Total bogus arguments to his points. He's right. Yours are extreme. Software is software. Linux programs are easy and well designed. Each release brings us better.
The argument has been false for a long time. That AGAIN argument was specious for a very long time. It has no merit. It's just that when you have a fight you can use an argument that's vague and hard to defend against. The more specific you get the easier it is to debate.
Linux software is awesome. From the desktop managers to the applications for doing word processing to the games "most" people play down to the management of files, Linux is stupendous. On top of that these products get better faster than their proprietard counterparts. No questions there. That's the nature of OSS.
Any support of the old argument that is brought up again and again is specious and shows the weakness of that person's current position.
This is incorrect. You do not activate a Dell machine nor do you active any Royal OEM's machines. In fact, the sticker on the outside of the computer, that displays the product key, that product key is not used.
Microsoft, in your proposition, has access to re-activations and to Linux return numbers?
I think under Ubuntu there's something called ndisgtk which really helps get wireless working. It essentially is a pretty automated ndiswrapper. I've used it a few times and it has saved me hours of work.
On the other hand, I have been working to solve why some Windows machines won't connect to my secure wireless.
The point is that wireless issues abound on both environments, still!
This is detracting from what is really happening. It has little to do with people making the wrong choice. To blame the return rate on people making the wrong choice is incorrect. That smooths out over time. They'll get what they want.
The issue is whether windows and linux netbooks are being returned at the same rate. And they are. From that you have to break down causes. One cause is the fact that some people bought the wrong version. There are other issues as well.
Actually it would mean more returns are taking place for Windows machines than Linux. More Windows machines being sold means more returns. Fewer Linux machines being sold thus fewer returns.
The idea is the rate of return. Why does someone have to define every word for some people? The return rate is likely a ratio of the number sold vs. the number of those sold that were returned. The same would go for both categories: linux and windows.
The guy quoted also stated the return rate was a non-issue, meaning there was no issue for the company because the return rates were essentially the same.
The rates of sales are not relevant in that Microsoft is a monopoly, one convicted of criminal predatory practices, which forced hardware manufacturers into illegal contracts to exclude. That gave them the monopoly, and in case you don't know what a monopoly is and how hard it is to compete with a monopoly you might want to check up on that.
The only relevant statistic that I can see is one that tracks the rate of behavioral change as it relates to buying an alternative. Not in the number of sales but in the increase of sales of the alternative non-monopolistic products.
I think you are missing the point. Dell says they are not receiving returns except at the same rate. He means that linux netbooks are being returned at the same rate as windows netbook returns. Now, Dell is the company that sells and accepts the returns. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. Microsoft has no first hand knowledge. Since they can't count Linux returns, as it has nothing to do with Windows returns, Microsoft would be clueless except maybe by receiving information from Microsoft funded reports.
Bottom line is that Dell is giving facts whereas Microsoft is giving conjecture.
Many many many companies have patent portfolios. A company that holds a patent and intends to uphold it isn't a patent troll. A patent troll is a company that purchases patents for the explicit purpose of suing everyone and anyone.
I feel software patents are a bad thing, they kill innovation in the same manner that Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) does. In the case where we have a huge company, a criminally convicted monopolist, that effectively steals the ideas from the little guys and then when approached about compensation they ignore them forcing the little guy to sue to get their fair shake, I don't believe one could call them a patent troll.
If i4i is a company that explicitly purchases patents in order to sue then in that case they are.
In the case of Z4 Technologies which held a patent on online activation of products, they were a tiny company. They addressed Microsoft and Microsoft ignored them. Z4 was forced to sue. They did sue and during the trial Microsoft was cited for numerous counts of misconduct. One of the most common yet most hated is when they buried the court and Z4 in paperwork. Z4 got lucky and found the evidence that showed that Microsoft knew they were infringing only the night before the trial.
At the end Z4 won. The judge awarded over $100 million in damages. He noted that Microsoft had treated Z4 with contempt because they felt that Z4 could not defend itself in court. The judge then awarded Z4 another $25 million in special damages for the misconduct of Microsoft, noting that there were so many that they didn't all get noted in the record.
Microsoft appealed and lost and appealed again and lost. They tried to appeal the special damages but the judge would have nothing of it. He upheld all damages.
The thing though, that you have to remember, is that what this patent was about was Microsoft stealing the technology used to keep you from stealing their technology. They felt is was OK for them to steal Z4s IP while they used that same IP to keep you from stealing theirs. Then when caught they acted in very notable instances of misconduct during that trial.
I know every patent out there is invalid unless it is owned by Microsoft, even though Microsoft keeps getting sued and keeps loosing. Z4 technologies is just one other example of Microsoft pulling this same maneuver. Z4 won.
It is extremely unsettling that Microsoft keeps claiming that everyone else is bad and only they are good while every court case seems to rule against them. They can't keep stating that every other patent is invalid and then just blatantly infringing upon it all the while threatening Open Source with their 235 patents and suing companies such as TomTom. Microsoft is just being a bad player in the game. It is another nail in their coffin. This is literally another of those cases where they just blatantly disregard a patent until they get sued then try to claim the high ground.
As for the injunction, well, they'll appeal and win because courts have ruled that even if a company does infringe in a portion of a product it doesn't mean that the whole product can be banned. This is not like the RealDVD case where the judge ruled against Real Networks based on the DMCA all the while recognizing the fair use rights of the consumer.
The appeal will most likely end up forcing Microsoft to pay royalties in conjunction with the amount of the original judgment. Though I like the idea of holding Microsoft's profits accountable and I think it would make competitors look seriously at competition with a product that is enjoined against distribution--enjoining Word effectively enjoins all of Office.
In the long run Microsoft will appeal the whole ruling and loose on everything but the injunction and they'll end up paying money every year and passing it on to the consumer. This is why competition is so important, important in that mark ups of this nature do not get transferred as competition tends to drive down costs and give choices.
Actually a disk check happens quite frequently for a lot of people. I'd say the affected number is still pretty large. No, not everyone schedules the disk check but Windows will initiate it itself at times, and yes, against a second hard drive.
I regularly put customer's hard drives into a different computer as a secondary drive and run chkdsk. Your math sort of makes it seem like 4-5% of a market isn't a lot to account for, yet that 4-5% means in terms of the OS market hundreds of millions of users. Should we let you take those support calls?
The issue with updates to drivers for Vista became a big issue (and assuming Vista 7 is newer) I would suspect there will be many issues with finding updates to those chipsets.
I can believe you are calling people clowns, but what bothers me is that you are *so utterly wrong* that you don't understand the pie on your own clown face. Somewhere around 50,000 projects now use the GPLV3 license. You are what, one man's opinion?
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
Obviously, as you probably can tell, this is only going to hurt those that legitimately paid for their music. Those that pirated it to begin with aren't affected by this.
It should tell everyone to refrain from purchasing anything that is DRM infested.
None of the artists do. They release the rights to the music to the RIAA member companies in exchange for royalties (AFTER all costs are paid for--and the artists pay for EVERY COST).
This is fraud and there's no other name for it. Had they told the consumer prior to the purchase, with a disclaimer, then it would not be anything more than stupid consumers buying the marketing of the RIAA. But since it wasn't disclosed prior to the sale it is fraud, period, sure as the nose on your face.
No you can't even do that in college. Grow up. My point stands. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable quotable source. You can't do that for reasons already sufficiently vetted. We don't have to prove our point on the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Total bogus arguments to his points. He's right. Yours are extreme. Software is software. Linux programs are easy and well designed. Each release brings us better.
The argument has been false for a long time. That AGAIN argument was specious for a very long time. It has no merit. It's just that when you have a fight you can use an argument that's vague and hard to defend against. The more specific you get the easier it is to debate.
Linux software is awesome. From the desktop managers to the applications for doing word processing to the games "most" people play down to the management of files, Linux is stupendous. On top of that these products get better faster than their proprietard counterparts. No questions there. That's the nature of OSS.
Any support of the old argument that is brought up again and again is specious and shows the weakness of that person's current position.
Time to grow up and move on.
This is incorrect. You do not activate a Dell machine nor do you active any Royal OEM's machines. In fact, the sticker on the outside of the computer, that displays the product key, that product key is not used.
Microsoft, in your proposition, has access to re-activations and to Linux return numbers?
I think under Ubuntu there's something called ndisgtk which really helps get wireless working. It essentially is a pretty automated ndiswrapper. I've used it a few times and it has saved me hours of work.
On the other hand, I have been working to solve why some Windows machines won't connect to my secure wireless.
The point is that wireless issues abound on both environments, still!
Clearly he stated rate of return. That's not # of returns.
This is detracting from what is really happening. It has little to do with people making the wrong choice. To blame the return rate on people making the wrong choice is incorrect. That smooths out over time. They'll get what they want.
The issue is whether windows and linux netbooks are being returned at the same rate. And they are. From that you have to break down causes. One cause is the fact that some people bought the wrong version. There are other issues as well.
Actually it would mean more returns are taking place for Windows machines than Linux. More Windows machines being sold means more returns. Fewer Linux machines being sold thus fewer returns.
The idea is the rate of return. Why does someone have to define every word for some people? The return rate is likely a ratio of the number sold vs. the number of those sold that were returned. The same would go for both categories: linux and windows.
The guy quoted also stated the return rate was a non-issue, meaning there was no issue for the company because the return rates were essentially the same.
The Justice Department handles criminal activity.
Your argument is strawman. It has no point. It's meant just to get people to chase a feather in the wind.
One would not have to question say the return rates of a Ferrari to that of a Ford Taurus.
In other words, we all know what it means when they say return rates.
I would not mark the parent as flamebait because he's essentially telling the truth.
The rates of sales are not relevant in that Microsoft is a monopoly, one convicted of criminal predatory practices, which forced hardware manufacturers into illegal contracts to exclude. That gave them the monopoly, and in case you don't know what a monopoly is and how hard it is to compete with a monopoly you might want to check up on that.
The only relevant statistic that I can see is one that tracks the rate of behavioral change as it relates to buying an alternative. Not in the number of sales but in the increase of sales of the alternative non-monopolistic products.
Me thinks he's been nipping at the ethanol a bit too much and it's not even noon.
I think you are missing the point. Dell says they are not receiving returns except at the same rate. He means that linux netbooks are being returned at the same rate as windows netbook returns. Now, Dell is the company that sells and accepts the returns. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. Microsoft has no first hand knowledge. Since they can't count Linux returns, as it has nothing to do with Windows returns, Microsoft would be clueless except maybe by receiving information from Microsoft funded reports.
Bottom line is that Dell is giving facts whereas Microsoft is giving conjecture.
Didn't IBM patent the process of patenting things? If not, I might give it a try, haha.
Many many many companies have patent portfolios. A company that holds a patent and intends to uphold it isn't a patent troll. A patent troll is a company that purchases patents for the explicit purpose of suing everyone and anyone.
I feel software patents are a bad thing, they kill innovation in the same manner that Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) does. In the case where we have a huge company, a criminally convicted monopolist, that effectively steals the ideas from the little guys and then when approached about compensation they ignore them forcing the little guy to sue to get their fair shake, I don't believe one could call them a patent troll.
If i4i is a company that explicitly purchases patents in order to sue then in that case they are.
In the case of Z4 Technologies which held a patent on online activation of products, they were a tiny company. They addressed Microsoft and Microsoft ignored them. Z4 was forced to sue. They did sue and during the trial Microsoft was cited for numerous counts of misconduct. One of the most common yet most hated is when they buried the court and Z4 in paperwork. Z4 got lucky and found the evidence that showed that Microsoft knew they were infringing only the night before the trial.
At the end Z4 won. The judge awarded over $100 million in damages. He noted that Microsoft had treated Z4 with contempt because they felt that Z4 could not defend itself in court. The judge then awarded Z4 another $25 million in special damages for the misconduct of Microsoft, noting that there were so many that they didn't all get noted in the record.
Microsoft appealed and lost and appealed again and lost. They tried to appeal the special damages but the judge would have nothing of it. He upheld all damages.
The thing though, that you have to remember, is that what this patent was about was Microsoft stealing the technology used to keep you from stealing their technology. They felt is was OK for them to steal Z4s IP while they used that same IP to keep you from stealing theirs. Then when caught they acted in very notable instances of misconduct during that trial.
Very very sad.
Wouldn't this invalidate the ISO certification of Microsoft's OOXML document format? Or at least force a revision of it?
I know every patent out there is invalid unless it is owned by Microsoft, even though Microsoft keeps getting sued and keeps loosing. Z4 technologies is just one other example of Microsoft pulling this same maneuver. Z4 won.
It is extremely unsettling that Microsoft keeps claiming that everyone else is bad and only they are good while every court case seems to rule against them. They can't keep stating that every other patent is invalid and then just blatantly infringing upon it all the while threatening Open Source with their 235 patents and suing companies such as TomTom. Microsoft is just being a bad player in the game. It is another nail in their coffin. This is literally another of those cases where they just blatantly disregard a patent until they get sued then try to claim the high ground.
As for the injunction, well, they'll appeal and win because courts have ruled that even if a company does infringe in a portion of a product it doesn't mean that the whole product can be banned. This is not like the RealDVD case where the judge ruled against Real Networks based on the DMCA all the while recognizing the fair use rights of the consumer.
The appeal will most likely end up forcing Microsoft to pay royalties in conjunction with the amount of the original judgment. Though I like the idea of holding Microsoft's profits accountable and I think it would make competitors look seriously at competition with a product that is enjoined against distribution--enjoining Word effectively enjoins all of Office.
In the long run Microsoft will appeal the whole ruling and loose on everything but the injunction and they'll end up paying money every year and passing it on to the consumer. This is why competition is so important, important in that mark ups of this nature do not get transferred as competition tends to drive down costs and give choices.
Actually a disk check happens quite frequently for a lot of people. I'd say the affected number is still pretty large. No, not everyone schedules the disk check but Windows will initiate it itself at times, and yes, against a second hard drive.
I regularly put customer's hard drives into a different computer as a secondary drive and run chkdsk. Your math sort of makes it seem like 4-5% of a market isn't a lot to account for, yet that 4-5% means in terms of the OS market hundreds of millions of users. Should we let you take those support calls?
The issue with updates to drivers for Vista became a big issue (and assuming Vista 7 is newer) I would suspect there will be many issues with finding updates to those chipsets.
I can believe you are calling people clowns, but what bothers me is that you are *so utterly wrong* that you don't understand the pie on your own clown face. Somewhere around 50,000 projects now use the GPLV3 license. You are what, one man's opinion?
No bashing is occurring.
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
Obviously, as you probably can tell, this is only going to hurt those that legitimately paid for their music. Those that pirated it to begin with aren't affected by this.
It should tell everyone to refrain from purchasing anything that is DRM infested.
None of the artists do. They release the rights to the music to the RIAA member companies in exchange for royalties (AFTER all costs are paid for--and the artists pay for EVERY COST).
This is fraud and there's no other name for it. Had they told the consumer prior to the purchase, with a disclaimer, then it would not be anything more than stupid consumers buying the marketing of the RIAA. But since it wasn't disclosed prior to the sale it is fraud, period, sure as the nose on your face.
No you can't even do that in college. Grow up. My point stands. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable quotable source. You can't do that for reasons already sufficiently vetted. We don't have to prove our point on the obvious.