Not to mention the fact that many many of the items are either not installed by default (MS DTC), do not require connection to MS computers in all but the rarest of circumstances (MMC), and some aren't even installed (Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer). This is beyond the fact that many are just wrong (Fax Service does not require connecting to MS, etc). For every puported fact in the article, there are two other ways of interpreting the situation, and the author universally picks the wrong one. This is a FUD article, pure and simple.
Real Networks HATES MS. With a passion. Worse than nearly any company out there this side of Oracle and Sun. Really. Your point about her aliances is way off.
Anyone find it particularly hilarious that the Register couldn't even report the results correctly? Fine that they get anti-MS people to put in quotes, but the facts of the case (namely 14k lines of code for java v. 2k lines of code for.NET) were reported in reverse? Ugh... how these guys have a website is beyond me.
The answer is yes. I don't know exactly where you have gathered this, it's completely wrong. Here's a link to an interview with the group product manager for Palladium with the answer:
And the relavant quote (with important part bolded): DIDW: So flexibility is a big goal, with nothing traceable locked in and no specific required PKI structure it must be part of?
Juarez: The architecture is designed to be an open platform and open environment. As an ISV or service provider you can build anything you want on top of this platform and offer up a value proposition with consumers, or with other businesses. It can do all kinds of interesting things. But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated. It's a very basic, open environment and we're not trying to build any elements of it that are going to require verification or the participation of anything other than the ISV and the person who is using the services want to have happen.
Actually, if you have >15 machines to admin, the way to really go is SMS. Talk about centralized management. You can do anything to any machine on your network from the OS to the application level (patch the system, push down a program, etc). Super powerful... the only comparison on other platforms has always been roll your own.
Bill Gates' house? His stock, which in no way affects MS's earnings, covered that cost. Same with Ellison's boat. Now if you want to talk about management perks, look at Jeff Immelt at GE, whose family flew to France on a private jet for about $400 in net income. However, this is largely written off against earnings (for the company) and, as a result, it actually is just found money (the company would have paid the extra cost of the plane flight in taxes).
Marketing and advertising is certainly a component, but management perks do not pass through as directly as you imply.
Completely agree. Further the difference in performance could easily be due to:
* Different transaction monitors * Different Oracle optimizations * Newer/faster/cheaper components in the machines
Still interesting that HP is touting Linux, but the point is accurate that the difference is inconclusive. I find it also interesting that the putatively cheapest solution (the only difference here would be attributed to OS price) did not make the top 10 price/perf ratio.
Ah but Sun owns Java and refuses to make it part of a standards body, whereas C# has been turned over to ECMA with all associated patents (something like 22 were moved into the ECMA body). This is a substantial difference.
Two quick comments... the EULA says may download, not install. This is a very important distinction. I assume they have to do this simply because they offer a tool to auto download and have to have your permission to do that. Secondly, the benchmarking thing is as standard as can be, everyone does it. IBM, BEA, Oracle, etc etc require their permission before publishing benchmarks. That's why you generally only see comparisons of DBs, App Servers, etc against previously published numbers, rather than everything tested by one company.
While cynicism is fine, MS doesn't release sales figures on xbox as far as absolute numbers or run rate, which is what the data that you describe would amount to.
The top thread is wrong as well, they have ~4 games per box attach rate, which is highest in the industry.
Regardless of the rest of the point of the article or your other points, something being dynamic does not mean that the pages aren't static. If i put:
<? print "$yourname got here at " + time();?>
That doesn't require rw, and is fully dynamic. RW generally only needs to happen on file servers and databases... certainly not webservers.
Re:Nitpick...not ONE but TWO Fawlty Analogies!!!!!
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
So lets say i want to send you encrypted traffic today. And I want to use gpg. I get your public key and encrypt a message to you and that's it. You are now required to use gpg to get my traffic. Have I limited your computing experience? Perhaps, but it's a trade off for potential upsides. It's not like content creators NEED to use palladium. It's just there if they need it. The fact that palladium exists or not is irrelevant to the decision for a content creator to limit my experience. They can do it using currently available methods (DVD manufacturers, or listen.com do it already).
It's not artificial, as that dilineation has already occurred. There are types of content which are limited and there are those that aren't. Today, limited content "gives" me a broader library from which to choose. If you don't want that broader library, then don't use it. There's really nothing different about palladium, except that the transaction becomes much more transparent to the user.
It said that you would be able to boot into unprotected mode both in the salon article and in the interview. However, that does not mean that you would have access to protected content. The point is that if you're interested in not being a part of the protected universe of content and hardware/software features, it's completely your choice.
but it's such a weird argument! I mean it's like, everyone else uses the telephone to talk over long distances, but i refuse to, i only want to write letters. But since every one else uses the telephone, and i don't have one, i'm essentially shut out! If the entire market moves in a direction, and accepts the new technology, then yes, you can't use your methods to communicate with them.
Perens says that "what is new here is that the customer's PC is getting hardware with the specific purpose of constraining the customer. Never before has a customer received a speed governor on his car -- and this is worse than a speed governor. It's like saying, 'You may never drive into this part of town.'"
It's worth pausing to think about Perens' example for just a second. Surely some lawyer somewhere has suggested to one of the Big Three automakers that adding speed governors to its fleet could save the company a penny or two in legal costs. So why don't we have speed governors in our Fords?
Cars sold in the US do have speed governors on them. It tops out at about 140-150 miles per hour, in Ford's (and others too, I don't know what those are). I've actually experienced this... we went out to the desert in my friend's Jaguar and actually hit it. It's why you can't buy a street legal porsche that can outrun a cop car.
I further disagree with Mr. Perens as well. The content is all that will be limited, not the computer. The computer will not be limited in any way. You can boot into untrusted mode and use whatever you want. The content, on the other hand, may require the use of trusted mode. That simple.
1) There are hundreds of tools and sales around WindowsCE that MS makes every year. Visual Studio.NET for embedded devices. Windows CE to manufacturers (which is not free). SQL CE. Etc etc. Plus, again, it's a share play which has nothing to do with the existing monopoly. Selling slightly above cost is part of the game (look at what Palm did for years, before they started tanking).
2) 16% from 13% in a shrinking market where the only two people ahead of you have been doing databases for 30 years and you started 7 years ago is pretty good, wouldn't you say? Not to mention the fact that they're only at 32-34% and flat or going down. By your definition, Linux is an abysmal failure, and because it's not growing, everyone should just dump it! At least SQL is growing 20% y/y. The point about the developers was to give you a frame in which to discuss it. Let's say MS had 1000 people working just on SQL Server (which seems high, but let's say that) each making $100k. Ok, that's $100,000,000. You have $900 M to spend now. Show me how they sell it below cost. Your numbers don't add up.
3) Just because you, your friends and the 50k readers who participate on slashdot use mysql or postgresql does not make it a roaring success. IDC _does_ track mysql usage by web survey, corporate survey, developer survey, oem survey... they aren't idiots. If you have a contradictory study, please post it and we can discuss that.
4) Massive improvements in handling multihoming. Improvements in APIs, memory allocation and caching. Tighter security (code red was almost 90% nt 4/iis 4) and greater customization. These are features that are worth something to administrators and worth upgrading for.
5) No you are completely incorrect. Would you say a political ad had a good return on investment? Nothing was purchased. How about when GE backs the McLaughlin group? No one runs out to buy a jet engine because they saw a tv ad. There are many reasons to invest (share play, advance the platform, brand recognition, strategic positioning) and only one involves getting money back, when you're selling something, and only _then_ when making revenue is the primary driving factor of that investment. What if part of the investment was to lose money? This is done very frequently at the start of a car line (cost of goods sold at the start of a production line are usually higher than by the time they are produced in mass quantities) or when drugs first come out (they usually don't recoup costs until well into the drug's sale). No one is saying that these products don't generate revenue, either directly or indirectly. If people see IE as being the basic platform for the web, and the best IE implementation is on Windows then people are going to buy Windows.
6) Price of the average software package. Show me a situation where MS entered a market, dumped goods and then RAISED prices faster than inflation. Here's a hint, you won't. MS comes in cheaper to a market because they have a lot of developers and very good ones. They develop software better and faster than any large company in the world, and can beat competitors to the punch. Simply saying it's well documented is incorrect. Further, show me a product which has been dropping relative to inflation, or even growing slower than MS products have. Again, you won't find one. You say it's obvious and well documented... show me and let's discuss it.
7) History of Star Office. Was free. Sun bought them. Realized they couldn't make any money and couldn't develop with no revenue. Had to start selling it. Don't give me any nonsense about corporations not feeling comfortable about free goods. What they're actually uncomfortable with is the thought that Sun, whose revenues are in the crapper, will dump the bloody product.
8) No one is saying that their profits aren't good, but their profits would be 2x or 3x what they are now if they wanted them to be. That's what having a monopoly is about. But they're not, because they know the cost of that is too high (both in consumer cost and in market enablement). How did they get $40 B in cash? Because last year they had $38 B in cash, and the year before $36, and the year before $34. It didn't show up over night, and they are shackled in spending it until the DOJ trial is over. That's the deal.
Second, there is no sense in talking to me.
I respond to your comment with data, and you refute the data (with nothing contradictory of your own).
I call out points where you contradicted yourself, and amazingly you say that both positions were your position.
I'm happy to continue discussing, but I encourage you to at least read MS's last 10k filing and get a sense for what they're spending money on.
I'm a bit confused why chrisd put "rights" in the body in quotes. Either they bought the patent and have rights over the code and programming model, or the patent does not apply and they have no rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anyway to give a -1 Flamebait to a submission? SHEESH!
Not to mention the fact that many many of the items are either not installed by default (MS DTC), do not require connection to MS computers in all but the rarest of circumstances (MMC), and some aren't even installed (Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer). This is beyond the fact that many are just wrong (Fax Service does not require connecting to MS, etc). For every puported fact in the article, there are two other ways of interpreting the situation, and the author universally picks the wrong one. This is a FUD article, pure and simple.
erm alliances
Real Networks HATES MS. With a passion. Worse than nearly any company out there this side of Oracle and Sun. Really. Your point about her aliances is way off.
Anyone find it particularly hilarious that the Register couldn't even report the results correctly? Fine that they get anti-MS people to put in quotes, but the facts of the case (namely 14k lines of code for java v. 2k lines of code for .NET) were reported in reverse? Ugh... how these guys have a website is beyond me.
you got that backwards. Java required 14k lines of code and .NET required 2k.
They are signed. The activeX which downloads the file is signed and goes through intensive checking when communicating with the server at MS.
The answer is yes. I don't know exactly where you have gathered this, it's completely wrong. Here's a link to an interview with the group product manager for Palladium with the answer:
DIDW
And the relavant quote (with important part bolded):
DIDW: So flexibility is a big goal, with nothing traceable locked in and no specific required PKI structure it must be part of?
Juarez: The architecture is designed to be an open platform and open environment. As an ISV or service provider you can build anything you want on top of this platform and offer up a value proposition with consumers, or with other businesses. It can do all kinds of interesting things. But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated. It's a very basic, open environment and we're not trying to build any elements of it that are going to require verification or the participation of anything other than the ISV and the person who is using the services want to have happen.
MS already has 64-bit Windows that runs on a chip that's currently shipping. For that matter, so does Linux.
Apple moving into this market is unlikely to provide them a bump. If an ( Intel && ( Windows || Linux ) ) user wants 64-bit today, they can go get it.
Actually, if you have >15 machines to admin, the way to really go is SMS. Talk about centralized management. You can do anything to any machine on your network from the OS to the application level (patch the system, push down a program, etc). Super powerful... the only comparison on other platforms has always been roll your own.
Bill Gates' house? His stock, which in no way affects MS's earnings, covered that cost. Same with Ellison's boat. Now if you want to talk about management perks, look at Jeff Immelt at GE, whose family flew to France on a private jet for about $400 in net income. However, this is largely written off against earnings (for the company) and, as a result, it actually is just found money (the company would have paid the extra cost of the plane flight in taxes).
Marketing and advertising is certainly a component, but management perks do not pass through as directly as you imply.
Completely agree. Further the difference in performance could easily be due to:
* Different transaction monitors
* Different Oracle optimizations
* Newer/faster/cheaper components in the machines
Still interesting that HP is touting Linux, but the point is accurate that the difference is inconclusive. I find it also interesting that the putatively cheapest solution (the only difference here would be attributed to OS price) did not make the top 10 price/perf ratio.
Ah but Sun owns Java and refuses to make it part of a standards body, whereas C# has been turned over to ECMA with all associated patents (something like 22 were moved into the ECMA body). This is a substantial difference.
No kidding... two words:
"Un. Declared." That has to have been the funniest show on TV in so long and they didn't even give it a second season.
This coming from a guy with a Java contest sponsored by Sun as his sig...
Two quick comments... the EULA says may download, not install. This is a very important distinction. I assume they have to do this simply because they offer a tool to auto download and have to have your permission to do that. Secondly, the benchmarking thing is as standard as can be, everyone does it. IBM, BEA, Oracle, etc etc require their permission before publishing benchmarks. That's why you generally only see comparisons of DBs, App Servers, etc against previously published numbers, rather than everything tested by one company.
While cynicism is fine, MS doesn't release sales figures on xbox as far as absolute numbers or run rate, which is what the data that you describe would amount to.
The top thread is wrong as well, they have ~4 games per box attach rate, which is highest in the industry.
So lets say i want to send you encrypted traffic today. And I want to use gpg. I get your public key and encrypt a message to you and that's it. You are now required to use gpg to get my traffic. Have I limited your computing experience? Perhaps, but it's a trade off for potential upsides. It's not like content creators NEED to use palladium. It's just there if they need it. The fact that palladium exists or not is irrelevant to the decision for a content creator to limit my experience. They can do it using currently available methods (DVD manufacturers, or listen.com do it already).
It's not artificial, as that dilineation has already occurred. There are types of content which are limited and there are those that aren't. Today, limited content "gives" me a broader library from which to choose. If you don't want that broader library, then don't use it. There's really nothing different about palladium, except that the transaction becomes much more transparent to the user.
It said that you would be able to boot into unprotected mode both in the salon article and in the interview. However, that does not mean that you would have access to protected content. The point is that if you're interested in not being a part of the protected universe of content and hardware/software features, it's completely your choice.
No i know, but there is actually a governor on it. It's a requirement in the US because they don't want you to be able to outrun police cars.
but it's such a weird argument! I mean it's like, everyone else uses the telephone to talk over long distances, but i refuse to, i only want to write letters. But since every one else uses the telephone, and i don't have one, i'm essentially shut out! If the entire market moves in a direction, and accepts the new technology, then yes, you can't use your methods to communicate with them.
I further disagree with Mr. Perens as well. The content is all that will be limited, not the computer. The computer will not be limited in any way. You can boot into untrusted mode and use whatever you want. The content, on the other hand, may require the use of trusted mode. That simple.
First, let me respond to your points.
1) There are hundreds of tools and sales around WindowsCE that MS makes every year. Visual Studio.NET for embedded devices. Windows CE to manufacturers (which is not free). SQL CE. Etc etc. Plus, again, it's a share play which has nothing to do with the existing monopoly. Selling slightly above cost is part of the game (look at what Palm did for years, before they started tanking).
2) 16% from 13% in a shrinking market where the only two people ahead of you have been doing databases for 30 years and you started 7 years ago is pretty good, wouldn't you say? Not to mention the fact that they're only at 32-34% and flat or going down. By your definition, Linux is an abysmal failure, and because it's not growing, everyone should just dump it! At least SQL is growing 20% y/y.
The point about the developers was to give you a frame in which to discuss it. Let's say MS had 1000 people working just on SQL Server (which seems high, but let's say that) each making $100k. Ok, that's $100,000,000. You have $900 M to spend now. Show me how they sell it below cost. Your numbers don't add up.
3) Just because you, your friends and the 50k readers who participate on slashdot use mysql or postgresql does not make it a roaring success. IDC _does_ track mysql usage by web survey, corporate survey, developer survey, oem survey... they aren't idiots. If you have a contradictory study, please post it and we can discuss that.
4) Massive improvements in handling multihoming. Improvements in APIs, memory allocation and caching. Tighter security (code red was almost 90% nt 4/iis 4) and greater customization. These are features that are worth something to administrators and worth upgrading for.
5) No you are completely incorrect. Would you say a political ad had a good return on investment? Nothing was purchased. How about when GE backs the McLaughlin group? No one runs out to buy a jet engine because they saw a tv ad. There are many reasons to invest (share play, advance the platform, brand recognition, strategic positioning) and only one involves getting money back, when you're selling something, and only _then_ when making revenue is the primary driving factor of that investment. What if part of the investment was to lose money? This is done very frequently at the start of a car line (cost of goods sold at the start of a production line are usually higher than by the time they are produced in mass quantities) or when drugs first come out (they usually don't recoup costs until well into the drug's sale). No one is saying that these products don't generate revenue, either directly or indirectly. If people see IE as being the basic platform for the web, and the best IE implementation is on Windows then people are going to buy Windows.
6) Price of the average software package. Show me a situation where MS entered a market, dumped goods and then RAISED prices faster than inflation. Here's a hint, you won't. MS comes in cheaper to a market because they have a lot of developers and very good ones. They develop software better and faster than any large company in the world, and can beat competitors to the punch. Simply saying it's well documented is incorrect. Further, show me a product which has been dropping relative to inflation, or even growing slower than MS products have. Again, you won't find one. You say it's obvious and well documented... show me and let's discuss it.
7) History of Star Office. Was free. Sun bought them. Realized they couldn't make any money and couldn't develop with no revenue. Had to start selling it. Don't give me any nonsense about corporations not feeling comfortable about free goods. What they're actually uncomfortable with is the thought that Sun, whose revenues are in the crapper, will dump the bloody product.
8) No one is saying that their profits aren't good, but their profits would be 2x or 3x what they are now if they wanted them to be. That's what having a monopoly is about. But they're not, because they know the cost of that is too high (both in consumer cost and in market enablement). How did they get $40 B in cash? Because last year they had $38 B in cash, and the year before $36, and the year before $34. It didn't show up over night, and they are shackled in spending it until the DOJ trial is over. That's the deal.
Second, there is no sense in talking to me.
I respond to your comment with data, and you refute the data (with nothing contradictory of your own).
I call out points where you contradicted yourself, and amazingly you say that both positions were your position.
I'm happy to continue discussing, but I encourage you to at least read MS's last 10k filing and get a sense for what they're spending money on.
I'm a bit confused why chrisd put "rights" in the body in quotes. Either they bought the patent and have rights over the code and programming model, or the patent does not apply and they have no rights.