No matter what happens Microsoft will appeal to the Supreme Court. That will drag everything on even longer, and be exactly how Microsoft has handled all their dealings. Drag it out until it doesn't matter that much whatever happens.
Actually Microsoft is punishing themselves more than the court probably will with their new licensing.
I've seen many recording contract I was in the business for many years. Most groups/artist don't make much money off recording contracts unless they are huge. In my day the contract were written so the artist didn't make money until the record companies cost were paid back. Then the money trickled to the artist. If groups albums weren't didn't sell enough to payback costs then they were ususally dropped. If a group was making enough to payback cost they were kept around. Like Fleetwood Mac was around for years and years before "making it". They were a blue turn rock band who sold enough the record company didn't drop them. Years later after Stevie and Lindsey join they became a mega group. Most artish make their money doing concerts. Except that is dwinding now too. The audence today want such extravagant shows that touring isn't much of a money maker. Hense why most large tours are sponcered these days by beer companies and such. Bottom line the whole industry is fucked up and why were stuck with so much formula music.
You are forgetting there are more than just songwritter royalies, there are the mechanicans on use. Bottom line these people deserve their money. If you ticked at the business side fine, but just make sure the musicians and songwriters get their royalies.
The they all want to make copies for personal use, that isn't the real issue. It't the 95% of of those 82% who want make copies for others who didn't pay for the original material. If the rest of you had to make a living off royality per sale or use of your work instead of getting paid a salary or hourly you'd change your mind real quick.
If you check Sun's focus on Solaris they threw in the towel as of version 2.6 to stop being a workstation OS and focusing on being a server OS. Solaris has the best threading around, its taken Sun years to perfect. But it is causes applications to load slow and single applications don't appear to run fast. But the benefit as a Sun server gets busy you don't see it bog down, it's keep running and running. That why Solaris is a great server OS.
First you are right its about the artists. Record companies will something underwrite tours mainly for new artist to get them exposure. But what people don't realize record companies are in a sense like insurance companies. Record companies take risk and sign a hundred groups or so over the course of a year, but if lucky only three or four will make money. But for all one hundred groups they have recording, and manufactuing cost, promontion costs, and so on. Getting groups exposure is expensive. So they do make a lot money on a few group, but lose a lot of money on others. But the bottom line to all this is the artists are the ones making the least especially old groups who the need the little royalites to pay bills. Not everyone is a Janis Ian who has done very well. She is not representive of the masses of recording artists.
Bottom line artists would back you more and not the RIAA is showhow you came up with a process where they still got paid their few cents royalities. As it is today the Napsters and P2P is stealing from artists. Get artists their money and they will back you against the RIAA.
This setup doesn't account for HA or scaleability. With hardware as cheap as it is today there is no excuse for not using multiple servers to avoid downtime, and allow for maintenace without taking the site down. Also what about backup, not even mentioned. Last I don't fully agree with the RAID 0 + 1. For a large database, but on a small setup like this I wouldn't. They article seems to imply the data is more read than write RAID 5 has better read performace.
So article was missing a lot for a professional setup.
Time to grow up and stop using a computer with training wheels. Mac, oh I'll do that for you, and I'll do that too, and that. You never have to think. You can think differently. But I know what I'm doing. Mac, no I do it for you dam it! I'M A GOD MAC AND I IT FOR YOU WHETHER YOU LIKE OR NOT!!!!
Just check OS X. Oh I now have a/etc, oh boy. Buzzzz!! Those files except one file is for looks only, the OS is only one who can modify them. But I will let you edit/etc/hosts, aren't I nice to you.
Where did they get those machine to tech ratios? Maybe small businesses that only have a few machines anyway. The shops I have worked in and friends in the industry the ratio is MUCH higher anywhere from 50 to 1 and up. We were mainly Windows shop and added Unix systems to the mix as time went on. In fact our management kept showing us reports from industry groups showing 100 to 1 as a common ratio. My argument was and still is what type of systems were they? In an ISP or ecommerse site with farms of servers the ratio can be high, because a system can go down with minimal effect. I worked more on large databases, and business systems and when systems were down it affected revenue and we had to get them back on-line ASAP.
Articles like this don't do Linux any good, when management see bogus numbers in them. This is not a an artice I would show to management to try and get Linux system integrated.
Re:Consumer marketing is irrelevant to the kernel
on
Linux Kernel 3.0?
·
· Score: 2
Then what determines a major number increment just that you have used up 2.9.9? Traditionally its been a major feature change/improvement or significiant percent of change.
True IBM wasn't happy with the Compaq and other clone, but never did anything even though they could. They realized it was building market share for the "PC". Remember at the time the PC you still had a strong market for S100 bus systems, lots of Z80/8080 based system. Apple II, DEC Rainbow. Yes IBM experimented with MicroChannel, but I believe they still has ISA models available. Look at IBM's history they are a great marketing machine and cover all bases. For example even when they were starting to support Linux they were also bulking up their Windows professional services team. Even when they were still pushing OS/2, they were the biggest publisher of Windows application software. IBM has the money to spread themselve out and experiment in new markets, they do all the time. They are also willing to pull the plug when things don't work. As the people who said OS/2 would never die found out.
Microsoft learned this from the IBM PC. IBM didn't go after the clones and gained market share to knock out CP/M and Apple II. Microsoft has only gone after major software pirates, because they knew building a market of pre-trained users will build market share in business. Businesses no long had to spend lots of money on training on basic computer skills. By people pirating Windows and Office, they are self training themselves.
Then you forgeting Microsofts other marketing weapon development tools. Say what you want about VB, but companies don't want to spend a lot on in-house development for app's they won't keep long. Quality code isn't important, disposable programs are cost efficent. Microsoft has specilized in development tools to get task done quickly.
Last your RIAA and Microsoft looking away on copying is an Apple and Oranges comparison. One is trying to sell products, and other is trying to build market share for long term sales. Very different.
Say what you want but all though the years most people who use these types of copying tools are making illegal copies. This screws the few who want to legitimately use these tools. It also screws everyone else because companies try to put bad copy protection schemes on their products. Long run no one wins.
As for music you are stealing food from the families of musicians and songwriters families who have to live off the few cents royalities they get on a CD or when sheet music is sold. Same goes for movies being copied. Do some study on how the entertainment industry works, you are mainly cheating the artists you supposedly like.
Sure you have a few artist backing your illegal copying, but look at who they are, mainly no bodies or has-beens who are glad someone even knows who they are.
Bottom line because you think a company makes too much money its okay for you to rip them off. If you don't like a companies prices then protest by spending you money elsewhere and let them know you are doing it. When the companies revenues drop they will flinch and change. But by continuing to steal music you are going to screw everyone. Your theft will cause companies to get penality taxes on blank media, and screwed up copy protection schemes used. Companies will sign less new bands or more formula-music. Your cheapness pentalizes everyone else.
Since one part of the FAQ say we have free speech rights to call it anything we want I will call it Fred. Red Hat Fred, Debian Fred, Mandrake Fred, and Fred KRUD. So then I will have Bob inside my DVD player (every wonder what happen to MS's Bob) and Fred on my server.
First the hardware costs, and someone to maintain the gear and engineer the shows. You need a FCC license, and guess what you have to pay for the music you play. That's what BMI and ASCAP do is make sure you are tracking what you play and pay tne mechanical royalites that the artists eventually get.
As I said my info came straight from Sun. If I'm wrong where is the Sun Linux download site? Per the Sun SE you will never see one. Sun hardware customers will recieve a restore disk with their hardware and that's it. Yes, they do return fixes to the OSS community of what they leave in Sun Linux, but if they feel they have no need for a file they strip it versus fixing it. So I'll believe what I hear directly from a Sun employee. If you don't want to believe it that's your choice. Time will time whose info is more valid.
Per a Sun rep' Sun's Linux is only for Sun hardware, it won't be made available to the public. Worse yet they are stripping Linux down instead of fixing bugs it finds. That way it limits the amount of code it has to return to the community. Bottom line Sun Linux is a joke, its nothing but a Marketing ploy in McNealy's wallet envy of Bill Gates.
I remember an interview with McNealy right after the anti-trust trial started. He said being a CEO you have to do whatever you can to build the business for you investors. That if he ran Microsoft he wouldn't do things any different than Gates, its just business. IMO McNealy just uses the Linux community as pawns in his battle with MS.
Guess you didn't read "Unlike the other three men, Mr. Simonyi, who holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University, always worked on the technical side of the company rather than as a business manager."
He didn't work on the business side of the company. He was a hard core geek, thinks, codes, and collects a check.
IBM has done a lot of experimentation on developemnt systems along these lines. They never caught on. I remember seeing IBM demos trying to create development systems that anyone could drag and drop their own programs together.
I hope they do better than they did with self-correcting compilers. I remember those monsters when I first got into programming. They would introduce more problems than they would attempt to fix. So don't fix my computers problems, just tell me you think somethings wrong and I'll decide.
Well you have never worked on enterprise class systems. I work in a Sun and Windows shop and both systems have a place. For large enterprise databases you aren't going to run Intel servers they don't scale. Intel really only scales to four processers, with briding componets eight. But the eight-way server have a performance hit for the bridging. Yes, there are the datacenter servers but they are a even bigger kludge. Sun hardware is designed from the CPU up to scale from one CPU up. Plus dynamic reconfiguration. Try replacing memory or a CPU in a Intel server without shutting it down. Then the bus design on Sun, and ability to split servers into multiple domains. Then clustering the Windows clustering is weak only handling two nodes and four in some case. In fact on Windows I use Veritas clustering for up to 32 nodes and multiple heartbeat support. Intel hardware is good for small to medium systems, not large and enterprise class servers.
I've worked in both public and private sectors and prefer working in the private sector. I want to work on interesting projects involving cutting edge technologies. Working the the public sector in general they are on tight budgets so you don't see much current technology. Sometimes large corporatations give public sector sizable discounts, but it's not that common. I also like getting paid well and public sector doesn't pay well, the benefits are usually better, but the pay isn't. Another difference that some like about public is there is less stress. Public sector projects usually have longer timelines, and your job usually isn't on the line if miss deadlines.
What's wrong with choice. If you are you company wants to donate its work then that is your choice. But is someone or some company wants to retain ownership of their work that is their right. Monetary gain has been the mother of invention, always has and always will. Look at socialist countries even they reward their creative people with a higher standard of living than others. Sure there are some people who aren't out for financial gain who just want to help, but few. Just think about all the things in life you enjoy and most exist because at some time someone or company made money creating it. Even if they only made enough money to pay their bills to allow them to continue creating.
Don't try to legislate altruism, leave it to choice.
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what happens Microsoft will appeal to the Supreme Court. That will drag everything on even longer, and be exactly how Microsoft has handled all their dealings. Drag it out until it doesn't matter that much whatever happens.
Actually Microsoft is punishing themselves more than the court probably will with their new licensing.
I've seen many recording contract I was in the business for many years. Most groups/artist don't make much money off recording contracts unless they are huge. In my day the contract were written so the artist didn't make money until the record companies cost were paid back. Then the money trickled to the artist. If groups albums weren't didn't sell enough to payback costs then they were ususally dropped. If a group was making enough to payback cost they were kept around. Like Fleetwood Mac was around for years and years before "making it". They were a blue turn rock band who sold enough the record company didn't drop them. Years later after Stevie and Lindsey join they became a mega group. Most artish make their money doing concerts. Except that is dwinding now too. The audence today want such extravagant shows that touring isn't much of a money maker. Hense why most large tours are sponcered these days by beer companies and such. Bottom line the whole industry is fucked up and why were stuck with so much formula music.
You are forgetting there are more than just songwritter royalies, there are the mechanicans on use. Bottom line these people deserve their money. If you ticked at the business side fine, but just make sure the musicians and songwriters get their royalies.
The they all want to make copies for personal use, that isn't the real issue. It't the 95% of of those 82% who want make copies for others who didn't pay for the original material. If the rest of you had to make a living off royality per sale or use of your work instead of getting paid a salary or hourly you'd change your mind real quick.
If you check Sun's focus on Solaris they threw in the towel as of version 2.6 to stop being a workstation OS and focusing on being a server OS. Solaris has the best threading around, its taken Sun years to perfect. But it is causes applications to load slow and single applications don't appear to run fast. But the benefit as a Sun server gets busy you don't see it bog down, it's keep running and running. That why Solaris is a great server OS.
Finally the artist will get their royalites and users will get inexpensive music. It's a win-win situation.
First you are right its about the artists. Record companies will something underwrite tours mainly for new artist to get them exposure. But what people don't realize record companies are in a sense like insurance companies. Record companies take risk and sign a hundred groups or so over the course of a year, but if lucky only three or four will make money. But for all one hundred groups they have recording, and manufactuing cost, promontion costs, and so on. Getting groups exposure is expensive. So they do make a lot money on a few group, but lose a lot of money on others. But the bottom line to all this is the artists are the ones making the least especially old groups who the need the little royalites to pay bills. Not everyone is a Janis Ian who has done very well. She is not representive of the masses of recording artists.
Bottom line artists would back you more and not the RIAA is showhow you came up with a process where they still got paid their few cents royalities. As it is today the Napsters and P2P is stealing from artists. Get artists their money and they will back you against the RIAA.
This setup doesn't account for HA or scaleability. With hardware as cheap as it is today there is no excuse for not using multiple servers to avoid downtime, and allow for maintenace without taking the site down. Also what about backup, not even mentioned. Last I don't fully agree with the RAID 0 + 1. For a large database, but on a small setup like this I wouldn't. They article seems to imply the data is more read than write RAID 5 has better read performace.
So article was missing a lot for a professional setup.
Time to grow up and stop using a computer with training wheels. Mac, oh I'll do that for you, and I'll do that too, and that. You never have to think. You can think differently. But I know what I'm doing. Mac, no I do it for you dam it! I'M A GOD MAC AND I IT FOR YOU WHETHER YOU LIKE OR NOT!!!!
/etc, oh boy. Buzzzz!! Those files except one file is for looks only, the OS is only one who can modify them. But I will let you edit /etc/hosts, aren't I nice to you.
Just check OS X. Oh I now have a
Where did they get those machine to tech ratios? Maybe small businesses that only have a few machines anyway. The shops I have worked in and friends in the industry the ratio is MUCH higher anywhere from 50 to 1 and up. We were mainly Windows shop and added Unix systems to the mix as time went on. In fact our management kept showing us reports from industry groups showing 100 to 1 as a common ratio. My argument was and still is what type of systems were they? In an ISP or ecommerse site with farms of servers the ratio can be high, because a system can go down with minimal effect. I worked more on large databases, and business systems and when systems were down it affected revenue and we had to get them back on-line ASAP.
Articles like this don't do Linux any good, when management see bogus numbers in them. This is not a an artice I would show to management to try and get Linux system integrated.
Then what determines a major number increment just that you have used up 2.9.9? Traditionally its been a major feature change/improvement or significiant percent of change.
True IBM wasn't happy with the Compaq and other clone, but never did anything even though they could. They realized it was building market share for the "PC". Remember at the time the PC you still had a strong market for S100 bus systems, lots of Z80/8080 based system. Apple II, DEC Rainbow. Yes IBM experimented with MicroChannel, but I believe they still has ISA models available. Look at IBM's history they are a great marketing machine and cover all bases.
For example even when they were starting to support Linux they were also bulking up their Windows professional services team. Even when they were still pushing OS/2, they were the biggest publisher of Windows application software. IBM has the money to spread themselve out and experiment in new markets, they do all the time. They are also willing to pull the plug when things don't work. As the people who said OS/2 would never die found out.
Microsoft learned this from the IBM PC. IBM didn't go after the clones and gained market share to knock out CP/M and Apple II. Microsoft has only gone after major software pirates, because they knew building a market of pre-trained users will build market share in business. Businesses no long had to spend lots of money on training on basic computer skills. By people pirating Windows and Office, they are self training themselves.
Then you forgeting Microsofts other marketing weapon development tools. Say what you want about VB, but companies don't want to spend a lot on in-house development for app's they won't keep long. Quality code isn't important, disposable programs are cost efficent. Microsoft has specilized in development tools to get task done quickly.
Last your RIAA and Microsoft looking away on copying is an Apple and Oranges comparison. One is trying to sell products, and other is trying to build market share for long term sales. Very different.
Say what you want but all though the years most people who use these types of copying tools are making illegal copies. This screws the few who want to legitimately use these tools. It also screws everyone else because companies try to put bad copy protection schemes on their products. Long run no one wins.
As for music you are stealing food from the families of musicians and songwriters families who have to live off the few cents royalities they get on a CD or when sheet music is sold. Same goes for movies being copied. Do some study on how the entertainment industry works, you are mainly cheating the artists you supposedly like.
Sure you have a few artist backing your illegal copying, but look at who they are, mainly no bodies or has-beens who are glad someone even knows who they are.
Bottom line because you think a company makes too much money its okay for you to rip them off. If you don't like a companies prices then protest by spending you money elsewhere and let them know you are doing it. When the companies revenues drop they will flinch and change. But by continuing to steal music you are going to screw everyone. Your theft will cause companies to get penality taxes on blank media, and screwed up copy protection schemes used. Companies will sign less new bands or more formula-music. Your cheapness pentalizes everyone else.
If Apple make an OS X that runs on any Intel hardware, Linux on the desktop is dead.
Apple hardware sales will suffer, but they will more than make up for it in OS X sales.
Go Darwin!
Since one part of the FAQ say we have free speech rights to call it anything we want I will call it Fred. Red Hat Fred, Debian Fred, Mandrake Fred, and Fred KRUD. So then I will have Bob inside my DVD player (every wonder what happen to MS's Bob) and Fred on my server.
First the hardware costs, and someone to maintain the gear and engineer the shows. You need a FCC license, and guess what you have to pay for the music you play. That's what BMI and ASCAP do is make sure you are tracking what you play and pay tne mechanical royalites that the artists eventually get.
As I said my info came straight from Sun. If I'm wrong where is the Sun Linux download site? Per the Sun SE you will never see one. Sun hardware customers will recieve a restore disk with their hardware and that's it. Yes, they do return fixes to the OSS community of what they leave in Sun Linux, but if they feel they have no need for a file they strip it versus fixing it. So I'll believe what I hear directly from a Sun employee. If you don't want to believe it that's your choice. Time will time whose info is more valid.
Per a Sun rep' Sun's Linux is only for Sun hardware, it won't be made available to the public. Worse yet they are stripping Linux down instead of fixing bugs it finds. That way it limits the amount of code it has to return to the community. Bottom line Sun Linux is a joke, its nothing but a Marketing ploy in McNealy's wallet envy of Bill Gates.
I remember an interview with McNealy right after the anti-trust trial started. He said being a CEO you have to do whatever you can to build the business for you investors. That if he ran Microsoft he wouldn't do things any different than Gates, its just business. IMO McNealy just uses the Linux community as pawns in his battle with MS.
Guess you didn't read "Unlike the other three men, Mr. Simonyi, who holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University, always worked on the technical side of the company rather than as a business manager."
He didn't work on the business side of the company. He was a hard core geek, thinks, codes, and collects a check.
IBM has done a lot of experimentation on developemnt systems along these lines. They never caught on. I remember seeing IBM demos trying to create development systems that anyone could drag and drop their own programs together.
I hope they do better than they did with self-correcting compilers. I remember those monsters when I first got into programming. They would introduce more problems than they would attempt to fix. So don't fix my computers problems, just tell me you think somethings wrong and I'll decide.
Well you have never worked on enterprise class systems. I work in a Sun and Windows shop and both systems have a place. For large enterprise databases you aren't going to run Intel servers they don't scale. Intel really only scales to four processers, with briding componets eight. But the eight-way server have a performance hit for the bridging. Yes, there are the datacenter servers but they are a even bigger kludge. Sun hardware is designed from the CPU up to scale from one CPU up. Plus dynamic reconfiguration. Try replacing memory or a CPU in a Intel server without shutting it down. Then the bus design on Sun, and ability to split servers into multiple domains. Then clustering the Windows clustering is weak only handling two nodes and four in some case. In fact on Windows I use Veritas clustering for up to 32 nodes and multiple heartbeat support. Intel hardware is good for small to medium systems, not large and enterprise class servers.
I've worked in both public and private sectors and prefer working in the private sector. I want to work on interesting projects involving cutting edge technologies. Working the the public sector in general they are on tight budgets so you don't see much current technology. Sometimes large corporatations give public sector sizable discounts, but it's not that common. I also like getting paid well and public sector doesn't pay well, the benefits are usually better, but the pay isn't. Another difference that some like about public is there is less stress. Public sector projects usually have longer timelines, and your job usually isn't on the line if miss deadlines.
That's how I see it.
What's wrong with choice. If you are you company wants to donate its work then that is your choice. But is someone or some company wants to retain ownership of their work that is their right. Monetary gain has been the mother of invention, always has and always will. Look at socialist countries even they reward their creative people with a higher standard of living than others. Sure there are some people who aren't out for financial gain who just want to help, but few. Just think about all the things in life you enjoy and most exist because at some time someone or company made money creating it. Even if they only made enough money to pay their bills to allow them to continue creating.
Don't try to legislate altruism, leave it to choice.