DNSSEC is viewed as the best way to bolster the DNS against vulnerabilities such as the Kaminsky bug discovered last year.
[citation needed] Or maybe this is "weasel words". In any case, "Says who?"
I'd like to see some discussion around the relative merits of DNSSEC v. DNSCurve. DJB knows his shit, and I want to see his ideas getting proper exposure here.
Well, I failed, but let's try this just a little more. Anyway, in retrospect I think I was looking at this wrong.
When he said that bundling does not lead to market share he used the sense of the term "lead" that means "result in", and he left off the adverb "necessarily".
So, paraphrased, he said, "Bundling does not equate to market share, just look at how far Firefox has come."
The topic is not monopolistic practices, though that's related. And, really, I don't need these facets of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior explained. I'm generally familiar with the evil of Microsoft in this regard. I even likened them to (the rather nasty) Angband.
The topic is not monopolistic practices, but I appreciate your sharing the information. The topic is instead Connor's meaning in his assertion that bundling does not lead to market share. I'm thinking he meant "bundling does not equal market share", that market share can be substantially gained or lost despite bundling. Wouldn't you agree?
Are you claiming IE would have as substantial a market share as they do currently if they did not avail themselves to a distribution channel available to nobody else?
No, I am not. I am sure they would not. Big, perhaps, but surely not as much.
Nobody said reliance on it alone would allow a company to keep that market share, which I'm taking it is the assumption that has lead to the breakdown in understanding.
I agree this is where the breakdown is. Though your phrasing is a little hay-stuffed itself. Perhaps it comes down to this: What does "lead" mean? To encourage along a course or to take to a destination? No, nobody said anything about "reliance on it alone". Rather he obviously meant that market share can be substantially gained or lost regardless of bundling, that bundling does not necessarily equate to market share. Why do I think it's obvious? Because:
Connor also attacked Opera's claims that bundling harms competition. "Opera's asserting something that's provably false," Connor said, referring to Firefox's ever improving market share, which now stands at just over 20% worldwide. "It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face," he said.
Even PC Pro's writer Barry Collins got it wrong. Connor isn't contesting that bundling harms competition. Who could? He's saying that it isn't the trump, the end all.
So rather than a bad assumption (even disregarding the context clues where it is basically spelled out), this is in fact the reading most conducive to useful discourse. Refusal to see this sense as what he intended, because of the discomfort in parsing and interpreting or whatever, is not productive. It demonstrates an inability to read at an advanced level and it demonstrates poor judgement in being so quick to ascribe such patent ludicrousness to someone in a position of consequence. I'm sorry to say those things. Maybe I should dress the poor judgement up a bit as misanthropy or cynicism. I sympathize with the reflex. For parity, let me I admit that I didn't fully grasp his meaning until after I read the article perhaps a third time and thought it through in argument with others here. After I began posting my own blather. [compunction]
No, bundling does not equal market share. Yes, bundling influences market share. No, bundling won't turn your dog of an app into a winner. Yes, bundling can surely even help you annihilate a comparable competitor.
I think the problem here is that there are senses of the term "lead" that mean "result in" or "cause to pass", which Connor intends and few others recognize.
It's a fair cop, it's odd speech. Still, let's not insult the guy and ourselves by actually thinking this guy really means bundling has no influence. Neither let us fail to see that his words can technically mean what he really means because we're inclined to read them a certain way or we desire to read them a certain way.
Sorry to be a jerk. But everyone's failing to understand this guy. I really hate miscommunication.
I think this is a kind of elusive logic/semantic puzzle. I would be a wizard if I could explain it to the people who aren't seeing it right off.
Let's give it a try.
First, you're right. Firefox gained market share by its bold merits. I totally agree. I mostly agree with your comment about IE being inferior and still having a huge market share, but I have to point out that IE at the outset was a fine competitor and would have gained ground on its own merits. Certainly not to the degree that it eventually did, though. And, yes, it was because of bundling (and protocol poisoning) that IE came to dominate the market. I'm with you on that.
The other gorilla, Netscape, would have done the same thing if they could, and it's my impression that they were acting similarly with regards to protocol "poisoning". I can't say "embrace and extend" exactly because they were seminal enough (despite earlier origins, Sir) that one would more appropriately say "create and extend". Anyway, not directly relevant. Back on topic.
So you can see now where I stand and I'll forego answering your questions about monopolies. Do let me know if you think I missed anything that needs addressing.
Now, here's the logic puzzle I'm talking about. Maybe we can look at it this way... If, back when, Dave Hyatt or Blake Ross and were asking you, "How do we get market share? Should we try to bundle?", how would you answer? You might think to yourself that bundling is a chickenshit way to get market share, that rather than forcing people, people should be given a choice, and that a browser should be able to commend itself based on its own merits (and that it should not seek to thwart interoperability for the sake of retaining market dominance; quite the opposite -- it should level the field by interoperating as much as possible, based on societal agreement (standards)). Woo! That's the ethical stance. So you say to them, "Bundling won't get you market share that won't also cost your soul".
Eventually they compete on features and win the browser wars, and interoperability wins, and the sun shines ever so brightly, and the evil of Angband is, if not banished, at least beaten back for the while. The Firefox kennelmasters rejoice in their glorious and just victory, and songs are sung of how market share was won not by the sinister forces of bundling but by honest Quality Application Design And Development (and a righteously frothing-at-the-mouth community), of how even the dark and powerful magic of bundling failed its corrupt wielders. No, bundling ultimately did not lead to market share for either the true and good victors or for the defeated powermongers.
Then the lords of Opera come to you, seeking council. "We need your advice. We must have more market share. Bundling is the way to get market share, is it not?"
And you answer, knowing what evil lurks in Opera's delusion-besotted, shortsighted plans, "I fear for your souls. No, bundling will not get you market share. Even with bundling you can lose market share. And even without bundling you can gain it. I can prove it -- look to the victory of Firefox." And someone hands you a lute from offstage and you burst out in song and revelers pass around a tray of tea and not tea.
Then a shrill little voice pipes up, "Yeah, but bundling sure does give you an advantage, don't it!" And the needles scratches off the record and everyone turns to glare at the Slashdot forum.
I think maybe it's still not clear what he's saying. Let's try this:
If bundling is what leads to market share, how did Firefox get 20%?
See what he's trying to say? Why is it so hard for people to get this?
There are two ways that bundling does not lead to market share. Here:
only bundling leads to market share: False. There are other ways to get market share. Why does Opera need bundling to compete?
bundling necessarily leads to market share: False. IE is bundled, yet its share has been dropping.
He didn't say these things in the clearest way. Certainly what he said was easily misinterpreted. But he can be reasonably understood to mean this, especially in context. Sure he could have spoken better, but, geez, let's be active readers and mentally insert some adverbs until the quote makes sense.
"How come my binaries still work without decoding? What were you doing for a whole month? Well, while you were gone we received a message for you, encrypted with ROT256: You're fired."
MS still have their hands around the market's throat, but they can't seem to get a good grip.
The "operating system" substrate has grown slippery. Virtual machines, API emulation layers, web, multi-platform development frameworks... Applications find it increasingly easy to run in numerous places.
The "communications system" substrate has grown slippery, too. Web standards and office document standards are at a practically workable level. Boom, like that, IE has slipped from de facto standard to mere competitor.
You don't need MS anymore. The stranglehold falters.
The OS and protocol lock-ins have been unhealthy for us all, needlessly fragmenting the space in which apps can run. I'll be glad to see it go. I give it 8 years before it's effectively neutralized. Then companies will compete more with the merit of their works than with their influence.
Windows 7 market share is climbing. From your linked article:
Although the beta of Windows 7 quickly grabbed one-tenth of 1% of the operating system market share last month, Microsoft Corp.'s operating system continued its downward trend...
You can't have a period of substantial increase for alternative OSs without that being indicative of something critical: true choice. If the alternatives are indeed practically viable, then the OS market has reached a tipping point. Expect all hell to break loose.
Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet 369 (9566): 1047-53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. http://www.antiproibizionisti.it/public/docs/thelancet_20070323.pdf.
Keep in mind my comment was meant tongue-in-cheek. Pointing out that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol is meant to provoke people to rethink the relative legal status.
I agree that the amounts seem off, but I wouldn't say greatly. While a healthy person wouldn't be inclined to adopting a marijuana dependency, that's not the question. "When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed." It's when an unhealthy person partakes that use can get out of hand. That goes for any drug that makes you feel good.
Maybe the relative harm amount is quite a bit off. But perhaps they mean behavioral harm (e.g. difficulty maintaining a job) as well as physical. Still, I'd imagine a serious alcohol dependence would easily trump a serious marijuana dependence for overall harm.
According to this graph, cannabis is about 2/3 as physically harmful and about 5/6 as dependence-causing as alcohol! And we all know how dangerous that is.
Oh, but I guess this same graph tells us that tobacco should be made illegal before cannabis...
Slashdot Mirror
DNSSEC is viewed as the best way to bolster the DNS against vulnerabilities such as the Kaminsky bug discovered last year.
[citation needed] Or maybe this is "weasel words". In any case, "Says who?"
I'd like to see some discussion around the relative merits of DNSSEC v. DNSCurve. DJB knows his shit, and I want to see his ideas getting proper exposure here.
However this works out exactly, it's going to be fun.
For some folks, anyway.
Slashdotters from the prior related story suggested the following tweaks to make SSL connections more obvious and identified:
Site name in "Site ID Button":
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9974672-33.html
Yellow background in address bar:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9974221-33.html
If you're pissed off at how IE languished for over five freakin' years, a thorn in our sides the whole while, and you want to be done with that...
Why would you "upgrade" to a version of the same browser from the same people? Why?
Do you think IE6 sucked independently of Microsoft's actions somehow?
"Really, he's a good man, it's just sometimes when he drinks..."
I'm trying to clone a Windows installation and keep it up to date with periodic rsyncs, for a backup. And I'd like to do it all with free tools.
Say, is the NTFS-3G support (or is it ntfsprogs?) good enough to create an NTFS partition that can be used to boot Windows?
Well, I failed, but let's try this just a little more. Anyway, in retrospect I think I was looking at this wrong.
When he said that bundling does not lead to market share he used the sense of the term "lead" that means "result in", and he left off the adverb "necessarily".
So, paraphrased, he said, "Bundling does not equate to market share, just look at how far Firefox has come."
The topic is not monopolistic practices, though that's related. And, really, I don't need these facets of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior explained. I'm generally familiar with the evil of Microsoft in this regard. I even likened them to (the rather nasty) Angband.
The topic is not monopolistic practices, but I appreciate your sharing the information. The topic is instead Connor's meaning in his assertion that bundling does not lead to market share. I'm thinking he meant "bundling does not equal market share", that market share can be substantially gained or lost despite bundling. Wouldn't you agree?
No, really. So technically it wasn't a "cartridge". And it didn't go in the back of the keyboard, it went in back of the computer.
Are you claiming IE would have as substantial a market share as they do currently if they did not avail themselves to a distribution channel available to nobody else?
No, I am not. I am sure they would not. Big, perhaps, but surely not as much.
Nobody said reliance on it alone would allow a company to keep that market share, which I'm taking it is the assumption that has lead to the breakdown in understanding.
I agree this is where the breakdown is. Though your phrasing is a little hay-stuffed itself. Perhaps it comes down to this: What does "lead" mean? To encourage along a course or to take to a destination? No, nobody said anything about "reliance on it alone". Rather he obviously meant that market share can be substantially gained or lost regardless of bundling, that bundling does not necessarily equate to market share. Why do I think it's obvious? Because:
Connor also attacked Opera's claims that bundling harms competition. "Opera's asserting something that's provably false," Connor said, referring to Firefox's ever improving market share, which now stands at just over 20% worldwide. "It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face," he said.
Even PC Pro's writer Barry Collins got it wrong. Connor isn't contesting that bundling harms competition. Who could? He's saying that it isn't the trump, the end all.
So rather than a bad assumption (even disregarding the context clues where it is basically spelled out), this is in fact the reading most conducive to useful discourse. Refusal to see this sense as what he intended, because of the discomfort in parsing and interpreting or whatever, is not productive. It demonstrates an inability to read at an advanced level and it demonstrates poor judgement in being so quick to ascribe such patent ludicrousness to someone in a position of consequence. I'm sorry to say those things. Maybe I should dress the poor judgement up a bit as misanthropy or cynicism. I sympathize with the reflex. For parity, let me I admit that I didn't fully grasp his meaning until after I read the article perhaps a third time and thought it through in argument with others here. After I began posting my own blather. [compunction]
No, bundling does not equal market share. Yes, bundling influences market share. No, bundling won't turn your dog of an app into a winner. Yes, bundling can surely even help you annihilate a comparable competitor.
I think the problem here is that there are senses of the term "lead" that mean "result in" or "cause to pass", which Connor intends and few others recognize.
It's a fair cop, it's odd speech. Still, let's not insult the guy and ourselves by actually thinking this guy really means bundling has no influence. Neither let us fail to see that his words can technically mean what he really means because we're inclined to read them a certain way or we desire to read them a certain way.
Sorry to be a jerk. But everyone's failing to understand this guy. I really hate miscommunication.
I think this is a kind of elusive logic/semantic puzzle. I would be a wizard if I could explain it to the people who aren't seeing it right off.
Let's give it a try.
First, you're right. Firefox gained market share by its bold merits. I totally agree. I mostly agree with your comment about IE being inferior and still having a huge market share, but I have to point out that IE at the outset was a fine competitor and would have gained ground on its own merits. Certainly not to the degree that it eventually did, though. And, yes, it was because of bundling (and protocol poisoning) that IE came to dominate the market. I'm with you on that.
The other gorilla, Netscape, would have done the same thing if they could, and it's my impression that they were acting similarly with regards to protocol "poisoning". I can't say "embrace and extend" exactly because they were seminal enough (despite earlier origins, Sir) that one would more appropriately say "create and extend". Anyway, not directly relevant. Back on topic.
So you can see now where I stand and I'll forego answering your questions about monopolies. Do let me know if you think I missed anything that needs addressing.
Now, here's the logic puzzle I'm talking about. Maybe we can look at it this way... If, back when, Dave Hyatt or Blake Ross and were asking you, "How do we get market share? Should we try to bundle?", how would you answer? You might think to yourself that bundling is a chickenshit way to get market share, that rather than forcing people, people should be given a choice, and that a browser should be able to commend itself based on its own merits (and that it should not seek to thwart interoperability for the sake of retaining market dominance; quite the opposite -- it should level the field by interoperating as much as possible, based on societal agreement (standards)). Woo! That's the ethical stance. So you say to them, "Bundling won't get you market share that won't also cost your soul".
Eventually they compete on features and win the browser wars, and interoperability wins, and the sun shines ever so brightly, and the evil of Angband is, if not banished, at least beaten back for the while. The Firefox kennelmasters rejoice in their glorious and just victory, and songs are sung of how market share was won not by the sinister forces of bundling but by honest Quality Application Design And Development (and a righteously frothing-at-the-mouth community), of how even the dark and powerful magic of bundling failed its corrupt wielders. No, bundling ultimately did not lead to market share for either the true and good victors or for the defeated powermongers.
Then the lords of Opera come to you, seeking council. "We need your advice. We must have more market share. Bundling is the way to get market share, is it not?"
And you answer, knowing what evil lurks in Opera's delusion-besotted, shortsighted plans, "I fear for your souls. No, bundling will not get you market share. Even with bundling you can lose market share. And even without bundling you can gain it. I can prove it -- look to the victory of Firefox." And someone hands you a lute from offstage and you burst out in song and revelers pass around a tray of tea and not tea.
Then a shrill little voice pipes up, "Yeah, but bundling sure does give you an advantage, don't it!" And the needles scratches off the record and everyone turns to glare at the Slashdot forum.
I think maybe it's still not clear what he's saying. Let's try this:
If bundling is what leads to market share, how did Firefox get 20%?
See what he's trying to say? Why is it so hard for people to get this?
There are two ways that bundling does not lead to market share. Here:
He didn't say these things in the clearest way. Certainly what he said was easily misinterpreted. But he can be reasonably understood to mean this, especially in context. Sure he could have spoken better, but, geez, let's be active readers and mentally insert some adverbs until the quote makes sense.
I thought the modem plugged into the "user port".
The claim is underspecified. It is, however, easily true for at least one straightforward interpretation.
To wit:
Firefox achieved 20% market share without bundling.
I think that's his point. That it is not bundling only that leads to market share.
"How come my binaries still work without decoding? What were you doing for a whole month? Well, while you were gone we received a message for you, encrypted with ROT256: You're fired."
Support the Open Voting Consortium.
And soon enough the best way to run your legacy XP apps is going to be via Wine or some VM.
MS still have their hands around the market's throat, but they can't seem to get a good grip.
The "operating system" substrate has grown slippery. Virtual machines, API emulation layers, web, multi-platform development frameworks ... Applications find it increasingly easy to run in numerous places.
The "communications system" substrate has grown slippery, too. Web standards and office document standards are at a practically workable level. Boom, like that, IE has slipped from de facto standard to mere competitor.
You don't need MS anymore. The stranglehold falters.
The OS and protocol lock-ins have been unhealthy for us all, needlessly fragmenting the space in which apps can run. I'll be glad to see it go. I give it 8 years before it's effectively neutralized. Then companies will compete more with the merit of their works than with their influence.
Windows Market Share Climbing
Windows 7 market share is climbing. From your linked article:
Although the beta of Windows 7 quickly grabbed one-tenth of 1% of the operating system market share last month, Microsoft Corp.'s operating system continued its downward trend...
You can't have a period of substantial increase for alternative OSs without that being indicative of something critical: true choice. If the alternatives are indeed practically viable, then the OS market has reached a tipping point. Expect all hell to break loose.
Wait, what? We can communicate faster than light? I missed that news item. Could you link me?
"Uncharted backwaters" is the term.
I said "uncovered" not "rediscovered".
Dogma.
If a person makes private discoveries that are later uncovered, it's still valuable.
If heroism requires personal risk, there are plenty other ways an investigator could endanger themselves in the pursuit of knowledge.
All that said, Harriot is still probably not a hero.
a.k.a. "Look at my dick, it's enormous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse#cite_note-Nutt-0:
Nutt D, King LA, Saulsbury W, Blakemore C (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". Lancet 369 (9566): 1047-53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. http://www.antiproibizionisti.it/public/docs/thelancet_20070323.pdf.
Keep in mind my comment was meant tongue-in-cheek. Pointing out that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol is meant to provoke people to rethink the relative legal status.
I agree that the amounts seem off, but I wouldn't say greatly. While a healthy person wouldn't be inclined to adopting a marijuana dependency, that's not the question. "When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed." It's when an unhealthy person partakes that use can get out of hand. That goes for any drug that makes you feel good.
Maybe the relative harm amount is quite a bit off. But perhaps they mean behavioral harm (e.g. difficulty maintaining a job) as well as physical. Still, I'd imagine a serious alcohol dependence would easily trump a serious marijuana dependence for overall harm.
What do you mean no high potential for abuse?
According to this graph, cannabis is about 2/3 as physically harmful and about 5/6 as dependence-causing as alcohol! And we all know how dangerous that is.
Oh, but I guess this same graph tells us that tobacco should be made illegal before cannabis...