What is new -- and alarming for anything potentially innovative or disruptive -- is Neelie Kroes (EU competition czar) saying that the desired outcome is for Microsoft to have 50% market share (or at least a significant reduction). That's putting the cart before the horse. What if Microsoft went open source and released a Vista UI based on a linux kernel -- would the EU still want Microsoft to have 50% market share and keep punishing them if they didn't? No, not for a second. What you're talking about is a conversational quote from one authority involved in the matter - it's not law, and shouldn't be interpreted as such. It's the (current) goal as stated by one man. That doesn't mean the goal wouldn't change if Microsoft's behavior changed. Don't take an idle quote and interpret it as if it was approved and applied law.
Given Microsoft's entire track record I approve of the goal of bringing them to 50% completely at the moment. If Microsoft ever proved to become a fair player, I would change my mind. They haven't, and they aren't. I want their market share down NOW, because it costs you and I a lot of money and progress. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably missing a lot of information or self respect or both (or they work at/have share in Microsoft).
Every MS machine I've used quickly had firefox installed. That would probably be because you're a Linux using/.er. Grandma doesn't know what a firefox is.
anyone heard about Sony suing Nissan for providing cars with a competitive player? Nissan's evident monopoly Makes such a bundle crippling for a business making CD players. Ok, sarcasm aside, actions must be taken in context. Bundling (without option or exception) is less of a problem when you aren't the ONLY choice available. On top of that, realize that Nissan doesn't make the stereo they choose to bundle, and often cars have stereo upgrade options. You can't order your copy of Windows to come with Firefox instead of IE, and Microsoft benefits quite directly from people using IE. That doesn't hold up with the Nissan stereo analogy.
The problem isn't "bundling products", the problem is intentional leverage of market share to maintain more market share.
on modern hardware it runs beautifully fast, is very stable, That is not the impression I've gotten at all, and I'm not talking about modern hardware - I'm talking brand spanking new stuff. I independently contract and have a few friends that do - we share an office. Their latest contract insists that they use Vista and even bought them new machines for it - they bitch non-stop about the sluggishness and instability. My less computer-savvy friends that are running vista have each called me multiple times asking what they're doing wrong because their brand new computer is slow and crashes too much.
and is far more compatible with previous versions of Windows than anyone gives it credit for. (On compatibility, I just can't help remembering all the whining that went on when XP was released and didn't run all DOS programs perfectly. We've been here before, guys. We got over it.) There's a difference here... Vista is having incompatibility issues with a lot of modern hardware - most of which works fine with XP. That's a little different than being incompatible with an old software api.
There are also a non-trivial number of programs written for WINAPI that don't behave correctly on Vista. That's very different than not supporting a deprecated API from an already grandfathered OS like DOS - DOS was grandfathered when 9x came into play. It'd been out for almost a decade when XP came out. Vista is having problems running windows programs. The WINAPI is not deprecated in any way.
You're absolutely right. Heck, I ditched OSX and installed Ubuntu on my Mac - OSX just frustrated me. I don't assume many others would react in an even similar fashion, but in my case it was just not what I wanted. I didn't want decisions made for me and options hidden. My mom couldn't get enough decisions made for her nor enough options hidden.
I was excited to try OSX, but not so impressed once I did - just didn't fit my style. It's superior for many peoples' needs, just not mine. I think people need to keep that sort of concept in mind when discussing what the "best" OS is.
I think you may be missing some of the point that a lot of open source advocates try to make - likely because they tend to froth at the mouth, yes.
In the OGG situation, think of it this way: everyone can use OGG. EVERYONE. Apple, Microsoft, everyone. The reason they don't? Because they can just support MP3 (which at some point may decide to charge out the ass for its use), WMA, whatever. If we could get the majority of consumers using OGG, Microsoft and Apple would have to jump on board and we are guaranteed interoperability from any platform be it free or not. You will never get that with proprietary patent-encumbered formats. That's a darn good reason to encourage the use of OGG if you ask me.
As far as OSX goes - I own a mac mini. I used OSX, and it frustrated me. I did not appreciate the way many decisions were made for me and many options were hidden. It took me a lot longer to get simple things done. I installed Ubuntu on it and appreciated having full power to do what I want.
So no, it doesn't always boil down to "a mac costs too much, blah blah" - I bought a mac, it frustrated the shit out of me, I stuck Linux on it and I've never looked back.
You're right that the open source community has a lot of zealotry, but believe it or not it also has a lot of legitimate fans won over by time saved and problems solved.
but almost anybody is failing to see that it is in reality THE OTHER PARTS who are trying to get some oxygen by teaming with the big guy I doubt they're failing to see it. I think they're calling it what it is - abuse of monopoly. If the only way you can stay afloat and keep breathing is to team up with someone that will inevitably use the 'partnership' to crush you, something is unfair.
Nobody's saying these smaller companies had an option, they're just pointing out the point at which they took the "certain death" option.
Re:That's the NDA process for you
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
the newspaper could have countered with a suggested NDA of their own, and walked away from the table if AMD wouldn't bend. No story for the paper in this case I know! Let's write a story about how we turned down their NDA!
A little off topic, but I did the same thing with an invention assignment agreement when I got hired at a place last year. They sent it to me in.doc format, so I read through it and "amended" parts that I thought were unfair. I printed it and gave it to them, and I doubt they ever bothered reading through it.
I only made reasonable changes, but I could have put that the agreement was only valid if my boss ignited a live chicken every time I said the word "salmon" while in the office. They would still just look for my signature, sign the line below it, and be done with it all.
I'm sure others mentioned this but I read a ton of comments before finally posting because I didn't see it mentioned - so sorry if it's redundant.
Lots of posters keep joking about how there are no real games out there for Linux - now that's only partially true (the UT series, the Doom and Quake series, for example), but did it ever occur to you that perhaps there are relatively few games for Linux because Linux drivers from the big 2 have been sub-standard to terrible?
Why design your game to be compatible with Linux if it'll just drive your support costs through the roof because Linux users will come whining to you when their graphics drivers don't work?
If we see quality graphics drivers for Linux from ATI we'll likely see equal drivers from nVidia soon (I know nVidia's have been alright, but they certainly aren't perfect by any means). If we see that, we will see LOTS more games designed to be compatible with Linux.
We're a Microsoft partner so we contacted them about the problem right away. That doesn't sound like a very good partnership - I mean, you guys did everything you could (contacting Cisco, etc) to try to solve the problem in a clean manner and they pretty much told you guys where to stick it.
That feels more like being a subordinate than a partner - you guys should feel pretty insulted at being treated like that.
This brings us to the second point, that of giving back to the commons you took from. As you point out, the BSD license does not require it! Yet somehow, the BSD codebase continues to grow with contributions not only from individuals but also from companies. The reason for this is that people feel obligated to give back useful portions of their work to the commons despite not being legally obligated to do so. I wish that was true. I did an internship at a medium-large company that uses wx and modifies it a lot. When I asked why they didn't contribute their changes they said "because we don't have to." I did not go back after the internship.
I hope you come back to read my response, that's one of the reasons I signed up - I'd get e-mailed about responses.
Anyway I don't judge people for simply posting anonymously. There are many that do so for privacy concerns (don't want to register - that's fine), some for the reasons you stated (I considered them myself before signing up - I may have decided wrongly).
Now while most of this discussion has been about this post by the AC, please note that it started with my pointing out the invalidity (and irony) of an AC specifically calling someone else's credibility into question without presenting any rebuttal to his post or relevant subject matter.
Now I'm not calling your review of Twitter's behavior into question, just stating I haven't seen it with my own two eyes yet. If it's possible he's changed since the events you're recalling he deserves a 2nd chance from those he hasn't wronged yet (like me). If he hasn't changed, I'll see it myself eventually.
I appreciate your taking time to respond - it did occur to me that a few of the actual valid AC crowd would misconstrue what I was saying. This gave me a chance to (attempt to) clear that up - I don't mind ACs, I mind when people use AC posting to start a one-sided flame war. Look forward to your posting again, though I'm bummed I won't know who you are.:)
Pardon my arrogance. Why else would they post as AC? Forgot their password and the password to their mail account?
There are plenty of reasons to post as AC, but there are few to post blatant ad hominem attacks other than that your reputation simply doesn't stack up to your target's, or that you want to damage theirs but aren't willing to risk yours. Please enlighten me on any other reason a person would post an ad hominem attack as an AC.
Yeah, still doesn't relate at all to the actual post Twitter made, but more to the AC's impression of Twitter in general. Maybe it's because you didn't doublecheck, but I still don't see any reason the AC's post should actually influence the particular post to which it responded. If the AC wishes to damage Twitter, they should pick their battles and attack posts that have flaws, and post what the flaws are and why they are flaws. It'd also help if they had the balls to do so under their own account, but that isn't necessary - just preferred. If they won't stand by their words long term, I don't see why I should listen to them.
Anyway the whole "I'm tired of hearing your crap, so I'm going to make fun of you" thing... seems unfair to me. Just because you're tired of hearing their crap doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. You can't decide that for them, but you can voice your opinion, sure. If you then choose to voice your opinion as an AC, you are in effect saying "I don't want you to listen to that guy, but I don't want you to have the option of choosing whether or not to listen to me since you don't know who I am" -- CHEAP move.
I don't have a problem with you - you seem to actually think things through so I appreciate your discussing this with me. I have a problem with the AC - their actions seem quite hypocritical and underhanded.
Everyone seems to be caught up on the statistics (there are plenty of statistical errors the article makes, for sure). I don't know about a lot of you but I know far more girls that blog than guys that do. Let's face it, girls tend to be chatty and want to share details about what's going on with them. It probably sounds pretty gay but I actually enjoy reading their blogs more than guys'.
Would you mind explaining then? All I saw was an ad hominem attack with no attempt to substantiate with any kind of reason or evidence. I may be missing something - no I mean it, I really may be missing something, and I'd love it if you tell me, seriously - but someone that does what the previous sentence described is the very definition of troll.
Well, been here a bit over a year. Anyway, it doesn't matter what individuals think of Twitter himself - they should let others judge his posts for themselves rather than trying to influence public opinion with their own. It just doesn't seem honest to me.
And, aside, a lot of the time I think Twitter says some insightful stuff. I may not always agree with Twitter, but I think the moment people start targeting others and harassing them personally rather than the actual words they say it's a sign of immaturity and not really fair. I mean, if Twitter says something that is really insightful that person would disagree regardless, would be very vocal about it, and would probably provide no actual argument to Twitter's statements. Oh wait, that's what happened.
I don't object in defense of Twitter per se, I object on the principle - the AC did nothing but an ad hominem attack. No attempt at logic, reason, or real debate was made.
Think whatever you want of Twitter or anyone else here on/., even me, but if you're going to challenge their credibility with a blatant ad hominem attack, at least have the balls to do it on your own account.
That doesn't explain why anyone would bother changing the user agent to return IE 7 for Vista rather than a generic IE7 or IE6 for XP. I never claimed which particular version of Windows or IE people use for their agent string. Any combination that makes the site you visit happy works. I'm not trying to draw the distinction between which version of Windows or IE they choose to fake, just that there are a lot of OSX and Linux users that are forced to do so by non standards-compliant sites.
How many people do you suppose know what a "user agent string" is or how to modify it safely? People that don't drink the MS koolaid - OSX users and Linux users as well as firefox users on Windows (Not many, mind - most of them just use IE Tab) tend to learn the trick pretty quickly because their banking site or whatever won't let them in. They ask around a bit, and get an answer. Word spreads quickly.
Karma and credibility. You don't have to know who I am to know what I've said in the past and whether I have a reputation of being insightful or just badgering a specific user (like the AC was doing to Twitter).
The AC was attacking a specific person and too cowardly to be quoted on it later or held accountable to the words.
I have good karma because I tend to (not always, of course) choose my words carefully. This gives me credibility on slashdot. If Twitter is not credible then the majority of slashdot mods will be able to see that, he'll get consistently modded down, and he'll receive a negative karma "bonus" and his posts will not be visible to most people. The system does this automatically - if you have to go out of your way to try and enforce your opinion of someone then it's probably because most people don't agree with you so they mod him up. I would say that probably means you're wrong.
A general rule of software engineering is that specification is just as subject to bugs as design or implementation. I think the same should stand for legal situations.
We should not accept an error just because it didn't occur in design (standards) or implementation (enforcement of standards). This is why judges are allowed to overturn laws and the like. In this case the SIS may not have specified a specific method of cheating as invalid, but it's still invalid and we can see that clearly. Rather than say "oh well" and move on, we should strike the cheat attempt down, modify our specification, and then check that the design and implementation reflect the changes.
how many times has this happened but people took the bribes? I mean, you only report the offer if you turned it down (obviously you can't accept it and report it or you look like a real douche). You occasionally hear about things like this happening, but that doesn't mean it only happens occasionally. Greed is a powerful force, and everyone has needs.
I like how you said the AC is "obviously correct" without offering any evidence, just like how the AC claimed all sorts of things about Twitter without backing any of it. Literally none of it.
One: Actions speak louder than words. The AC posted as AC intentionally, most likely because he/she/it is concerned that their credibility is already too crappy to be listened to or will be if they say things like... what they said.
Two:
M$... Windoze... M$... Windoze... [unsubstantiated blabber]... M$... Windoze [bad spelling]... M$... Windoze... [self-references]... M$... Windoze... What was "unsubstantial" about the "blabber" other than the AC's opinion? What does "bad spelling" have to do with insight and correct logic? Did the AC mention that the "self references" each refer to a reposting of someone else's article by Twitter? That is not a self reference!
The only thing the AC was right about was that Twitter tends to use slurs like "M$" and "Windoze". While I agree that's retarded, it's not important if the rest of his post is valid.
The AC never gave anything but his own opinion about Twitter. Nobody should listen to his opinion of someone else if he's too afraid to even identify himself. We should listen to logic if he posts it. He didn't, not a shred.
No messing with a bunch of different purchases to do things with my PC that should be easy now in 2007. I know. I just *hate* having to 'purchase' things (free) by typing "apt-get install (application)". I have to do that all the time in Ubuntu. Frickin' Ubuntu purchases.
I think that's the advantage of release early, release often. More bugs found earlier. Consistent, constant progress measurement. Lets you know just how many updates after which you really want to adopt a product.
Slashdot Mirror
Given Microsoft's entire track record I approve of the goal of bringing them to 50% completely at the moment. If Microsoft ever proved to become a fair player, I would change my mind. They haven't, and they aren't. I want their market share down NOW, because it costs you and I a lot of money and progress. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably missing a lot of information or self respect or both (or they work at/have share in Microsoft).
The problem isn't "bundling products", the problem is intentional leverage of market share to maintain more market share.
and is far more compatible with previous versions of Windows than anyone gives it credit for. (On compatibility, I just can't help remembering all the whining that went on when XP was released and didn't run all DOS programs perfectly. We've been here before, guys. We got over it.) There's a difference here... Vista is having incompatibility issues with a lot of modern hardware - most of which works fine with XP. That's a little different than being incompatible with an old software api.
There are also a non-trivial number of programs written for WINAPI that don't behave correctly on Vista. That's very different than not supporting a deprecated API from an already grandfathered OS like DOS - DOS was grandfathered when 9x came into play. It'd been out for almost a decade when XP came out. Vista is having problems running windows programs. The WINAPI is not deprecated in any way.
You're absolutely right. Heck, I ditched OSX and installed Ubuntu on my Mac - OSX just frustrated me. I don't assume many others would react in an even similar fashion, but in my case it was just not what I wanted. I didn't want decisions made for me and options hidden. My mom couldn't get enough decisions made for her nor enough options hidden.
I was excited to try OSX, but not so impressed once I did - just didn't fit my style. It's superior for many peoples' needs, just not mine. I think people need to keep that sort of concept in mind when discussing what the "best" OS is.
I think you may be missing some of the point that a lot of open source advocates try to make - likely because they tend to froth at the mouth, yes.
In the OGG situation, think of it this way: everyone can use OGG. EVERYONE. Apple, Microsoft, everyone. The reason they don't? Because they can just support MP3 (which at some point may decide to charge out the ass for its use), WMA, whatever. If we could get the majority of consumers using OGG, Microsoft and Apple would have to jump on board and we are guaranteed interoperability from any platform be it free or not. You will never get that with proprietary patent-encumbered formats. That's a darn good reason to encourage the use of OGG if you ask me.
As far as OSX goes - I own a mac mini. I used OSX, and it frustrated me. I did not appreciate the way many decisions were made for me and many options were hidden. It took me a lot longer to get simple things done. I installed Ubuntu on it and appreciated having full power to do what I want.
So no, it doesn't always boil down to "a mac costs too much, blah blah" - I bought a mac, it frustrated the shit out of me, I stuck Linux on it and I've never looked back.
You're right that the open source community has a lot of zealotry, but believe it or not it also has a lot of legitimate fans won over by time saved and problems solved.
Nobody's saying these smaller companies had an option, they're just pointing out the point at which they took the "certain death" option.
A little off topic, but I did the same thing with an invention assignment agreement when I got hired at a place last year. They sent it to me in .doc format, so I read through it and "amended" parts that I thought were unfair. I printed it and gave it to them, and I doubt they ever bothered reading through it.
I only made reasonable changes, but I could have put that the agreement was only valid if my boss ignited a live chicken every time I said the word "salmon" while in the office. They would still just look for my signature, sign the line below it, and be done with it all.
I'm sure others mentioned this but I read a ton of comments before finally posting because I didn't see it mentioned - so sorry if it's redundant.
Lots of posters keep joking about how there are no real games out there for Linux - now that's only partially true (the UT series, the Doom and Quake series, for example), but did it ever occur to you that perhaps there are relatively few games for Linux because Linux drivers from the big 2 have been sub-standard to terrible?
Why design your game to be compatible with Linux if it'll just drive your support costs through the roof because Linux users will come whining to you when their graphics drivers don't work?
If we see quality graphics drivers for Linux from ATI we'll likely see equal drivers from nVidia soon (I know nVidia's have been alright, but they certainly aren't perfect by any means). If we see that, we will see LOTS more games designed to be compatible with Linux.
If you build it, they will come.
That feels more like being a subordinate than a partner - you guys should feel pretty insulted at being treated like that.
time to move to Europe, anyone?
I hope you come back to read my response, that's one of the reasons I signed up - I'd get e-mailed about responses.
:)
Anyway I don't judge people for simply posting anonymously. There are many that do so for privacy concerns (don't want to register - that's fine), some for the reasons you stated (I considered them myself before signing up - I may have decided wrongly).
Now while most of this discussion has been about this post by the AC, please note that it started with my pointing out the invalidity (and irony) of an AC specifically calling someone else's credibility into question without presenting any rebuttal to his post or relevant subject matter.
Now I'm not calling your review of Twitter's behavior into question, just stating I haven't seen it with my own two eyes yet. If it's possible he's changed since the events you're recalling he deserves a 2nd chance from those he hasn't wronged yet (like me). If he hasn't changed, I'll see it myself eventually.
I appreciate your taking time to respond - it did occur to me that a few of the actual valid AC crowd would misconstrue what I was saying. This gave me a chance to (attempt to) clear that up - I don't mind ACs, I mind when people use AC posting to start a one-sided flame war. Look forward to your posting again, though I'm bummed I won't know who you are.
Pardon my arrogance. Why else would they post as AC? Forgot their password and the password to their mail account?
There are plenty of reasons to post as AC, but there are few to post blatant ad hominem attacks other than that your reputation simply doesn't stack up to your target's, or that you want to damage theirs but aren't willing to risk yours. Please enlighten me on any other reason a person would post an ad hominem attack as an AC.
Yeah, still doesn't relate at all to the actual post Twitter made, but more to the AC's impression of Twitter in general. Maybe it's because you didn't doublecheck, but I still don't see any reason the AC's post should actually influence the particular post to which it responded. If the AC wishes to damage Twitter, they should pick their battles and attack posts that have flaws, and post what the flaws are and why they are flaws. It'd also help if they had the balls to do so under their own account, but that isn't necessary - just preferred. If they won't stand by their words long term, I don't see why I should listen to them.
Anyway the whole "I'm tired of hearing your crap, so I'm going to make fun of you" thing... seems unfair to me. Just because you're tired of hearing their crap doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. You can't decide that for them, but you can voice your opinion, sure. If you then choose to voice your opinion as an AC, you are in effect saying "I don't want you to listen to that guy, but I don't want you to have the option of choosing whether or not to listen to me since you don't know who I am" -- CHEAP move.
I don't have a problem with you - you seem to actually think things through so I appreciate your discussing this with me. I have a problem with the AC - their actions seem quite hypocritical and underhanded.
Everyone seems to be caught up on the statistics (there are plenty of statistical errors the article makes, for sure). I don't know about a lot of you but I know far more girls that blog than guys that do. Let's face it, girls tend to be chatty and want to share details about what's going on with them. It probably sounds pretty gay but I actually enjoy reading their blogs more than guys'.
Would you mind explaining then? All I saw was an ad hominem attack with no attempt to substantiate with any kind of reason or evidence. I may be missing something - no I mean it, I really may be missing something, and I'd love it if you tell me, seriously - but someone that does what the previous sentence described is the very definition of troll.
Well, been here a bit over a year. Anyway, it doesn't matter what individuals think of Twitter himself - they should let others judge his posts for themselves rather than trying to influence public opinion with their own. It just doesn't seem honest to me.
/., even me, but if you're going to challenge their credibility with a blatant ad hominem attack, at least have the balls to do it on your own account.
And, aside, a lot of the time I think Twitter says some insightful stuff. I may not always agree with Twitter, but I think the moment people start targeting others and harassing them personally rather than the actual words they say it's a sign of immaturity and not really fair. I mean, if Twitter says something that is really insightful that person would disagree regardless, would be very vocal about it, and would probably provide no actual argument to Twitter's statements. Oh wait, that's what happened.
I don't object in defense of Twitter per se, I object on the principle - the AC did nothing but an ad hominem attack. No attempt at logic, reason, or real debate was made.
Think whatever you want of Twitter or anyone else here on
Karma and credibility. You don't have to know who I am to know what I've said in the past and whether I have a reputation of being insightful or just badgering a specific user (like the AC was doing to Twitter).
The AC was attacking a specific person and too cowardly to be quoted on it later or held accountable to the words.
I have good karma because I tend to (not always, of course) choose my words carefully. This gives me credibility on slashdot. If Twitter is not credible then the majority of slashdot mods will be able to see that, he'll get consistently modded down, and he'll receive a negative karma "bonus" and his posts will not be visible to most people. The system does this automatically - if you have to go out of your way to try and enforce your opinion of someone then it's probably because most people don't agree with you so they mod him up. I would say that probably means you're wrong.
A general rule of software engineering is that specification is just as subject to bugs as design or implementation. I think the same should stand for legal situations.
We should not accept an error just because it didn't occur in design (standards) or implementation (enforcement of standards). This is why judges are allowed to overturn laws and the like. In this case the SIS may not have specified a specific method of cheating as invalid, but it's still invalid and we can see that clearly. Rather than say "oh well" and move on, we should strike the cheat attempt down, modify our specification, and then check that the design and implementation reflect the changes.
how many times has this happened but people took the bribes? I mean, you only report the offer if you turned it down (obviously you can't accept it and report it or you look like a real douche). You occasionally hear about things like this happening, but that doesn't mean it only happens occasionally. Greed is a powerful force, and everyone has needs.
One: Actions speak louder than words. The AC posted as AC intentionally, most likely because he/she/it is concerned that their credibility is already too crappy to be listened to or will be if they say things like... what they said.
Two: M$... Windoze... M$... Windoze... [unsubstantiated blabber]... M$... Windoze [bad spelling]... M$... Windoze... [self-references]... M$... Windoze... What was "unsubstantial" about the "blabber" other than the AC's opinion? What does "bad spelling" have to do with insight and correct logic? Did the AC mention that the "self references" each refer to a reposting of someone else's article by Twitter? That is not a self reference!
The only thing the AC was right about was that Twitter tends to use slurs like "M$" and "Windoze". While I agree that's retarded, it's not important if the rest of his post is valid.
The AC never gave anything but his own opinion about Twitter. Nobody should listen to his opinion of someone else if he's too afraid to even identify himself. We should listen to logic if he posts it. He didn't, not a shred.
I think that's the advantage of release early, release often. More bugs found earlier. Consistent, constant progress measurement. Lets you know just how many updates after which you really want to adopt a product.