A fair point now that I've done some looking around (never assume anything, ladies and gentlemen), but this still isn't leveraging a monopoly in anything.
For a start, Microsoft have a 'convicted monopoly' (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays) in the OS/browser market, not in the Office market. Pedantry but I need three points or it won't flow properly.
Secondly, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the games console market. There are still 3 major players. If they had 90% or so of console sales, then maybe then there should be some action to prevent them from making it harder for other companies to enter the market. At this moment in time, they are merely using their own funding to try and gain marketshare.
Finally, they're not enforcing a standard on other systems, they aren't enforcing use of a certain tool on other companies, they are merely providing a service for subscribers to their own products. Nintendo and Sony are still free, as they always have been, to do the same. Seeing as MS are expecting a profit on their systems by 2008, they are still merely a competitor. If this can give them the edge over Sony and Nintendo they are well within their rights to do so.
That's just my opinion of the thing, anyway. We can't keep throwing 'monopoly' at MS to prevent them from doing anything at all. Though obviously that makes me pretty unpopular on Slashdot, eh?
I don't think there's anything clear here that suggests they're using Office profits to fund XNA, in fact common sense would dictate that Xbox profits would go into this. I think another story commented the Microsoft is a series of sub-sections each aimed towards their own profits, so it makes more sense than just jumping to the conclusion that the OP made.
I don't really agree or disagree with any of your points (most of them are opinion), except the first.
When you're talking about users who don't know how to code or what code means, whether the code is open or not is completely irrelevant. The difference between code you don't see and code you don't understand is merely visibility.
OSS could be exploiting my machine because I don't have a damn clue what the code actually means. I'm still relying, and always will, on other people's honesty.
These people gave someone their time and effort for free without getting the assurances that their work would be used in the manner that they feel it should be?
Sounds to me like these people were gullible and/or stupid and are blaming someone else for being so utterly naive as to automatically assume that any project with volunteer contributors is open-source.
You might use Windows, it doesn't matter. I do too. But you're posting on Slashdot and therefore the posts that you're reading and replying will always be in the pro-linux majority.
Not to spit on the results of your own personal survey here (actually, it really is), but could that possibly be because 'me and my Linux pals' aren't exactly a representative sample of the computing community?
I think, in fact, he said choosing a distro of Linux is a minefield, and most companies would rather stick where they are with minimal risk than pick a distro and run the risk of getting it wrong.
I was more speaking from a layman point of view: figuring that if you could have 2 systems to stop e-mails being lost which don't interfere with each other then you double your fun, so to speak.
If what you say is true and it might make the problem worse, then I can see where you're coming from:)
So what you're basically saying is, MS have to have it working out of the box for every one of millions of system combinations, but Apple can wait months to fix the same problem on proprietary hardware?
That is a worst case scenario but it doesn't follow on from this Novell/MS deal. You could argue that the deal makes it seem like Novell is legitimising MS' claims that there is infringing IP in Linux, but that doesn't hold water with the people that count: patent lawyers.
What the GP was asking was how does this deal make things worse for all Linux users, and from what I can see the only way this looks bad for Linux is that it adds false credence to the notion that Linux infringes on MS IP. Seeing as that was more than likely the case anyway (you can't make anything nowadays without infringing on someone, apparently, and MS has one of the more widespread patent portfolios in the business from what I've been led to believe), then this deal doesn't change anything. Regardless of a deal between MS and Novell they would still have had to prove that Linux infringes and I would heartily dispute that this makes it any easier for them legally.
In other news, the EU fined the creators of the Antikythera Mechanism several hundred million euros today.
A spokesman stated "You can't program it. It's taken people 50 years to find out how it works. They had a monopoly on ancient calculating mechanisms and there was no documentation, so without proper interoperability we cannot morally allow them to continue anciently calculating in the European market without some form of punishment."
Slashdot Mirror
Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business.
No.
Even if they successfully make that argument, then I would imagine the patent would be annulled because of prior art.
Then again, IANAL and I don't even live in the US, so I might be trying to apply common sense to something that has none...
A fair point now that I've done some looking around (never assume anything, ladies and gentlemen), but this still isn't leveraging a monopoly in anything.
For a start, Microsoft have a 'convicted monopoly' (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays) in the OS/browser market, not in the Office market. Pedantry but I need three points or it won't flow properly.
Secondly, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on the games console market. There are still 3 major players. If they had 90% or so of console sales, then maybe then there should be some action to prevent them from making it harder for other companies to enter the market. At this moment in time, they are merely using their own funding to try and gain marketshare.
Finally, they're not enforcing a standard on other systems, they aren't enforcing use of a certain tool on other companies, they are merely providing a service for subscribers to their own products. Nintendo and Sony are still free, as they always have been, to do the same. Seeing as MS are expecting a profit on their systems by 2008, they are still merely a competitor. If this can give them the edge over Sony and Nintendo they are well within their rights to do so.
That's just my opinion of the thing, anyway. We can't keep throwing 'monopoly' at MS to prevent them from doing anything at all. Though obviously that makes me pretty unpopular on Slashdot, eh?
The OP being you, of course. Damn, I need to pay attention more.
I don't think there's anything clear here that suggests they're using Office profits to fund XNA, in fact common sense would dictate that Xbox profits would go into this. I think another story commented the Microsoft is a series of sub-sections each aimed towards their own profits, so it makes more sense than just jumping to the conclusion that the OP made.
Can you please clarify how XNA is leveraging a dominant position in Office to provide game-creation tools for the Xbox 360?
There's something beautifully ironic about spelling 'dumbass' wrong, don't you think?
I don't really agree or disagree with any of your points (most of them are opinion), except the first.
When you're talking about users who don't know how to code or what code means, whether the code is open or not is completely irrelevant. The difference between code you don't see and code you don't understand is merely visibility.
OSS could be exploiting my machine because I don't have a damn clue what the code actually means. I'm still relying, and always will, on other people's honesty.
I assume you're talking about ntl: and Telewest.
The reason they have the same rates is because ntl: own Telewest...
These people gave someone their time and effort for free without getting the assurances that their work would be used in the manner that they feel it should be?
Sounds to me like these people were gullible and/or stupid and are blaming someone else for being so utterly naive as to automatically assume that any project with volunteer contributors is open-source.
My thoughts exactly.
What I was going to say was:
Newsflash: Pro-Linux reporter invited to visit Microsoft and gives biased report.
Later on in this show: A group of nuns visit Amsterdam and don't enjoy it.
To be blunt, so what?
You might use Windows, it doesn't matter. I do too. But you're posting on Slashdot and therefore the posts that you're reading and replying will always be in the pro-linux majority.
Not to spit on the results of your own personal survey here (actually, it really is), but could that possibly be because 'me and my Linux pals' aren't exactly a representative sample of the computing community?
I think, in fact, he said choosing a distro of Linux is a minefield, and most companies would rather stick where they are with minimal risk than pick a distro and run the risk of getting it wrong.
Reading comprehension score: 0/100
I think I heard the 'whoosh' of that post flying over your head from here.
1) Take all the things you pointed out that were wrong with GP's post.
2) Re-read the original summary.
3) Go kick yourself. Hard.
I was more speaking from a layman point of view: figuring that if you could have 2 systems to stop e-mails being lost which don't interfere with each other then you double your fun, so to speak.
:)
If what you say is true and it might make the problem worse, then I can see where you're coming from
Why not do both?
So what you're basically saying is, MS have to have it working out of the box for every one of millions of system combinations, but Apple can wait months to fix the same problem on proprietary hardware?
Just curious.
Of course not.
It doesn't look like those guys have any money.
That is a worst case scenario but it doesn't follow on from this Novell/MS deal. You could argue that the deal makes it seem like Novell is legitimising MS' claims that there is infringing IP in Linux, but that doesn't hold water with the people that count: patent lawyers.
What the GP was asking was how does this deal make things worse for all Linux users, and from what I can see the only way this looks bad for Linux is that it adds false credence to the notion that Linux infringes on MS IP. Seeing as that was more than likely the case anyway (you can't make anything nowadays without infringing on someone, apparently, and MS has one of the more widespread patent portfolios in the business from what I've been led to believe), then this deal doesn't change anything. Regardless of a deal between MS and Novell they would still have had to prove that Linux infringes and I would heartily dispute that this makes it any easier for them legally.
Calm down baby, have a piece of cheese.
I think we just saw the birth of a politician.
Of course you did. It was before you were born!
In other news, the EU fined the creators of the Antikythera Mechanism several hundred million euros today.
A spokesman stated "You can't program it. It's taken people 50 years to find out how it works. They had a monopoly on ancient calculating mechanisms and there was no documentation, so without proper interoperability we cannot morally allow them to continue anciently calculating in the European market without some form of punishment."
Think of it as a lesson in perspective.