal in showing their interest in Maiden.
That attitude though, is a great way for most artists to become destitute - or spend most of their lives working other jobs just to survive.
ASCAP & BMI are unfortunately necessary evils (and far less evil than the RIAA - though still evil in some of their tactics) to provide some sort of compensation for artists. Until the music industry as a whole changes, making artist compensation something worthwhile, things like this will continue, and there will be numerous artists who have no choice except relying on ASCAP and BMI to provide them some sort of income - while hoping their label eventually makes it worthwhile - or heck, even just lets them write and play the music that they want. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the bands out there wouldnt turn out to be great if they were allowed to write and record what they wanted instead of the same old regurgitated shit. Stabbing Westward is one that went on record talking about how that happened to them (when their label forced them to write music of a certain type)... all music I didnt bother listening to... once free of those shackles, their music once again (IMHO) soared to the quality I originally expected of them. Maiden was similarly approached - but told the label "F___ you, we play want we want." - which few can.
Instead of debating this stuff, we should all be pushing for (or thinking of) methods to reform the music industry.
This is not entirely true. At least, yes, they (ASCAP/BMI) pay the musicians...
But I worked for a small business a while back (under half dozen employees), and ASCAP came in trying to pressure us to pay their fees for listening to the radio there.
"You dont have to, but you should. Besides, it will help ensure you don't get fined because someone mistakenly thinks you are violating the copyright agreements... blah, blah, blah..." type drivel. Sounded more like a thinly veiled threat to me.
In addition, we were told, dont worry about the other guy (BMI)... you only need one such license. But as seems to be the case, once you sign one, the others come after you for money too...
Slashdot Mirror
I can confirm what Jonnythan is saying. At CompUSA, we used a number of MS's tools for back end functions. All our reports were Excel/Access based, pulling from a variety of sources.
Is it an ideal solution? In my opinion no. Having used MySQL for years, and knowing the size of the data sets that CompUSA used, almost anything would have been a better, faster, more reliable solution. A simple database query by Excel with a few functions to tally the results shouldnt take enough time to go get lunch, come back and watch it finish.
Perhaps that is due to poor implementation, though CompUSA spent tons of money and many years working on the stuff - with barely any discernable performance improvement.
(I've run) Larger queries (to an MySQL database), to web based forms, through a web server, calculated on that server using REXX, on older (slower) hardware, takes fractions of seconds to seconds... not half an hour to 45 minutes - including serving the info to the web based client. I've got some reports that generate over 80,000 lines of html (and a far larger number of variables in the REXX scripts that are created on the fly) for enormous data sets, that only take 3 or 4 seconds to generate.
Jonnythan is correct in this statement too...
There's a *lot* of functionality present in OO or MS Office and it's not all trivial to use.But, again, I think the learning curve would be very similar for either... and in the case of OO, and (choose your database to connect to); I think the "end-user" has a much larger choice of what tools they want to use - many of which are very compatible with each other (for instance, going to or from PostGres/MySQL is relatively painless if your existing queries follow the SQL standard - and your tables will likely be importable from one to the other with minimal of work and a minor script to do that work).
Mod parent funny!
And I stand (sit actually) corrected!!! :-)
Thanks for starting my day with a laugh! (True as it is)
I wholeheartedly disagree...
"The first, with Open Office, is compatibility -- sharing information with Microsoft products, both within the organisation and with external parties."Which it does pretty decently. Compatibility with the next release of MS Office is a moot point (as I also touch on in the third section below) especially when no one knows when the next release will be out. This same compatibility is an issue with every new release of MS Office - so how is that any different? Go open an Office 2007 document in Office 2000 or Word 98 or any previous version. Sure, you can save the document in Office 2007 using an older format - but the same capabilities exist in OO. Thus, moot point.
"A dual world is complicated and, whether people like it or not, Microsoft is a standard."MS is NOT a standard. A standard does not change every release. MS creates a new "standard" to drive their upgrade market with each release. That's not a standard - that's driving a market upgrade cycle. There is a big difference.
"Second, you have no idea where open-source products are going, whereas vendors like Microsoft provide a roadmap for the future."Microsoft has NEVER provided a roadmap for ANYTHING. They have provided sometimes vague promises, sometimes very detailed promises that they continually break. Their broken promises include every area of software expectations from functionality (like Vista and its lack of many promised features) to delivery dates (like virtually every MS product in the last 10 years). That is NOT a roadmap. That's announcing vapourware. The Open-Source community is a lot more likely (and a lot more apt to) live up to the roadmaps they outline for future software development of most major products, most especially including OpenOffice.
So, the person quoted is basing his decision off promises that will in all probability be broken both in terms of functionality, interoperability, release schedule, compatibility and the need for re-training. All of which are much lesser issues for OO.
"It's about futures, planning and integration."See above.
Wilson says Microsoft Office is not any cheaper, but that it was almost impossible to work out what open-source was actually costing because of issues such as incompatibility and training.I've already touched on the "incompatibility" issues... so, lets dive into the training one. Anyone with any training experience (ie: anyone who should be in a position at a company to train employees on software) should easily be able to "learn" and train people on OpenOffice. When a new version comes out, the learning curve for that trainer should be minimal to allow that trainer to disseminate that information to the other employees. Please tell me how the massive changes to Office 2007 are easier in terms of training? And what added benefit offsets that? The added cost of the software? The incompatibility with older versions - that now have to be upgraded as well?
Any "trainer" who has the ability to learn the differences, and thus train people on them, for going from an earlier version of Office to Office 2007 should easily be able to take up the task of training someone on OpenOffice - current, past and future versions.
I tend to agree with the GP poster that some sort of kickback was offered. One was already indicated in the article (the allowance of copies of Office to be run dual location at no additional cost). I'd speculate there were others. This seems more like a publicity piece for MS showing that open-source software isnt worth it - all based off erroneous and downright idiotic claims (of compatibility, delivery roadmaps, functionality roadmaps, availability of people to train, and training costs).
Does it really? I dont necessarily thinks so. The RIAA is hip deep in promoting legal changes (new laws) to allow them the ability to engage in all sorts of questionable or currently illegal actions to "protect" their "property" - this case and others like it can easily be twisted into justification for these new laws they are trying to get foisted on the general public (the CanSpy law being just one of many).
Either way, the RIAA can win this one.
None of this even covers the fact that the RIAA and many similar "companies" are trying to get other laws changed to make ISPs, OSPs and TelCo's liable for all such alleged actions that happen through their network (heck, I seem to remember them trying to strike the "Safe Harbor" provision out of the DMCA, as well as trying to get it interpretted differently - and that doesnt even include current "new law"/"new precedent" attempts). If they have their way in that respect, then every ISP between alleged file-sharer and alleged downloader becomes liable for that traffic... which means the RIAA (and other similar entities) can go after the deeper pockets as well as the John and Jane Doe's they are currently chasing.
If they lose enough cases, they use it as ammunition to change the law. If they win enough cases, they use it to support the basis for future cases. They are fighting this little battle on multiple fronts, and whichever way these cases go, they stand a good chance of losing - at least as long as corporations can promote laws at the expense of the public without sufficient public interaction to prevent such absurdity.
Just my two cents on the matter... and IANAL... so I might be wrong on the legal/illegal aspects of it...
DUH! For the same reason that made it possible for the Enterprise at Warp Speed (any version, any series) to travel at the Speed of Plot!!!
;-)
C'mon, that's like asking "Why didnt Voltron just 'Form Blazing Sword' in the beginning of the episode and cut the idiotic Robeasts in half and end the episode right then?"
Well, just a thought... but I think the answer is the same. It would be a pretty boring episode... ;-)
Mod Off-Topic like the rest of this sub-thread!
Kinda reminds me of the suits from Star Trek TOS - sans the goofy helmet and the nameplate - or of something from Power Rangers...
It has also happened on XP... and as someone else pointed out (not going to take the credit for it), it seems to happen more frequently on pre-installs, where the bundleware is what is suddenly uninstallable - perhaps that's a bug - or perhaps a defect-by-design.
On XP, when this problem occurred, the problem most frequently asserted itself as a failed uninstall (nothing happened, uninstaller crashed or errored out), and occassionally as no uninstall option.
I think the situation here is either (a) the problem is occurring in more frequency than in previous versions, or (b) because of all the disdain (and possibly even hate? - deserved or otherwise) for Vista, there is a bigger stink being made about this problem with Vista that's happened in the past on other versions of the OS (or maybe a combination of the two).
While your post is very insightful, and accurate in many respects, including customer expectations, and what customers should expect (but have been taught not to), there is another side to this - which I suspect will be the other shoe dropping in the near future.
Anyone remember the "extremely small quantities" of XBox360's (and XBox's) with defects? Somewhere here on /. are the figures MS touted as being so small at the time people first started to gripe. Now, we know that such a large number of them (XBox360s - last week on /.) have had issues, that MS has had to set aside a small fortune (at least in my definition of the amount) to continue and extend support because their figures at the initial announcement were taken from some weird MS-FantasyLand. So, if MS is claiming that only 5% of PCs are experiencing this problem, how many actually are?
In this case, we may never actually know, as this issue can be addressed in a later patch - as opposed to a product recall, or warranty extension, etc... but from past track record (XBox, XBox360, various Windows exploits), I have learned that when MS says y%, you need to multiply that y by some number making the result much larger.
Of course, even 5% of a massive number (MS's touted Vista numbers - as innaccurate as they are) is still a pretty massive number... over a million installs?
Either way, focusing on finding a fix may be better than debating either MS's (probably hugely) innacurate #s, or "Gee, I had no problems"... "Gee, I did". If MS is trivializing this issue, it may mean a semi-silent patch, or it may mean no action on their part until enough gripes make the news.
I dont run Vista, and only work on it when a customer has it (or demands it) installed... so I cant play with it to figure anything out (and have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry, or watching grass grow)... but others here have suggested a few great tips that may help users solve these issues themselves, like certain registry keys to check for corruption/lack of/incorrect settings... (for uninstall keys)
Perhaps someone with Vista experiencing this problem could check those tips out and post something useful for others here with similar problems. If/when one of my (few) Vista using customers runs into the problem, (if this isnt solved/patched), I will do so and post back...
I know /. is supposed to be a "Bash MS forum"... but I still remember back in the day, on my ancient 5 digit user account when instead people would actually respond back with helpful feedback and tips... ;-)
IANAL, but I doubt it. Getting a patent for something is different than using it within the confines of the law - which is not part of the jurisdiction of the patent office. There are legal ways this "technology" could be used... MS doesnt seem to be interested in using it in such a fashion - but that doesnt make the idea any less patentable. Afterwards, it will be up to the courts to determine if MS has inappropriately used the technology in a questionable or illegal method.
From what I have seen, these tools already exist in Vista (and to a decent extent in XP).
A month or so ago, when MS China announced a new method of ascertaining identifying information about Windows users for the purpose of ad serving, I stated this was the method they were most likely to use. I was told, it wouldnt happen, it wasnt legal and MS couldnt give the info to anyone else.
Now, MS announces that this is exactly what they have (had) planned... guess I was right.
I also pointed out (in that post and numerous others) parts of MS' EULA that state they have the right to share such information with their "Partners" which is a vague term that MS uses to cover anyone they have a business relationship with - such as those they serve ads for.
Even without disseminating the information to a third party "Partner", MS can use that information for the serving of the ads themselves through their "Live Search" system - though that doesnt seem to be all they have in mind.
The other thing that worries me is MS seems to have a habit of concluding that if granted a patent on some insane idea, using said idea suddenly becomes legal - they never seem to stop and consider that while an idea may be patentable, the implementation (they have in mind) may not be legal. I can patent an idea for a gun that can shoot multiple, pre-selected targets with one pull of the trigger - but that doesnt make it legal for me to go out there and shoot people with it... except in some very narrow instances covered by law - such as self defense, and assuming I have a permit/license to carry and use said gun. MS seems to keep skipping the "gee, is the implementation legal?" aspect of these issues - as is evidenced by the numerous lawsuits brought against them.
In addition, regardless of the EULA, such things (the EULA) have never been truly tested in a court of law... a very weak crutch MS is going to be standing on... but nonetheless, one that they have sufficient money and legal teams to possibly win. This would be a precedent set that would destroy consumer rights. Perhaps that is the direction they are hoping this goes.
Of course, the anti-trust allegations brought against them for such actions may forestall things - but then again who knows? They can argue that their "search" market share being what it is, puts them in no danger of this being considered leveraging one monopoly to create another - which of course wont be true (except to a court that doesnt understand the dynamics of what they are doing and how it will affect the search engine market).
Of course, this also seems to be an attempt by MS to make legal their current actions with Vista (as also discussed on /.) of accumulating way more info than they are intimating in their EULA - using way more components in Vista to do so than people expected. First patent it, then win some idiotic case that supports certain parts of their EULA allowing them to do so.
IANAL, but I dont think I have to be to see the shady direction MS is going with this one... their previous track record and all... oh, and wait!!! - The fact that this time they came right out and said they'll be using this system to parse your private documents and emails...
I guess there shouldnt be any more debating that matter... they've announced their intent (through patenting the method) of doing so, and their EULA covers such things "allowing" them to do so... heck, there are sections of their EULA that allow them to then sell or give away the info or documents that you have created using their services or software (also pointed out in other posts by me).
Here's a question... how many people have disabled every "report back to MS" feature in WMP11 and then had it look for media content on their hard drive - and then stopped to watch their machine "report back to MS" anyway? Even if they closed WMP? (it still continues in the background).
I'm curious... did anyone really stop to consider if this is to bolster Zune sales?
Because if so, then they all seem to have missed one major point/possibility that could be going on behind the scenes...
What if MS is negotiating something with the RIAA? What if the advent of a device like this - that only MS can provide - is the content lock that the RIAA accepts? What if RIAA member companies are thus pressured into not selling to iTunes? (and only to MS and their protected player). What if this is part of MS's attempt at monopoly via patent with the RIAA wholly endorsing them in a way that will cripple the rest of the online music industry?
Just a thought. It could happen... and what two companies are better suited for each other than Microsoft and the RIAA?
No, they are gonna err on the side of making as much money off controlling other people's content as possible - regardless of the legality of any aspect of it (The CRB giving them the right, Creative Commons stuff that they shouldnt - but still will - be collecting fees for, etc).
Same results as your previous link...
Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol (firefoxurl) isn't associated with any program.Same Firefox 2.0.0.4 (on eCS)
I know one similar response was modded funny, but this is truly what I got.
Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol (firefoxurl) isn't associated with any program.Firefox 2.0.0.4 (on eCS)
Mod parent "Too smart for /. and it's petty prejudices"
;-)
Either that or you know some really rank, smelly, nasty people... having worked in retail, I've met some people I am sure have buttflies... didnt stay around them long enough (or close enough) to find out though.
That is a good idea... we'd solve global warming, end wars, stop overpopulation and much more; if we got rid of the major carbon based life form on this planet... ;-)
On a serious note though, even not being funded by the cigarette companies, I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it - or try to job onboard so they can claim they helped with this.
Not much I can argue about in your post. Also keep in mind, in most of my posts in this thread, I have been pushing people to realize that yes the current system is broken, and yes the methods of artist reimbursement is broken, and yes some of the tactics ASCAP and BMI use are coercion - but not nearly at the level of the RIAA and it's members. Hence my lesser of two evils statement in an earlier post. And with ASCAP/BMI being pretty easy to scare away (if you are "in the right" - by today's legal standards) the situation isnt that grim.
Like another poster pointed out, I (too) think the original article should have focused on perhaps three issues
1. ASCAP/BMI not allowing a more flexible licensing model
2. ASCAP/BMI's coercive tactics against small business owners
3. The numerous maybe real/maybe scam companies trying to coerce businesses into similar licenses that they dont have the authority to grant.
I really do think there was a good story there - but that the writer totally missed it.
But that's just my opinion on the matter.
-Robert
My misuse of punctuation aside, yes, (most?) DVDs are this way, CDs arent - but were. (ooops, forgot another apostrophe).
The basic point was, scratch resistant coatings, like what is used on eye glasses, wont (there I go again) protect a DVD or CD from being scratched (in a harmful way) any better than they do glasses - which they don't. I was pointing out that while it seems like and sounds like a good idea, the reality usually is, the minor scratches such a coating would protect CDs and DVDs from aren't serious enough to require such a coating, while the more major scratches (as my eyeglasses attest to) wont (oops) be prevented by such a coating.
Yes! Muzak was it!
And yeah, their tactics arent the best, and can be described as shakedown (as I can confirm from personal experience and indicated in another post) :-(
But, they can be scared away pretty easily - unlike the RIAA.
The amounts they seem to want arent lots of money - but nonetheless, if not owed to them, it's money that shouldnt be paid.
Telling them "No, I dont play music of any sort (radio, CDs or otherwise) anyplace my customers can hear it." and "Here's my lawyer's number" generally gets rid of them - unless you are obviously and blatantly violating the respective laws governing such things (for instance, they walk in while you are playing music for - or in the presence of - your customers) - as has been indicated by others.
Telling them only the first part seems to continue the harrassment though. Oddly, the suits dont seem to happen - just continued harrassment till you pay or refer them to your lawyer. Of course, I am expecting in the cases of the businesses who actually should be paying, telling them no will generate a lawsuit.
Exactly.. most such bands are in control of their own music and arent signed to an RIAA company. But I wonder how many more people would get to hear them if the playing field were levelled and Indie labels could generate/get as much exposure. As I said, Maiden is a rarity for a band on an RIAA label. They too have endorsed "bootlegging" their concerts - at one concert, Nicko McBrain's bass drum head broke, and while it was being replaced, Bruce Dickensen went on a rant about Metallica and how retarted they were to be prosecuting their fans... here's what he said
"The album is not out yet, but please pull out your small digital recorders, mp3 players, cell phones or whatever you have. Put it on the Internet, spread it all over the world. But on one condition: When you hear the new album, if you like it, pay the equivalent of three beers to buy the record in the store. That is what keeps us alive. If you don't like the album, just forget it."Bruce Dickinson, Oslo, Norway - 2nd July 2003
"about 43,700" results for Iron Maiden videos on YouTube... up from 20,000 or so a few months ago. And nary a complaint from them...
"He even added "We're not like Metallica" to further stress that those who are openly against mp3s have a losing battle on their hands. Iron Maiden simply have a very sane and sensible attitude towards evolving technology and they have realised the positive potential of it. MP3s should be about sampling the music and then buying the album if you liked what you heard, not about stealing someone's intellectual property. This is merely what Bruce meant."
A lot of ska/reggae bands can afford a similar attitude. Most "big label" bands either cant, or arent permitted to due to who actually owns their works and performances.
This I find really annoying... you know where I get to listen to ska/reggae? At (the rare) concert (that comes to my area with such bands). Sure as heck cant find it in my local record store. I guess I can dig online... there needs to be a more easily accessible way that **AA groups dont own or control through idiotic legislation. So much for Internet Radio being the answer...
Sad, really. The music industry needs to be dissassembled and recreated BY the artists and fans.
If they play music, I can almost guarantee you they pay a license to one or more of them. At many you can find the sticker someplace on the establishment or in the office.
Many years back when I worked for Taco Bell, we had ours on our music system... I forget the name of the stupid thing, but it's the one made fun of for being played in elevators (no vocals, some crappy rendition of the music). And we'd get and pay the ASCAP/BMI bills when they came in.
In addition to the other wonderful posts in response to yours, ASCAP and BMI are companies the artists CHOOSE to join - full knowing what types of returns the artists will see. And even then, you can contact an artist to obtain performance rights to their music bypassing the need to obtain a license from ASCAP/BMI/etc.
The RIAA's methods FORCE artists to join them to get paid (next to nothing) for their own music being played on the Internet (read the SoundExchange topics), FORCE Internet Radio to pay them for playing ANYTHING (whether one of their labels or not), FORCE dead people and grandmothers to pay them for music they never stole, and for some reason SKIP the big companies doing mass pirating that would tie the RIAA up in court making those suits unprofitable, and their member companies FORCE the artists to create drivel in the hopes of ever getting paid.
BIG difference.
What you say is probably very true. Unfortunately, there probably are musicians that love this sort of thing, while others dont seem to care. Iron Maiden, for one, often promote cover bands that play their music. I guess they see the benefit of people getting to hear their music, and then want to find and buy the originals... though they dont even go apeshit about that part (the buying part) as YouTube, with thousands of Maiden performances prove, and their own statements telling their fans feel free to share our music with each other.
Keep in mind though, many bands are in a different boat than them. Maiden owns the rights to their songs - which is rare. Maiden does their own production - which is rare. They arent indebted to a record label with insane contracts. If the label wants them, it's on Maiden's terms - and so far never at the detriment of their fans. Most musicians, unfortunately, like you said, rely on revenue from ASCAP/BMI - as they dont get much (any?) from their label. Maiden is lucky enough to be able to do what they want... when it became widely known that India bootlegs tons of Maiden stuff (that they'll never see a dime for) they announced they were thrilled that their music was reaching India - through whatever means, then re-arranged their tour to play down there because they realized they had so many fans - and in the end, after airlifting (literally) tons of stage and show props/equipment to India, chances are, even with a massive sold out show, they lost money - to which they responded it didnt matter, the people in India deserved it for being so loyal in showing their interest in Maiden.
That attitude though, is a great way for most artists to become destitute - or spend most of their lives working other jobs just to survive.
ASCAP & BMI are unfortunately necessary evils (and far less evil than the RIAA - though still evil in some of their tactics) to provide some sort of compensation for artists. Until the music industry as a whole changes, making artist compensation something worthwhile, things like this will continue, and there will be numerous artists who have no choice except relying on ASCAP and BMI to provide them some sort of income - while hoping their label eventually makes it worthwhile - or heck, even just lets them write and play the music that they want. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the bands out there wouldnt turn out to be great if they were allowed to write and record what they wanted instead of the same old regurgitated shit. Stabbing Westward is one that went on record talking about how that happened to them (when their label forced them to write music of a certain type)... all music I didnt bother listening to... once free of those shackles, their music once again (IMHO) soared to the quality I originally expected of them. Maiden was similarly approached - but told the label "F___ you, we play want we want." - which few can.
Instead of debating this stuff, we should all be pushing for (or thinking of) methods to reform the music industry.
This is not entirely true. At least, yes, they (ASCAP/BMI) pay the musicians...
But I worked for a small business a while back (under half dozen employees), and ASCAP came in trying to pressure us to pay their fees for listening to the radio there.
"You dont have to, but you should. Besides, it will help ensure you don't get fined because someone mistakenly thinks you are violating the copyright agreements... blah, blah, blah..." type drivel. Sounded more like a thinly veiled threat to me.
In addition, we were told, dont worry about the other guy (BMI)... you only need one such license. But as seems to be the case, once you sign one, the others come after you for money too...