This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Slashdotter's don't like MS? (Score:2, Funny)
by Hairy_Potter
(T_Rone@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:06AM EST
(#11)
(User #219096 Info)
http://members.xoom.com/T_rone/T_RONE.HTM
|
Today, there is an almost violent dislike for anything Microsoft in the Linux community - just look at some of the postings on slashdot!
/coy Why, whatever does he mean?
|
|
Re:Slashdotter's don't like MS? (Score:1)
by MxTxL
(SmlutPter@cfl.rAr.comM)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:21AM EST
(#51)
(User #307166 Info)
|
Wow, it that the first time a big shot at MS has admitted to reading /.??
Well, maybe he didn't admit to reading it, but at least he knew it existed. One of his advisors must read then! Our influence spreads thus.... *evil grin*
|
Re:Slashdotter's don't like MS? (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:22AM EST
(#55)
|
I wonder if he's a troll? He certainly has the motivation.
|
Re:Slashdotter's don't like MS? (Score:1)
by Oztun
(oztun@NOSPAM.oztun.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:12PM EST
(#723)
(User #111934 Info)
|
He forgot to mention this dislike has been around for 21 years. Ever since Gates plagerized CPM. Maybe they didn't realize people didn't like them until we voiced it on Slashdot.
|
Mod this up. (Score:2)
by Dwonis
(dlitz[IBoycottSpam]@dlitz[spamsucks].net)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:53PM EST
(#777)
(User #52652 Info)
http://www.dlitz.net/
|
I totally agree. Microsoft doesn't understand that the only reason their bad-quality software sells is because consumers don't know any better, nor do they (the average joe) have any real alternatives with the features they want. Even a lot of Linux software is bloated (i.e. KDE and GNOME -- how many people really run a desktop linux system on a 486?) and doesn't provide the features that MS software does.
Microsoft's attitude is like that of a smoker: "I smoke, and there's nothing wrong with me, and look at that sick non-smoker over there!" In the short run it will benefit Microsoft, but in the long run, it will be its downfall.
End Transmission. --------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
-- Tacitus |
Re:Mod this up. (Score:1)
by Hultin on Thursday April 05, @02:52AM EST
(#980)
(User #123754 Info)
|
Microsoft doesn't understand that the only reason their bad-quality software sells is because consumers don't know any better, nor do they (the average joe) have any real alternatives with the features they want.
On the contrary - Although they may not agree with the Linux Community's view of things, they are not fools. I believe they fully understand that "the average joe" doesn't know better and try very hard to keep it that way.
/Hultin
|
Security Vs Usability (Score:1, Interesting)
by Lover's Arrival, The
(Lovers_Arrival_The@americanwicca.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:09AM EST
(#17)
(User #267435 Info)
|
Microsoft have a very bad reputation for security for some reason, and it may be that this is undeserved. Microsoft are focusing on making a usable and secure platform, and their platform is attacked more than any other. It could be that there are many security holes in Linux that are unknown simply because it is not put under the same scrutiny. Many eyes make all security flaws shallow, and there are many more eyes scrutinising Windows than Linux. Also, personally speaking, I must declare an interest. I much prefer using Windows to Linux because it is easy to use and allows doesn't expect me to be an expert to do everything. The last time I used linux it expected me to recompile my kernel so that I could have working sound and access my windows partition. Except it didn't work. So I was screwed over. Windows I find to be perhaps less secure because many eyes are discovering and publicising its flaws, but for me, as a web designer, I find it a much better solution. Its just a question of trade offs - Impossible to use but secure through obscurity Vs Easy to use but unsecure because of scruting. I agree with much of what Doug says on this subject.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The |
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by ink on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#88)
(User #4325 Info)
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai
|
The last time I used linux it expected me to recompile my kernel so that I could have working sound and access my windows partition. Except it didn't work. So I was screwed over.
Wow! I didn't know that Windows made it easy to access my Linux partitions. Could you please post a step-by-step on how to re-compile the Windows kernel so that it supports ext2?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kellcrai@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger ink@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by Psiolent
(aawalker@at@ou.dot.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:11PM EST
(#250)
(User #160884 Info)
|
I believe he said "recompile my [linux] kernel so that I could...access my windows partition." Not, as you seem to think, "recompile my [windows] kernel so that I could...access my linux partitions."
Perhaps you were implying that Linux is better than windows since you *can* access the other's partitions. If this is the case, my apologies for misinterpreting your comment.
-----
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." --Calvin |
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by ethereal on Wednesday April 04, @12:32PM EST
(#343)
(User #13958 Info)
|
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm, my spidey-sense was tingling :)
(or was it my Bill the Cat-sense? Ack, I must consider. thpffffft!)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous! |
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by cosme on Wednesday April 04, @12:44PM EST
(#389)
(User #313306 Info)
|
It's easy to access linux partitions from windows without recompiling, quick way is to....
1) dowload shareware from http://www.runtime.org/captain.htm
2) Install software
3) Launch application
4) Bring up your partition
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by HisMother on Wednesday April 04, @11:32AM EST
(#94)
(User #413313 Info)
|
"Scruting" ?
Isn't it a great time to be a geek? |
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:1, Offtopic)
by StoryMan
(kelsolundeen@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:39AM EST
(#124)
(User #130421 Info)
|
Isn't the word 'Microsoft' singular?
So it's not "Microsoft have ..." or "Microsoft are .."
It's "Microsoft has ..." and "Microsoft is ..."
Yes, Microsoft is made up of multitudes, but the word itself -- the brand -- is singular.
But, yes, I could be wrong. I remember growing up in a small town and hearing people say, "I gotta go shopping at Krogers." (The store was called Kroger -- singular.) Or: "I work for Butlers." (The place was called Butler -- singular.)
It's an odd thing -- pluralizing singulars. But what the fuck. Language is messed up. I guess I gotta go back and read Wittgensteins.
|
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:2, Informative)
by Lover's Arrival, The
(Lovers_Arrival_The@americanwicca.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:45AM EST
(#159)
(User #267435 Info)
|
In the Queen's English it is plural. I am a subject of the Queen. Take your bastardised English and begone. Thank you, one of Shakespeares Countrywomen.
--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The |
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:1, Offtopic)
by ScuzzMonkey
(indigo_67a@(SYNONYMFORSTIMULATE).com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:08PM EST
(#233)
(User #208981 Info)
|
Isn't the word "Shakespeare" singular?
j/k
No relation to Happy Monkey (User #183297) |
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:1)
by Lover Arrival, The
(Lovers_Arrival_The@americanwicca.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:08PM EST
(#236)
(User #410038 Info)
|
whats the plural of stupid bitch troll?
I fucked Heidi's camel once!!
and he was more of a man then Kara's boyfriend! |
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:2)
by StoryMan
(kelsolundeen@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:29PM EST
(#327)
(User #130421 Info)
|
Thank you,
one of Shakespeares Countrywomen.
Does the Queen's English have apostrophes?
|
Re:Pluralizing singlars?!? (Score:1)
by Psiolent
(aawalker@at@ou.dot.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:18PM EST
(#280)
(User #160884 Info)
|
what i don't get is, this whole "are belong to us" thing". is that some inside joke i'm missing?
All your base are belong to us.
-----
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." --Calvin |
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by StarTux
(thoushaltnotspamme@what.co.moon)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:45AM EST
(#156)
(User #230379 Info)
|
>Many eyes make all security flaws shallow, and >there are many more eyes scrutinising Windows >than Linux.
How many more eyes scrutinise the Windows source code vs the Linux source code??
>The last time I used linux it expected me to >recompile my kernel so that I could have >working sound and access my windows >partition.
When *was* the last time. Last time I installed a distribution I could access my Windows partitions and my SBLive worked flawlessly (last time was SuSE 7.1, but worked just as well from about 6.4).
Each to their own, but most of the new innovation is not coming from Redmond. Its still worth trying your dual boot with the newer distro's and using newer web design utils, although not the same as Dreamweaver yet, but getting there.
StarTux
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by gaudior on Wednesday April 04, @12:34PM EST
(#353)
(User #113467 Info)
|
How many more eyes scrutinise the Windows source code vs the Linux source code?? How many Linux users actually scrutinize the code they install and use? I use Open Source software and I've been a programmer for nearly 15 years. I don't read the source of every package I download, or every patch I install, and I suspect I am not very different from most Open Source users.
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:3, Funny)
by Si
(brainkarma@)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:01PM EST
(#211)
(User #9816 Info)
|
Also, personally speaking, I must declare an interest. I much prefer using Linux to Windows because it is easy to use and allows doesn't want me to be an idiot and try to do everything for me. The last time I used windows it wouldn't let me recompile my kernel so that I could have working sound and access my linux partition.
Except it didn't work. So I was screwed over.
Cole's Law: finely chopped cabbage. |
Hi I'm a stupid bitch troll (Score:1)
by Lover Arrival, The
(Lovers_Arrival_The@americanwicca.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:07PM EST
(#228)
(User #410038 Info)
|
and windows is user freindly for stupid bitches like me I'm a web designer!!!
SO I'm more smart then you
I fucked Heidi's camel once!!
and he was more of a man then Kara's boyfriend! |
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by Haelyn on Wednesday April 04, @12:17PM EST
(#271)
(User #321711 Info)
|
First of all. The M$ bad reputation is wll deserved, and they seems to continue
making efforts to enhance this reputation
Second. Linux _expects_ you to rebuild the kernel? This is the first time I see somethin like this.
You can't tell Linux is 'secure thru obscurity'.
Man you have the whole kernel source to hack in!!! Is this 'obscurity'?
Nah, I disagree with you...
|
Re:Security Vs Usability (Score:1)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @04:59PM EST
(#784)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Check out http://www.securityfocus.com before you continue.
Microsoft has a bad reputation on security for many reasons. One of which is that they have, in the past, been notified of glaring security holes in their software (IE) but not issued fixes for MONTHS.
They routinely downplay security issues and have actively tried to hamper postings/warnings about MS-related security issues.
Fixes quite often AREN'T fixes (see the one about IE earlier THIS WEEK).
Microsoft software comes from a heritage of the unconnected or limited-connected desktops. The environment was neutral at worst, and friendly most of the time.
Unix (Linux, BSD, etc.) comes from a heritage that has already been burned many a time by the big, bad, interconnected world. Because of this they tend to take a more serious view on security.
Its like coming from the friendly small country town where no one locks their doors and everyone leaves the keys in the ignition.
You don't do that when you live in the middle of the big, bad city.
On the other hand, the reputation is a bit overblown. Many problems stem from their userbase not applying patches or ignoring security warnings. While this problem exists for all operating systems and software, it is more prevalant for MS because they are everywhere and their userbase is more...um, "un-knowledgable".
--
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Some comments (Score:5, Insightful)
by RayChuang
(raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:10AM EST
(#18)
(User #10181 Info)
|
I think he has some very interesting insights in regards to the computer industry--probably more than the vast majority of the Linux crowd.
First, I think that Microsoft will be a huge contributor to MacOS X. The reason is simple: it is relatively easy to write to the Mac environment, since all the API calls are standardized. After all, we will see Office for MacOS X and very likely Internet Explorer 6.0, too.
Second, Miller is correct that Linux is still primarily a server operating system. This is where Linux's strength lies, and don't be surprised that Microsoft offers ways for Linux servers to operate in the Microsoft.Net environment.
Finally, Microsoft may port a few programs to Linux. The most likely thing: Internet Explorer.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
|
Re:Some comments (Score:2)
by PCM2 on Wednesday April 04, @01:41PM EST
(#511)
(User #4486 Info)
|
>Finally, Microsoft may port a few programs to Linux. The most likely thing: Internet Explorer.
And if it's a robust, stable browser that lets me view 90% of the Web sites out there, complete with all their JavaScript, ECMAscript, and (what?!) VBScript gee-gaws on the Linux platform, then I will use it.
The greater glory of Konqueror/Nautilus/Mozilla/Galeon/whatever be damned, I just want to surf the Web.
Think they'll port it to LinuxPPC? --
All your tchotchkes are belong to us. |
Re:Some comments (Score:3, Interesting)
by RayChuang
(raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:31PM EST
(#841)
(User #10181 Info)
|
If there was an Internet Explorer for Linux, it will NOT be a port of any existing code. If you look at the current versions of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh, they're written from scratch specifically for the Macintosh environment (it was written by a team of MS engineers based here in the Bay Area), owing nothing to the Windows version.
Very likely, IE for Linux will be written from scratch, and will likely function akin to the upcoming IE 6.0 for Windows 98/ME/2000/XP.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
Re:Some comments (Score:1)
by mlogan
(mloganNO@SPAMccs.neu.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:16PM EST
(#872)
(User #81677 Info)
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/
|
internet explorer exists for solaris 2.6, strangely enough. you can actually tell where the operating system ends and the browser begins, based on what is missing from the browser.
-mark
|
Re:Some comments (Score:3, Insightful)
by RayChuang
(raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:59PM EST
(#962)
(User #10181 Info)
|
Internet Explorer for Solaris was kind of a rushed port that did not really take advantage of the graphical environment used normally in Solaris.
I think if we do see a version of IE that runs under Linux it will likely be a written-from-scratch version that takes advantage of the API calls used in KDE or GNOME so it works seamless in these graphical environments.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
Re:Some comments (Score:2, Informative)
by droleary
(droleary@subsume.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:46PM EST
(#692)
(User #47999 Info)
http://www.subsume.com/employees/droleary/index.html
|
The reason is simple: it is relatively easy to write to the Mac environment, since all the API calls are standardized.
Standardization in itself doesn't ease development. I gave up Mac development in 1992 because the API at that time was horrible, and it's only gotten worse. Microsoft products under OS X will use that API (Carbon) if IE is any indication, and most existing Mac apps will move over to OS X via Carbon. This won't help Linux users at all, since there are no efforts (I know of) to get the Carbon API implemented directly (sans emulation) on Linux.
Cocoa on the other hand is based on OpenStep, which has seen active open source development at GNUstep. Clueful new development for Mac OS X will use this API. Slap whatever GUI you want on it; OpenStep doesn't care. If Linux users hope to take advantage of Mac OS X application development, they should put their efforts into GNUstep.
|
Re:Some comments (Score:1)
by GiMP
(ewindisc at fit.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:51PM EST
(#698)
(User #10923 Info)
http://www.bwbohh.net
|
Microsoft has ported IE and NetShow to Linux, but both projects have been canceled.. they were working though an outside company for the work, I don't know why they were canceled though.
This shows they do have an interest in porting to linux, they just haven't come out with anything more then broken beta software. The NetShow player doesn't really play many .asf files out there, as it supports none of the popular codecs.. sort of like the Linux Quicktime players, they work but not for the codecs you want :) --
Eric Windisch
|
Re:Some comments (Score:2)
by RayChuang
(raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:41PM EST
(#847)
(User #10181 Info)
|
That may have been more a research project than anything else.
I think if you want to put a quick kibosh on Real, make the .ASX and Windows Media formats Open Source. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens fairly soon.
As for the .NET initiative, Microsoft would wave a major olive branch at the Linux/BSD crowd by making API information available under the GNU GPL on how to make Linux and OpenBSD servers operate in the .NET environment. That would be extremely bad news for Sun, since that will undercut Sun's strategy very quickly.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
Re:Some comments (Score:1)
by QCL-Mr. Clean on Wednesday April 04, @11:13PM EST
(#940)
(User #415110 Info)
http://www.quadcorps.com
|
Finally, Microsoft may port a few programs to Linux. The most likely thing: Internet Explorer.
Why not port IE? They have nothing to loose. It's already free. There's only one thing stopping them. Would any linux user admittedly use IE? Or any Microsoft product for that matter? Because of that, I doubt we'll ever see Bill and friends under Tux's wing.
Could someone pass the Pinguin mints?
|
Re:Some comments (Score:1)
by LordArathres
(arathres@arathres.com)
on Thursday April 05, @04:24AM EST
(#994)
(User #244483 Info)
http://www.arathres.com
|
I would use IE if it was as good as the windows version. Netscape. Mozilla etc SUCK! They're bloated, crash a lot and they're Java integration is horrible. I hate Windows but I will give credit to Microsoft for making a very excellent browser. If Mozilla or netscape made a browser that was better than IE I would use that. It has to do with quality and functionality. Arathres
A Windows error once encountered. "An Unknown Program has caused an Unknown Error in an Unknown Module." Odd, no? |
Re:Some comments (Score:2)
by levendis on Wednesday April 04, @01:56PM EST
(#536)
(User #67993 Info)
http://warez.slashdot.org
|
I doubt it. Apps in OS X use an API called Cocoa or Carbon (I forget which). The kernel of OS X is BSD-based, as are some of the core OS components, but most GUI-oriented stuff uses Apple's (closed-source) API. Porting from that to, say, Gnome, is probably no easier than porting from Win32.
---- All your inexplicable Internet memes are belong to us! |
Re:Some comments (Score:1)
by megaduck on Wednesday April 04, @03:22PM EST
(#659)
(User #250895 Info)
|
Apps in OS X use an API called Cocoa or Carbon (I forget which). Actually, both are valid APIs in OS X. Carbon apps run in both OS X and OS 9. Cocoa is the whiz-bang OS X only API that's mostly based on the NeXT stuff. Rip. Mix. Wait for software updates. |
Re:Some comments (Score:2, Informative)
by impaler
(linux [at] cke [dot] cjb [dot] net)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:53PM EST
(#824)
(User #78415 Info)
http://lamer.hackedtobits.com
|
I hope you read this...but if the developer strictly adheres to using only the standard frameworks and libraries built on the standard frameworks for the Yellow Box / OPENSTEP / Cocao / whatever it is caled now...it should only require a simple recompile to be ported to linux and most of the other major *nix's and BSDs. What you say! How is this possible! Why, there is a little (not so) secret things called gnuSTEP. What does it do? Well, it provides a set of Frameworks that are 100% compatible with the OPENSTEP specification. And guess what? Mac OS X Cocao is OPENSTEP! Yay. And, gnuSTEP is really close to 1.0 (the last release was what the developers said was the last release before 1.0). So, we may see lots of cool apps on linux in the future, once people start writing Cocao apps for Mac OS X. See all the fun and magic over at gnustep.org. Today.
-------------
I am HAL 7000, less features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal! |
About Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
by 7days on Wednesday April 04, @11:12AM EST
(#22)
(User #192077 Info)
|
Microsoft have certainly been villainized over the last few years. There is a great deal of hostility, not least from this website, and I think it's great they have responded to this, this use of terms such as M$ and Winblows and so on.
I think we should make it clear that Microsoft are not the villain. In my company, and, from what I can tell, in a lot of other similar companies, we basically owe our existence to Microsoft.
We provide ISP services, using Microsoft products. As a result of this we recently got a multimillion dollar contract.
There is only one IT admin guy and he's also the sales guy. He doesn't know anything about unix, and we couldn't with such a small operation, afford a fulltime unix admin, so without Windows' ease of use (think standard dialogue boxes, GUI configuration and so on) we would not have been able to make any money.
This story is repeated across the country. Thousands of small enterprises, invigorating the US economy, as well as that of others owe their existence to Microsoft reducing the barrier to entry.
That's what matters.
And that's why I really wish people would stop attacking them. People don't seem to realize the way that prosperity comes to be. People don't become prosperous through socialism or caring and sharing (which is why China's GDP per head is 1/20 of ours), they get there through enterprise.
There is nothing more important than wealth creation. Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country. If this happens, you get barely affluent people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't pursue any philanthropic activity.
Furthermore, just as communism doesn't encourage people to work harder or innovate (which results in stagnation), so it is with open source. Without the upgrade cycle made necessary by needing to sell more product, innovation doesn't happen.
That's why open source products such as KDE have copied all their ideas off Microsoft and Apple. They have neither the money (R & D) nor the capitalist need to be better to incentivize innovation.
I wish people would remember this when attacking MS.
|
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1, Flamebait)
by Steve B
(steveb@NoPinkStuff.Radix.Net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:17AM EST
(#42)
(User #42864 Info)
http://www.radix.net/~steveb
|
Without the upgrade cycle made necessary by needing to sell more product, innovation doesn't happen.
Bloatware is an "innovation"? /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:28AM EST
(#78)
|
Maybe you better ask all the emacs lisp programmers if bloatware is an innovation.
It also might be worth asking the Mozilla team. Seems like built-in email, chat, and news clients might be perceived as 'bloatware' by many.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Salsaman
(gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:22AM EST
(#56)
(User #141471 Info)
|
I don't think many would complain if Microsoft competed fairly in the marketplace, but remember, they were found guilty of using illegal means to destroy their competitors.
My .sig exploded :-)
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
by jargoone on Wednesday April 04, @11:52AM EST
(#184)
(User #166102 Info)
|
they were found guilty of using illegal means to destroy their competitors
They sure were. Glad to see someone putting faith in the U.S. judicial system.
By the way, did you also support the U.S. judicial system's ruling in the Napster case? Just curious.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Shadowlion
(shadowlionc@netscape.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:35PM EST
(#357)
(User #18254 Info)
|
By the way, did you also support the U.S. judicial system's ruling in the Napster case?
Supporting a decision, and believing it was the right decision, are two separate and distinct entities.
In other words, you can support a decision ("the Judge was simply following the laws with the evidence given to him/her") without believing it was the right decision ("the Judge was also not presented with X, which very well may have caused her to see the rest of the case in a new light").
--
Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Salsaman
(gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:16PM EST
(#801)
(User #141471 Info)
|
By the way, did you also support the U.S. judicial system's ruling in the Napster case? No I didn't.
My .sig exploded :-)
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Ayende Rahien on Wednesday April 04, @05:36PM EST
(#814)
(User #309542 Info)
|
Or Gore's case.
If I understood it correctly, the Judges on the US has political opinions, and (at least the supreme court, are being choosen by politicians).
Here, politic has only 1/3 of the vote, and an *ex*-judge that dared to voice a political opinion was criticized quite thoroughfully.
Judges ought to be impartial. Gore's case left, at best, a bad stigma of the US justice system in my opition.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by larryj on Thursday April 05, @06:03AM EST
(#1007)
(User #84367 Info)
|
How is that relelvant? Weren't those two distinct cases? So it's an all or nothing thing. You have to agree with ALL U.S. judicial rulings or NONE of them. I'm guessing that your point is that you shouldn't just take with the U.S. government decides in a court as the absolute best judegement. Even so, I don't see how you can say that the courts are wrong about Mircrosoft because they are wrong about Napster.
Did anyone read any of the testimony in the Microsoft case? Based on what I read, it wasn't even close. Economists who had previously testified on behalf of Microsoft in other cases testified against them in this case. The testimony by Gates and other Microsoft execs was at times laughable. I'm paraphrasing here, but...
DOJ attorney: "Did you write this email Mr. Gates"
BG: "No."
DOJ attorney: "Then who did?"
BG: "A computer."
I had always thought that the case against Microsoft was iffy at best. Then I read more about it. Read the November Wired article (among other things): The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth
---
What if the Hokey-Pokey really is what it's all about? |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by MadAhab
(736c617368657240616861622e636f6d)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:27AM EST
(#76)
(User #40080 Info)
http://www.ahab.com
|
Silly me, I actually thought that by learning about computers and how to use powerful tools, I was actually working hard and saving time and money by making tools to do my job better, and that people like your friend were lazy, shiftless scam artists (you did say he was in sales) who want to be experts without knowing anything, and who give America a bad name by implying that we only know how to buy stuff and are too lazy to learn how to do stuff.
Your tired arguments about innovation have been refuted too many times for me to stomach. China was too poor to spit long before they were Communist. Your comments about wealth creation are misguided and ignore the creation of aristocracies (something your heroes, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Bill Gates seem to understand quite well, which is why they are against repeal of estate taxes). Since you obviously prefer aristocracies, you are probably a monarchist; I say we throw you out of America before you get King George back in charge.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
by rotor on Wednesday April 04, @11:28AM EST
(#82)
(User #82928 Info)
|
We provide ISP services, using Microsoft products. As a result of this we recently got a multimillion dollar contract.
There is only one IT admin guy and he's also the sales guy. He doesn't know anything about unix, and we couldn't with such a small operation, afford a fulltime unix admin, so without Windows' ease of use (think standard dialogue boxes, GUI configuration and so on) we would not have been able to make any money.
While I don't agree that many companies owe their existance to MS or that MS is wrong for charging for software, I'd be careful with your business... You may just end up watching that multi-million dollar contract go down the tubes soon when something happens that a part time administrator who relies on "standard dialogue boxes, GUI configuration and so on" can't handle. This is the whole problem (as has been pointed out here many times) with the MCSE program - it trains people to use those dialogue boxes and GUI tools, but doesn't teach them the theory behind them which may be needed for more severe problems.
- Check out Loudwerkz
for the latest news and dicussion on loud music. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by baglunch on Wednesday April 04, @12:03PM EST
(#220)
(User #11210 Info)
|
You are assuming that their GUI-boy isn't learning anything more about maintaining his system. I'm betting that he is learning.
Besides, why throw a Network Admin God at every network? For many networks, you don't need someone on the payroll that knows everything about everything. Because you can contract them when you need them. The full-time guy only needs to keep the system running most of the time. Right?
Yes, I'm clueless about network adminning. I'm just speaking from logic.
Work is for people who lack the imagination to play. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Platinum Dragon
(mbSialPkowsAkiM@home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:17PM EST
(#277)
(User #34829 Info)
http://platdragon.cjb.net
|
Besides, why throw a Network Admin God at every network? For many networks, you don't need someone on the payroll that knows everything about everything. Because you can contract them when you need them. The full-time guy only needs to keep the system running most of the time. Right?
The network belongs to an ISP? I'd hope an ISP would at least have someone competent at running and troubleshooting a network.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Ereth on Wednesday April 04, @12:30PM EST
(#332)
(User #194013 Info)
http://users.ilnk.com/ereth
|
What happens when "reboot the server" doesn't solve it? He's an ISP with a multimillion dollar contract. That means he needs to be dealing in throughput analysis and probably such things as BGP and OSPF. Salesguy who can click through menu items isn't going to be able to deal with that.
"Only needs to keep the system running most of the time" is the key though. How bad is it to be down? How bad is it to be down for a day or 2 days or a week while he figures out that the DNS is misconfigured and sent a bad update upstream (and oh yeah, even if he fixes it immediately it won't propagate from the root server until 6 am tomorrow)? How much downtime is acceptable in your business? The answer to that determines the level of an administrator you need.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by rotor on Wednesday April 04, @02:39PM EST
(#600)
(User #82928 Info)
|
While I don't agree that many companies owe their existance to MS or that MS is wrong for charging for
Ah, whoops - that should have been "I don't disagree"
Sorry about that...
As far as the reply saying that not every network needs a godly admin, that's true, but one at an ISP with a big client sure should have someone with the knowledge to keep everything running smoothly under all reasonable circumstances.
- Check out Loudwerkz
for the latest news and dicussion on loud music. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#87)
|
we basically owe our existence to Microsoft
So, if I lived a few centuries ago and owned my existence to a local robber baron that would not make him a villain?
By closing their source code and refusing to share it with the collective, they are the equivalent of a robber baron.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2, Informative)
by haggar on Wednesday April 04, @11:42AM EST
(#138)
(User #72771 Info)
|
Actually, Microsoft is much more frightened of open protocols and standards. This, of course, is related to the opensource facet, but it's a larger issue.
Microsoft wants to prey every aspect of the IT economy, by putting in piece of their proprietary technology. Example: Windows on each PC, because everyone has it. Office on each PC, because .doc and .xls are de-facto (proprietary) standards. MSN (the replacement for Internet) - well, this one (thank Heaven) didn't work out for MS. WindowsCE in every mobile phone - this didn't work out YET. Internet Explorer - everybody must use it, because more and more sites don't look good with Netscape.
etc. etc. etc. With .NET and Explorer, Microsoft is becoming the middleman everywhere, and is going to be able to leverage it's muscle everywhere. Literally.
"Get off my way or I'll pee right through ya!" -- Richard Feynnman |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kartiknarayan
(kartiknarayan@altavista.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:39PM EST
(#953)
(User #15498 Info)
|
Have you ever considered that maybe one of the reasons Microsoft technologies are so popular is that people actually like them? MS is a company - what is so wrong in their trying to make some money? What they are doing (as your post details) is extending their empire, and this has succeeded in making computing USABLE for END-USERS. Not hackers. Granted, their handling of the Netscape thing was not in any way justifiable. I am merely responding that whatever you have posted here does not make sense.
If you really want MS to have a decent competition, get off your backsides and create it. Linux / *BSD are great operating systems, but as far as usability is concerned, they suck! Both on a desktop as well as a server admin front. Not every company out there is going to be able to hire the local Unix god for administration. There are some tasks that can easily (and as powerfully) be done from a GUI. Develop those for the free OS's, and get some support structures in place that companies can rely on. Then we'll see.
cheers
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by flip-flop on Wednesday April 04, @11:32AM EST
(#97)
(User #178593 Info)
|
Furthermore, just as communism doesn't encourage people to work harder or innovate (which results in stagnation), so it is with open source.
What absolute rubbish. For an example, as mentioned in the interview, just look at KDE and Gnome. No innovation?? The two of them have certainly progressed far further than Windows over the past few years.
Oh and by the way, please keep your "Capitalism is perfect - Commies are bad" philosophy out of this; it is totally irrelevant here.
|
Intellectual Communism (Score:1)
by n3bulous on Wednesday April 04, @12:40PM EST
(#375)
(User #72591 Info)
http://www.rikemmett.com
|
>>Furthermore, just as communism doesn't
>>encourage people to work harder or innovate
>>(which results in stagnation), so it is with
>>open source.
>What absolute rubbish. For an example, as
>mentioned in the interview, just look at KDE and
>Gnome. No innovation?? The two of them have
>certainly progressed far further than Windows
>over the past few years.
>Oh and by the way, please keep your "Capitalism
>is perfect - Commies are bad" philosophy out of
>this; it is totally irrelevant here.
Look at communism in the soviet union. It failed, in general (but so is capitalism, for that matter. I would say both failed because of the same reason: greed and disparity, but that's another topic).
But look at the Soviet space program. It was very successful. I would liken Open Source, or rather Unix, development to the soviet space program: intellectuals working on projects for the sake of country(OS) and knowledge that you helped. You may not make much money from it, but you probably enjoyed your work, which is much more important.
If you compare Unix with Windows/Mac/etc, Unix tends to have a greater amount of "freeware" whereas the other OSs are almost all shareware or payware. TeX, perl, gcc, gimp, etc... all exist because somebodies scratched their itch. For the other OSs (PalmOS seems to be the worst of the bunch these days), someone writes a fairly trivial program in a weekend and starts wanting
$20 for it, even if they wrote the program just for fun. This doesn't tend to happen in the Unix world.
I'm not against charging for software (I've purchased Textpad, WinZip and other tools I use regularly in the Win environment, as well as Palm apps such as Wordsmith et.al.) It just seems that the Unix mentality is geared towards the collective benefit of others and the other OSs are more about profit.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the soviet space program, these are just my impressions.
-- The best way is somewhere between the right way and what works. |
Re:Intellectual Communism (Score:1)
by Cberg
(cberg00@netscape.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:01PM EST
(#546)
(User #209899 Info)
|
Actually, I'd liken MS to the Soviet space program. A few big time successes that are focussed on (first artificial satelite, first person in space, etc) and a lot a failures that were ignored/denied (rockets blowing up on take off and what not) Draw the MS analogy anyway you want...
|
Academic computing. (Score:2)
by Lemmy Caution on Wednesday April 04, @02:23PM EST
(#579)
(User #8378 Info)
http://localhost/
|
Remember, most Unix vendors charge more for their systems than Windows vendors, and full-on Unix-based solutions are costlier than Windows ones. Virtually all of the examples you are citing come from academic computing - Unix is more respected in academic CS environments, and academic projects are more likely to be released freely. GIMP, Postgres, Linux, BSD, Mosaic and Tex all had roots in academia - the only major open projects I can think of that didn't are Mozilla (which, remember, has some roots in Mosaic) and Apache (which also began life, I think, in the original NCSA httpd, although I may be wrong.) You want to promote high quality free software? Promote higher education! Make it more exciting to work in academia than in the private sector!
|
Re:Academic computing. (Score:1)
by n3bulous on Wednesday April 04, @03:03PM EST
(#627)
(User #72591 Info)
http://www.rikemmett.com
|
While my examples may have originated in Academia, I don't think it matters. The people who have helped develop these projects come from all over the work spectrum and most probably aren't directly funded for these projects.
Working in academia is quite exciting. Unfortunately, academia can't compete with private sector salaries. I loved my academic job, and my boss bent over backwards to get me to the highest possible salary at the time (about 28k for my position). I had to leave just to advance my career. Of course, now I'm looking to get the best of both worlds (insert lazy link to ask slashdot article about supporting research...)
-- The best way is somewhere between the right way and what works. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:03PM EST
(#630)
(User #212894 Info)
|
"The two of them have certainly progressed far further than Windows over the past few years."
NO shit. All they do is duplicate whatever Microsoft comes up with.
One hell of a inovation ..
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by ratboy666 on Wednesday April 04, @12:23PM EST
(#306)
(User #104074 Info)
http://www.weigel.dyndns.org/
|
That is a comment for the dung-heap. If I
could moderate you a new a-hole, I would.
In fact, the only post more stupid than yours
is this one. (And I ain't posting anonymously).
- READ THE GPL. Where the h*ll does it eliminate
ownership?
Some people just steam me.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Platinum Dragon
(mbSialPkowsAkiM@home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:34AM EST
(#104)
(User #34829 Info)
http://platdragon.cjb.net
|
Hey kip. Remember me? The guy from SlashNET you tried to convert to MS from Linux, and failed?
Although I'd immediately suspect you were a troll, I remember checking out your ISP (/whois, nslookup the result), and it looked legit. So...open source is communism? Microsoft is capitalism, which is good?
Sounds like Allchin calling the GPL "unAmerican". Ironic, considering I recall you work at a British ISP...sorry, my astroturf alarm is screaming right now.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Milican on Wednesday April 04, @11:35AM EST
(#108)
(User #58140 Info)
http://real.dyndns.org
|
I agree with you, but there should be a balance between proprietary software and distribution of knowledge. As one of the questions surrounding Compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM BIOS pointed out, if the hardware for the PC market had not opened up we would not be where we are today. What is really ironic is that this is now illegal because of the DMCA.
What often happens with comanies like Microsoft is that they charge people into submission through fees for everything. Their mission is to increase shareholder wealth. This hurts developers who just might be trying to learn a little on the side. I fully acknowledge Microsoft's need to charge for their software. After all software developers aren't cheap! However, I also sincerely appreciate the open source movement and its ability to empower me though open communication with my peers. Knowledge is power and open source lets me have the keys.
JOhn "Life's a journey so enjoy the ride..." |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kalleanka2 on Wednesday April 04, @12:20PM EST
(#290)
(User #318385 Info)
|
It should be pointed out that in a capitalist society competition is _very_ important. And this is the reason why the DOJ is doing what they are doing (rightfully).
But this sure doesn't mean that giving software away and killing companies is a good thing.
What we really need are more software companies that sells software not clowns that thinks everyone should give everything away, eat grass and live in caves.
|
Let's be clear: (Score:1)
by OSgod on Wednesday April 04, @12:26PM EST
(#318)
(User #323974 Info)
|
The mission of every public company in the US is incredible shareholder wealth. If you believe otherwise you are wrong.
|
Re:Let's be clear: (Score:1)
by JWW on Wednesday April 04, @04:26PM EST
(#742)
(User #79176 Info)
|
And that is a bad thing for the companies. Right now too many companies are focusing on their shareholder wealth when they should be focusing on their customer. During this current economic downturn companies don't think twice about laying off 1,000 people, they're cocerned only with the bottom line.
Well guess what all those other companies that are having trouble, they're laying people off too, and many times the people other companies are laying off are your customers, just like your employees are customers in other companies. Net result, less spending by the customer (as a whole) less growth for your company more trouble. Its a viscious cycle and CEO's are all falling into the cost cutting trap.
The real way out is to put your customers out front and let the stock value follow. Don't cut your workforce just to save money, you won't lose stock vaule but you'll lose product and service values. It'll cost you more in the long run (eventually even in the stock value).
|
Point taken.. (Score:1)
by OSgod on Thursday April 05, @07:58AM EST
(#1015)
(User #323974 Info)
|
and agreed to.
But the public in America is unforgiving of companies who's business model is keep the customer happy in the long run.
Example: HMO's -- the original idea was to encourage preventitive care by making it free or cheap and thus reduce the bigger medical expenses down the road. The traditional insurance companies disliked HMO's. The public ended up with a very bad impression of HMO's -- because they attempted to modify the general public's behavior. After that and with the very bad example of HMO's that went "other ways" (denial of care, etc. -- not worse than most traditional insurance companies just much more well publicized) HMO's have a very bad name indeed in the public's eye.
Perhaps the point is to please the customer totally (full service, extremely low price, no questions asked). If anyone can do that in the healthcare or software industry long-term then it will indeed be a miracle -- or more precisely an industry shift. HMO's forced an industry shift in the health care industry. Traditional insurance didn't. HMO's got a black eye in the process.
Where am I going with this? Linux IS forcing an industry shift. How do we prevent it from gaining the HMO black eye?
|
Re:Let's be clear: (Score:1)
by Geyff
(jhoskinson@rocketmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:33PM EST
(#952)
(User #125792 Info)
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hoskinso/
|
...or at least, all publicly-held companies. Not all companies have shareholders...
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by gslj on Wednesday April 04, @11:36AM EST
(#114)
(User #214011 Info)
|
An interesting post, but competition in the open marketplace is not the only source of innovation. That doesn't touch mad inventors in their garage (Hi, Woz!) nor the massive numbers of people in universities. The whole idea of a thesis, after all, is that someone has to do some free, original work to give back something for their education before we let them go with a degree. Add up all the universities in the country, and you've got a pretty major force for "innovation." The problem with China is that it doesn't have as many.
|
Great Great Post. Should be read by all. (Score:1)
by VividU
(Slash@Goodskeleton.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:40AM EST
(#127)
(User #175339 Info)
http://www.goodskeleton.com
|
Brilliant. I wish I could have said it half as good.
|
Re:Great Great Post. Should be read by all. (Score:1)
by bigbadwlf
(bigbadwlf@spam.me.and.die.linuxfreemail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:01PM EST
(#214)
(User #304883 Info)
http://vierna.dnsq.org
|
Well, you said yours about half as well as you could have.
Never grep /dev |
Re:Great Great Post. Should be read by all. (Score:1)
by Shadowlion
(shadowlionc@netscape.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:38PM EST
(#368)
(User #18254 Info)
|
You know, my mother says this to me all the time and it pisses me off!
I'd still have given it a +1, Funny though. :)
--
Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Neumann on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#146)
(User #240442 Info)
|
Its not so much about the "ease of use" of microsoft. I have never heard anyone say "Microsoft Windows is so HARD to use!". The isse with microsoft and why they are so villainized is because their "customer-centric" view does nothing to address MY needs. If I run into a bug that only happens when I do this one thing (but I do this one thing a lot), and I am in a small percentage of all the customers that MS has, there is no way to get it fixed! If a majority of customers want something fixed, it gets fixed very fast. (eg the email security patch from the article. That patch was out in what 1 day? 2 days?). With something so important to a lot of people as computers this is a very hard thing to accept. This rejection of the needs of the many over the needs of the individual is what we are seeing with the Open source revolution. Basically Open source is all about the empowerment of the individual over the group. You want that bug fixed? Hire someone to fix it for you! Or do it yourself! Its the same struggle that people have to grapple with everyday: The rights of the individual over the rights of the group. And as with every other struggle of this type, there is a lot of hostility and bitterness on both sides, and no real clear answer.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by ichimunki
(x at ichimunki dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:10PM EST
(#720)
(User #194887 Info)
http://www.aprilskies.com
|
Actually, compared to pre-X Mac OS (when it hasn't bombed), Windows is hard to use-- or maybe 12 years of steady Mac use can't be overcome in just four years of heavy Windows use. Just last week I read an excellent document that talked about usability in a GUI and most of the key points had been ignored in Windows. I know I often find it clunky. And unlike MS, Apple appears to have broken the mold and come out with another major advance in the interface environment. Working on Macs is very visually appealing and eye-to-hand intuitive. Working on Windows is not. imho. Keeping in mind the early support for all major Adobe products on the Mac platform, I think there is still more behind the continued success of the Mac Graphical User Interface with the graphics crowd-- like the fact that it makes visual sense. I love Linux and I am staunchly in favor of Free Software (unAmerican or not, I don't care, I'm an American and I'm in full favor of it, and I'm not about to let any zealot tell me what is "American" and what isn't). But if $100 can provide me that wonderful Mac OS on top of a real Unix backside, I'm sorely tempted. Especially since having the power of things like Perl and gcc give me the power to do all kinds of fun stuff as an individual, while relying on the group for the larger stuff. As for Microsoft, they should pay attention to OS X and some of the things that Linux GUIs offer (for all the yammering about KDE and GNOME, I still like Enlightenment with gtk the best, and all E lacks is some support for cut & paste between applications-- oh and some applications). But MS applications are great, especially under Mac OS. I'd gladly run IE6.0 on Mac OS X. IE4.5 on Mac OS 8.6 is still my browser of choice if I'm in serious surf-mode.
[- "Let's hear it for the vague blur." --_A_Scanner_Darkly_, Philip K. Dick. -] |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by m2
(m2atswissfactordotdhsdotorg)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:56AM EST
(#190)
(User #5408 Info)
|
Pal, hats off. It's been a loooooooong time since /. had a troll worthy of the name. It's so good, I think another "tag" is needed, namely "Troll worth of being called so". Moderators, read and learn.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
by Gordan1
(quad_damage@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:56AM EST
(#193)
(User #203056 Info)
|
There is nothing more important than wealth creation. Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
How so? This is a misconception that represents all that is wrong with modern capitalism. We assume that big buisness will help the economy, and this economic prosperity will, in turn, benefit the middle class. This is called "Trickle Down" economics, and as was seen during the Reagan era, it doesn't work. The truth is, the rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer.
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country. If this happens, you get barely affluent people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't pursue any philanthropic activity.
Open source is by no means socialist. Look up the definition of socialism. Open source is not controlled by the government. People control open source. Open source could not be further from socialism. I am not affluent in the least. I struggle from week to week to put myself through college so that maybe sometime in the future I will be moderately affluent. A touch of philantropy would be welcome at this stage, but I certainly don't see any coming. In fact, the least amount of philantropy occurs from the upper class. You want philantropy, go look for the nearest social worker, and I don't see them getting big paychecks. As for Bill Gates... I wouldn't look there. I think you've got your view of reality screwed.
Furthermore, just as communism doesn't encourage people to work harder or innovate (which results in stagnation), so it is with open source. Without the upgrade cycle made necessary by needing to sell more product, innovation doesn't happen.
Then how do you explain the recent advances of the KDE or GNOME desktop enviornments. These people aren't after profit at all, they do it as a hobby, and when one person decides to leave the project, he is easily replaced with someone else who is willing to work. There is no shortage of competent programmers out there. The knowledge pool that works on open souce is Microsoft's dream. Just as two heads are better then one, several thousand heads, are better then whatever Microsoft can muster.
That's why open source products such as KDE have copied all their ideas off Microsoft and Apple. They have neither the money (R & D) nor the capitalist need to be better to incentivize innovation.
The incentive for innovation is to give the world a stable, secure, and powerful OS that can be freely used and modified to meet the worlds' changing needs. Everyone steals from everyone. Microsoft from Apple, Apple from Xerox. At least the open source community, makes this practice more or less ethical.
The problem is with Microsoft, not open source. Microsoft is the thing that stagnates the industry. They release inferior products, and discourage competition. The only way to combat this is with open source. Capitalism has suffered due to the practises of Microsoft and similar entities, and as a result the top 10% own 90% of the worlds wealth, and this is wrong. The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:50PM EST
(#413)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
This is called "Trickle Down" economics, and as was seen during the Reagan era, it doesn't work. The truth is, the rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poorer.
I don't know whose numbers you were using, but during the Reagan era, there was far more "class mobility" (people moving up the economic ladder) than ever before him. Trickle-down actually did work. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Gordan1
(quad_damage@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:27PM EST
(#587)
(User #203056 Info)
|
I don't know whose numbers you were using, but during the Reagan era, there was far more "class mobility" (people moving up the economic ladder) than ever before him. Trickle-down actually did work.
Noted, but do you have any evidence to back that up. Unfortunately, trickle down economics benefits the wealthy class far more then the middle class, and it does nothing to help the poor. The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:09PM EST
(#642)
(User #212894 Info)
|
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
"All the figures provided in this study come from standard statistical sources: Bureau of the Census, the Economic Report of the President, and Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government."
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @05:02PM EST
(#785)
(User #1449 Info)
|
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
by yttrbium on Wednesday April 04, @01:50PM EST
(#526)
(User #228142 Info)
|
Microsoft is the thing that stagnates the industry. They release inferior products, and discourage competition. The only way to combat this is with open source. Capitalism has suffered due to the practises of Microsoft and similar entities, and as a result the top 10% own 90% of the worlds wealth, and this is wrong.
Can't even begin with where this is so wrong. I have yet to find an office suite that comes anywhere close to what MS offers. True, not much has really changed from Office 95 (I have 97 and I don't plan on upgrading to 2000, maybe the new one with voice), but it's still the best. I use Outlook religiously. For browsers, I prefer IE over Netscape any day. NN4 is incredibly buggy and NN5 takes forever for anything. IE5.5 works well, though Opera is still by far the best of the bunch. I hardly call the industry stagnate, let alone MS being the cause of it.
As far as 10% owning 90% of the wealth, what would you suggest? Everyone owning the same amount of wealth? That would hardly seem fair either. Bill Gates deserves everything he has. He did it. I didn't. You didn't. MS has done a lot for this industry, and if they didn't have the wealth someone else would. Would Apple or IBM having it be any different? Somebody had to, and it just happens that MS got it this time. If you want it, work for it, and get it!
Long live Open Source. I'm working on some projects right now. But, when I graduate from college, I dream of making 6 figures, which isn't too far-fetched. That money has to come from somewhere and it's not open source! In my off time I can afford to do Open Source for fun...
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Gordan1
(quad_damage@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:51PM EST
(#619)
(User #203056 Info)
|
Can't even begin with where this is so wrong. I have yet to find an office suite that comes anywhere close to what MS offers. True, not much has really changed from Office 95 (I have 97 and I don't plan on upgrading to 2000, maybe the new one with voice), but it's still the best. I use Outlook religiously. For browsers, I prefer IE over Netscape any day. NN4 is incredibly buggy and NN5 takes forever for anything. IE5.5 works well, though Opera is still by far the best of the bunch. I hardly call the industry stagnate, let alone MS being the cause of it.
Perhaps, but it is due to M$ stifling competition that this is true. Netscape in my humble opinion is more stable, I recently upgraded to IE5.5 and I am having trouble keeping it from crashing my system. (Any ideas on the cause of this would be greatly appreciated BTW.) As for Office, I find that all the added features bog the software down to the point of unusability. I would rather use something that will not modify my text without my consent. My real problem is in the operating systems themselves. They haven't released anything worth tainting a system since DOS 6.2, and I stick by that.
As far as 10% owning 90% of the wealth, what would you suggest? Everyone owning the same amount of wealth? That would hardly seem fair either. Bill Gates deserves everything he has. He did it. I didn't. You didn't. MS has done a lot for this industry, and if they didn't have the wealth someone else would. Would Apple or IBM having it be any different? Somebody had to, and it just happens that MS got it this time. If you want it, work for it, and get it!
You have to draw the line somewhere. How much wealth is too much, and at what point does one's wealth begin to violate others rights? 10% owning 90% in my opinion is too much. The rich will tell you otherwise, but they are rich and have a vested interest, right? Many people in the lower class would love to get thier hands on just a tiny fraction of that wealth, so that they might feed thier familys. It hardly seems fair that the poor suffer dearly while Bill Gates has enough money to feed entire nations. As for Bill deserving this? You don't seriously believe that he deserves this, do you? He got his money by lieing, cheating, and stealing. He is no more then a common thief. Only he does this through unethical buisness practices that our selfish government protects. Only now do we realize what has happened, but it is too late. My father worked hard for forty years only to have his employer pack up and move to Mexico where his 15 buck an hour job is worth 4 bucks a day. These are the kind of buisness practices that make people shitloads of money, but they are hardly helping the working class.
Long live Open Source. I'm working on some projects right now. But, when I graduate from college, I dream of making 6 figures, which isn't too far-fetched. That money has to come from somewhere and it's not open source! In my off time I can afford to do Open Source for fun...
As for your involvement in open source. Excellent, you are doing the world a service, and good luck when you graduate, but remember this above all; money isn't everything. It is attitude like that that make people suffer.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:13PM EST
(#644)
(User #212894 Info)
|
"They haven't released anything worth tainting a system since DOS 6.2, and I stick by that. "
Hey, I do develop on Linux but for everyday use I will take ANY version of Windows (32) over Linux any day.
BTW. There are thousands of businesses running rather well using MS server OS and yet you see no difference since DOS 6.2
You are paranoic.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Gordan1
(quad_damage@hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:30PM EST
(#1050)
(User #203056 Info)
|
You are paranoic
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Steeltoe
(Steeltoe@liaM.moC)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:31PM EST
(#334)
(User #98226 Info)
|
If that were true, we'd be in a much sorrier state that we're in now. However, the sad part is you saying it as if it were a good thing.
- Steeltoe Punching your fist on a concrete wall can gain you deepest insight on the true nature of the universe. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by RayChuang
(raychuang00.treet@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:58AM EST
(#199)
(User #10181 Info)
|
I hope you run fast before you get flamed. :)
I think while Linux has its strengths primarily as a server operating system (after all, that's what UNIX was heavily designed for), the chaotic nature of Linux development has kind of hindered it from being used on desktop computers. Indeed, the best-known use of Linux in the consumer market--the TiVo Digital Video Recorder--is not marketed as a Linux device, and I think TiVo wants it that way.
Hopefully, with the completion of the Linux Standards Base (LSB) program, then Linux can be improved in an orderly fashion.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Col. Klink (retired)
(wklink@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:58AM EST
(#200)
(User #11632 Info)
|
Just so I'm clear... you feel that you owe a lot to Microsoft and, as a result, feel that they should have carte blanche for any and all misdeeds? Sounds like "Mussolini made the trains run on time."
Consider AT&T. Prior to their breakup, virtually every business in the U.S. had a telephone and depended upon it for their business. AT&T had "won" the market and no one would ever compete with them. As a result, they sat on their asses and stopped innovating. Everyone had virtually the same telephone in their house (and AT&T owned them all and leased them out). Post-breakup, and what have we got? CallerID, Call Waiting and a gazillion other services. Telephones in every shape and size and available at every price range. True innovation, at last.
> That's why open source products such as KDE have copied all their ideas off Microsoft and Apple.
Apple got the idea from Xerox PARC. Microsoft copied CP/M to get DOS, and then Apple to get Windows. I will give Microsoft all the credit for one result of their R&D budget: BOB was 100% pure Microsoft.
-- He's dead, Jim. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by JordoCrouse on Wednesday April 04, @11:58AM EST
(#201)
(User #178999 Info)
|
That's why open source products such as KDE have copied all their ideas off Microsoft and Apple. They have neither the money (R & D) nor the capitalist need to be better to incentivize innovation.
Two points here, if I may:
1 - Is there a better UI than the point and click? I haven't seen one. Maybe someone else can explain why the windowing system has been in vouge for 20+ years.
2 - Please don't confuse "innovation" with "market driven". Throughout the history of technology, the best innovations came when there was just the desire to invent, not the desire to please customers. Cases in point: the telephone, the car, the PC (I'll bet ya lunch that IBM didn't think that there would be *that* big a market in the PC when it was first developed). Microsoft (like most companies that need the customer) are market driven. They deliver what the market wants, no more, no less. Innovation appears when the company doesn't care about what the customers think (like the Linux division at IBM), or when the programmer is just doing it for the love of the game, so to speak.
"What do you say honey, feeling stupid? I know I am!" -- Homer Simpson |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by MCZapf on Wednesday April 04, @12:32PM EST
(#341)
(User #218870 Info)
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mzapf/
|
Is there a better UI than the point and click?
It's not just the "point and click" part. It's what to point at and when to click. What happens after you click, etc. How that's all organized makes a big difference.
For example, having a really nested organization to the Start Menu wastes alot of time, because wading throgh those menus every time you want to start a program is time-consuming.
Another example (a really minor example): Something about web browsers really annoys me. Say I'm reading a text document that has a URL, http://somewhere.com/. With my mouse, I can right-click, copy the URL, click on the icon to open Netscape, paste the URL into the address bar, BUT to get the browser to go anywhere, I have to reach my keyboard and press enter. Stupid. Annoying. And only really minor.
/* Anonymity isn't all it's cracked up to be. */ |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Psiolent
(aawalker@at@ou.dot.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:49PM EST
(#617)
(User #160884 Info)
|
For example, having a really nested organization to the Start Menu wastes alot of time, because wading throgh those menus every time you want to start a program is time-consuming.
On the contrary, I know people who have all their programs on the first level of their start menu, and I promise I spend *much* more time scanning through all those items than if it were arranged heirarchically. It is a well known fact in the world of human-computer interaction research that you should not present more than 7 or 8 items at once to a user, since that is the maximum amount they can absorb at one time. (This is why U.S. phone numbers are 7 digits--not counting the area code--for example.)
-----
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." --Calvin |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by fcw on Thursday April 05, @12:00AM EST
(#963)
(User #17221 Info)
|
It is a well known fact in the world of
human-computer interaction research that you
should not present more than 7 or 8 items at once
to a user, since that is the maximum amount they
can absorb at one time.
It is a well-known bogus fact.
The original paper that started this
'magic number 7' superstition specifically
addressed working memory capacity. People don't need to remember menus, because they're right there in front of them, so memory limitations don't apply.
This is why U.S. phone numbers are 7 digits--not counting the area code--for example.
No, it isn't. The original paper that introduced the notion of working memory being limited to about seven things at a time was published in 1956. The existing U.S. phone number scheme was developed nine years earlier, so its designers could not have used the memory research to inform their decision.
See here for more info:
Summary article on number seven misuse in UI design
Original magic seven paper
Phone number history
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Psiolent
(aawalker@at@ou.dot.edu)
on Friday April 06, @06:47PM EST
(#1092)
(User #160884 Info)
|
Very interesting...you learn something new every day. The sad thing is it was my GUI professor that told me the phone number story.
Also, I checked my GUI textbook from the class and indeed it was referencing Miller's 1956 paper. This is a textbook that was published in 1998.
So according to the paper you referenced, there should not be seven items in menu lists, for example, but instead around 3 or 4. Is this correct?
-----
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." --Calvin |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by fcw on Sunday April 08, @07:18PM EST
(#1099)
(User #17221 Info)
|
So according to the paper you referenced, there should not be seven items in menu lists, for example, but instead around 3 or 4. Is this correct?
No, because the limitation refers to things that can be kept in working memory, and menus are right there on the screen where you can see them, so they don't place a burden on your memory.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Psiolent
(aawalker@at@ou.dot.edu)
on Sunday April 08, @10:36PM EST
(#1100)
(User #160884 Info)
|
I agree with you in the case that the user knows the exact name of the menu item he is looking for.
However, consider the case of a beginner: he knows what task he wants to perform but he doesn't know what it's name is. He has to scan the entire menu and choose the item whose name is closest (in his opinion) to what he wants to do. This case requires him to maintain all the items in his working memory so he can compare them all and make a choice.
-----
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." --Calvin |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Jaysyn
(Jaysyn_0@THINKyahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:07PM EST
(#636)
(User #203771 Info)
|
Is that why Internet Exploder has that GO button?
Jaysyn
"Politicians are cheaper when bought in bulk" |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
by j-beda
(http://xns.org/=j-beda)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:01PM EST
(#212)
(User #85386 Info)
http://xns.org/=j-beda
|
There is nothing more important than wealth creation. Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of
wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
...
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the
country. If this happens, you get barely affluent people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't
pursue any philanthropic activity.
The USA is hardly a model for "good living". The health stats for the US poor are not very great compared to other industrialized nations. The gap between the rich and poor, worker rights, environmental standards, and all sorts of other things that seem to be better addressed in other more "socialist ideal" influenced countries is not the best commendation for the current system.
Your points about innovation may turn out to be true - but really there is no good data to support them yet. It is certainly true that financial considerations can provide great incentives, but it is also true that without proper checks and balances such drives can make for terrible long term decisions that can effect the entire society.
I would put forth that anyone who thinks that wealth creation is the most important thing in the universe needs to spend a little more time thinking about community, family, health, and happiness. Money can be an important tool, but it is just that, a tool. Don't be just a tool seeker.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by CaptainZapp
(abuse@localhost)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:49PM EST
(#616)
(User #182233 Info)
http://etoy.com
|
You just made my evening.
Especially the last paragraph once again illustrates to me why it's worthwhile to hang in there and stick to ideals.
-- Free Software It's the difference between trust and antitrust (VALinux tshirt, sortof) |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:17PM EST
(#649)
(User #212894 Info)
|
"The gap between the rich and poor, worker rights, environmental standards, and all sorts of other things that seem to be better addressed in other more "socialist ideal" influenced countries is not the best commendation for the current system."
According to who ? You ? You just stated your opinion but frazed it as a "widely known" truth.
And no, UN studies don't count here either.
"community, family, health, and happiness. "
What is wealth creation brings somebody happiness ?
Again, who are you to judge that ?
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by davidmb on Thursday April 05, @07:49AM EST
(#1014)
(User #213267 Info)
|
UN studies don't count here either.
Are you going to dismiss studies by any institution large enough to produce an independent study of all the major industrialised countries? Which studies would you trust? Only those conducted by Bill Gates?
|
lifestyle (Score:1)
by j-beda
(http://xns.org/=j-beda)
on Friday April 06, @01:36PM EST
(#1086)
(User #85386 Info)
http://xns.org/=j-beda
|
The gap between the rich and poor, worker rights, environmental standards...
According to who ? You ? You just stated your opinion...
Yeah, I'm a stinker, eh?
Surely though you have seen various studies that question the US's supremacy in all sorts of standard of living areas? One has to have lived in a cave over the past decade to avoid health care comparisons. Cecil Adams did some reporting on average work week and vacation days at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010302.html. The UN makes reports all the time. Various US groups make all sorts of reports.
Even if one disagrees with the conclusions of these types of reports, the mere fact that there are billions of people around the world who have set up their societies differently than the USA should give one pause. The mere fact that there are many countries with obviously similar levels of citizen happiness should show that the USA is not necessarily doing everything the only way possible. The fact that many in the USA do not think that the USA is doing everything the way it should might be considered to be evidence enough.
But this isn't supposed to be a bash of the USA, but rather a bash of the idea that "There is nothing more important than wealth creation." and that "The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country.". There are many "socialist" types of ideals that are good for the country - examples can be drawn from both inside and outside the USA (public infrastructure like roads, public libraries, public education, various forms of taxes and tax support, etc.) People can and do argue about each of these sorts of things, but as a society we have decided that they have significant value.
Wealth creation isn't everything. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, far from it, but it shouldn't be everyone's end goal. If it was, we would all be poorer.
|
Craft vs. Work (Score:1)
by SteveTheRed
(steven_hirlston@hotmail.spamsux.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:01PM EST
(#213)
(User #244567 Info)
|
I agree with you that Microsoft has it's place as a useful contributor to the IT marketplace, but I don't agree with the tired old "Open/Free Software == Communism" line.
The motivating force behind the Open Source and Free Software movements is GREAT software made by people who LOVE to write software.
Think of it this way, would you rather buy a piece of furniture from:
A. A master craftsman who builds works of art in his workshop by hand, and then sells them at cost (or gives them away to people he knows will appreciate them.)
OR
B. A large corporation that slaps together particle board with wire staples and then sells it at a price that ensures at least a 60% profit margin.
For me the answer is A.
Also you mentioned the befnefit to charity that has resulted from Bill Gate's wealth. Why wait for Bill to throw some scraps to his favorite charity? If you want your money to go to your favorite charity, may I suggest that you write a check yourself?
The drummer from Def Leppard's only got one arm |
Re:Craft vs. Work (Score:1)
by baglunch on Wednesday April 04, @12:08PM EST
(#232)
(User #11210 Info)
|
Or C. A large corporation that can afford to hire a master craftsman or 200 and churn out excellent furniture at a discount through bulk manufacturing?
Work is for people who lack the imagination to play. |
Too bad... (Score:1)
by OSgod on Wednesday April 04, @12:34PM EST
(#349)
(User #323974 Info)
|
...that A. the master craftsman will starve himself and his family to death (see "self-cleaning gene pool").
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by hardburn
(admin@REMOVE.madtimes.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:04PM EST
(#223)
(User #141468 Info)
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~linuxnet
|
There is nothing more important than wealth creation.
Gaining money is hardly the most important thing in life. Making money is fine if it does not become the paramount objective.
And therein lies the problem. A great deal of the western world does believe that there can be no greater happyness then having a limo pick you up from work and drive you to your 250 bedroom house on the lake with an airfield where a LearJet is parked to take you to your 100 bedroom summer home at a moment's notice.
All those things are fine in their place, but true happyness comes not from them. For that, you must find something greater.
Part of that fulfillment for me comes from writing good software that hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions of people use all over the world. Thats why I write Free Software. I put it all under the GPL because I demand that people will always have the oppertunity to get the same fulfillment I did.
I don't mind if my best computer is a rusty old pentium, or my car has squeeky breaks, or my house is on the verge of colapse. All those things are not a primary motivation. I'm quite happy as I am.
------
Microsoft: Re-inventing square wheels |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by yttrbium on Wednesday April 04, @02:13PM EST
(#571)
(User #228142 Info)
|
Part of that fulfillment for me comes from writing good software that hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions of people use all over the world. Thats why I write Free Software.
I applaud you for this. It's why I write free software too. Plus it lets you get out of your industry and do something you want to for a change. However...
Making money is fine if it does not become the paramount objective
I think he was referring more to companies than to private individuals. In that case, why else would a company do anything? You have to support your developers somehow.
But, suppose he was considering private individuals. Gaining wealth is a great objective. If you don't get happiness through your work, then you might as well get paid well for it. Otherwise, what's the point. Then you can use open source projects to get your fulfillment.
Although a socialist at heart (1984 is the my favorite book), I live in a capitalistic world and so long as I do, might as well enjoy the benefits. I recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand if you dislike capitalism. You will still probably dislike capitalism (i do), but it will give you a respect for it, that's certain.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by hardburn
(admin@REMOVE.madtimes.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:40PM EST
(#602)
(User #141468 Info)
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~linuxnet
|
I'd prefer to get my stuff from a non-profit company. It helps to bring people together to get a job done in a similar fashion that a for-profit would, but not with the goal of making money (except as it is nessary to get money to keep the group going).
------
Microsoft: Re-inventing square wheels |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Happy Monkey on Wednesday April 04, @02:42PM EST
(#603)
(User #183927 Info)
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mbuckley
|
A great deal of the western world does believe that there can be no greater happyness then having a limo pick you up from work and drive you to your 250 bedroom house on the lake with an airfield where a LearJet is parked to take you to your 100 bedroom summer home at a moment's notice.
I think you need 15 more bedrooms there. Or are those the nights spent in 6 star hotels? ___ Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk? |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:21PM EST
(#655)
(User #212894 Info)
|
Nice but he was talking about business.
I have nothing against contributing my work to other people as long as this contribution is defined by me.
"Thats why I write Free Software. I put it all under the GPL because I demand that people will always have the oppertunity to get the same fulfillment I did."
Great. So you are talking about your hobby, something you do on the side which makes you happy.
As I said before, this has nothing to do with business or whatever you do to make a living.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Platinum Dragon
(mbSialPkowsAkiM@home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:09PM EST
(#243)
(User #34829 Info)
http://platdragon.cjb.net
|
Hi kip. Me again.
You did say your ISP is an all-Windows shop, oui?
You guys do have a Solaris admin for the Unix web servers, right? Or is the IT/sales guy handling that from one of the Windows boxes somehow? Just wondering how your ISP is handling what I assume are the only Unix boxen in the shop.
And if any immature kiddies try anything now that they know the ISP...go die somewhere.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by LoCoPuff on Wednesday April 04, @12:52PM EST
(#422)
(User #1019 Info)
|
"Wow look at me, I got trolled in #slashdot and now I have a vendetta."
Get over it son, you'll live longer without all that angst.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Platinum Dragon
(mbSialPkowsAkiM@home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:55PM EST
(#428)
(User #34829 Info)
http://platdragon.cjb.net
|
Get over it son, you'll live longer without all that angst.
I just don't take well to proseltyzing, that's all.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Caine on Wednesday April 04, @12:09PM EST
(#244)
(User #784 Info)
http://konflux.net
|
Hoho...you've got some good points, but man, what a troll. You must have a smile a mile wide, seeing how you're modded up and replied to.
(And I'm not a linux zealot. Well not anymore, running w2k anyway :))
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by oscarh on Wednesday April 04, @12:10PM EST
(#247)
(User #40635 Info)
|
>>There is nothing more important than wealth creation. Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft
have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
Nothing more important than wealth creation? Ethics, morality, ...?
The cocaine trade creates a lot of wealth - can you build on that platform? OK,
oscar |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by ethereal on Wednesday April 04, @12:40PM EST
(#373)
(User #13958 Info)
|
The cocaine trade creates a lot of wealth - can you build on that platform?
I wouldn't go into that market if I were you - if you thought Microsoft had a jealously guarded monopoly, ....
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous! |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by bmj on Wednesday April 04, @12:12PM EST
(#251)
(User #230572 Info)
|
why is open source always assumed to be socialism/communism? this sort of thing (the open source atmosphere of sharing information) goes on all time in academia, and most people don't see it as being un-american. innovation tends to spring forth from this sort of atmosphere.
besides, how many companies base their infrastructure on open source (apache, linux/bsd, etc) and make millions (even billions) of dollars? they obviously must be funneling their profits to the communist party. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
--Ludwig Wittgenstein
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Gordan1
(quad_damage@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:14PM EST
(#647)
(User #203056 Info)
|
Communism and socialism are dirty words in this country. They are used as propoganda to discourage things that threaten the wealthy. The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by bmj on Friday April 06, @06:47AM EST
(#1082)
(User #230572 Info)
|
perhaps then the open source community is the ideal permutation of communism, since there are no despotic _intellectuals_ that really control everything...... Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
--Ludwig Wittgenstein
|
Is Prosperity Overrated? (Score:1)
by jzitt
(jzitt@humansystems.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:14PM EST
(#259)
(User #1054 Info)
http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt
|
People don't become prosperous through socialism or caring and sharing (which is why China's GDP per head is 1/20 of ours), they get there through enterprise.
What do we mean by "prosperous"? Is prosperity an end in itself? Are we happier and healthier because we can afford to buy more stuff?
(Sure, China has some serious human rights issues to answer for -- but is that directly related to either socialism or reduced prosperity?)
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Hadean
(hadean(AT)canada.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:15PM EST
(#261)
(User #32319 Info)
http://www.hadeandragon.com
|
>There is nothing more important than wealth
> creation.
Baw, you had me going until this point... now I see how ignorant you are to what's really happening in our society. --
"Between thought and expression lies a lifetime." - Lou Reed |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Cloud K on Wednesday April 04, @12:15PM EST
(#262)
(User #125581 Info)
http://www.cloudk.clara.co.uk
|
You raise some very good points.
There are actually some times when I prefer to buy a product, than to use a free / open-source program.
Suppose I have a suggestion towards improving a program with a feature that only a few people would use. Since open-source software is usually written for the author and not for the user, the answer is usually "No, I have no need for that, so why should I?" Since I'm getting free beer, what right do I have to ask for it to be served with a smaller head?
You could quite rightly say that the free means free speech, and I should learn C and add the feature myself. But not everyone has the time or intelligence, so it's not a very good answer. I'd rather pay someone to do it for me. So, pay-for software excels in this area. Nobody is going to buy software that doesn't do what they want, so the author has to write mainly for the user rather than himself.
At the risk of sounding like a troll, many Linux users appear too stubborn with the socialist idealism. There are times when I think of bringing a closed-source product to Linux as the same as trying to bring scientific views to the middle ages. I have this vision of the author being stoned to death by an angry mob of Slashdotters ;)
Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but I urge you to step back and think if you're being biased first. Linux has it's place, and I like it as much as the rest of us :) But don't get me wrong, I think Windows, and any pay-for software, has it's place too. ---
Cloud K ICQ 25869912 |
Another option (Score:1)
by gaj
(greg.jandl@qlogic.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:10PM EST
(#461)
(User #1933 Info)
|
I see several errors in your post. First of all, you seem to imply that Free Software/Open Source Software cannot be commercial (i.e. "for pay" as you put it). That is patently false. What it cannot be is proprietary.
Secondly, in your analysis of your options if you want an added feature in a piece of software, you overlook another option. You could pay someone to add the feature you want. They may require (as rms does) that you allow the change to be rolled into the main distribution as Free Software. In this case you're paying for the work needed to add the feature, not the feature itself. On the other hand, you might be buying your own custom version of the software, if it is the orignal author, or if the license allows for it (BSD for instance). In addition, with Free Software you can always get the feature you want if you are willing to pay for it. You can pay someone to do it, even if they are not the original author. How much pull do have with Microsoft or Oracle?
Either way, you get your feature, and the main program stays free.
As for your "point" about some "Socialist" ideal, you really need to think about this in more than a superficial manner. There's nothing wrong with charging you for the software. In fact, I don't see a big deal with limiting your ability to distribute changed code (a la the old QT versions) ... I write the code, I get to pick the terms. I simply recognise the increased total value of the code when it is released as Free Software, at least in many cases.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by d^2b on Wednesday April 04, @12:21PM EST
(#295)
(User #34992 Info)
http://not.a.url.in.sight
|
Umm. OK. So Microsoft is good because they
made a lot of people rich. That does not
mean their software is not crap. Nor (as
many people, including the odd judge, have
observed) that their business practices
are fair.
I'm going to ignore anything talking about
communism. That isn't
even much of an insult, nevermind an argument.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by renehollan
(rene@nospam.hollan.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:31PM EST
(#335)
(User #138013 Info)
http://www.hollan.org
|
people don't become prosperous through socialism or caring and sharing...
Perhaps not, but communal cooperatives, that is, pooling resources to produce something that benefits all, certainly reduces the overhead of living. It isn't as much about "getting rich", as it is about "living cheaper". This, of course, creates opportunities for secondary wealth creation through savings and investment, which may lead to prosperity.
The interesting thing about software is that, unlike most resources, once created, it is not scarce, and can be duplicated at very low marginal cost. As a result, the barrier to becoming a member of a cooperative open source software community is very low: it can afford leaches, as it were, and STILL benefit it's contributing members. This directly leads to reduced costs of scrutinizing just who should join the community.
Licenses like the GPL, which keep open source code free, serve to encourage community participation, via that direct benefit, and the comfort that one's "free" (as in beer) code won't be usurped for someone else's profit.
So, while the open source model might be called communal, or cooperative, it is certainly not communist, in that there is an aparatus that oversees what will be coded for who's benefit. Nor is it socialist: there is no agent that forces participatory behaviour for the greater good.
Indeed, voluntary communities that practice "sharing and caring" to reduce some burden on each individual member, are no different than organizations that assemble for profit motives. Socialism and Communism rear their ugly heads when participation is no longer voluntary
There is nothing more important than wealth creation.
Depends. Reducing overhead strikes me as a necessary prerequesite to creating and preserving wealth (i.e. profit) in a competitive market place.
Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
How generous of Mr. Gates. Unfortunately, the wealth that Microsoft creates stems from the reduction in overhead of the tasks it performs. Otherwise, why would anyone buy, sorry, license, it. The time saved is deemed worth the money spent. So, Microsoft's revenue is some fraction of this wealth. Subtract their expenses (which are lower than those who can't create software as well, enabling the venture to be profitable), and something is left over. A small fraction of this is redistributed (a large fraction, in a socialist society, due to taxation).
With free software, the same wealth is created, but it remains where it was created, in terms of time and effort freed from the automation the software provides. This translates into increased efficiency, more free time, greater opportunity to spend the time earning money (ask anyone who does their "books" by hand about this), which eventually puts money into the economy. So, the same wealth is created, but we do not notice because there isn't a clear concentration point.
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country.
Again, it isn't socialist, because participation is voluntary. Created wealth does not have to be concentrated to be beneficial. Some would argue that extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing. I agree, and happen to see government wealth concentration, with the stated goal of beneficial redistribution, as the flip side of the corporate wealth creation coin. I'd rather see small amounts of wealth created in many places than concentrated in one.
If this happens, you get barely affluent
people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't pursue any philanthropic activity.
Actually, most charity comes from individuals, either in the obvious form of money, or other forms of assistance. It just isn't as obvious as multi-million or -billion dollar donations.
For the record, I have no opposition to companies becoming wealthy because they invent "the next big thing". However, such wealth concentration is not stable -- you can't keep accumulating wealth unless others continue to perceive value in what you provide. Left to themselves, most monopolies do disappear (I'm told the average life span is 15 years) If the monopolist "abuses" their position to raise profits, this creates incentive for others to compete. Of course, government monopoly-busting activities serve the interests of those for whom alternatives wouldn't come "fast enough". The market is efficient in the long term, but may be slow to respond in the short term. Libertarians like myself would argue that intervening in the natural process does more harm than good in the long-term. Of course, I acknowledge that it is necessary to eat today as opposed to next week, as it were, and this leads to interventionist policies (Personally, I'd prefer "ability to get food insurance" instead).
So, the prospect of riches does allow a vibrant society to progress through the pursuit of innovation. However, much innovation has come about because of accident, or inspiration, without a wealth motive. I see the rate of innovation decreasing as the wealth previous innovations created accumulates in a concentrated spot. So, for-profit ventures are useful, but not when they reach the point of stagnation, or using accumulated wealth to stave off natural decay or competition (corporatism).
In the end, I see value both in community cooperatives and for-profit ventures, and I belive that it is healthy for a society when either option is available to make one's life easier.
no sig here... move along, move along. |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:24PM EST
(#662)
(User #212894 Info)
|
"Socialism and Communism rear their ugly heads when participation is no longer voluntary "
Yep.
That is a main problem with GPL - it tries to enforces participation and freedom ...
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Paulo
(paulsen@rocketmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:36PM EST
(#360)
(User #3416 Info)
|
Nice try, astroturfer.
(And before you dismiss this as a knee-jerk reaction, read the above again: doesn't it sound suspiciously similar to "Linux is antiamerican?")
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
by Skapare
(cuvy@vcny.arg.rot13)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:03PM EST
(#442)
(User #16644 Info)
http://linuxhomepage.com/
|
Open Source creates as much wealth as proprietary products do. The difference is that there is not a huge chunk of that wealth siphoned off to a vendor in the process. Now that in and of itself isn't as bad as it first sounds, because what goes around, comes around. However, when you have to fund the vendor through this mechanism, and if the vendor has a say in how the product behaves, then they will end up putting forth a lot of effort to make the product do certain things strictly to enhance that siphoning. Software vendors like Microsoft have to ensure that customers pay for the products and services and not steal them. The problem is that so much effort is expended to ensure that revenue stream as opposed to other innovations that actually benefit everyone. In the past we have not seen a great deal of this because as the computer market grew, Microsoft's corporate value grew along with it. Now that there is saturation (virtually every office and most homes now have a computer, and the vast majority of them run Microsoft OS products), Microsoft has to find other means to not just ensure a revenue stream, but to also make it grow.
One big difference between Microsoft Windows and Open Source systems like BSD and Linux (the distributions) is what and who the designers are focusing on. I can assure you that for whatever goals Microsoft has in terms of value growth and value siphoning, they are indeed focusing on making software for others. The BSD and Linux community still come across as making something more for themselves than for others. However, that may not be as bad as it sounds. Read on.
With the technology of software becoming ever more complex, it still takes people with intense technical backgrounds to deal with the issues. I'm often quoting Bruce Schneier when he says "Security is not a thing, it is a process" and I keep wondering if that shouldn't also apply to virtually everything else in computers and technology, as well.
Business is shifting more and more to a service strategy. Microsoft clearly knows this and are working to position themselves to provide these services. Others will do so as well. It will happen over a broad scale from the largest (Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc) to the smallest (your local contractor). Many new business ideas will come not as products, but as services. The technical community will be the source of a lot of that, if not most of it.
Where Open Source and free software comes into this, and where BSD and Linux have their advantage, is that they are oriented more to the technical person who is deploying these services. They will then be the embedded components not of a product, but of a service, where the particulars matter only to the service provider, not the customer. When businesses stop buying computer systems as products, and start subscribing to them as services, they will be less and less involved in the roles of administering them. The service provider will be doing that, and the focus on making the administrative interfaces easy for the technically inept will become less and less important.
Why should someone, even a sales guy in an ISP, be administering a system? They shouldn't. It will be done for them as part of the service when they shift from buying a product to subscribing to a service. Services are where it's at, and those who do have the tools handy (your collection of free software) are in the some of the best positions to create and offer those services. "well *I* use triple-rot13 ... nyah nyah nyah" |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kikta
(kiktajm@nt.quantico.usmc.mil)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:52PM EST
(#775)
(User #200092 Info)
|
The Marine Corps and Navy are about to embark on an new project called Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). Actually the Navy began last year, and the Marine Corps will follow in Fall 2002. Under this agreement, which is with EDS, Microsoft, Dell, and Yap!, we will buy EVERYTHING as a service. It is a 5 year contract (with, I believe a 2 or 3 year possible extension).
Here's how it will work: First, we will sell the NMCI vendors all of our existing infrastructure. PC's, printers, routers, cabling, etc. Then they will sell us "seats". Each seat will come with 2 accounts, i.e. 68,000 seats equals 136,000 possible users. Each seat will include a PC with an OS, all applications needed (in theory), network access, 1 printer per 20 seats, and support (guaranteed problem resolution in 48 hours). They will provide everything, once again, in theory. We will get it all by paying them a monthly fee per seat. Now, I can't get into my personal opinion of the project, but this is important insight into where the market is going. Entities will pay a subscribtion fee and will get their entire computing infrastructure. Of course they will pay more, but all the headaches are out of their hands and they can fine the vendors for any problems. For more information on NMCI, I suggest you visit the MARCORSYSCOM website on NMCI.
Pay attention, because this is the way the government and corporate America is beginning to view future computing policy. We will probably begin to see a large shift in employment of computer types away from large organizations and towards the vendors who want to provide this level of support.
Kill 'em all & let God sort it out later... |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by kikta
(kiktajm@nt.quantico.usmc.mil)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:11PM EST
(#870)
(User #200092 Info)
|
While I cannot, once again, offer a personal opinion... Thank you for pointing this out. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Kill 'em all & let God sort it out later... |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by philipm
(this is not a mailto tag)
on Thursday April 05, @01:02PM EST
(#1058)
(User #106664 Info)
http://192.168.11.1
|
and people say the moderation system isn't broken! The original post that encourages CONVERSATION (not mindless opinion spamming), gets modded down to -1 and never gets archived for future searches. A response - an attempt to address the issues raised - gets modded to 4.
Keep on thinking that invalidating the opinions of others and preventing them from being heard is a good thing.
You should never ever have negative moderation values, nor a default level above 0.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by mgkimsal2
(slashmichael@tapinternet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:02PM EST
(#547)
(User #200677 Info)
http://www.rankmypet.com/
|
It's a troll, but there's probably sincerity behind it...
"We provide ISP services, using Microsoft products. As a result of this we recently got a multimillion dollar contract. "
If you believe this, you've got larger problems than MS or non-MS issues. You didn't get that project because you use MS product. You got it because someone was convinced you could solve their problems. That's it. They may feel comfortable that MS will solve their issues, and you're the ones to handle it, but the moment something comes up that your GUI can't handle, and you can't deliver the goods, there will be trouble.
You got a multimillion dollar contract, but you can't afford a fulltime unix guy. Not even a parttime unix guy? A parttime college unix hacker? They gotta be cheaper than a fulltime Windows admin/salesguy. Come on!
"knowing unix". I find this strange. The internet was built around common protocols, and primarily on unix-flavored systems. It's only been in the past few years that MS has gotten into the game. And you've publicly posted that you got a multimillion dollar contract (presumably involving ISP services) and you don't have anyone on staff who knows much about internet services beyond MS stuff? Again, you will have problems at some point - probably soon.
China's GDP is, I would think, far more a product of their oppressive government than anything to do with 'sharing'. The open source world has already proven that sharing things can lead to fantastic products (bind/sendmail/etc.). Without the rise of DNS services and email programs, often based on open source/sharing philosophies, the internet would not have taken off as much as it did - you owe your existence to open source software far more than MS - far more than you know it.
Who said no one makes money in open source? We deal primarily in open source software and are doing just fine thank you.
I'm not sure a few companies making 'pits of money' as you put it is terribly good for the country in the first place, and by limiting your view to 'the country' (presumably the US) you are exhibiting extreme narrow mindedness when it comes to the global view of things. Keep pushing your MS solutions - that's fine. What do you do when people CAN'T afford it? YOU can't compete - not when one (legal) license costs as much as a village earns in a week.
ending rant... :)
Like my pet?
RankMyPet.com |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by prophecyvi
(admin@NOSPAM.theprophet.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:42PM EST
(#685)
(User #249996 Info)
http://www.netgrammar.com/
|
There is nothing more important than wealth creation.
This kind of statement really makes me, no offense to you, sick to my stomach. Where did you learn that this is the case? Who taught you this?
But, that is your prerogative.
What gets me is when statements like these become evangelical - when these kinds of things are spouted as "the way to be". This is the end result of that - schools banning speech that sounds off against corporate greed.
Believe what you will, but don't evangelize that "there is nothing more important than welath creation". And please, don't go filling your childrens' heads with that.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Treylis
(treylis@treylis.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:29PM EST
(#840)
(User #411682 Info)
http://treylis.org
|
As someone who believes that productive force is what brings everything together, I take some serious issues with what you are saying. The site which you have linked to says nothing informative--it is speech, yes, but in both that and your post, you offer absolutely no arguments against greed, other than, basically, "it's bad!" You cite nothing, you say nothing. I ask you: what is more important than creating, and why? Isn't money merely a marker to show how well you accomplish at succeeding in life in the productive sense, a true objective value? Sigh. I figure that someone will haul out the Rand sooner or later, if this is actually responded to.
GAIM: Treylis23 |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by I_am_Joe_Smith
(joe@lifeinprison.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:50PM EST
(#697)
(User #247889 Info)
|
Ok, how did this post get 1, Troll? Are the moderators so narrow minded that they can't accept an alternate (albeit not generally accepted here at /.) view?
Sad, sad people.
|
About wealth creation (Score:1)
by Weasel Boy on Wednesday April 04, @05:11PM EST
(#797)
(User #13855 Info)
|
Several previous posters have had excellent comments about wealth creation. See this very insightful article by Skapare, orthis one, by Gordan1, or this one, by j-beda, or this other very insightful article by renehollan. (In fact, I think renehollan's article is the best of the bunch. Please do read it.)
While I'm lauding renehollan's article, permit me to highlight this one sentence: Created wealth does not have to be concentrated to be
beneficial. From Skapare, consider this fillip: Open Source creates as much wealth as proprietary products do.
What is wealth?
Is wealth having money? I certainly think that's part of the answer, but not all.
Most of the "wealth" in stocks is vapor, not money. It's potential money. Imagine a public company that has an IPO where they print up 10 million shares, and sell 1 million on the open market. Its valuation is 10% real (based on the shares people purchased) and 90% virtual (for unreleased shares valued at the going market rate of the public 10%). If its shareholders try to cash out all at once, or if it tries to sell that other 90% all at once, or if buyers decide they're not going to fight over 10% of a company, its value will deflate pretty fast.
Stock market wealth is like a balloon full of air. If you poke a tiny little hole, you can take out a significant amount at a measured rate withou popping the whole thing. If air is still being added while you do this, it won't even deflate.
Enough about such flimsy measures of wealth as potential "air" money. I'd say real wealth is measured in human terms: Easier and/or better living. If you aquire something that makes your life better, you have gained wealth. Consumer electronics, cars, good medical care, leisure time, hobbies... these are all contributors to wealth. The important idea here is not that they can be bought with money, but that you are wealthy if you have them at all.
So how do you create a lot of wealth? Or, put another way, how do you make a whole lot of people wealthy? One way, certainly, is to give everyone tons of money. But another, equally valid approach, is to reduce the cost of the benefits of wealth. If everyone in the world had $100 million, would everyone be rich? Possibly. If everyone in the world had a nice house, nice toys, plenty to eat, good family and friends, intellectual stimulation, and lots of time to enjoy it all, would everyone be rich? I think so.
This dovetails beautifully with Skapare's hypothesis. By enabling all people to aquire high-quality software, Free Software creates wealth! Lots of it. It creates wealth in the sense that they have tools that make their life easier or better. It also has secondary effects (as renehollan points out) of freeing up more of your resources to pursue traditional methods of wealth-building such as hoarding real or virtual "air" money. (I suppose if you want to take this argument to a ridiculous extreme, you could say that software piracy creates wealth, too. I'm not even going to go there.)
I never meant for this to be a "me too" article, but these other writers have made their points so eloquently, there's not much left for me to say, apart from encouraging us all to broaden our perspective when we think about what is wealth, and how is it created. The definition that corporate society tries to drill into us is pretty narrow.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Ingerod on Wednesday April 04, @07:15PM EST
(#861)
(User #82705 Info)
|
I frankly don't understand what the big fight over free or non-free software is about. Why does
one exclude the other?
Also, I think one should be very careful to separate the notions of innovation and business. While they
typically (hopefully!) support each other, they are two separate things.
The way I see it, innovation (or maybe it should be called development) happens because of at least
three quite different reasons and in different environments, with different motivations and goals. I'll be
brief, but here's my take on it:
-
Commercially driven innovation. This is what happens in companies, with
commercial competition as the main driving force. Healthy competion drives innovation, monopoly
makes it stagnate. A common enough situation is of course that the focus is too much on products
and services that _sell_, and not necessarily on what's "good". On the other hand, that's what a company
do (make money) otherwise they cease to exist.
-
Academically driven innovation, taking place in places like universities. This is
typically less sensitive to current trends, is longer-term, and less focused on definite marketable products
and services. (Of course money plays a significant part here as well, but not in the same way as for 1)
above.) Apart from funding, information-sharing is very important for this to work properly.
-
Private innovation. This is for solving a personal need, or by "mad-inventors-in-garages" (hi Woz again!).
This has virtually no inhibitor (in its intial stages at least). It also feeds on free access to information
like in case 2), but the goals vary much more than for 1) and 2). While this quite often turns into 1),
it doesn't have too, like in the case of most more or less hobbyist programmers.
I think all three are necessary for innovation to thrive. Notions like "all software should be free" I find
quite bizarre. Why on earth would having tens of thousands of people working full time at writing software stifle
innovation? If there are more people that can afford (i.e. pay the rent) developing new stuff at least
half of their waking time, that's a good thing isn't it? The more the merrier after all, and occasionally
something really good comes out even from the slave mines at large corporations. (Anyone tried iTunes? Precisely,
I know that Apple bought that.)
I admit these were just some random thoughts that popped out of my head, but my main points are that
all the three environments above are necessary, and that there is no contradiction in having them
all around at the same time.
Unethical and illegal business practices is something else completely.
Let's all hope the legal system takes care of that.
This post is almost HTML 4.0-compliant |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Adam X
(adam at ripcord dot net)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:35PM EST
(#900)
(User #22881 Info)
http://www.ripcord.net
|
First off, this guy needs to stop wiping his butt with his Microsoft stock options and get off the valium.
About this so called business that just got an account using Microsoft software. Thats all fine and dandy, just realize that this same contract could have just as easily been won with a *NIX based software solution (or several other whatever based solutions). I've worked for several ISPs and design firms, and never have I seen one win a muli-million dollar contract with their sys admin/sales guy running the show. I almost laughed when reading this. The case is made that "they couldn't have done it wihtout Microsoft". I actually believe this. I think that without Microsoft the post I'm replying to couldn't have happened. I think this because the guy who posted probably couldn't figure out simple command line syntax if he wanted to (which I'm sure he doesn't). The kind of technologies that make millions are the robust, secure, and reliable kind, not the kind that offer pretty dialog boxes and you can buy "For Dummies" books that let you setup a slip-shod business overnight. If all this operation has is a guy who can figure out NT and make a few sales calls then they need to apologize to their multi-million dollar client and tuck their tail between their legs and learn something about useful technology.
Seriously, why does anyone even try with this excuse. "Microsoft software is better because the learning curve is low and I can get my business up and running in no time.". Please. These are the same people who's servers get cracked and abused because they fail to realize the need for security updates. These are the people who see a firewall as a needless expense and not a investment in security. These are the people who sacrifice their firstborn sons to the Bill Gates idols sitting on their kitchen counters.
I'm a capitalist to the extreme, yet I see the need for Open Souce technologies plain as day. Making this kind of Pro-Microsoft argumnet against Open Source technologies is like saying that we should forget about improving the status-quo in base technologies to focus on proprietary money making technologies.
I just wonder what the world would be like today if someone with this guy's mindset was deciding the fate of the polio vaccine.
This post is Copyright 2000 AdamX
"I pity the fool!" - Mr. T |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by DrSkwid
(drskwid@yahoo-co-uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:00PM EST
(#930)
(User #118965 Info)
http://www.hardlight.couk.com
|
we basically owe our existence to Microsoft
I think your perspective is askew here. You owe your existence to the demand for your product. if MS never existed then skilled people who created that product would've made something else and you'd work somewhere else.
the need incentivizes .oO0Oo. Politics is life. Vote with your self.
|
About Microsoft's Scamming (Score:2)
by d.valued
(ripco bang acerx)
on Monday April 16, @12:06AM EST
(#1108)
(User #150022 Info)
|
Then again.. what was the last Microsoft innovation?
The GUI and mouse-control? Turned useable at the Xerox PARC, turned user-friendly by Apple.
Web browser? Licensed from Spyglass, commercial port to NSCA's Mosaic.
Networking? NetBIOS is a twisted protocol which (correct me if wrong) was also a PARC product.
TCP/IP stack? It is a rotten importation of the Winsock program, designed to allow 32bit networking on a 16 bit Win3.1.
I will be the first to admit that Windows has a place at the desks of those who neither need nor desire a truely powerful computing environment. (These are the sales types and those who want basic word processing and to play that damned Solitaire. I prefer to play GNU Chess with my pc's spare cycles ;)
However, as an ISP I see NT and its constant maintenance and massive security holes as highly - and possible litigiously - unresponsible. I would wager that you either have needed or will be needing in the near future some form of professional securing of systems which will leave your paper tiger confused and dizzy.
(And yes, all MCSE's are paper tigers. Try taking LPI or LCA tests. They actually require siginificant knowledge of the workings of Linux, XWS, TCP/ip and other networking.. ;)
Don't tell me about their 'innovation.' From what I read, it looks like you've a microsoft.com email.
Windows.. Good for targeting rocks.
Virtual World Domination Here! |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by danheskett
(heskettd@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:38AM EST
(#123)
(User #178529 Info)
http://www.vocalstudent.com
|
Hmmm.. are you sure about all those details? Windows 2000 and its family of products has started a shift to per server licenses, and sometimes even per processor licenses, not per seat. For one project, I purchased a copy of Win2k Server. I have in writing that if i put that on one box, I can serve an unlimited number of users for an unlimited period of time.
,br>
I honestly disagree with your conclusion, regardless of your licensing question.
For a techie, yes, Linux is WAY cheaper and WAY easier to startup with. But imagine a company that provides a limited product, or a newly designed product or service. Should they invest in a true hardcore Solaris expert to get going? I am not sure of that. I would rather see them contract out to have a Windows machine built and managed. Perhaps when they have grown a bit they could move to a Linux/BSD/Solaris solution, but I think starting up, the reduced learning curve is well worth the cost of the $800 license. Does Your College Suck? Get Vocal |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by ratboy666 on Wednesday April 04, @12:31PM EST
(#333)
(User #104074 Info)
http://www.weigel.dyndns.org/
|
...invest is a true hardcore Solaris expert...
...reduced learning curve is well worth the
cost of the $800 license...
1) Prove that Windows 2000 has a better learning
curve than Solaris (specifically with reference
to servers).
2) If you have servers, aren't you going to
need a "true hardcore Windows expert"? Isn't
that just a wash?
3) How can starting up be easier with Linux,
and then easier with Windows? Are you just
confused?
4) I submit that it is easier to start with
Linux, and then move to BSD or Solaris, than
it is to start with W2K and move. At least
Linux is compatible with its bigger buddies!
5) IT SHOULD BE EASIER TO SUPPORT WINDOWS --
MICROSOFT MAKES MONEY SELLING IT. SO HOW COME
I CAN'T GET SUPPORT FOR WIN 3.1 FROM MICROSOFT
ANYMORE?
Ratboy666
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Laramie99
(Laramie2097@no.spam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:02PM EST
(#549)
(User #140507 Info)
|
Good Lord.
3.1 has been around for, let's see, at least 6 years. If you haven't figured out it's intricacies (sic?) by now, shoot yourself.
Better yet, why are you even running it? I highly doubt most modern software written within the past 3 years will work on it. I may set up a test machine at home to test this theory...
When you can get an OS from an AbandonWare Website, chances are you shouldn't be running it
And when was the last time you called MS Tech Support?? I don't think I ever have.
And I don't know where you got the idea that Win2K is harder to setup then BSD or Solaris...for a prime example, my webserver, took me 6 hours to finally get Linux limping on it.
So I rebuilt it...using Win2K Server.
Total time till my DHCP server, Web Server, FTP server and Domain Controller were up using Win2K setup wizard...1.5 hours.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you've never installed Win2K Server...
...puts up the flame shield...
--Laramie
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by TheCarp
(sjc-slashdot@carpanet.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:29PM EST
(#589)
(User #96830 Info)
https://www.carpanet.net/
|
Doe sthat count package install time?
On debian I could easily have a machine installed from scratch and running as a webserver in an hour or two. Depending on the machine of course, there is alot to the OS and just loading and installing the inital packages can take a while.
With a fast enough network connection (and fast enough machine to unpack and install things quick) I could then apt-get dist-upgrade to the latest stable (ie all the security patches that are needed).
Now granted, I do this shit for a living. Can a newbie who never installed the OS do it in such a short period of time. Hell no... well they probably could actually but - I would never recomend that a persons first intro to an OS be running a webserver on it.
For the most part you can use apache "out of the box" - it works great.
Course then again... you work with Windows stuff for a living, much as I work with Unix for a livig - can a newbie, who has never used either system (hmmm say An apple II user who just today decided to upgrade to a new machine) set it up AND get a webserver working in an hour or two?
Hmmm... bring up a spare machine next month and a Win2K CD... maybe we can talk Liz into helping us perform this experiment? (Yea I know - no way in hell)
-Steve --
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again" |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by Laramie99
(Laramie2097@no.spam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:32PM EST
(#669)
(User #140507 Info)
|
Steve,
If we can talk her into it, I'd love to (c:
Anyone else interested in the results?
FYI, we're going to be conducting a test next month of the time it takes for a person who has no idea how to use a computer to set up a running web server on two OSs...One will be 2000 Server w/ IIS 5.0, the other Debian w/ Apache.
Feel free to email either myself or Steve if you think we should set up a page for the expirement, or if you're just interested in seeing the results (c:
--Laramie
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by TheCarp
(sjc-slashdot@carpanet.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:40PM EST
(#680)
(User #96830 Info)
https://www.carpanet.net/
|
We are?
Well I was joking. I would love to do it, of course, but we would need a willing subject. Liz would, mostl likely, laugh at us
Course...I am sure that if YOU asked her, and gave her the right "puppy Dog" look...she would agree (being her brother, I have little influence like that). However, if you did get her to agree...she would be bored and ready to kill us both in ...um... about an hour.
Maybe Lisa (though I doubt it... talk to Liz for the story there) or hmmm well enough talk of people we know in a public forum :)
It will be an interesting experiment if we can come up with the right lab rats.
-Steve --
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again" |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by danheskett
(heskettd@hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:25PM EST
(#1049)
(User #178529 Info)
http://www.vocalstudent.com
|
Okay, I'll bite:
1) With Windows, it is my view that many of the day to day administration tasks are very simple. Adding a new user, removing a user, changing your passwords, viewing log files, updating your website, etc are all very simple tasks with Win2k server. My experience with BSd or Solaris has not been that easy in terms of a newbie user. Learning BSD tooks me a while to change advanced user properties, sure making a basic user was simple, but setting permissions, login hours, etc etc tooks me weeks to learn.
2) No. I dont think its a wash. First off, Solaris or BSD experts are tremendously expensive compared to a Windows "expert". A Windows-Admin, even the clueful ones, go for thousands per year cheaper than your average Solaris/BSD-Admin. Literally thousands and thousands. Go out and hire a Linux/BSD expert, and compare to a Windows 2k expert, and I expect the difference in salary will be enough to buy a mid-range sports car. For a small company without techies, thats money better used on other things.
3) Personal attacks aside, this is not about me mind you (I am FreeBSD user). This is about the hypothetical small company with no IT staff. For them, they can pay a small amount to a contracting firm for a delivered, pre-configured server. My experience has been that a well powered dual-processor Win2k server can be setup for under $2500. For this company, using that box has a workgroup server, a low-end webserver, a document server, a print server, etc is a realistic setting. However, as the company grows, and an IT infrastructure is needed, it is easy and wise in my opinion to throw out the Win2k server, and replace it with an inhouse administrator who can setup a network infrastructure consisting of FreeBSD machines.
4) When you say compatible, I think you are mostly wrong. My assumption is that they would use windows until they can afford a dedicated *nix admin. When that happens, the skills they used in Windows (adding users, email, etc etc) are no longer used because the IT guy handles them. As far as system compatibility, a *nix can do anything a windows server can - share documents, publish web pages, server print jobs, and all that good stuff. Compatibility isnt an issue when you get rid of the original Windows box as well.
You cant get support for Windows 3.1 anymore because they stop supporting it in 1997. It is easy to get support from MS or through VARs. You pay $250 per incident for Windows 9x/NT, Win2k support. I tried to get support a while back on an early SunOS product, and they pointed me to a VAR. They stopped supporting it quite some time ago. Old software doesnt get supported after a certain period of time. Its that simple. Similiarly, I am having a hard time getting support for the initial release of X11. Its part of life. Upgrade or deal with the consequeneces. If you don't like MS policies, switch to someone else.
I think my original point holds, that many companies, especially small ones, can benefit by outsourcing a Win2k server and having non-professional users manage it until a point when they can afford a more robust BSD/Solaris/Linux installation. In my view, that initial license cost is well worth the ability to forget about IT issues until a latter date. Does Your College Suck? Get Vocal |
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by ratboy666 on Wednesday April 11, @02:03PM EST
(#1105)
(User #104074 Info)
http://www.weigel.dyndns.org/
|
Windows 3.1 is *only* six years old (in "end-
of-life" terms). I expect support should still
be forthcoming. You brought up SunOS. Let's
look at that..
Solaris 2.5 (release 1995) is still supported,
by a company that makes HARDWARE. Sun updated
to 2.5.1 in 1996, along with releasing Solaris 6
(the same year). So the "end-of-life" clock
starts ticking in 1996.
The last version of SunOS was released in 1992
(SunOS 4.1.3). That would be 9 (!) SUN operating
system releases ago.
Compare with Microsoft -- Windows 95 superceded
Windows 3.1, and so the clock on end-of-life
starts in 1995. Windows 3.1 is only 3 versions
old. Again, I Microsoft to support it.
(heck, US military is on Solaris 2.5.1 -- these
rollouts take time). ESPECIALLY from a software
company.
I deployed some Windows 3.1 in 1996, purchased
RETAIL. These are only 4 to 5 years old. No,
the applications DON'T work under 95 (but may
run under Windows 2000, I don't know). Sun
offers porting assistance (paid and free service)
-- does Microsoft? Or is Microsoft busy chasing
the next big thing?
As to ease of administration, etc. there are
GUI interfaces to Solaris as well for these
functions. Indeed, as a Unix/Linux/Solaris
user, I find it VERY difficult to get things
done on a Windows machine.
There seem to be Windows "experts" out there,
and this may drive down market value for Windows
administrators. So it may be cheaper to go with
a "Windows" network. But, when your organization
grows, you will have to port all of your stuff
to a bigger box. Pay now, or pay later. Of course
it may be less expensive in future to just
buy more Intel boxes, and more administrators
because changing the underlying IS infrastructure
is such a nightmare. Caveat Emptor.
Or, talk to your local Sun rep. Sun may well
give you support in updating your IS
infrastructure to an open solution.
(Or HP, IBM or Compaq). And when you actually
get support, rethink the Microsoft pricing
policies.
end of rant.
ratboy666
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:2)
by Dr. Evil
(mgjkNOSP@Mgeocities.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:02PM EST
(#216)
(User #3501 Info)
|
I agree with your sentiment, but you're not right about IIS... per-seat agreements do not apply to anonymous web connections.
I'm fairly certian if you gave all those people logins and authenticated them through SSL, then you would be in trouble. I've never done it so I've only read that part of the EULA in enough detail to know it does not apply to me.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by randomgeek on Wednesday April 04, @02:45PM EST
(#607)
(User #240509 Info)
|
Mostly correct, authenticating through SSL has nothing to do with it. You can use SSL and a standard html form for authentication. It's when you use basic/NTLM authentication that you need licenses. MS has an internet connector licensing pack for this situation so you don't have to pay for every user using it just for web authentication.
|
Re:About Microsoft (Score:1)
by thechink on Wednesday April 04, @04:46PM EST
(#766)
(User #182419 Info)
|
Because M$ NT / 2000 has a *per seat* license agreement Wrong, the install of NT 4 Server lets you choose a "per seat" OR a "per server" license, you select whatever you paid for. Also anonymous Internet connections do not count.
|
Sell software to pay... (Score:4, Interesting)
by bluelip on Wednesday April 04, @11:12AM EST
(#23)
(User #123578 Info)
http://bluelip.blips.net
|
If they are paying their support people by selling the software, where the heck does that $35 for a dekstop incident or $100+ for a server incident go when they charge me when I call their "support" line?
Yep, I never spell check. |
|
Re:Sell software to pay... (Score:3, Insightful)
by susano_otter on Wednesday April 04, @12:43PM EST
(#388)
(User #123650 Info)
|
Well, it's a good point. As far as I can tell, you've got two scenarios:
1. Pay for a software license. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Pay for periodic upgrades.
2. Get the software for free. Pay a competent technician to manage the software. Pay for end-user training. Pay a support provider for support. Get periodic upgrades for free.
The question is: "Does the money saved by getting the software for free offset the higher costs of a competent technician and end-user training?"
Microsoft seems to think the answer is "no", but with a caveat - even if owning, managing, and using the free software is cheaper, it is still difficult to find a market for applications developed on such platforms.
This makes little sense to me. First of all, if the free software truly is cheaper then more people will migrate to it, and the market for apps will increase dramatically. Second, many companies don't make money by selling software for platform X; they make money by selling physical objects or services of some kind (websites, clothing stores, auto manufacturers, &c.). For them, free software might reduce their overhead and allow them to spend more resources on improving their core business.
On the other hand, if free software achieves the goal of becoming user-friendly and intuitive, then the need for support will decline, and then there will be little or no revenue stream to support the development of free software. Free software will go back to being a basement hobby, and the commercial world will continue to be dominated by Micro$tarbucks/SunOracle.
Plan B: Skinner, Smoking Man, and a monkey ride around in van solving mysteries. |
Warning: logic flaw! (Score:2, Insightful)
by OSgod on Wednesday April 04, @12:54PM EST
(#425)
(User #323974 Info)
|
History has said that if you build a killer app it will draw the customers even if the cost is higher
If the end users needs are met by that app and not on another platform/application then their is no competition and the vendor can charge a premium for their content. This may not mean they own the entire market but they do own their segement.
Example 1: Apple owns desktop publishing. LINUX is NOT a competitor in this field at ALL.
Example 2: Lotus 1-2-3 was released (at a premium) and drove people to buy expensive hardware. They did it cheerfully and accomplished their tasks
Example 3: Microsoft owns ~90% of the desktops today. No other OS has anything near the application base, usability and return on investment that Windows has. This is not an argument -- it is a fact of the current computing field.
Linux is a niche player especially on the desktop. It has a better server story. It is not a threat to example 1 or 3 today.
|
Re:Sell software to pay... (Score:1)
by Crossbones
(xbones@127.0.0.1)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:32PM EST
(#590)
(User #13604 Info)
http://www.keepout.com
|
Uh, rather than just paying the support fee, why not ask the reason for being charged? Customer service can answer why you're paying.
Desktop incidents depend on several things. Win95 is now fee based only. Win98/ME should be 90 days free support/fee based after that. I believe the professional products (server, etc) are fee based only.
All calls on the 800# are fee based.
Like I said above.. Ask customer service.
-X
|
Re:Sell software to pay... (Score:1)
by defunc on Wednesday April 04, @11:40PM EST
(#954)
(User #238921 Info)
|
Fine. Don't pay. Just use your free OS/Apps and quit whining. Gee, it's not like Microsoft is forcing you to pay to use their software. --
trust no one - deep throat, repeated by mulder
|
Blah blah blah (Score:2, Insightful)
by MadAhab
(736c617368657240616861622e636f6d)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:13AM EST
(#25)
(User #40080 Info)
http://www.ahab.com
|
Boring answers. Very neat, efficient, evasive without being duplicitous, redefines the questions to fit the answers he has, etc. I'm sure this guy is a very effective executive.
But there's really nothing new here at all, except that he got so jizzed up about XP. All available evidence points to XP being another example of Microsoft stealing the innovations of others, badly. XP steals from OS X in this way, only it exemplifies the old saw that if you build something totally idiot proof, only an idiot will be able to use it. OS X at least allows the possibility of expert users. You know already which one of those will never darken my doorstep.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
|
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2, Insightful)
by VividU
(Slash@Goodskeleton.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:36AM EST
(#112)
(User #175339 Info)
http://www.goodskeleton.com
|
"You know already which one of those will never darken my doorstep"
Yeah, theres no doubt about that. The only place where there is "nothing new" is in your reply. Typical anti-MS knee-jerk Slashdot post.
I wish Slashdot would flag all anti-MS posts so I can filter them out.
You guys are boring me silly. These posts reek of anger and ignorance.
Nothing new indeed.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by On Lawn
(onlawn@usa.SpshielD.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:25PM EST
(#315)
(User #1073 Info)
http://www.onlawn.net
|
I agree. I'm as much against microsoft astroturf plants as anybody. However the guy from microsoft was free flowing with views and information that I thought was interesting. He is right in just about everything. And in the few places I feel he is wrong, I realize my reasoning is based on hunches.
MS is responding to Linux in an interesting way, they are actualy understanding it and incorporating what Linux is in spirit into Windows. We don't see the flush of FUD that was predicted except from plants that boo and hiss on KDE and GNOME.
What we do see are people trying to be informative and interesting like the slashdot purists try to be.
Heres a hint to being interesting and informative (although not really karma gathering) on slashdot. Rather than Poo-Pooing on an idea, understand it.
Then when you understand it say what you understand, whether it be opposed or in support of the origional idea. Then while ignoring the hordes of knee-jerks responding aimlessly to your posts, you'll see the fruits of your labors in the intelligent posts of others. They will actualy add more understanding to your ideas!
Remember understand first, post later. (I'll make it my new sig)
~^~~^~^^~~^ Understand first, post second... |
Amendment (Score:2)
by On Lawn
(onlawn@usa.SpshielD.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:22PM EST
(#479)
(User #1073 Info)
http://www.onlawn.net
|
I have read many very articulate oppositions to the MS man. I suggest reading them to see how to do it. (but I bet I'm preaching to the choir here).
~^~~^~^^~~^ Understand first, post second... |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by el_chicano on Thursday April 05, @09:15AM EST
(#1025)
(User #36361 Info)
http://vatoloco.net
|
I wish Slashdot would flag all anti-MS posts so I can filter them out. I wish Slashdot would flag all pro-MS posts so I can filter them out. :-> You guys are boring me silly.
You can always try USENET: alt.I.want.to.brown.nose.Bill.Gates These posts reek of anger and ignorance. No, if a better product exists, the people that continue use Microsoft products are the ignorant ones.
The only time I get angry is when I have to use a substandard product that does not allow me to do what I want. For example, why can't we get an option to turn off ALL the stupid "Are you sure?" dialog boxes. To me, quit means QUIT dammit, not quit oops I changed my mind and I don't want to quit anymore. At least with open source you can hack the source and get rid of petty annoyances like that. Try doing that with your M$ products... -- You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork! Morris Fletcher, The X-Files |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by kaisyain on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#144)
(User #15013 Info)
|
And OS X stole from NeXT and NeXT stole from Mac and Mac stole from Smalltalk.
it exemplifies the old saw that if you build something totally idiot proof, only an idiot will be able to use it.
That's right. Cars are idiot proof and I'm sure you drove one to work today. That must make you an idiot. I'm surprised you aren't also complaining that your toaster doesn't have an "expert user" mode. Different people want different things from their OS. And not every OS can be all things to all people.
|
On cars and software.... (Score:1)
by Big Boss on Wednesday April 04, @12:20PM EST
(#291)
(User #7354 Info)
|
Cars DO have an expert mode. It is accessed by opening the hood and using tools. My toaster has a simmiliar "expert" mode. ;) Cars are not idiot proof, an idiot would not change the oil or the other vital fluids and thier car would die. A slightly clued user would have someone else change the fluids, while an expert would do it themselves, or know how and chose not to. ;) Just like an OS. The idiots have it die and they don't know why "oh, COMMAND.COM was REQUIRED??".. Clued users can handle system maintence tasks, run defrag and whatnot. Experts can compile kernels and do other low level upgrades.
That's enough for my bad anaolgy.. ;)
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by LordOmar
(lordomar@speakeasy.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:20PM EST
(#292)
(User #68037 Info)
http://www.osrevolution.org
|
And OS X stole from NeXT and NeXT stole from Mac and Mac stole from Smalltalk.
Apple bought NeXT and NeXT was founded by Steve Jobs, so I don't think theft is an issue in those. A popular joke amongst those of us who still play around on NeXTSTEP (I have a cube), joke that with the itroduction of the G4 cube and OSX NeXT's takeover of apple is complete.
On the topic of Doug Miller's Responses (hey no one wants a post that's completely off topic). It appears that microsoft is still on the "dumb down the computers instead of up the intelligence of the users" philosiphy. This is a common philosiphy throught all industry. As much as my idealism wants to see intelligent users using Linux and never bothering me with questions. I don't see this as the case anytime soon. However, the continued "ease of use" tools implemented by microsoft (and apple) keeps users from needing to know how their machines operate.
Great for the tech support industry, great for the sales of computer systems. The real loser in the equation is the user.
Do you buy a car when you don't know how to drive?
______________________
There is no .signature |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by hardburn
(admin@REMOVE.madtimes.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:23PM EST
(#305)
(User #141468 Info)
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~linuxnet
|
. . . toaster doesn't have an "expert user" mode
A toaster is a very simple device. A few heating elements here and there, a little spring hooked into a timeing device to pop the toast up at the right time, and a plug. A toaster has no need for an "expert mode" because theres nothing "expert" about it.
OTOH, computers are very complex beasts. Transisters must be aligned perfectly on a very small chunk of silicon and other materials in a special order and positioning just to make the CPU. Then theres RAM, chipsets, ROM, BIOS, and implementing various hardware standerds like PCI or AGP. We haven't even touched how all this works with the software side of things yet!
I'm not going to stop you from having a shiny click-and-drool interface, but I don't want you to stop me from having my hyper-efficent CLI, either.
Furthermore, Windows has one of the worst GUIs ever. It's just easy enough to use so that if you went into Best Buy, having never used a computer before, you could probably do a few simple tasks right there and say "I want to buy this". After actualy using it for a while, that same user will be cursing the machine because he/she runs into the same bugs over and over and over and over and they're sick of it. This is not a user-freindly OS; it's purchase-freindly OS.
------
Microsoft: Re-inventing square wheels |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by GMontag451 on Wednesday April 04, @12:28PM EST
(#323)
(User #230904 Info)
|
Making something idiot proof implies that it was too complex for normal people to use in the first place. Neither cars or toasters were. All toasters have an "expert mode", thats all they have. Bad examples.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Wednesday April 04, @01:21PM EST
(#477)
(User #15013 Info)
|
Making something idiot proof implies that it was too complex for normal people to use in the first place. Neither cars or toasters were.
Apparently you aren't very familiar with early automotive technology.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by rsborg on Wednesday April 04, @12:30PM EST
(#331)
(User #111459 Info)
|
And OS X stole from NeXT and NeXT stole from Mac and Mac stole from Smalltalk.
Let's rephrase shall we?
And Jobs brought NeXT technology to OSX, and Jobs brought Mac innovation to NeXT, and Apple (Mac) LISCENCED the appropriate technology from Xerox PARC (Smalltalk).
Funny how removing vitriol can completely change a statement...
Yeah, I know, YHBT and all
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by kaisyain on Wednesday April 04, @01:18PM EST
(#473)
(User #15013 Info)
|
I honestly fail to see the distinction. Unless they came up with the ideas completely on their own without recourse to other people's work I don't see how it is any different from Microsoft. Microsoft hasn't broken into anyone's headquarters and "stolen" anything (besides, the slashdot community is usually so ready to tell you that the whole notion of theft of intellectual property is bullocks anyway since no one actually loses anything). The mere act of transferring cash from one party to another doesn't change the fact that there was no innovation on your part. After all, I know a lot of people who say "Microsoft doesn't innovate, all they do is buy companies that innovate!"
You have to subtract the vitriol from Microsoft side of the equation, too.
What, exactly, are the non-obvious enhancements that OS X has? When the topic is evil patents by evil corporations looking to make an evil buck the slashdot community is ready to scream about independent discovery and obviousness of supposed "innovations". Why do all of those observations suddenly become nonapplicable just because it is Microsoft?
It just seems to me like there is a double standard in effect.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by gorilla on Wednesday April 04, @12:36PM EST
(#358)
(User #36491 Info)
|
Cars are very far from idiot proof. It takes a long training procedure to operate & care for a car.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @04:41PM EST
(#757)
(User #1449 Info)
|
no. it takes 5 minutes to figure out how to drive a car. The long training and practice comes with learning to drive a car IN TRAFFIC.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by gorilla on Thursday April 05, @02:15PM EST
(#1063)
(User #36491 Info)
|
Or anything else other than in a very large flat area with no obstacles.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:48PM EST
(#406)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
An operating system is substantially different than a car or a toaster. Can you make your toaster do arbitrarily many things, or interact with arbitrary components? I don't think so. And, actually, in "appliance" settings, Linux does extremely well. Take the Tivo, for instance. Noone says the Tivo is hard to use. That's because, like a car or a toaster, it has only one use.
When you come to something inherently complex, trying to act as if it were simple causes more problems than it solves. Granted, Linux swings farther in the other direction than it should. However, when the OS starts doing things "for you", without telling you, it complicates the issues, and confuses the user even more. Users are very able to follow instructions. Surprisingly so. The problem is that when a system tries to out-guess you, you can't just hand someone instructions - they end up fighting the system.
What needs to happen, both in Windows and Linux, is to have a more "appliance-oriented" attitude. The OS, as it is currently conceived, is a total waste of time for the average consumer. What needs to happen is for many more specialized "appliance-type" computers/OSs to spring forth. Linux is the optimal system for this, because of its componentization and customizibility.
This is the concept of the iMac, and it is truly the best way to go. For example, you need a "Grandma" machine, that doesn't allow you to add any devices or software, and just incorporates the functionality a "grandma" would want. Also, it should be organized based on the use patterns of the average "grandma". The "grandma" should have no conception of a separation of software and hardware, it should just be a complete package.
The same can be done for business terminals, graphic artists, and so forth. If you insist on having a more "general", "pluggable" interface, well, that's for techies. Any attempt to dumb that down to the "idiot" level will cause more problems than it solves. That doesn't mean that we should make them as complex as possible, but "dumbing them down" isn't the solution either. Consumers just want to get things done. They don't want to mess around endlessly with their systems. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:3, Interesting)
by kaisyain on Wednesday April 04, @01:34PM EST
(#501)
(User #15013 Info)
|
I didn't say it was the same as a car or a toaster. I had only two points which, apparently, I somehow obfuscated.
The original post said that idiot proof things can only be operated by idiots. His implication was 1) that Windows is idiot proof, or will be Real Soon Now, 2) only idiots can operate such things. In response I say, 1) Windows is so far from being idiot proof that his statement is ridiculous, 2) there are plenty of idiot proof things in the world that non-idiots are able to operate, invaliding the entire basis of his "insightful" claim.
Secondly, the original post seemed to be operating under the assumption that everyone wants the same thing from their computer, namely what the original poster wants. Some people don't want to tweak every last thing on their toaster. They aren't interested in the physics of toasting. They just want to eat toast. Different people want different things from their computer, which will necessitate different approaches in OS design and user interface.
FWIW, I agree with you that OSes need to evolve towards a more appliance like attitude, at least for the overwhelming majority of users and uses. I would wager that the poster I responded to do does not agree, since that is making things idiot proof.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by MadAhab
(736c617368657240616861622e636f6d)
on Thursday April 05, @02:17AM EST
(#975)
(User #40080 Info)
http://www.ahab.com
|
Wrong. The point is that there is a right way to engineer simplicity, and a wrong way. The right way makes simple things simple, and lets hard things be hard.
OS X is getting closer to this than anything else I've seen. XP takes the same notions, superficially papers them onto Windows ME in a way that only a PHB or software reviewer could love, and totally fucks the end user for ever and ever.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by BluFinger on Wednesday April 04, @02:16PM EST
(#572)
(User #60149 Info)
http://www.libbench.com/
|
Can you make your toaster do arbitrarily many things, or interact with arbitrary components? I don't think so.
I sure as hell can. I can spray it with a fire extinguisher when the damn thing starts on fire. Then I can use a knife to dig out the remnants of my tasty toast. Then, when the fucker zaps me I can make it interact forcefully with the wall...
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need! |
Good point but... (Score:1)
by GodHead
(The_BIG_Guy@Way.up.there)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:22PM EST
(#738)
(User #101109 Info)
|
The problem with the appliance model of computing is that, beyond a small demographic, it won't work. The reason for that is that rarely to people want the same function out of a PC. You like games, I like programming, Joe likes manporn, etc... From an applicance, like the toaster, everyone wants and expects basically the same thing - warm bread.
off topic - Windows 2000 and the new Office XP beta are BEAUTIFUL works of software. MS management is evil (what management ISN'T?) but their engineers have made wonderful products. You want an appliance? Check the new advanced terminal services client for Win2k TS.
|
Re:Good point but... (Score:2)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:46PM EST
(#765)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT. You can't make a software package that is good for everyone and still easy to use. That's like trying to make a single kitchen appliance that does everything a kitchen should do. Last I looked, real kitchens had a lot of disparate devices.
The problem is, current industry practices aren't quite compatible. For example, doing so, as you have pointed out, segments the market into a bunch of niche markets. However, that's not a real problem. In fact, it's more of an opportunity for new markets than anything else. Think about it, a _lot_ of people buy game consoles, even though they have computers. And there's not a lot of difference. The main difference is that the game consoles are geared to their users. It's much easier to just sit back and play a console game than to get one working on your computer.
For techies who want to do everything, there will always be a PC. However, I think people are finding out that a PC is just way too much computer for the average person. The key to reducing complexity is not having a giant operating system that takes care of it for you (and thus usually does a poor job), but to actually reduce complexity in the total system. I say this about both Windows and Linux. Having an "easy-to-use" Linux system will still be difficult to use for most people. Not because its Linux, but because PCs are too general to be simple.
"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:Good point but... (Score:1)
by Grab
(ratelect@(no.spam.here.)hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @04:56AM EST
(#1002)
(User #126025 Info)
http://(no.spam.here.)www.rational-electronics.co.uk
|
IMO, it will work. Maybe ppl use their PCs for different things at different times - OK, so we need to make each one of those things easier to use.
In this case the PC is merely the environment in which the application runs, and the application itself is what needs to be the appliance. For the kitchen analogy, the PC and its OS merely provide the work surface to support the appliances, the power supply to drive the appliances, and (if required) the squeegy-mop to clean up when they go wrong and spew cake-mix everywhere! :-)
As an example, consider MS Excel. Say you want to draw up a spreadsheet, and sort out the layout of it - not too radical. The most common features you'll use are inserting and deleting rows and columns. Why then: (a) are the insert and delete row and column buttons not on the toolbar by default; (b) are the insert and delete menu options on different menus; (c) does the delete option require a further selection to do it? Things like that get in the way of useability. The ability to customise toolbars and menus to your liking allows advanced users to put obscure things they do more frequently somewhere where they can access them easily, but the essential point is that the default configuration MUST be totally user-friendly, so that anyone can (with a bit of experimenting) use the newly-installed package to do productive stuff with.
Certainly there's things required of the OS, but you shouldn't have to know about them. If you had to crawl around in a cupboard for 5 minutes every day just to turn your kettle on, you'd not be too impressed! :-) The ideal OS really is one which _isn't_ _visible_, just as a home-owner doesn't need to know exactly where the wires run, only that flicking the switch (which is conveniently next to the socket, and nicely obvious) will turn the socket on.
Grab.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @04:56PM EST
(#780)
(User #1449 Info)
|
TiVo *is* kind of hard to use.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by Matthew Weigel
(mcwst18+@pitt.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:37PM EST
(#503)
(User #888 Info)
|
And OS X stole from NeXT and NeXT stole from Mac and Mac stole from Smalltalk.
Who is CEO of the company that produced OS X? Steve Jobs. Who was the CEO of the company that produced NeXTstep? Steve Jobs. Who was the CEO of the company that produced MacOS? Steve Jobs. The only possible 'theft' that might have occured is when Steve Jobs got kicked out of Apple and started NeXT, and mimicked the interface - but who here would really fault him since he started a new company trying to do the exact same thing he tried to do when he and Woz started the first company? --Matthew |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by ClosedSource on Wednesday April 04, @03:26PM EST
(#665)
(User #238333 Info)
|
You forgot the part about how Jobs stole from Xerox. Actually, I believe "stole" is too strong a word, but it's just as appropriate to apply it to Apple as MS. Neither one invented the GUI.
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by Matthew Weigel
(mcwst18+@pitt.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:46PM EST
(#853)
(User #888 Info)
|
Well, that was assumed :) My point was that saying "OS X stole from NeXTStep" is ridiculous, and that "NeXTStep stole from MacOS" only slightly less so. Actually, I think that Apple should have at least acknowledged what they got from Xerox, and likewise MS should acknowledge that their pretty new interface is pretty dated as well. But that would be "off message" for both of them, who both claim to be the sole creators of the wares they're hawking.
--Matthew |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by ignorant_newbie
(geekintraining@yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @02:47AM EST
(#979)
(User #104175 Info)
|
um... no.
OSX was built on top of next, which apple bought... as in paid for, not stole. and if you think cars are idiot proof you certainly don't commute on 101 :)
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by Bob McCown on Thursday April 05, @11:11AM EST
(#1042)
(User #8411 Info)
|
I'm surprised you aren't also complaining that your toaster doesn't have an "expert user" mode Ours did, but we had to disable it when it became annoying...
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by jallen02
(:-( .)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:50AM EST
(#177)
(User #124384 Info)
http://terminalvelocityclan.net
|
I got the same idea.
Specifically, check out question #8.
The question is about XP lic issues and how they are going to complicate life for windows XP users. His response is rather terse in a sense, perhaps largiloquint(sp) as he is, the answer was rather devoid of content except we want to make as much money as we possibly can. Duh! But I think hes in the right on a lot too, its their right to charge whatever the hell they want, don't use it if you dont like it! In every major area there is a sufficiently usable alternative for almost every case. I know some folks get locked in but I bet that there are alternatives etc. Anyways, oh well. I use Windows OS' and I use FreeBSD, and I use Linux. Ive always went through much more trouble configuring my Unix boxes when im learning a new part. Such as setting up DNS. But then it has always worked how it should for the most part. So there are just trade-off's everywhere. MS is an OK company to me they make some nice products that I like a good bit. Sure, I'll pay. Anyways. Jeremy
--Insert Quarter Here[]-- |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by La1d on Wednesday April 04, @11:53AM EST
(#185)
(User #415132 Info)
|
Boring answers indeed! I especially enjoyed the part where the "security and stability of a unix OS" was equated to "unix like features"
So MS lack of security and bugs are really features! If that's how software is supposed to work, then it's gonna be a long night.
--
La1d, killed by a newt, while helpless. |
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by jmccay
(ok....)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:53AM EST
(#187)
(User #70985 Info)
|
Don't get me wrong. I know Microsoft "borrows" from other people/companies, but what exactly did Microsoft copy from Mac OSX? Aqua is not as original as Apple would believe. I worked for a company 3 years ago that had published a gui similar to Aqua and it was a year or too old then. Somewhere I still the CBT course that has the gui.
Now when you consider a good part of the OS is just another flavor of UNIX, there is not that much that is original in OSX. Therefore, what can Microsoft copy that Apple has not already copied?
|
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:1)
by Darth Hubris on Wednesday April 04, @01:45PM EST
(#520)
(User #26923 Info)
|
OS X is becoming more Windows-like. Look at disk navigation: The shelf. This feature is the kind of shit Mac uers flung at Windows users. It's cluttered! What are all these comfusing buttons?! It's that web-integration crap!
The apple menu is becoming a place to launch apps from and to access documents. Holy shit, if that doesn't sound like the Start menu.
Yeah, OSX is very pretty, and so is Win XP. You know what? I turn that shit off on my work system. Don't need it. Don't need eye candy. I need somehting that works. The way my Mac and my XP system are setup works just fine for me.
Random bugs annoy
The helpdesk guy is quite calm
Users are happy |
Reverse engineering?? (Score:2, Informative)
by hemp
(skip@anArchyFortWorth.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:13AM EST
(#26)
(User #36945 Info)
http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
|
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the Golden Ring from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering their proprietary bios, the Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory,
IBM actually published the info about their bios. Since when is reading a book reverse engineering?
Skip
------
See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com |
|
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:32AM EST
(#95)
|
Yes but there were IPR problems with reading the book. Compaq not only reverse-engineered everything, but videotaped the reverse engineering so that they could prove they hadn't just read the book.
There's proably a moral about corporate secrecy there; IBM providing all the information anyone could want about the PC did not result in their technology being illegaly ripped off.
|
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:3, Informative)
by Danger Vole on Wednesday April 04, @11:46AM EST
(#161)
(User #412064 Info)
|
IBM published the source code under copyright. Compaq had to reverse engineer the BIOS to create an IBM PC compatible BIOS that was free of intellectual property claims by IBM. Compaq had two teams, one that wrote a functional requirements document based on the IBM PC BIOS and another team that used the requirements document to write a new BIOS from scratch.
|
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:2, Informative)
by homer_ca on Wednesday April 04, @11:46AM EST
(#165)
(User #144738 Info)
|
Compaq's BIOS was a clean room implementation. One team read the books and disassembled the ROM and wrote the specs. The other team wrote the BIOS using only the first team's specs so that it wouldn't be tainted by IBM's intellectual property. Try a google search on "compaq reverse engineer ibm bios".
I remember the days when the Apple II user manual had the 6502 assembler source code to the ROM.
|
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:1)
by IntlHarvester
(vcs2600 yahoo)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:22PM EST
(#478)
(User #11985 Info)
|
Not to mention that IBM Microelectronics was forced by an anti-trust settlement to sell Compaq and others IBM patented parts like the ISA slot and controller. --
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World. |
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:1)
by cworley
(cworley[at]symbionsys[dot]com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:51AM EST
(#180)
(User #96911 Info)
|
>IBM actually published the info about their bios. Since when
is reading a book reverse engineering?
See part II of "Triumph ofthe
Nerds" for an accurate history... search the transcript for "Compaq".
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates
-- for once, make him clean up after me! |
Re:cworley is a moron (Score:1)
by boristdog on Wednesday April 04, @02:12PM EST
(#568)
(User #133725 Info)
|
Not only was cworley wrong about this, he is wrong about AMD making "clone" processors of Intel. That hasn't happened since the 486, dumbass. You're about 5 years behind the technology curve.
|
MMX is licensed from Intel (Score:2)
by yerricde
(slash@pinzigeight.8m.zig.com (take off every...))
on Wednesday April 04, @03:58PM EST
(#704)
(User #125198 Info)
http://www.pineight.com/
|
he is wrong about AMD making "clone" processors of Intel. That hasn't happened since the 486
Intel holds patents on key components of the x86 architecture such as MMX and SSE. AMD has to license these patents (and the corresponding trademarks) to be able to create fully x86-compatible processors.
Let's get stoned and play Nintendo |
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:2)
by Eil on Wednesday April 04, @08:31PM EST
(#878)
(User #82413 Info)
http://www.users.uswest.net/~eilrahc/
|
It may have been published, but IIRC, it was copyrighted and trademarked to the nth degree, and anyone else who attempted to build a copy of it would have been dragged out and shot.
The standard myth goes that the people from Phoenix Semiconductor (or might have been Compaq) called in a group of electronics engineers who had never used an IBM computer, put them in an empty room and had them reverse engineer an IBM bios without the benefit of being able to reference any documentation regarding the chip. This was supposedly difficult, but the result was a BIOS chip 100% compatible with IBM's without violating any of IBM's copyrights.
Those in the know are welcome to provide any links or additional information. Especially tell me if I'm wrong, because I am, from time to time. :)
[IM: burstlag, IRC: Eil on slashnet] |
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:1)
by GMontag451 on Wednesday April 04, @12:33PM EST
(#347)
(User #230904 Info)
|
Um, Apple at that time also published the entire code to the Apple II ROM. It was in the manual for all the original Apple IIs, but stopped with the II+. I believe that you could still get a copy of it from Apple all the way through the IIc, although I'm not sure.
|
Re:Reverse engineering?? (Score:1)
by Wolfier on Wednesday April 04, @02:06PM EST
(#561)
(User #94144 Info)
|
You you could as I remember, but, it was just as easy to obtain the assembler source code from the Monitor program. I remember dumping ROM in order to fix a "compatibility" bug between a ][ and //e, but anyway. I guess I'm getting WAY off topic.
|
"Not weasely?" (Score:1)
by 1010011010
(1010011010@PORKSHOULDERANDHAMholly-springs.nc.us)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:14AM EST
(#28)
(User #53039 Info)
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/
|
Er... okay.
- - - - -
You should never invite policemen or vampires into your home |
|
Re:"Not weasely?" (Score:1)
by soulfuct on Thursday April 05, @01:14PM EST
(#1059)
(User #91305 Info)
|
"He said "sure" without even a second's hesitation, let alone checking with PR people. His answers to the 10 selected questions we sent him are 100% straight-up."
Perhaps this is because all MS execs *are* PR people. Straight up?!? These responses are *pure spin* and avoid answering the question in the spirit posed -- typical PR fluff -- they ALWAYS result in a plug for windows, do not address the core of the question, usually contradict the questioner, and DEFINITELY contradict the overwhelming view of /.ers, and the run-of-the-day editorial stance by the newer members of the /. editorial team.
STRAIGHT UP?!? Is RobLimo on DRUGS!?! This is the most blatant cozying up to MS by /. elders yet. Does anyone else see a trend here? Talk about Illuminati in Action...
|
Are you sure this guy works for Microsoft? (Score:1)
by SpanishInquisition
(sikdude at yahoo dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:14AM EST
(#29)
(User #127269 Info)
http://www.mp3.com/Crastillon/
|
All I see there is praises for Linux, where's the FUD? --
Karma is like money, a good servant but a bad master. |
|
Re:Are you sure this guy works for Microsoft? (Score:1)
by jmccay
(ok....)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:57AM EST
(#194)
(User #70985 Info)
|
Yup. It's part of there "we are not a monopoly" face they are trying to wear for the public. That way they can exscuse all of there underhanded tactics.
|
Open Standards, hmm? (Score:4, Interesting)
by Holgate on Wednesday April 04, @11:14AM EST
(#32)
(User #712 Info)
|
<i>We are an active participant in many of the standards bodies and have been leading the charge in promoting the use of XML, SOAP and other standards for our .NET initiative.</i>
Well, a cursory glance at Dave Winer's <A href="http://www.scripting.com">Scripting News</a> might suggest otherwise. One of the leading exponents of SOAP, and of cross-platform interoperablity, talking fairly frankly about how he's had his fingers burned by "embrace, extend, exclude".
|
|
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:2)
by unitron
(unitron@tacc.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:40PM EST
(#374)
(User #5733 Info)
|
Here's the way the above post would have looked if the letters in the tags had been capitalized We are an active participant in many of the standards bodies and have been leading the charge in promoting the use of XML, SOAP and other standards for our .NET initiative.
Well, a cursory glance at Dave Winer's Scripting News might suggest otherwise. One of the leading exponents of SOAP, and of cross-platform interoperablity, talking fairly frankly about how he's had his fingers burned by "embrace, extend, exclude". I guess it's just a Slashdot thing.
The real unitron has Slashdot ID 5733, but doesn't rate an impostor.
|
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by Valar
(nospamyalusers.kungfoo@linuxstart.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:07PM EST
(#635)
(User #167606 Info)
|
Capitilization doesn't usually matter in HTML. More likely he simply had the HTML formatting turned off on his post.
*feep* |
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by Glowing Fish
(mnoelharris@(onmaps)ursine.dyndns.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:20PM EST
(#652)
(User #155236 Info)
http://ursine.dyndns.org/~mnoelharris
|
Or maybe he just wanted to contribute to open standards by letting us view his html... The SID for Stream employees |
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by Omnifarious
(eric-slash@omnifarious.mn.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:30PM EST
(#667)
(User #11933 Info)
http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper
|
XHTML requires uppercase tags.
If you have to become a police state to enforce your law, the law is wrong.
|
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by naasking on Thursday April 05, @12:11AM EST
(#966)
(User #94116 Info)
|
No, you are wrong. XHTML requires lowercase as evidenced by the W3 XHTML 1.0 spec section 4.2 aptly titled 'Element and attribute names must be in lower case'.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
~ Eric Hoffer ~ |
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by Omnifarious
(eric-slash@omnifarious.mn.org)
on Friday April 06, @06:57PM EST
(#1093)
(User #11933 Info)
http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper
|
Oops, that was stupid of me. Should've fired up amaya to check myself. I knew it required a particular case. I wish there was a moderation (-1 disinformation). *sigh*
If you have to become a police state to enforce your law, the law is wrong.
|
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by 7-Vodka
(overvolting//hotmail/com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:40PM EST
(#679)
(User #195504 Info)
|
no, there was a missing > tag
"just connect this to..."
BZZT.
"ahrg! You didn't unplug it?" |
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by Paradise_Pete on Wednesday April 04, @05:12PM EST
(#799)
(User #95412 Info)
|
Then why didn't the italics work? He posted in plain text mode.
|
Re:Open Standards, hmm? (Score:1)
by defunc on Wednesday April 04, @11:48PM EST
(#961)
(User #238921 Info)
|
Sombody please remind me why do we have Sco, SunOS/Solaris, HP, AIX, Irix unices OS's that's all incompatible in every possible way one can imagine. We are all aware of the same command (e.g. ps) that takes different arguments that are platform specific. One would tend to think that Unix being a common belief here that one would not have that much trouble swithing between all of the above.
Well, may be because those unix vendors need to differentiate themselves from their competitors by adding extensions that are proprietary to them. Why? Perhaps they need to produce revenues and one way of doing so is to convince customers to go with their solution in the hope for them to save in the long run (simple business sense).
Why bark so loud when Microsoft does the same? --
trust no one - deep throat, repeated by mulder
|
Give the guy a fair shake (Score:1)
by Lt Wuff on Wednesday April 04, @11:16AM EST
(#36)
(User #319298 Info)
http://www.wuff.com
|
This is the most upfront MS guy I have ever heard. I disagree with a lot that was said, but props for comments. --
What? Another .sig? |
Redhat sells penguins? Cool! (Score:1)
by donutz
(donutz.at.yahoo.(d'oh!))
on Wednesday April 04, @11:16AM EST
(#38)
(User #195717 Info)
|
How much do RedHat or Caldera really make from selling their distributions? It seems not very much. So in order for them to survive they rely on selling proprietary software, support, services, books, tee shirts, penguins etc.
Or better yet, maybe we should get sally struthers, and have a "Sponsor a Penguin" program where we get sent pictures of our penguin, and letters from our penguin, all for just pennies a day!
. . .
Me fail English? That's unpossible! |
|
Standards are a top priority (Score:1)
by Dancin_Santa on Wednesday April 04, @11:16AM EST
(#39)
(User #265275 Info)
|
As evidenced in this this thread on the VC newsgroup.
Dancin Santa
|
But what about the CowboyNeil Interview???? (Score:1)
by ayjay29 on Wednesday April 04, @11:17AM EST
(#40)
(User #144994 Info)
|
That's the one were all waiting for. Did I miss it or what?? Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
-John Lennon |
|
Re:But what about the CowboyNeil Interview???? (Score:1)
by Norbert de Jonge on Thursday April 05, @02:43AM EST
(#977)
(User #1225 Info)
http://norbertdejonge.sourceforge.net
|
http://slashdot.org/interviews/01/02/23/1532251.sh tml
*blaat*
|
Damn (Score:1)
by fizban
(fizban@umich.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:18AM EST
(#44)
(User #58094 Info)
|
HAHAHAHA
So in order for them to survive they rely on selling proprietary software, support, services, books, tee shirts, penguins etc.
Funny, man, real funny. hehehe. Too bad he didn't answer the question...
--
The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory. |
|
Re:He's pretty much right (Score:1)
by fizban
(fizban@umich.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:59AM EST
(#204)
(User #58094 Info)
|
Hey, I don't have as much of a problem with Microsoft Marketeers as most people around here, but it is true that he didn't answer the question.
--
The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory. |
Re:Damn (Score:1)
by Phoenix_SEC on Wednesday April 04, @05:37PM EST
(#815)
(User #409842 Info)
|
I have an MS Shirt.
As a side note, check this out (http://msdn.microsoft.com/resources).
Thanks,
Phoenix_SEX
|
Years? (Score:1)
by Alexius
(Alexius At Nauti Com dot Net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:20AM EST
(#50)
(User #148791 Info)
http://www.nauticom.net/www/alexius/
|
Our products need to show long term value that goes beyond the initial purchase price so the argument becomes not how much does your operating system cost up front but more importantly, how much will your operating system save you over the years that you use it
An M$ product that lasts Years? At best I give anything one year until the service release is out, then the next upgrade. --------------------
-Alexius |
|
Re:Years? (Score:1)
by Geeky Frignit
(ry__an__@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:31AM EST
(#93)
(User #232507 Info)
|
Just like there have been a few Linux kernel versions this year? It hasn't been a year since 2.4 was out. What's the problem with service releases? They find problems, fix those problems, and put them out for the public. I don't get what you are talking about. Microsoft versioning is no different than any other versioning out there. "One is that it won't fall on Tonga. The other is that it will fall on Tonga." |
Not the Bubble Boy I expected. (Score:1)
by boinger
(boinger@[I-love-spam]fuck-you.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:21AM EST
(#52)
(User #4618 Info)
http://fuck-you.org/
|
I've met a few Microsoft folks over the past few years. These have been salesmen, support people and technical consultants (the salesman's backup for when they let the geeks in on the meetings, generally). I must say that this is the first time I've heard a Microsoftian actually know UNIX/Linux beyond the few items that are published on the mystical anti-anything-un-microsoft hit sheet (which used to include "There's no Office App!" and "The installer is so hard - you have to be a guru!" - good thing we're on our toes). I am impressed. This won't change my stance of never giving MS a penny of my money, ever, if I can help it. I would say the most powerful emotion I'm feeling about this interview is wariness. If they have a few more of these guys in their ranks, they're going to be able to do more damage to the Linux "PR" than I'd expected. I honestly don't think they'll "win", but it's going to be a tougher battle than I had anticipated.
--- Tell the world what you think at fuck-you.org. Really. |
|
Re:Not the Bubble Boy I expected. (Score:1)
by PimpBot on Wednesday April 04, @11:38AM EST
(#120)
(User #32046 Info)
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=PimpBot
|
If they have a few more of these guys in their ranks, they're going to be able to do more damage to the Linux "PR" than I'd expected.
My impression of people who work at MS is that the its the Marketing/Salespeople are just that - your standard Marketdroids, spewing forth crap.
The people that do development at MS are incredibly bright and hard working. The ensuing fight between Linux and MS will definately be interesting... --------------------------
Linux. WinNT. MacOS. BeOS.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its bad. |
Re:Not the Bubble Boy I expected. (Score:1)
by Stonehand
(lw2j@cs.cmu.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:00PM EST
(#210)
(User #71085 Info)
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~lw2j
|
I spent a couple of summers working there. The people there are people with their own diverse interests. I knew SDEs for instance who were curious about Linux, and how the Linux/UNIX community viewed Microsoft and their products, and so forth. Some definitely experimented with non-MSFT operating systems; there was even a discussion group (ISTR that's the Outlook term for a local bboard) focused solely on Linux, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a termination trap set up to catch those deviating from the company line.
That said, there was, on the whole, a bit more awe and sheer enthusiasm regarding the company than seemed normal... but that's from a cynic's point of view. -- the silly student / he writes really bad haiku / readers all go mad |
Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
by oldzoot
(jamorton@nospam.home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:21AM EST
(#54)
(User #60984 Info)
|
What scares me is the idea of Microsoft selling a Linux distribution. They would be selecting a particular subset of components and "blessing" it. They would take advantage of all the free work and effort of the development community and sell it for profit by enhancing it. Their corporate-desired products such as office and exchange server etc would probably be tailored to only run properly ( or only be supported on ) microsoft linux. All the corporate linux customers would probably want Microsoft Linux because of the " can't go wrong with IBM ^H^H^H Microsoft " mentality and that would take market away from struggling open source vendors who have actively been supporting open source development.
It might be nice if they made a gnome-office or KDE-office for sale, even at the $300-$400 kind of range that they sell for on windows platforms, but I don't see them doing that.
Z
enough is too much |
|
Re:Microsoft (Score:1)
by tb3
(mp_tb3@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:03PM EST
(#217)
(User #313150 Info)
|
I've been worried about that for a while now, because it makes too much sense. It would cost them almost nothing to create, have a nice shiny M$ logo on it so corporate IS would be happy, and serve to further fragment the Linux distribs.
The only reason they didn't totally foul up Java with "Visual J++" was the Sun lawsuit; there were a lot of mindless drones using J++ because they thought it was the only thing going. -----------------
"Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" - John Crichton |
Re:Microsoft (Score:1)
by La1d on Wednesday April 04, @12:28PM EST
(#322)
(User #415132 Info)
|
All the corporate linux customers would probably want Microsoft Linux because of the "
can't go wrong with IBM ^H^H^H Microsoft " mentality and that would take market
away from struggling open source vendors who have actively been supporting open
source development.
Somehow, I think it would make the movement stronger in the long run. Lets face it, they've been working on Windows for quite a long time. Every version that I've seen (3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 2000) just adds more bugs and bloats . . . what makes you think they'll be somehow "better" than several groups of ppl that have been doing the linux thing for years, and doing it right? Anyone already using linux isn't going to switch to microsoft l*nux any time soon, unless it has some SERIOUS "gotta have it" features or software. Mac ppl aren't leaving their macs, the only ppl I see going to Microsoft l*nux (if it ever comes about) would be current Microsoft Win* users. One of three things happen at this point. Either they grin and bear the microsoft bugs and user-overfriendlyness(like they've done thruought the win* years), they could go back to win*, or if they are comfortable enough with the non-MS apps available, they could goto Linux. People that I talk to right now that don't use linux(but are technically capable) don't use it because of some certain app that they need. In mainstreaming Linux, Microsoft just might end up making our lives a little easier. And I don't think the OS would be completely proprietary, they're not going to do such a major rewrite and NOT write in compatibility.
--
La1d, killed by a newt, while helpless. |
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
by Eil on Wednesday April 04, @08:38PM EST
(#879)
(User #82413 Info)
http://www.users.uswest.net/~eilrahc/
|
You have a really good point, but I don't think M$ would get as far with Microsoft Linux as you think. You see, the vast majority of what makes Linux tick is GPL'ed, which means that if M$ modifies *any* of it, they'd have to release their source as well. (Freely, even.)
Conversely, if M$ wanted to keep their distribution nearly as closed as they do their current OSes, they *might* be able to do things like closed-source kernel modules or daemons that would be required to be present for their commercial software to run. But this would be difficult for them in the long run, and I think M$ would much rather keep with their existing OSes than go hacking up their own mediocre version of Linux simply for the sake of being able to call it "Linux."
[IM: burstlag, IRC: Eil on slashnet] |
Wow a nice layout ... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Christianfreak
(christianfreak@netscape.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:24AM EST
(#63)
(User #100697 Info)
http://www.christianfreak.net
|
On how Linux can be really successful for the end user. End users and pointy haired bosses look at a software package and evaluate it by how it looks, I think that Msoft has this one down pat. Really their idea of renting software is pretty attractive in some ways to larger companies (I've worked for a company with copies for every single one of like 500 machines, not fun). I don't think it would be good for end-users but that remains to be seen.
I appriciate his honesty. Msoft isn't the Borg, they're out to make money and they are very good at it, some of their practices are questionable and for the most part their software sucks. On the flip side we in the Open Source/Free Software community would be very wise to take some these ideas and apply them to our own projects, I think that he raises some very good points about things we need to keep being successful.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler / |
What about comments about the Halloween Documents? (Score:1)
by orichter
(orichter at geocities dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:24AM EST
(#64)
(User #60340 Info)
|
I wish I would have thought to ask this before, but I can't believe no one mentioned that the Halloween Documents basically answer many of these questions in a much less politically spin doctored way. I wonder how he would have responded to this?
|
never say never... (Score:1)
by garcia on Wednesday April 04, @11:25AM EST
(#69)
(User #6573 Info)
http://www.tusa.org/~garcia/images/random/
|
Never say never." Microsoft is continually looking at market opportunities for its products - on both our own platforms as well as on other platforms. As mentioned above we saw a great opportunity for selling our Office products on the Mac platform and have licensed a lot of our technology for use on other platforms.
hasn't it been said that Linux is now showing more usage than Macs? I am not against the Mac platoform, I am asking a serious question. I thought that Linux users had a larger base now and I really don't see the market share as being a big obstacle..
The fact that there is no "standard" desktop for Linux (KDE, GNOME, whatever) is also not really an issue. I don't need to have KDE or GNOME to run Office and I really don't care what the look and feel of the software was. Hell, make it like Windows, it would be more comfortable for most people anyway...
The real issue here is that MS *knows* that the one thing that Linux lacks is Office. Everyone knows that if Linux ran Office and ran it native and well there would be little to hold *more* people back from running Linux...
Next time, let's remember what's really going on here ;-)
- Bill |
|
Re:never say never... (Score:2, Insightful)
by code9 on Thursday April 05, @06:15AM EST
(#1008)
(User #217825 Info)
|
The biggest problem with Linux and with a company like Microsoft porting its apps to Linux is the amount of variations between systems. Apart from the differences in installed libraries and their interdependencies, there are also install location and config file issues.
Furthermore, an app like Office needs a fairly high level of integration with the desktop environment: URL launchers, drag and drop, embedded docs... X of itself lacks support for pretty much anything, so Office would have to be written to a) a specific desktop or b) multiple desktops in multiple versions.
It really tickles me that many Linux users see everything as a conspiracy to not use Linux, or to falsely accuse it of weakness rather than honestly evaluating their OS. I used Linux exclusively on my desktop machine for half a year and then went out and bought Windows 2000 Pro, Word and VC. Why? Productivity! Linux is stable, Linux is free - great, but how much work can you actually do with it? And how quickly? I got tired of having to read tons of docs to get every little feature working, debugging source code just to install some tiny app, configuring and tweaking to deuglify X fonts (why do I have to deuglify fonts in the first place?)
Linux lacks standards (which is also part of why the games aren't forthcoming). Linux lacks ease of use. Linux lacks simple, pure productivity, except for software development.
Flame away!
|
Re:never say never... (Score:1)
by redmoss on Friday April 06, @10:28AM EST
(#1083)
(User #108579 Info)
|
Actually, Office isn't really too big of an issue. I'm trying to get together a prototype box here at work to convert all of our workstations off of win9x and onto linux (about 250-300 total). Will probably use Mandrake 7.2. What's really taking a long time to figure out is 1. what to use for web browsing and 2. what to use for email. the Office question is easily answered: use StarOffice.
|
Standards? (Score:1)
by ink on Wednesday April 04, @11:25AM EST
(#70)
(User #4325 Info)
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai
|
Microsoft is very standards driven. We are an active participant in many of the standards bodies and have been leading the charge in promoting the use of XML, SOAP and other standards for our .NET initiative. We have not only "embraced" many of the computing platform dejure standards but we have also built products to embrace defacto standards from other operating system platforms. For example, we fully support NFS and NIS in our Services for UNIX product to allow full file sharing and user directory interoperability between our platform and UNIX or Linux platforms.
Allowing Windows users the luxury of using NIS and NFS is great, but I don't see how this demonstrates Microsoft's adherence to standards or helps the Samba team at all. Allowing Windows users to access UNIX resources is the classic "Roach Motel" protocol that Microsoft is so fond of: You can use our product to access other resources, but you cannot use other products to access our resources. Take a look at Exchange, MSSQL, MSDNS, MSCHAP, MSKerberos, NTDOM and practically any other protocol that Microsoft touches. You can check in, but you can't check out.
Microsoft is talking about being standards compliant because they embraced SOAP. Big deal. They've been coopting protocols for decades, and now they play one major role in an open standard and we should forget everything they've done? I think not. Don't get me wrong: I'd love Microsoft to play by the rules the rest of us use, but I doubt their sincerity with the new MSNET proposals. If it turns out that NET is truely an open standard that is fully accessbile without having a Win32 client, then I'll print out this post and eat it. Until then, it's just so much hot air -- especially in light of Microsoft's past activites.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kellcrai@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger ink@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
|
|
The most interesting question/response (Score:1)
by prisoner on Wednesday April 04, @11:27AM EST
(#77)
(User #133137 Info)
http://www.insidespaces.com
|
was the one about licensing and having to call in to get an ID code or whatever the hell it is. He danced right around that one!
Need help with your house? Insidespaces |
|
Choice and competition are *good* (Score:3, Troll)
by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday April 04, @11:28AM EST
(#80)
(User #190615 Info)
http://www.trumpetpower.com/
|
I had this debate with Bob Young once where he stated it was great that so many desktop options exist for the Linux user. I don't see it. Lots of choices of desktops in the academic community might be good for stimulating many different approaches but having too many choices in a commercial platform environment in the end, confuses developers and users.
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
That's great if you're trying to consolidate your monopoly position, but it does absolutely no good whatsoever for the advancement of anything whatsoever.
The world is full of choices! There rarely is One Right Way. I feel sorry for those who are so confused and terrified of the world that they don't even want to be presented with choices.
Besides which, the problems with a monoculture are legion...I hardly think I need to go there.
Please, the world isn't that stupid. Don't insult the people who fund the very survival of your company.
b&
|
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:5, Insightful)
by Geeky Frignit
(ry__an__@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:45AM EST
(#154)
(User #232507 Info)
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid
You know, I have run across a lot of people in my life who are not efficient computer users. Windows offers a friendly environment that makes it easy to use software. Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have. In this sense, Windows does appeal to a lot of people, a lot of smart people too, the only difference is they are not computer techs, they have other specialities. I'd like to see you run Linux, knit a sweater, play a musical instrument, and fix a car. Hell, I can just barely do the first. I am not a supreme Linux user. I can do a lot of things, but I can't get WINE to work, use the Gimp worth a damn, etc. There are many types of people in this world, not everyone has to use Linux.
"One is that it won't fall on Tonga. The other is that it will fall on Tonga." |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by tb3
(mp_tb3@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:18PM EST
(#281)
(User #313150 Info)
|
Windows offers a friendly environment that makes it easy to use software Sorry, that doesn't wash.
Try teaching Windows to someone who has never used a GUI before. Explain why "Shutdown" is on the "Start" menu. Hell, explain a menu. A GUI "menu" is nothing like the thing you pick up in a resturant, and a GUI 'window" is nothing like the thing you look out of in your house. Then try to explain the funny little 'icons', task bars, tool bars, and system trays. Let me know if you have any hair left when you're done.
I know this covers all GUIs, not just Windows, but you can't claim Windows is a friendly environment. It's just as user-hostile in the beginning as any other environment, but it gets forced on 90% of the computer-buying public. -----------------
"Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" - John Crichton |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2, Insightful)
by rossz
(rossz@sendmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:38PM EST
(#366)
(User #67331 Info)
http://www.jps.net/rossw/seadog
|
I have taught people to use M$ Windows. Compared to the choices available on Linux, it isn't hard. This is so typical of the Linux crowd: "Shut down" is under "Start", therefore it is hard to use. Bullsh!t.
Every single one of your examples is arguing over semantics. For the things that do matter to a nontechnical person, Windows is easier to use.
The Linux crowd needs to stop arguing whether Linux or Windows is easier to use, admit that Windows is the better choice for the typical non-geek, and LEARN FROM MICROSOFT. Oh my god! How can I suggest such a thing. Blasphemy! Damn right. Linux can be better than Windows (again, I'm speaking about the non-geek crowd), but it has a long ways to go in ease of use.
BTW, at home I run SuSE Linux, Windows 98, and Windows 2000. At work I run Windows NT, Windows 2000, and FreeBSD.
I speak for myself, not my employer.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by tb3
(mp_tb3@nospam.yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @10:17AM EST
(#1037)
(User #313150 Info)
|
Arrgh! Semantics is the point! My point was that the terminology is f--ked. And I wasn't defending Linux, I said "all GUIs". Windows is just the most egregious example because it comes installed on 90% on all new computers.
Read what I said, don't skim it. -----------------
"Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" - John Crichton |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by hyacinthus on Wednesday April 04, @04:18PM EST
(#729)
(User #225989 Info)
|
Moderate this up, someone.
You're absolutely right, and it's been proven to me lately, when I was faced with the task of explaining to someone with little exposure to personal computers (my boyfriend) how to read his e-mail.
Straightaway I was impressed with how useless was the language in which I was trying to explain things. Terms like "desktop", "right-click", "select" were mere jargon; it was impossible for me to guage how unfamiliar they would seem to someone without my long familiarity with such things. Strange behaviors to which I had wearily become accustomed--accidentally hitting the "Window" key on the keyboard, pop-up advertisements suddenly appearing, web links popping up a new browser window instead of continuing in the same window--confused my friend. And why shouldn't they?
Maybe a simple command line, with command-line tools, _would_ be the easiest system for a novice to learn. There would be a relatively small number of new words to learn, not a bewildering array of graphical user actions, often with contradictory or counterintuitive effects (especially on a Windows system.)
hyacinthus.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by ClosedSource on Wednesday April 04, @04:49PM EST
(#769)
(User #238333 Info)
|
"Maybe a simple command line, with command-line tools, _would_ be the easiest system for a novice to learn. There would be a relatively small number of new words to learn, not a bewildering array of graphical user actions, often with contradictory or counterintuitive effects (especially on a Windows system.)"
You mean intuitive Unix commands like "ls" to list the contents of a directory, "cat" to print the contents of a file to the screen, and "grep" to search for a text string?
Seriously, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear; the use of personal computers was not widespread until interfaces like the MAC OS and Windows became available.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by el_chicano on Thursday April 05, @11:37AM EST
(#1044)
(User #36361 Info)
http://vatoloco.net
|
I think the historical evidence is pretty clear; the use of personal computers was not widespread until interfaces like
the MAC OS and Windows became available.
You are putting the cart before the horse. In reality Mac OS and Windows did not become available until the use of personal computers became widespread... -- You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork! Morris Fletcher, The X-Files |
Computers are still too hard to use (Score:2)
by Cato
(rdonkin@SPAMLESSbigfoot.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:19PM EST
(#286)
(User #8296 Info)
|
"Windows offers a friendly environment that makes it easy to use software."
I've recently been getting my uncle, who is in his eighties, into using a Windows PC.
This is the first time he's used a computer, though he has used keyboards before, and it's made it clear to me that, for the average person, *using computers is still too hard*. It's easy to forget this when you've been using computers much of your life, and are surrounded by basically PC literate people at work.
Windows is certainly easier to use than DOS, but I've had to simplify the Windows setup so much that I could do this equally well under Linux. The only reason I didn't is that my uncle's friends provide local tech support, and they know Windows. Also, he can get local training in using computers.
One of the hardest things was the atrociously complex interface to dialup networking in Windows NT, and the way IE4's Offline/Online setting is shared with Outlook Express - I ended up buying a shareware dialer so that I could set up Netscape as the browser, not for ideological reasons but so that it wouldn't mess up the Outlook Express offline settings (which make it easy to compose email offline).
The lessons for Linux or any Windows alternative are:
- focus on real ease of use with non-PC literate users (Redmond Linux is getting quite close to this with task-based menus and so on - see http://www.redmondlinux.org/). Microsoft is pretty good at this, but maybe Eazel and Ximian type companies will run their own usability labs.
- incorporate natural language and voice input technologies - the keyboard and mouse are still barriers for some people
- settle on a single 'default' GUI, so that local training and support can be obtained without the 'I only know GNOME' syndrome
If my uncle lived round the corner, Linux would have worked well, but supporting someone 100 miles away solely through the phone and dialin is just too hard.
|
Re:Computers are still too hard to use (Score:3, Interesting)
by zuvembi
(zuvembi@mindless.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:09PM EST
(#459)
(User #30889 Info)
|
If my uncle lived round the corner, Linux would have worked well, but supporting someone 100 miles away solely through the phone and dialin is just too hard.
My mother lives about 2 hours away (75 miles + 35 minute ferry ride). But she's been getting along with Linux fine. She has Windows on her computer also, but she doesn't run it anymore because she can get everything she needs to do done on Linux.
I suppose part of the appeal (to me) of setting up Linux for her was the remote management features. Granted, I haven't had to do this since it hasn't broken, but it's a comfort to me that I can ssh into her box and do maintenace if I have to.
She's at the three month mark, and is now bugging me to find her a decent book so she can do some sysadmin stuff herself. Any suggestions from anyone? (Something that covers KDE & SuSE with pretty pictures would be nice)
"I prefer the wicked rather than the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest." -Alexandre Dumas |
Re:Computers are still too hard to use (Score:1)
by Caspuh
(caspuh@nospam.caspuh.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @10:12PM EST
(#909)
(User #105645 Info)
http://www.caspuh.com/
|
Thanks for the useless anecdote about your mother.
? |
Re:Computers are still too hard to use (Score:1)
by naasking on Thursday April 05, @12:17AM EST
(#969)
(User #94116 Info)
|
Thanks for adding that useless comment to the conversation.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
~ Eric Hoffer ~ |
Re:Computers are still too hard to use (Score:1)
by MrResistor
(mrresistor@hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @01:33PM EST
(#1061)
(User #120588 Info)
|
As I recall, there's a "SuSE Linux for Dummies" book, though it's not as easy to find as the Red Hat one. Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:36PM EST
(#361)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
As for compiling programs, this is not a requirement for Linux users. I know a lot of Linux users who have no idea how to do this. If you are compiling from source, that probably means you are wanting a development version of some code, and thus classifies you as a techie. If you aren't a techie, just do what you would do for every other operating system - wait for the release.
You don't have to be a specialist to use Linux. Mandrake makes it fairly simple. The only confusing thing about Linux is where you should store your files. And that takes about 15 minutes to learn. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by cybercuzco
(cybercuzco@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:45PM EST
(#398)
(User #100904 Info)
http://www.processtree.com/?sponsor=24427
|
Which is exatly why mac OS X is so revolutionary. Its got an easy to use GUI for those who are less computer enlightened, and its got the BSD command line for the hackers out there. The best of both worlds. "you've corrupted the Borg"
-Picard to Lore |
Only a drummer (Score:2)
by CharlieG
(Charlie@TheGallos.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:04PM EST
(#446)
(User #34950 Info)
http://www.thegallos.com
|
I'd like to see you run Linux,
Check
knit a sweater,
Check
and fix a car.
check
play a musical instrument,
You got me there, I'm just a drummer (Or used to be)
--
For the Children - RKBA!
PGP Key on the servers |
Purpose? (Score:1)
by CharlieG
(Charlie@TheGallos.com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:52PM EST
(#1054)
(User #34950 Info)
http://www.thegallos.com
|
What to know the REAL answer to the post? Simple, I saw the oportunity to make the oldest drummer joke going, and figured I'd Karma Whore for a funny rating!
Actually, Linux is my weakest point, and my knitting USED to be good, but I haven't done it in years. Cars (well, older ones - pre electronics) I can fix.
What can I tell you --
For the Children - RKBA!
PGP Key on the servers |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by blazerw11
(blazerws@pambigfoot.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:11PM EST
(#462)
(User #68928 Info)
|
Windows offers a friendly environment that makes it easy to use software.
This seems to be the prevailing attitude among folks at Microsoft. How friendly is Dr. Watson, really?
In responding to this message, I just highlighted the quote I include above and then used my mousewheel to scroll down. The web page font grew to "Largest". That's what I call easy to use software. Who wants software that does what you want? I want software that does something random everytime I use it!
Damn it! |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by blazerw11
(blazerws@pambigfoot.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:44PM EST
(#761)
(User #68928 Info)
|
I just pressed Shift+Scroll mouse and my browser started going back pages, so...
I DID release the shift key. Please try again.
However, this does prove my point, doesn't it. Damn it! |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by RandomPeon on Wednesday April 04, @03:22PM EST
(#658)
(User #230002 Info)
|
Windows offers a friendly environment that makes it easy to use software. Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have.
A real life experiment: Set up windows-clone themes for you desktop and window managers. Put your favorite office program, email client, MP3 player, and web browser on the desktop as icons. Place someone "who isn't good with computers" (according to that person) in front of this machine. Leave them alone, and see what happens. Unless they are exceedingly stubborn, they should survive just fine. I have tried this expirement 3 times - results ranged from "What do you mean this isn't Windows?" to "It's a litte harder than using a Mac".
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by thoglette
(thoglette@directwest.ii.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:15PM EST
(#896)
(User #74419 Info)
|
A real life experiment: Set up windows-clone themes for you desktop and window managers. Put your favorite office program, email client, MP3 player, and web browser on the
desktop as icons.
Cool - so how do I, the time-challenged techie, do this? Whose distribution do I use?
Oh, and my user wants USB support. --
Butlerian Jihad NOW! |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by RandomPeon on Wednesday April 04, @09:38PM EST
(#904)
(User #230002 Info)
|
Try Redhat 7. Create a new user account, login as that user, download the appropriate themes, run gnome-config and pick the themes for gnome and sawfish (or whatevver). Make a couple new icons on the desktop that point to /usr/bin/xmms and so forth. Total time - less than 30 minutes. (If you're serious and want more details, reply to this post and I'll reply when I get home to my Linux box).
Kudzu (included in RH 7) might autodect USB devices - I don't know, I don't have any. It did autodetect my new soundcard and run sndconfig for me, but that's a PCI card, not a USB device.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by great om
(bmgoldne@artsci.wustl.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:21PM EST
(#944)
(User #18682 Info)
http://www.theonion.com
|
mandrake 7.2 detected my usb mouse and keyboard (after i changed from ps/2 versions of both), -------
Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped...
-Great OM |
user != admin (Score:2, Insightful)
by mrjinks
(mjinks@SPAM.sysvi.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:52PM EST
(#700)
(User #59074 Info)
|
There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have.
No, these are skills you need in order to be a Linux/Unix administrator or consultant. I work in an office full of people who don't know their way around the guts of Unix, but they all sit in front of Linux desktops all day and get along just fine, because they're able to offload the low-level stuff to a dedicated admin while they concentrate on getting their work done.
WELL, you might say, what about home users? They don't hire admins. Well in many cases they don't do their own Windows administration either. They take the box out to a service technician, or put the touch on their techno-geek teenager to work on it when it breaks. When my parents' AOLStation gets sick, my phone rings.
And the sort of Windows administration that most people do for themselves can be done just as easily on a Linux box using package management utilitys and GUI management tools like the stuff that has been coming with Red Hat for years now.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by wholesomegrits
(n_hopper=name hushmail.com=domain)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:52PM EST
(#822)
(User #155981 Info)
|
Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have. In this sense, Windows does appeal to a lot of people, a lot of smart people too, the only difference is they are not computer techs, they have other specialities.
You imply that some special and exotic ability is required to compile and install software. For 90% of the stuff out there, these are the steps to follow:
./configure
make
make install
done.
Provided your distro isn't dumbed down and assumes, much like you do, that a compiler is way to hard to use, so why include it in the default install? What the hell is so exotic about that? I think even the stupidest person can type about a dozen keystrokes.
You make a good point about the learning curve, but to assume that the vast majority of people aren't capable of learning, so why bother teaching them is so completely arrogant that I am insulted. Even me, as an English Education major, had zero trouble configuring a decent firewall and masquerade box with a bit of port forwarding.
The difficulty in using Linux lies not with the difficulty of using the OS, but a failure for users of all skill levels to RTFM. *EVERYTHING* one needs to do to compile programs, or setup qmail, or setup IP masquerading is available in step by step documents no more difficult to use than a recipe for pound cake. That's all it is, just a recipe. Linux HOW-TOs, for those that have enough sense to read them, in lieu of stupidly hitting keys and bitching, can solve a vast majority of issues.
Things ain't any easier on Windows. I have yet to fully understand how the hell Windows 2000 works for IP masquerading, aka Internet Connection Sharing. So few decent docs exist, that Linux was a much easier solution.
To assume that some people just aren't fit for linux plays into many of the Linux elitist stereotypes that turns off informed users.
Anyone is capable of being an "efficient Linux user" provided they'd just read the damn directions.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by naasking on Thursday April 05, @12:16AM EST
(#968)
(User #94116 Info)
|
Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run.
Yes, and I was one of them. Repeat and emphasize: was. This remarkable transformation came about as an act of learning something everyone is capable of, though they fight it every step of the way.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
~ Eric Hoffer ~ |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by keete on Thursday April 05, @11:14AM EST
(#1043)
(User #42938 Info)
|
There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run. To be an efficient Linux user, this is one of the many special skills you have to have.
...And I would emphasize, applications in general, rather than just the kernel. As Miller points out, one of the advantages from the user's perspective of Linux is that it comes with a number of free apps...From my perspective, the biggest advantage of most apps on Linux is the availability of source code. Free or not free, if there is source code I am able to investigate and attempt to fix problems, bugs and any blatant oversights which crop up during daily use. I would have less of a reaction to the Windows paradigm as "obnoxious" if the same could be said for a reasonable number of apps for that platform... Unfortunately it can't. I suppose it's a cultural thing. I'd even be more than willing to pay for something if I was allowed (able!) to modify it after purchase. My site uses a proprietary database app built on UniData and it's a weekly occurrence for me to find a serious and mind-numbingly stupid bug in the product, which the company has been aware of in some cases for 5 years or more (several upgrade cycles) and hasn't gotten off its sad ass to fix. We are bound in to this product, essentially tied to a piece of crap which is functional most of the time but all indications are that it is held together behind the scenes by the coding equivalent of tacky decades-old chewing gum and guano. (BTW, it's not UniData's fault. UniData itself is quite fun.) Once you have gotten used to the ability to make trivial repairs as needed to products which are broken, it makes you apoplectic when you aren't able, and a vendor does not appear to be interested (or perhaps mentally capable). In contrast, the people who accept broken apps on whatever proprietary platform, Windows, Solaris, MacOS*, etc etc, are the same people who will accept broken apps on Linux. Meaning that for anyone who isn't going to try to "fix it" themselves, the most that's involved is "make" and then "make install". -- keete |
Choice and competition are *good* and needed! (Score:2)
by d.valued
(ripco bang acerx)
on Monday April 16, @12:19AM EST
(#1109)
(User #150022 Info)
|
I agree with you.
Cases in point:
My mom types out proposals for her workplace and other related locales. She doesn't do much online except read her email and checking out websites relevant to her employ. She doesn't need to grok the Gimp or code, nor would I wager will she ever learn to do these things. Windows is a good fit for her; it sorta does what she needs to do and that's that.
My bro works sales for a large retail chain. He only surfs for images of a questionable nature and for cheats to his favorite games *cough* Sims *cough*. Windows will fit for him as well.
But... my sis is an artist. I'm teaching her the basics of Python so she can make funky 3d with the Blender (http://www.blender.nl ; free, tiny 3d image creation and animation proggie, kicks ass!) and so she can play with Pyth-Fu in the Gimp (which she uses with my drawing tablet.) She likes to make webpages, and she checks them with Mozilla. I've taught her to cold-code HTML in emacs. She likes the power and flexibility of Linux.
The $6.4e10 (that's about Darth Vader^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Bill Gates' net worth ;) questions are making a simple (set of) window manager(s) for Linux and XWS (for ease of gui program coding); superior functionality with the myriad high-speed data ports (1394, USB, potentially the parallel ATA standards); and getting the apps people want into Linux, from the high-end (like moviemaking, CMYK and HSV art, prepress tools, CAD/CAM) to the lowest common denominator (all together now: games! napster!) and making everything run well without necessarily needing to run some things as root.
Windows.. Good for targeting rocks.
Virtual World Domination Here! |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Mart on Wednesday April 04, @12:09PM EST
(#241)
(User #19570 Info)
|
Doug Miller:but having too many choices in a commercial platform environment in the end, confuses developers and users.
TrumpetPower:This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
I think your over-reacting here, and putting words in his mouth. A person doesn't have to be sitting motionless and slack-jawed in front of their computer to be `confused.' If I understand him correctly he means that developers are confused because they don't know which environment to support, and they certainly don't want to do both. Indeed why should they? This just increases development and support costs. How many cross-platform GNOME/KDE apps are there? Not many.
Users are confused if vendors pick one environment over the other because then they don't know which one to use. Of course you can run KDE apps under GNOME and vice versa - in the sense that the apps are on the screen at the same time - but this is really limited. Look and feel are completely different and there's no interoperability between apps, so you're loosing all the advantages of the integrated desktop environment.
Bear in mind that he is talking from the point of view of commercial software. If you don't care about commercial software then you don't care, but from this point of view he has put his finger on a real problem.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by einstein
(einstein___@Glorious.Spam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:31PM EST
(#336)
(User #10761 Info)
http://wallflowerdrapery.com
|
but gnome and KDE are both working on making apps interoperatable...
there is a lot of development going into making both of those evironments be able to talk to each other.
--- GIT/CS/PA d- s: a--- C++++ UL P+ L+(++) E- W++(+) N o? K?
w O- M- V PS+ PE- Y+ PGP- t++(+) 5(+) X+ R tv+ b++ DI++
D+ |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by ahuimanu
(yuri@sputnikmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:15PM EST
(#265)
(User #237298 Info)
|
stating the obvoius:
Microsoft will pitch, sell and own the Lowest Common Denominator; which is the overwhelming majority.
There is no need for Linux/Open Source to conquer the world, only to do what it does and for whom it does the best it can. If Linux starts to shine, the LCD *may* move to it, but how many of you want a Linux that is *dumbed down*?
I teach comp sci and info sys students C++ part time at night at my local university. It is amazing how many of these students do not have *basic* GUI/Windows skills down pat. The time when the whole world switches to Linux/Open Source maybe far far off.
I agree with a gentleman above. Forget about M$, forget about bashing "the great satan;" just take what you like from them, reverse engineer it and get the freak out of dodge.
Do you want your OS softened by the M$ user base?
I don't.
Cheers,
A Happy-a-go-go |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Krusher55 on Wednesday April 04, @12:17PM EST
(#274)
(User #414674 Info)
|
Users may not be stupid but most care not to know. Users aren't interested in tweaking or making adjustments. Users just want something that is easy to use and allows them to get what they want quickly and easily. Ever wonder why AOL has such a large subscriber base? It's not because they offer lots of choices and variety and outstanding service, its because they offer a solution that is easy to use without endless tweaking or configurations. Not everyone has the time or interest in learning about all the possibilities of what Linux can do just as I have no interest in art and how to best mix and use colors to create a great looking sunset painting. If I want a painting to hang on the wall, I'll go to the gallery and buy one, not learn to paint one myself. Users may not be stupid bet they may not care and the Linux community must deal with that fact.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:5, Insightful)
by Keith Russell
(krussell@PINK-MEAT-LIKE-STUFF.sgi.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:17PM EST
(#275)
(User #4440 Info)
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
This seems to be the prevailing attitude among those "at" Linux and elsewhere: users are smart, so smart that they can figure out what ever we throw at them.
See how extremist everyone can get when Microsoft and Linux get mentioned in the same room? Doug makes a perfectly valid point about the usability and out-of-box experience of the typical Linux distro, and the knee-jerk reaction is to act like he's banging his shoe on the table, shouting "We will bury you."*
I'll take the typical developers' cop-out and say that it's a training issue. Too much of what people need to get the job done, and not enough of the overall metaphor. Here's a desktop, here's the icons, here's the menu, here's a folder tree. It doesn't matter if you use GNOME, KDE, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Win95, Win2K, WinXP, or WinPDQ. User interface design has only been moving in drips and drabs over the past five years or so. The biggest culture shock involves the mouse button count. :-)
I agree with Doug that too many choices, too soon, will confuse the average user. I also agree with Bob Young that, for the experienced user, choice is good. Either way, as long as there's competition, there won't be a monoculture.
Please, the world isn't that stupid.
I don't mean to be so nihilistic, but the world isn't as smart as you think. At the very least, it's far too impatient to frell around with downloading ALSA packages for their laptop's sound system, when Windows 2000 "just works."
"User-friendly" and "powerful" are not mutually exclusive. They just take more work.
*: ObAYB: All your desktop are belong to us.
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
Implements IStdDisclaimer |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Paelon
(paelon@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:52PM EST
(#774)
(User #69063 Info)
|
and the knee-jerk reaction is to act like he's banging his shoe on the table, shouting "We will bury you."
Best News Radio reference ever.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by blazerw11
(blazerws@pambigfoot.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:56PM EST
(#781)
(User #68928 Info)
|
out-of-box experience of the typical Linux distro
Have you had a good "out-of-box" experience with a typical Windows distro lately?
Windows ME doesn't install drivers for:
1) Voodoo3 3500 TV (VGA driver only)
2) SB Live (crashed on first attempt to install Creative's drivers, also)
3) Linksys "tulip" network card
These are the items that make my computer fun.
All of these are recognized and installed correctly on RH 6.2+, Mandrake 7+, Storm, Progeny, TurboLinux.
I use Debian Potato. I don't think it got the SBLive during install.
Damn it! |
Who profits ? (Score:1)
by RedLaggedTeut on Thursday April 05, @04:49AM EST
(#1001)
(User #216304 Info)
|
The question is:
Who profits when users become more unskilled in using computers ?
Obviously, Microsoft.
Supporting Microsoft is a bad choice for those in search of knowledge. It also means to eventually turn computing science into something akin to black magic. Even now, being a hacker already has a bad connotation.
As support for this argument, look at how un-obvious it is to see the header/source of an email message in Outlook. What has this to do with "Options" ? And why do registry keys for classes have this strange numeric code instead of a plain name ? If you upgrade DirectX 7 to DirectX 8, and look at the changed registry keys, you will see what I mean.
P.S.: could someone translate the "Who profits?" into latin ? I forget the latin original, meant to be said at the location of a crime.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:4, Insightful)
by Salamander
(spam@tambreet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:18PM EST
(#278)
(User #33735 Info)
http://www.platypus.ro
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
Many - not all - users *are* stupid. Even many of the supposedly computer-savvy people on Slashdot are *frighteningly* stupid. Everyone in this field learns sooner or later that if you provide an option, some idiot will set it inappropriately. The world is full of newbies clicking the "expert mode" button. If you're providing products for millions of users, the vast majority of whom can barely handle anything more complicated than clicking on an icon, then limiting those users' choices seems like a pretty valid design decision.
There rarely is One Right Way
...unless it's your way, apparently. I hack kernels for a living, and I also *choose* to use MS products for some things. Are you, the champion of free choice, going to tell me my choice is invalid, that the products I prefer *shouldn't even be on the market* because they don't satisfy your desire for twiddling and tweaking? Yes, choice is good, and one valid choice is to *forego* certain other choices in the interests of getting on with life and getting things done. Windows users forego some choices, Linux users forego others. Live and let live.
|
Expert Mode (Score:1)
by benjamindees on Monday April 09, @02:33AM EST
(#1101)
(User #441808 Info)
|
I admit. I did it. I grew up using Windows. When I first installed RedHat, I clicked on "expert mode". Know why? See sentence #3. I (and every other halfway intelligent person who has tried to use Windows) have been engrained with the notion that in order to get Windows to do anything close to I want it to do (most of the time just to prevent it from making some idiotic "default" setting that will cause me to re-install the whole OS sometime later), I have to take every opportunity to set options myself. When I first got Win 95, I had clicked on every option within a week. Don't get me wrong. Windows is wonderful. I'm using it right now. Later, when it crashes, I can just reboot it and hope none of my files are corrupted. When they do become corrupted, I can just re-install Windows. When I get done doing that for the twelve computers on the network I administer, I can kill myself. No, wait, that's after one of our users asks me how to copy a file in Window's "idiot-proof" interface. Believe me, I would put Linux on everything if I didn't have to listen to fifteen people tell me about how they saw a commercial for Microsoft (Insert name of formerly third-party software application recently implemented by Microsoft here) and how they think it looks "cooler" or "better" than whatever alternative exists for Linux; because Linux sucks and its for nerds. Well, Windows sucks and its for idiots.
|
YES It is so true (Score:1)
by arturo_1 on Sunday April 15, @01:33AM EST
(#1107)
(User #322413 Info)
|
Right 9 of 10 users are *stupid* analphabets, even they believe that they aren't. That's the customer's niche of Microsoft the Click-Click World where you don't have to know, only exercise your 'intuition' or after some cut and try tests become 'instinct-conditioned'. You ask why?. The answers is because 'all do the same way' (a well known and studied sychological-mass effect). That folks are pretty easy targets for Microsoft, (really they don't have ANY choice) so the real target is the rest of *non stupid* folks. That's why M$ is taking seriously track of Linux. GPL is bad to M$ as it offers more freedom to choose (another interesting sychological effect) and these guys are not prone to go back to M$ vision, as they found they can 'learn' tech and interact and colaborate with an open community. They don't need to pay for OS, tools or languages, patchs comes sooner, apps run more stable, and discover that M$ 'more productive way' is a myth. So M$ let live these guys, stop the lies, stop the FUD. Arturo Borquez |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by Salamander
(spam@tambreet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:39PM EST
(#845)
(User #33735 Info)
http://www.platypus.ro
|
That's fine for users, but not for developers.
That's fine, but I was quite deliberately only addressing the issue of users' choices. Issues surrounding MS's business, development, and standards-compliance processes are a whole different matter.
No, not limiting their choices. Putting a big warning sign on the preferences menu
I thought I was pretty explicit about why that's not sufficient. Something about newbies hitting the "expert mode" button, I believe. Then again, people hitting the "reply" button before they finish reading is a related phenomenon, so I should have expected that too.
Speaking as someone who flipped every switch in the software I could find when I was little
I'll bet that led to one of two outcomes. Either you sometimes managed to mess something up and learned to fix it (good for you!) or you messed it up and found someone else to fix it. In either case, you probably found that outcome pretty acceptable. Here's the crux: most people find neither acceptable. They'll just be pissed that it was ever possible for things to be rendered unusable by what they considered (rightly or not) to be innocent experimentation. Before you think they're being unfair, stop for a moment and ask yourself honestly whether you've ever had the same reaction. Have you really *never* said "I can't believe they didn't handle that properly" or cursed a sloppy programmer for not testing all the cases? Yeah, right. I'd wager a drink that you've even criticized *Microsoft products* for exactly those kind of failures, whether it's as a user or as an anti-MS zealot. Well, MS wants to avoid that. They're willing to take the hit for being too inflexible or dictatorial or whatever, in preference to being slammed for being flaky or counterintuitive or hard to configure. Again, it might not be *your* choice but it's a *valid* choice.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by SlippyToad on Wednesday April 04, @12:22PM EST
(#298)
(User #240532 Info)
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them. But, omigod, like, they are. Y'know? The mentality of a helpdesk operator is that all users are probably pretty stupid people. With a very few exceptions, almost all of the people I've ever provided phone support to were in some basic fashion not capable of operating a computer without assistance. And the best way to fend them off was to reduce their options until there was only one way to do things. This would prevent them from either guessing wrong and fucking the system up, or panicking and just sitting there doing nothing until the help desk came along.
This sounds like I've made a broad generalization, and indeed I have. Based on the only available evidence, I have to assume that most of the people using my systems (I now design the stuff so I have an even keener need to prevent operator headspace) are relegated to that sub-human class end user. Or, operatus stupidus, to use the Wile E. Coyote Latin term.
However, what other conclusion could I draw? The people who know how the system works, and go along all day without stumbling over themselves, and even when they have a problem they intuitively work around it -- those people never call the help desk! So I will never know they exist unless a systemwide error occurs that simply must be dealt with by me. Put yourself in the shoes of a major software company, and you can see where this leads. The only customer comments you recieve at all are complaints from people who by and large don't know what they're doing. Your primary goal becomes to make sure they can't do it wrong next time.
So yes it's arrogant, but it's the only choice you can make when you've got millions of users. Gotta go for the lowest common denominator.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by GeekBoy
(leewsb@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:23PM EST
(#303)
(User #10877 Info)
http://members.xoom.com/Lycadican
|
Well, in a way he is right. Most users are not that clued in. I think you'll find that the slashdot crowd is not indicative of those in the "normal" everyday world. First let me qualify that by saying that I'm a support person so I get more than my share of clueless users. Users in my experience don't care much about having a diverse user experience (yes I'm sure you can come up with 100+1 examples to the contrary, but I'm not trying to prove a universally quantified statement). Users usually just want to get their current task at hand done as easily and as quickly as possible.
That's great if you're trying to consolidate your monopoly position, but it does absolutely no good whatsoever for the advancement of anything whatsoever.
Well, that's a fairly closed minded approach. You say it does no good for the advancement of anything. Really? Here is a counter example. His point about commercial developers wanting/preferring a single api to write to when developing software is generally accurate. Software companies only have so many resources and skilled people. Why would you want to have to pick a desktop to write to? If I pick GNOME or KDE I run the risk of reducing the market for my product (due to desktop bigots, interoperability issues, etc.) Writing to two desktops also lengthens my development time which reduces the profitability of my software. What company wants to do that? (Yes, I know it is possible to run one from the other, but it doesn't produce a consistent user experience, and the standards/formats of certain things are different, calendars, address books, and they are put in different places. Maybe I'm wrong and this has changed?)
Besides which, the problems with a monoculture are legion...I hardly think I need to go there.
The problems with diversity are also legion, if not greater.
And yes, alot of people are just that stupid. Although I realise where you are coming from. The ??? literate always assume that other people are at the same level, when in fact they are not. Hey, my father is a doctor, my mother is a nurse, and yet, my 4 year old son if far more proficient with a computer than they are, (he can install and use Linux by himself, with some help in the disk partitioning area). Does that make them stupid? No. My father does cancer research for crying out loud. The point is, they have a different set of expertise and that comes with a different set of assumtions about the way things work, and the fact that, they just don't care or need to know about the diversities of the computer using experience.
Frankly, the attitude I see with regards to this is just juvenile. How did this guy get mod +4?
********************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. - |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Mr. Bubbles712
(testtubebaby@holy-spam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:23PM EST
(#307)
(User #254513 Info)
|
Ok, Flame-bait, maybe, but it needs to be said. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU WANT TO CODE SOMETHING??? Ok, if it's a small little 300K program, fine. If its a 900M program(source) then your f**ked. Yes, choice is good. Yes, more choice's means more devlopment. Great. Grand. Perfect. But do you want to be the one stuck in the office for 6-12 months to port something from Gnome to KDE, or open step, or any other of the Window Managers. This is what hurts us, yet makes us stronger. If KDE and Gnome played nice, used the same calls, (maybe in a different order) or did the back end the same but Front end different, then we wouldn't have a problem of, say, Star Office. Ofcource, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Mark Hay, who turned off my napster??? |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:4, Insightful)
by IntlHarvester
(vcs2600 yahoo)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:43PM EST
(#387)
(User #11985 Info)
|
A great example is component embedding. OpenOffice has a whitepaper up discussing the component models available on Unix systems.
Turns out you have:
+ The Gnome model (still in beta?)
+ The KDE model (different in KDE1 and KDE2 ?)
+ The Mozilla model
+ And now, the StarOffice model.
Meanwhile on Windows, you've got a single model, COM.
Now, tell me why a platform with maybe at best a 2% desktop marketshare needs 4 different ways of component embedding and a platform with 90% marketshare can get away with one.
And sure, there's always a good reason that you don't want to someone else's widget set. But, now, we are talking about fundemental interoperability issues. It's been possible to insert (say) a Excel chart into a WordPerfect document on Windows for nearly 7 years now. Will this sort of thing ever be possible on the tower of babel of Unix desktops?
But, yeah, I know emacs and pipes rule and nobody needs that stuff. --
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World. |
ActiveX/OLE the ultimate component model??? (Score:2)
by alienmole
(tontobius at hotmail dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:45PM EST
(#851)
(User #15522 Info)
|
Meanwhile on Windows, you've got a single model, COM.
Now, tell me why a platform with maybe at best a 2% desktop marketshare needs 4 different ways of component embedding and a platform with 90% marketshare can get away with one.
Microsoft's COM itself is not too bad as a substrate, which may explain why Mozilla chose to emulate the COM model with XPCOM. However, the actual embedding of user-interface components within Windows applications depends on ActiveX, a broad collection of COM interfaces, and implementations thereof, which integrate with the underlying Windows API (Win32).
Almost anyone who has done any development with ActiveX should be able to tell you that this is not the ultimate component embedding model. Nor, for that matter, is Win32 the ultimate OS API. I should add that these are both serious understatements.
I think it's far more likely that future user interfaces will use a model more along the lines of HTML or Display Postscript, i.e. a more client/server based approach, although clearly neither of those two technologies in their current form can fully address the problem.
It's incredibly unlikely that Microsoft will be the one to provide the next rational component model - its entire history demonstrates that it doesn't have what it takes to truly innovate, no matter how many of its billions it throws at people researching Bayes networks and first order phase transitions.
If anything, Microsoft's ability to innovate is probably declining as market forces begin to work against it - IOW, it may have peaked. Perhaps its research division will eventually begin paying off in the way that IBM's does, but so far there's no indication that it will do so in the software arena.
So, while I don't happen to think Gnome or KDE will be the future of components either, I do think that the future is far more likely to come from an unexpected direction than from Microsoft. HTML and the web are a perfect example of this; Java is another, with Microsoft now vaporing .NET to catch up.
The bottom line is that we're not at a stage where it's technically valid to say "OK, all the user interface development problems have been solved and we can all standardize on one thing". We need alternatives, and there's no place better to try out different approaches than on a free, open OS that doesn't restrict competition and innovation with a closed API.
|
Re:ActiveX/OLE the ultimate component model??? (Score:1)
by IntlHarvester
(vcs2600 yahoo)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:36PM EST
(#902)
(User #11985 Info)
|
I was only expressing user frustration, and didn't intend to advocate MS's particular implementation.
But thanks for the very rational response that open stream platforms are testbeds for different techniques and therefore do not necessarily need to be 'productized' (although much of the don't-use-windows rhetoric around here is founded in the idea of Linux as a product). --
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World. |
productization of Linux (Score:2)
by alienmole
(tontobius at hotmail dot com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:02AM EST
(#964)
(User #15522 Info)
|
...do not necessarily need to be 'productized' (although much of the don't-use-windows rhetoric around here is founded in the idea of Linux as a product).
I have a response to this too. ;)
Linux is already a real and valuable product, being used for example in servers, and various custom embedded applications - the Tivo consumer digitial video recorder is a nice example. It's also being used to drive parallel supercomputers used in big, serious research applications, a role which otherwise would have to be filled by expensive commercial OSes on proprietary hardware. So Linux's future as a "product" seems assured - the fact that it has already succeeded in displacing competitors at every level, from small embedded devices to giant number crunchers, highlights one of its unique strengths, and a flexibility that any commercial competitor will be hard-pressed to match.
The only real open question is Linux's ability to be a product for users who require a desktop OS. Even here, Linux is being used in environments such as schools, for example, where X terminals running Linux make for affordable workstations for students (search on "K12Linux" for more info). It's also being used as an OS for products like graphics workstations; it's the
default OS for network computers like the ThinkNIC; and it's used in other situations where the user interface provided to the user is constrained in some way.
Many of the companies using Linux in these various ways are also contributing to its further development. Under these circumstances, I think it's quite likely that Linux's viability on the mainstream desktop will grow, probably quite fast. The amount of intellectual capital that is being targeted at Linux right now is unprecedented, and the pace of change since, for example, the beginning of the Gnome project has been impressive.
Because of standardization around things like TCP/IP and other Unix-heritage protocols and standards, basic OS functions have become commoditized, even on Windows. Linux excels at providing this functionality, so can easily compete with Windows at this level.
However, other functionality, in particular desktop GUIs and their APIs, are not commoditized in the sense of being standardized and therefore interchangeable. HTML is the first widely used, non-proprietary standard display model. I'm sure it won't be the last, and the future of desktops may lie in the direction of its successors. But even without that, Linux use on the desktop can only grow with time.
|
Sorry, but you're wrong (Score:2)
by Ars-Fartsica on Wednesday April 04, @12:24PM EST
(#310)
(User #166957 Info)
|
You can slice and dice and rationalize it anyway you want, but you cannot go forward on the desktop with two user environments. Its not as if either KDE or GNOME has really pushed the envelope in terms of architecture, useability, or look and feel. There's really no compelling technical reason at all why these projects must go forward independently. As it stands, the important players have lined up behind GNOME, so its probably a moot point anyway, nonetheless, the linux community is wasting valuable time and resources providing interoperability between two products that are more or less slight variations on the same theme.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Reez on Wednesday April 04, @12:27PM EST
(#319)
(User #65123 Info)
|
The real problem is for developers : should they develop for Gnome or KDE or (neither/other) ?
An intermediate layer between applications and desktop, allowing decoupling of Gnome/KDE specific features from the applications, would allow the user to use whatever desktop they want.
Now the question is : is such a layer an acceptable solution ? For example, it would be Yet Another API to learn for application developers ...
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2, Interesting)
by Chandon Seldon
(nat-at-calug-dot-net)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:27PM EST
(#743)
(User #43083 Info)
http://www.calug.net/
|
Who cares. Eithor is fine. Gnome apps run fine under KDE, and KDE apps run fine under Gnome. There are only a few areas of functionality where intercompatibility can be a problem, and in most of those cases it can just
not work.
I really can't remember the last time I tried to embed a KDE component in a Gnome app and got annoyed that it didn't work. Inter-App drag and drop is the same - I don't need it. Just off the top of my head, I can't even think of a Gnome App that I would want to drag and drop into from a KDE app. Copy and paste annoyed me once, I tried to copy some data from a KDE app, and use Edit->Paste to paste it into a Gnome App. This didn't work, middle clicking immediately pasted the text with no problem.
I have absolutely no problem putting a Konqueror button on my Gnome Panel, or a X-Chat menu option on my IceWM menu. I don't really see actually needing more intercompatibility than that.
All of the real itercompatibility problems are getting solved in any case. By Gnome 2.0, Drag and Drop, Cut and Paste, and Embedding should all use the same protocall in both KDE and Gnome, AFAIK.
This leaves the only real difference between KDE and Gnome to be look and feel. Just use the same theme in both if thos bothers you =P
[ This message posted from Konqueror, Running under IceWM, while listening to music with XMMS, and chatting with X-Chat. ]
--------
The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by leviramsey on Wednesday April 04, @12:27PM EST
(#320)
(User #248057 Info)
|
I agree with you that that is true, but at the same time, it could be useful to have a "standard" default wm/desktop across Unix/Linux. KDE is probably the most newbie friendly, but licensing issues would probably mean that GNOME became the default. This would not preclude people from writing a new wm/desktop, but it would tend to mean that only advanced users are using sawfish (standalone), or Enlightenment, Ice, etc.) Linux is a trademark of Linus "Not as sexy as Elvis" Torvalds
[From an IBM ad] |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by SCHecklerX on Wednesday April 04, @12:34PM EST
(#348)
(User #229973 Info)
|
Yes, but a standard OO API, be it KDE, Gnome, or GnomDE, or KDome, whatever would be a wonderful thing.
Then you could STILL pick your filemanager, windowmanager, applications, etc of choice and know they would all use the same communications methods.
In other words, there should be a standard protocol for OO IPC in the graphical world. Apps can then simply use the protocol. Simple, right? I don't see everyone in the world forced to use the same mail client, yet everyone I send mail to usually gets it, right?
I would love to be able to simply drag an attachment from ROX-Filer to the attachment pane in pronto and have it do what you would expect.
We are a very long way away from that.
I really do miss OS/2. Programmers didn't even need to program any of that stuff. It just worked. If I used a "File attachment" container...all the drag-drop stuff simply worked. Hell, I didn't have to do ANYTHING special for the drag-drop font/color changes to work. That stuff was simply inherited from PM as it should be.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by (void*)
(voice@void.)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:21PM EST
(#657)
(User #113680 Info)
|
All thanks to MS for driving OS/2 out of the market then.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by sehryan on Wednesday April 04, @12:45PM EST
(#394)
(User #412731 Info)
http://www.ncircles.com
|
That's great if you're trying to consolidate your monopoly position, but it does absolutely no good whatsoever for the advancement of anything whatsoever.
Think about this for a second. When you drive somewhere, you get in on the left side, the wheel is in front of you, gas is on the right, brake is on the left. pretty simple. but what if the car world had many different options like the os world. you get into a friend's car (or you buy a new one) and the wheel is in the back, or the gas is on the left, or you have to get in through the trunk. okay, maybe not so bad, because that is just two variations. but now double that, and then double that. just because you can make something with infinate variations doesn't mean you should, and i think that is where most of the ms cats are coming from. -
sean
www.ncircles.com |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Alarion
(alarion@NOSPAMplanetunreal.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:02PM EST
(#438)
(User #263883 Info)
http://www.rabid-wolf.com
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
I suppose you have never worked Tech Support.
99% of computer users are *complete* idiots. My mother happens to fall in that catagory. I love her to death, but she knows NOTHING about computers, but has to use one everyday for work.
Most computer users are like this. Most /.'ers are advanced computer users and can get into their system and diagnose problems on their own, probably better than some of the developers at big software companies can. The thing is, most of us "l337 d00ds" can't seem to look at a program/computer/OS from a normal/newbie users point of view.
In all honestly, Linux is a *nightmare* for a newbie computer user. If you recommend it to a newbie, you should be SHOT. Seriously.. shot dead.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is very nice, but go get grandpa who hasn't ever touched a computer and tell him to install/use windows on a blank drive, and then tell him to install/use Linux (pick a flavor) on a new drive.
Granted, he might have a little trouble with *both*, but I guarantee you that he will have an easier time with Windows.
With all that said, if Microsoft wants to really, really dumb things down, they need an option so that more advanced users can bypass all the help/intos/wizards/blahblah stuff.
Then again, do we really want all these newbies using computers? Case in point: AOL!
To stay on topic, I found Doug's answers to be, for the most part, an interesting read.
|
Users *ARE* stupid (Score:1)
by kwerle
(kwerle@pobox.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:03PM EST
(#440)
(User #39371 Info)
http://www.pobox.com/~kwerle
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
It turns out that users ARE stupid. Otherwise they would be called programmers or sysadmins. Yes, the OS makers SHOULD make all their choices for them. They should only have one windowing system/window manager/filemanager/whatever. Users should not have to worry about whether or not they have libc[X], gtk[whatever], etc. They're all WAY TOO DUMB to care.
If you need proof that users are stupid, consider: why are all these idiots running windows when they could be using Linux? (said 1/2 tongue in cheek - who's the idiot now? :-)
Further proof: It turns out that a vast number of people (some would say 50%, but I'll say many are 'of') are of below average intelligence. Take a good look around - PEOPLE ARE stupid.
|
Re:Users *ARE* stupid (Score:1)
by dfalgoust on Thursday April 05, @09:32AM EST
(#1030)
(User #409341 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/dfalgoust
|
It turns out that users ARE stupid. Otherwise they would be called programmers or sysadmins.
I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but most users are NOT stupid; they just don't deal with computers well. Case in point: I'm an attorney, and I guarantee that most of my colleagues would have fits if we were to use Linux on the desktop. Sure, I like to fiddle with computers in my spare time, but most of my colleagues don't. Yet I would never in a million years characterize my colleagues as "stupid." We shepard billion dollar transactions and handle incredibly large lawsuits here, none of which could be handled by "stupid" people. We just have a different skill set, that's all.
Whenever I hear this kind of chatter, I always think what the /. crowd would think of a composer who considered non-musicians "stupid", or a doctor who considered his patients "stupid" because they kept asking him all these really obvious (to him) medical questions, or a lawyer who considered his clients "stupid" because they needed help with difficult legal problems.
Programmers and sysadmins aren't the only smart people in the world, and I really wish that the /. crowd would quit using computer skills as a proxy for intelligence.
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by sconeu
(pseudo-hacker formerly at ucsc dot edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:08PM EST
(#455)
(User #64226 Info)
|
but having too many choices in a commercial platform environment in the end, confuses developers and users
Is it me, or did he just insult all the developers, too? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - B.F. |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:5, Insightful)
by NMerriam
(NMerriam@artboy.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:30PM EST
(#491)
(User #15122 Info)
http://www.ArtBoy.org
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
No, users are trying to USE their computers for something. Unlike kernel hackers, geeks, and your general /. crowd, most people WANT TO GET WORK DONE on their computers. They really don't give a damn about pushing the envelope on new OS technology, upgrading their file system, or taking positions in a religious war.
I'm beginning to think that Microsoft really will continue to kick Linux's ass around the block, because no one seems to want to actually figure out why their products sell so well. MS woke up, and they clearly understand how and why people use Linux, and are incorporating that knowledge in their development and sales goals.
Linux folks seem content to just say "oh, they're just sucky, so pooh on them" rather than actually learn something frm their success.
NORMAL USERS DO NOT WANT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WINDOW MANAGERS! THEY WANT TO GET WORK DONE AND GO HOME.
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
There rarely is One Right Way
That is true. But there usually is one standard way. Regardless of the inefficiency of the QWERTY keyboard, MOST people don't have trouble with it because its pretty much the same everywhere.
I'm sure NASA is thrilled that their engineers can "choose" between english and metric units -- it gives them more power! So what if it leads to the occassional incompatibility and loss of millions of dollars in equipment. We'd hate to take away the power of choice.
Most people are not seeking the "perfect operating system" (otherwise known as One Right Way). People are looking to get work done, and Microsoft excels at meeting the PERCIEVED needs of their customers. Whether Linux or some other system would be better if properly customized and learned is a whole 'nother topic, but Microsoft sells a solution that is Good Enough (and in business, Good Enough is usually more cost-effective than One Right Way).
The first thing Apple did when they moved to OSX was standardize the interface. They didn't REMOVE the ability to customize it (or to run X with Gnome or whatever), but the truth is the VAST majority of users have no desire whatsoever to customize their interface beyond wallpaper and icons and sounds, etc.
Please, the world isn't that stupid. Don't insult the people who fund the very survival of your company.
MS is the single most successful company in the history of the world, pretty much. As long as they stay paranoid, I don't think they need to worry about going bankrupt any time soon.
People are not stupid, and for you to take "standardization" as an assusation of stupidity is an interesting mischaracterization of Doug's statements. People have enough complexity in their lives, we hardly need to be forcing more on them just to send an email. If they want to customize, they'll find out how, but Linux forces the issue from the first boot, and that turns off a lot of people just looking to get work done.
Editing the windows registry is no harder or easier than editing unix config files, the difference is that you don't HAVE to edit the registry just to use the system. You don't even have to know that the registry exists...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive. |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Coryoth
(leland_mcinnes@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:42PM EST
(#848)
(User #254751 Info)
|
NORMAL USERS DO NOT WANT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WINDOW MANAGERS! THEY WANT TO GET WORK DONE AND GO HOME.
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
The only problem I have with these arguments is as soon as people say that there should only BE one window manager. There SHOULD be hundreds. The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro, or download the WM you want.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me.
It's a powerful freedom - the option of whether you want to have to make a choice on a given matter, or not. I know about various window managers, so that's a choice I want to be able to make. I don't know much about obscure kernel compile options, so I'm happy that I have the option to not worry about them if I don't want to.
Just to make sure the point gets home: If you want a "one desktop, one window manager, one look and feel" linux, then make a distro with only KDE, KWM, no themes of any kind, and default all the personal KDE settings files to read only or something. DON'T try and get rid of all those other window managers, that more geeky distrobutions will throw in and let you choose from.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else.
Jedidiah
-- "I can only conclude that I'm paying off Karma at a vastly accelerated rate" |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by NMerriam
(NMerriam@artboy.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:11PM EST
(#871)
(User #15122 Info)
http://www.ArtBoy.org
|
The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro
Okay, maybe this is just not clear enough -- we should not PREVENT people from using a different interface (as Windows does not PREVENT someone from replacing explorer with another shell), but make no mistake that different distributions having different window managers will permanently prevent Linux from ever competing with MS. Having a different WM for different distros means that there is NO STANDARD. If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me
Please, this isn't an issue of personal freedom, this is an issue of commercial reality. If linux wants to stay as merely a sysadmin OS, server OS, or for hobby users, then by all means it should continue to leave every single decision unmade until the first boot.
If you want to compete with MS for the desktop (which makes sense, otherwise no one would give a damn about what MS thinks or does) then you have to realize that we are not talking about "forcing" choices on users, but rather making actual design decisions. If the right mouse button functions differently on every computer a secretary sits down at, she will NEVER learn how to use the computer. This isn't about restricting power users, its about making systems work consistently out of the box. It's about making it easy to program for an OS because you know ahead of time what interface conventions a user is expecting.
I repeat: feel free to develop a hobby or power user OS any way you like, those groups are willing to learn anything because it is FUN for them to use the system and bend it to their will.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else
Well truly its no ones responsibility, so I guess thats why linux will never succeed on the desktop. I'm not saying linux is bad for not having these things, only that Doug and MS are correct that Linux will not succeed on the desktop until users and developers can expect the system to function in a certain reproducable manner. Windows has its quirks between versions, but in all honesty the typical user would have trouble telling the difference between Win95, Win98, Win98se, and Win2k.
Again, if Linux developers are happy having the system only used/usable by those willing and able to make these configuration decisions, more power to them. But then please stop complaining about Microsoft owning the desktop, because they have made a product that is usable by both power users AND people who search for the "any" key...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive. |
Re:The will of the truth. (Score:2)
by NMerriam
(NMerriam@artboy.org)
on Thursday April 05, @12:38PM EST
(#1053)
(User #15122 Info)
http://www.ArtBoy.org
|
See if you can find all the places Linux in it's present form is being used
Um, it's being used by sysadmins, hackers, geeks, and hobbyists, like I said. Or do you know of some huge cache of desktop business and home users that aren't showing up in any OS surveys?
If there is no standard, then companies will not waste their time writing linux software that may or may not be compatible with a given distro
Well looks like I'll be calling a lot of companies tonight giving them the bad news. Can I quote you as a source?
Yes, you can. Please, tell me where the huge cache of commercial software for Linux is? Software that is guranteed linux compatible, regardless of distro, and doesn't say somewhere on the box "Only tested on Red Hat 6.x" or somesuch?
It'll probably cost you about 25 cents to call all the multi-distro commercially successful Linux software companies, and you'll have money left over for a cup of coffee when you're done...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive. |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by Allegro
(clfleck@NO.valdosta.SPAM.edu)
on Thursday April 05, @05:12AM EST
(#1003)
(User #313667 Info)
|
Something tells me that you don't quite know exactly what users want. There've been too many instances in which I was required to fix suzie's computer in the back because the up-teenth bagillionth screensaver/windowshade/whatever that she's installed has caused her computer to do odd things. I don't think that user experience and configurability are out the door simply because of the fact that most computer users don't have BS's in CS. "Normal users" DO like customizability and they DO like choice. Don't let the lusers get you down. |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by JPelorat
(pelorat@netscape.net)
on Thursday April 05, @06:20AM EST
(#1009)
(User #5320 Info)
|
Linux was not created to be competitive with anything - it was created to serve the needs of its creators. It still does that, and very well. Any other arguments about usability and such should be taken up with the people who commercialized it - Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc.
And I find your assertion that the only people who ever manage to get work done are end users to be totally hilarious and a bald-faced lie. Users don't want to do work - in the end, they want their work done *for* them, which Linux will not do. You actually have to use some brain cells to get something done with Linux. Oh, the horrors!
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by sparkz
(steve_g_parker@SPAM_ME.hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @07:57PM EST
(#1075)
(User #146432 Info)
http://steve-parker.org
|
I'm currently working on an article -the draft is available at http://steve-parker.org/articles/camera/camera.sht ml (also try camera2.shtml and camera3.shtml).
This is an attempt to show end-users that they make valid, conscious choices between a point-and-click camera, and a state-of-the-art camera. That they feel empowered to do so, that they do not feel any need to bow down to some dumbest level, but feel no shame in the point-and-click camera if that's what suits them.
It's not a very coherent article at the moment, but the idea's there, and developing.
#include <stddiscl.h>
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." |
Think what you will (Score:1)
by fliptout
(btyler@GIVE_ME_SOME_LOVINece.utexas.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:05PM EST
(#555)
(User #9217 Info)
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~btyler/
|
I believe Doug was trying to make the point that having more than one window environment lessens the focus of developer resources.
Ever wanted to run a gnome app in kde?
|
Re:Think what you will (Score:1)
by Chandon Seldon
(nat-at-calug-dot-net)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:47PM EST
(#821)
(User #43083 Info)
http://www.calug.net/
|
I run Gnome Apps in KDE all the time. They seem to work fine for me.
--------
The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by mlgm on Wednesday April 04, @02:19PM EST
(#575)
(User #61962 Info)
|
Sorry, but I believe he's right: we should have only one desktop. But I'd not call it lack of choice. I'd rather call it having a standard.
Would you recommend having more "choice" when it comes to connecting peripherals? Or more choice of keyboard layouts? Probably not.
The desktop and it's look and feel is just an interface between applications and the user. And it must be consistent.
I'm using Unix for more than 15 years and it was a better OS than DOS/Windows from the start. So why had it no chance to succeed? I bet it's because every application used to have a different file open dialog or printing dialog and every application had a different look and feel (like how a scroll bar behaves).
Is that really the kind of choice you want? That every application has a different scroll bar?
But please get me right: I'm only for a consistent user interface. I have nothing against the possibility to configure the user interface. Round buttons or square buttons I don't care as long as all buttons are round or all are square.
And probably the most important thing is that I don't want to limit programming languages or toolkits as long as they're consistent. X11 is the glue between all applications, maybe assisted by some other sort of IPC (CORBA, DCOP, etc.).
There's no reason why a C++ application can't communicate with a C application and have a consistent look and feel. So why not do it!
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by avail on Wednesday April 04, @03:34PM EST
(#673)
(User #84055 Info)
|
I would not say it's a prevailing attitude at MS, I would say it's a prevailing world attitude about anything. Look at what governments do... Here is canada they have an enforced nation pension plan (CPP) becuase "people are too stupid to plan for their retirement". Enforced medicare/medicaid is there. Welfare is ultimatly there for people who are too stupid to make their own choices in life to allow for their own self-sufficiency.
MS does not think people are stupid, they do extensive user-testing of interfaces.. they probably spend as much on focus groups as they do on each incremental software release. I can guarantee you that the interface change for WinXP was a HUGE effort at MS. These are not people who just say "this would be cool" and put it in. If you wanted to change the X in the upper right corner to an O or something, you'd better have a good reason supported by user/focus groups.
This is not a bad thing. Most people don't care about the window-dressing. They want to get work done. I use Windows & Exceed at work not becuase I can't have a windows box, but becuase I can work faster with Exceed and Xterms under windows than in CDE alone. Not to knock GNOME/KDE, but the windows interface is easy like candy. I don't expend thought about the interface, I just use it.
From a user perspective, the GUI is there to help you accomlish your tasks more easily. But GUI is not a feature. If you design it as a feature it means you want it to be noticed... and if I notice the GUI, I am annoyed by it.
I wouldn't care if I had to choice under Unix or Not, and I would rather have EVERY COMPUTER IN THE WORLD have the exact same, non-obtrusive GUI than have the choice.
five fingers make a fist
amalgamate and resist |
On the whole, most Users ARE Stupid (Score:1)
by Databass on Wednesday April 04, @04:35PM EST
(#751)
(User #254179 Info)
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
I think that assumption is actually more true than not. Of the world's population, perhaps 1% are smart and educated enough to handle writing their own Linux stuff. The geek elite are like the top 1% of the intellectual pyramid. The money is all lower down, in the huge bottom rungs.
My mom and most of her friends, for example, can barely handle the "dumbed down" Microsoft as is. These people need their experience to be as easy as possible. When it comes to make their own decisions on system configurations or file permissions for example, they don't have a prayer of making a good choice- or even understanding the issues. Since Linux won't make it easy for them, Microsoft and Macintosh will.
|
So, did you build your television? (Score:1)
by reallocate on Wednesday April 04, @07:04PM EST
(#858)
(User #142797 Info)
|
Hello? MS is in business (catch that word?) to make money. That means selling to customers, not necessarily building the world's best OS.
Is the Linux community trying to build the world's best OS? (Not that real people care which OS is "best": Run my apps, don't crash, and don't make me read a book.) Or, is it trying to put Microsoft out of business? Or, just offer a choice?
The last alternative works for me. The BSD crowd has been offering a free choice for years now, but that crowd seems to avoid most of the histrionic arrogant, fequently ill-informed posturing that passes for discussion here.
Linux is Unix. Unix was around for almost two decades before Linus got to work. If Unix didn't "take over the world", why should Linux?
So, give it up. Stop fantasizing about normal people writing their own apps. Ain't gonna happen, no more than normal people build their own TV's. Stop fantasizing about the virtues of open sources vs proprietary software. This is obtuse theology to normal people: "Oh, they give away the source code? What's source code?"
I like Linux. Most /.er's like Linux. Leave it at that and move on. Almost everything else you will do today is more important than yabbering about which OS is better.
|
Re:So, did you build your television? (Score:2)
by el_chicano on Thursday April 05, @12:33PM EST
(#1051)
(User #36361 Info)
http://vatoloco.net
|
The BSD crowd has been offering a free choice for years now, but that crowd seems to
avoid most of the histrionic arrogant, fequently ill-informed posturing that passes for discussion here.
ROTFL!!! You obviously must be new to Slashdot otherwise by now you would have seen the BSD people crawling out of the woodwork crowing how superior their OS is everytime a Linux article gets posted...
-- You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork! Morris Fletcher, The X-Files |
Choice *good*, lack of standards *atrocious* (Score:2)
by Nailer on Wednesday April 04, @05:32PM EST
(#812)
(User #69468 Info)
http://www.cyber.com.au
|
Choise is great, and the competition between KDE and GNOME enhances the Linux desktop.
However, the complete lack of standardization between the two hurts the Linux desktop much, much more. Sorry, what was that you said, GNOME and KDE apps work in each others desktop? Yes they do. Poorly.
I have
* Completely different file/open dialog boxes in my applications. Users have to navigate both to have any chance to survive.
* Non standardized drag and drop. xdnd is either broken or partially implemented in both toolkits, it seems. Try dragging an FTP file from the latest Konqueror to the latest GNOME desktop, for example.
* Silly companies that think the other desktop is going to go away and conveniently ignore it. Users use apps based on quality. The solution to KDE apps being not quite right in GNOME (and vice versa) is to fix the problem, not ignore it.
* 2 places to configure half my app's pook and feel.
* Different
* 2 sets of menus. Theres no functional difference between the two. Apps add themselves to both, or confuse the user by adding themselves to one. Their icons live in 2 seperate locations.
The near complete lack of standardization between KDE and GNOME hurts the Linux desktop more than competition enhances it. That said, standards can still exist within this competition, and neither desktop will go away
Sorry for the rant. But IMO its important.
Windows also has multiple toolktis, MFC and VCL. Over the years, VCL now looks like MFC. And they both wrap around a common layer called Win32.
Is there a reason why GTK and QT couldn't do the same? They're both GPLed. I want as much as possible coded into a uniform library to be loaded once, and a small GTK and QT library that live on top of it.
Remember how much 56k modems sucked before V90? X2 versus K56Flex. If your ISP used one, you couldn't use the other. Thats KDE and GNOME right now. I install Nautilus on my KDE desktop and it overwrites it with an enhanced GNOME desktop. That sucks.
For the things that need to go one way or the other, find a neutral third party (our ITU equivalent - say, Linux international) and let them decide the specs for a common base, taking the best bits from both. It worked damned well for 56k modems.
Would code it myself, but I don't write applications or code beyond bash and basic Python. By the time I learnt' it will be too late. I do Open Source documentation instead.
------
Mechanics shouldn't be the only people to drive cars.
Linux isn't more stable if they can't install it. |
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:1)
by charvolant on Wednesday April 04, @06:20PM EST
(#835)
(User #224858 Info)
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
Merely that users wish to expend their brainpower
on something else, surely?
I don't hand-build my fridge, car or furniture.
This reminds me of an article Umberto Eco
wrote yonks ago, comparing the PC and the Mac
in terms of religion.
The Mac is a Catholic machine, you go to the
priest, say the correct formulas and you
are forgiven of your sins -- or, at least,
you get your document printed.
The PC is a Protestant machine, you have to
enter into a diffcult and personal relationship
with your God, full of self-doubt and
introspection.
Time moves on and it looks like Microsoft has
gone Catholic (which may explain some of the
conspiracy theories).
And Linux is the new Protestantism.
Plus ca change ..
|
Re:Choice and competition are *good* (Score:2)
by Eil on Wednesday April 04, @08:39PM EST
(#880)
(User #82413 Info)
http://www.users.uswest.net/~eilrahc/
|
This seems to be the pervailing attitude among those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are stupid, so stupid that we must make all their decisions for them.
You haven't turned on your television or been out to the mall lately, have you?
[IM: burstlag, IRC: Eil on slashnet] |
Choice and competition is *bad* (Score:2)
by Per Abrahamsen
(abraham@dina.kvl.dk)
on Thursday April 05, @09:05AM EST
(#1024)
(User #1397 Info)
http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/
|
> This seems to be the pervailing attitude among
> those at Microsoft and elsewhere: users are
> stupid, so stupid that we must make all their
> decisions for them.
Maybe, but that is not what Doug Miller say.
Smart users want a desktop with a uniform interface, because a uniform interface make you spend less time getting adusted to the quirks of each application, and more time doin actual work.
Currently, if you want a Linux desktop with the best graphical applications, you get a few KDE applications, a few Gnome applications, a Motif application or two, an OPEN LOOK application, a number of Athena applications, a lot of Xlib applications, and maybe some TCL/TK, InterViews and GNUStep tools.
This is bad for users, and also bad for developers who will not know what desktop to target their software for.
Doug is correct, lots of different approaches is good from an academic point of view, but it gets in the way of actually getting work done.
|
interoperability.. (Score:1)
by spasm
(spasm@fuckyou.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:28AM EST
(#81)
(User #79260 Info)
|
"I actually believe we have better interoperability today than any other OS out there." So that would be why I can stick a Windows formatted floppy in a mac and have it mount, but when I stick a mac floppy in a windows machine it asks me if I want to reformat this unreadable disk?
|
|
Interop? Prove it: port backoffice to Solaris (Score:2)
by emil on Wednesday April 04, @01:18PM EST
(#474)
(User #695 Info)
http://rhadmin.org
|
Until then, stop wasting the oxygen.
|
Re:interoperability.. (Score:1)
by spasm
(spasm@fuckyou.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:42PM EST
(#381)
(User #79260 Info)
|
"Macs use a custom disk format and drive mechanism, so can't be read on standard (ie most widely available) floppy drives. Blame Apple for that one.
" There's several third-party applications that let you read mac floppies on PCs. M$ just hasn't bundled it into the operating system. As a point of comparison, macs read PC floppies via a CDEV which was once upon a time a third-party piece of freeware. Apple saw this ability as useful and added it as a (removable) default option; M$ for some reason hasn't seen the ability to read mac floppies as useful leaving end users to find & add the capability themselves. Enough said.
|
Depends on your definition of Weasel (Score:1)
by CyberGarp
(Shawn.NoSpam@Garbett.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:29AM EST
(#83)
(User #242942 Info)
http://www.garbett.org
|
No Weaseling, yeah right. Just go back and reread his answer to Number 9. He didn't answer the question, he just gave the MS standard XML lecture.
There's also plenty of examples of standards that work and are fully implemented, i.e. ftp, telnet, NFS, HTTP, TCP/IP, etc. Microsoft extends and then RELIES on those extensions thus breaking all interoperability. Only in the face of consumer pressure to actually work with standards, like TCP/IP has Microsoft caved into demands.
Garp
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child. |
|
Re:Depends on your definition of Weasel (Score:1)
by graveyhead
(clayurn @ hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:35AM EST
(#109)
(User #210996 Info)
http://www.davesresume.net
|
I must agree.
When it comes to implementing standards-based software, we respect the standard and expect that our software will fully interoperate with other products that have also implemented the standard.
Yeah this is real neat. He "forgets" to mention here that they broke Java interoperability with their "extensions" and went to court over it. The karma cap is unfair; people over 50 can't have "golden karma" |
Kinda dodgy answers there... (Score:1)
by dairypope
(tomservo@granspamturismo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#85)
(User #184243 Info)
|
Is it just me or:
When responding to the question about MS's lack of adhering to standards often times, he seemed to infer that this only occurs because MS always implements the entirety of the standard, then adds their own extensions. Only problem is, at least so far they've not always completely implemented the standard in the first place. If a standard is made so it just defines the basic things needed and can then be extended, why goof up that initial standard like IE and others have?
And, as for the question on the pricing model of XP, does anyone else find it strange that he didn't seem to bother actually answering the question about that pricing model but instead just defended the idea that you should have to pay for XP? I'm all for paying for software that companies want to charge me for as long as the software is good, but that wasn't the question in the first place.
Still, at least the rest of the answers were pretty decent...
|
Pathetic Answers (Score:3, Interesting)
by antarctican on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#86)
(User #301636 Info)
|
It's been a long time since I've seen such double talk, this guy should be in politics!
One question explicitly asked about MS' dealing with issues such as Kerberos and Java, and how MS basically broke those standards (don't deny it, they fucked those standards so far up the ass they could taste it), and what do we get, double talk about 'intellectual property'.
Java (using one of those two refered to) was VERY well defined, and there are many good implimentations. What was 'incomplete' about this standard which forced them to break it. And not only do they modify the standard, but they can't even impliment it correctly without a discusting number of bugs.
You really expected MS to be honest and complete with their answers? When I first say the call for questions up, I dismissed it knowing the amount of spin doctoring which would be done would make all answers worthless.
We are the enemy, the only reason they bothered to do this is to try to gain our trust (ha! like that'll ever happen) and throw us off balance. Anyone who buys the bullshit they just spewed or think these answers are at all complete is a total moron.
Intelectual property my ass, if they were so concerned with interoperability they'd publish these standards which they've extended. No one said they'd have to publish the source code, but at least TELL US how you changed the standard and maybe, we might embrase your modification.
Geez, micro-morons.
antarctican at trams dot ca
http://map.net |
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:3, Informative)
by macpeep on Wednesday April 04, @11:38AM EST
(#119)
(User #36699 Info)
|
Microsoft's Java VM was *the* best and *the* fastest until Sun got to version 1.1.8. After that, Sun was ahead in the game and the only contest left was between IBM and Sun. The only things missing from Microsoft's implementation were RMI and JNI. Lack of RMI was a little odd since it could easily be implemented 100% in Java code and therefore be added later to the VM simply by adding the missing classes to the classpath. There was also no real good reason to drop RMI. As far as JNI goes, Microsoft truly had a MUCH better technology, and Sun itself had gone from one implementation to another. These two parts of the Java spec; RMI and JNI, are the only valid complaints about their VM IMHO. Complaining about bugs is bogus because Sun's own VM was in MUCH worse shape. Netscape's VM always was a joke and still is (the one bundled with the 4.x series browsers).
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:1)
by antarctican on Wednesday April 04, @11:48AM EST
(#169)
(User #301636 Info)
|
Complaining about bugs is bogus because Sun's own VM was in MUCH worse shape. Netscape's VM always was a joke and still is (the one bundled with the 4.x series browsers).
Funny, I wrote (well, borrow and modified, keeping the new version under the GPL!) a nice irc client in Java and it ran BEAUTIFULLY in netscape, not a single problem. However when I tried to run it in IE, it crashed the computer. I finally tracked it down to a bug in MS' implimentation of listboxes (a deadlock condition), something they fixed in a later release. However forcing our users to dl and install a new VM just to use our chat functionality was obviously not acceptable.
I wasted many hours tracking down this bug and trying to create a kluge work-around which just slowed down the entire applet (how much did ms' bug cost our company in development time?). So I have zero respect for MS' VM.
However my post was more related to how the ms exec side-stepped the question, he can't even give an honest, complete answer. However, what did we expect?
antarctican at trams dot ca
http://map.net |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:33PM EST
(#346)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
Actually, the main problem of MS's Java was that they had added methods to some interfaces. This might seem like it's not a problem, except that if you had a class that implemented an interface, but Microsoft added a function, then your code no longer works. I don't remember which ones they extended, but they were fairly out-of-the way and little used. However, the concept was quite alarming. In addition, their Visual J++ program would spit out non-Java code by default, unless the user specifically enabled pure Java output. This means that there wasn't any particular reason to not spit out Java code (since it was just a switch to turn it back on), but they decided to do it just the same.
As for JNI, that is very, _very_ important, especially if you develop Java extensions. Without a standard JNI, a software developer would have to develop extensions for multiple VMs on the _same_ platform. Blech.
RMI was also important to anyone wanting to do distributed development. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by RandomPeon on Wednesday April 04, @11:33PM EST
(#951)
(User #230002 Info)
|
It actually worked both ways - I know the MS implementation did not recognize some of the methods in the File class, which caused me great pain once. The ASCII "extensions" can screw you up too if your Java program tries to read text files on two different platforms - "what, you wanted me to stop reading the config file at the EOL? What EOL?"
Bottom line, the incompatibilities were sufficent that you had to test even simple Java programs with MS Java and Sun Java to confirm that they worked correctly. That kind of kills off the cross-platform advantage Java was supposed to have.
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:1)
by SCHecklerX on Wednesday April 04, @03:54PM EST
(#703)
(User #229973 Info)
|
IBM's java VM for OS/2 was quite good. Many of us have been able to live quite fine without microsoft's "innovations"
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by kettch
(dgoble@NOSPAM.providence.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:42PM EST
(#382)
(User #40676 Info)
/dev/null
|
hehe, double talk. Maybe that's why they have so many problems with their products stability and security. They don't directly fix the problem, they just make it so that i can't send myself a word document from home to work. (outlook blocks all *.M$ documents.) ----------------------
root means never having to say you're sorry |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:5, Informative)
by anticypher
(cypherpunks(at)anti(dot)co(dot)uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:39PM EST
(#507)
(User #48312 Info)
http://127.195.154.0/index.html
|
In addition to Java and kerberos, there are many other examples of extend and extinguish. The one I am most familiar with is the PPP authentication protocol MS-CHAP.
PPP defined a open ended number of authentication protocols, PAP and CHAP being the first two implemented. PAP and CHAP are both freely available, and CHAP was designed to respond to security shortcomings in PAP. The spec allows for future authentication protocols to be developed.
MS-CHAP is a one of those future protocols, but there was a twist. MS-CHAP was introduced into windoze NT3 RAS dial in server, and later as the only authentication protocol in windoze 95. That meant that any user with windoze 95 could only use the dial-up software with an ISP running a copy of NT behind each modem.
Modem server makers such as Ascend, 3Com and Cisco all quickly reverse engineered the protocol, but M$ had patented the algorithm and the protocol. Since M$ was at the height of its monopolistic bully attitude, and the comm server makers were all relatively small, none dared a court battle over a patented algorithm. Cisco approached M$ to put regular CHAP into win95, but M$ refused.
Then M$ approached all the modem server manufacturers with a deal, they would license their own code for MS-CHAP for about US1.20 per modem, and existing servers could be upgraded for about US$1.50 per modem. So all the ISPs who wanted to play in the win95 dial-up market had to upgrade all their modem servers at a fairly hefty cost, with all that money going to M$.
As a side note, M$'s implementation of MS-CHAP has some serious security problems, a google search can turn them up. The security holes are pretty difficult to exploit, but allow for session hijacking and man-in-the-middle attacks.
the AC
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:5, Funny)
by mwalker
(walker@msgto.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:43PM EST
(#686)
(User #66677 Info)
http://www.nfr.com/
|
Let's put 2 and 2 together:
Doug: - "Interoperability is a key competitive strength."
Anitcypher: - "That meant that any user with windoze 95 could only use the dial-up software with an ISP running a copy of NT behind each modem. "
- "Cisco approached M$ to put regular CHAP into win95, but M$ refused."
Since Doug would never flat out lie in a public forum, we must conclude that:
- Doug means: "interoperability with our own products" is a key competitive strength.
- He leaves out the implied "non-interoperability with other people's products is a key competitive strength".
Doug writes: -", we need to be even more diligent about building solutions that customers want"
- "In the end, it all comes down to solving customers' problems"
- "we continue to proactively innovate and continue to be totally customer driven. "
Anticypher writes: "As a side note, M$'s implementation of MS-CHAP has some serious security problems, a google search can turn them up. The security holes are pretty difficult to exploit, but allow for session hijacking and man-in-the-middle attacks"
Again, since we must assume Doug is telling the truth, then we must conclude that a large customer base has demanded security holes in this product
Our job is to find these customers, and kill them.
MTV is full of shit. |
Pathetic Response (Score:1)
by AlienFactor on Wednesday April 04, @03:51PM EST
(#699)
(User #90073 Info)
|
It's too bad this post got modded up to 5, it is so wrong.
That meant that any user with windoze 95 could only use the dial-up software with an ISP running a copy of NT behind each modem.
Windows 95 supported PAP and CHAP as well as MS-CHAP. Microsoft bought most of the PPP code for Win95 from a third party (Shiva?), I imagine it would have been more work to remove the features.
It was possible to use Windows 95 PPP with any ISP that supported PAP the day it was released.
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:1)
by Sibelius
(madhat@ucla.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:18PM EST
(#834)
(User #123685 Info)
http://madhat.dhs.org
|
Awesome response. Clear, to the point, non-inflammatory, and intelligent.
Wonderful.
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2, Insightful)
by JohnDenver
(spamspamspamhamandspam@hormel.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:53PM EST
(#533)
(User #246743 Info)
http://www.hormel.com/
|
> Java (using one of those two refered to) was
> VERY well defined, and there are many good
> implimentations. What was 'incomplete' about
> this standard which forced them to break it.
> And not only do they modify the standard, but
> they can't even impliment it correctly without
> a discusting number of bugs.
I don't think he denied that Java wasn't a well defined standard, instead he pointed out that most standards aren't well defined.
Last time I checked, Java isn't a standard, but rather Sun's IP, which will probably explain why Java is SO well defined (which supports Doug's rule of thumb).
Like Doug mentioned, every software company and even non-companies add something to standards to make them more useful. In the MS/Java situation, Microsoft added JDirect which allowed Java to talk to Windows components much more efficient than JNI.
The fact is that Microsoft was doing a great job supporting Java and providing a way for Java to interoperate with legacy Win apps, which was seriously threatening Sun's revenue stream.
If Sun hadn't stepped in to bar Microsoft from supporting Java, they would have lost all control and revenue as they struggled to keep up with MS and everybody else.
The fact is that MS does a decent job implementing standards (consider how many they've had to implement), which is not to say they don't extend the standards with thier own stuff, but they RARELY feel like the must or even can BREAK the standards without consequences.
To break the standards would to depreciate the value of the technology while extending the standard would give the customer or developer incentive to use thier proprietary extentions.
This is how things work with most other software companies and is a fact of life, to expect otherwise is setting yourself up for dissapointment.
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by PCM2 on Wednesday April 04, @01:58PM EST
(#541)
(User #4486 Info)
|
Java (using one of those two refered to) was VERY well defined, and there are many good implimentations. What was 'incomplete' about this standard which forced them to break it. And not only do they modify the standard, but they can't even impliment it correctly without a discusting number of bugs.
I just don't buy this line of reasoning.
Java being a "standard" is just as much a figment of Sun Microsystems's marketing hype as the preceding interview is representative of Microsoft's marketing hype. Java isn't a "standard"! It's a product of Sun Microsystems! Just because they let other people play in their sandbox doesn't mean they have a purpose any higher than gaining market share.
So Microsoft foiled their market share bid, eh? Well,boo hoo. Looks like Sun's got that situation remedied now, though. So I suppose you're all going back to writing 100% Pure Java apps now?
Last time I was involved with a Java project for the desktop, it went from being 100% Pure Java, to being mostly-portable Java, then finally to being an application that could run only on the MS Java VM (meaning that in order to run it, you needed IE installed). The reason? The "pure" Java solution wasn't up to snuff.
Fair enough -- you can say that the people who spec'ed out this application should have known better. They should have understood Java engineering better to either have picked a different language, or else to design it in such a way that it didn't need Microsoft-specific Java extensions. That may be true, that may not -- I wasn't there for that part of it, and I'm not enough of a Java guru myself to make that call.
What I do know is that, using the Microsoft JVM, they could make it work. It would do what they wanted it to do, and it would do it fast enough that perofrmance was acceptable for the intended user base.
So ... "embrace and extend" is evil? How so? Microsoft took the Sun Java specification and further developed it so that Java applications could run more efficiently in more real-world application situations. Sure, they only did it for Windows. But what the hell did you expect?
If you wanted Java to run more efficiently in more real-world application situations on all platforms -- well, isn't that Sun's job? They're the ones waving the flag for portability, aren't they? "Write once, run anywhere," right? Well, then they should deliver it, already!!
I do think Microsoft has carried on with some fairly nasty business practices. But sorry, I just don't think you can hold up Java as the best example. --
All your tchotchkes are belong to us. |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2, Insightful)
by _Quinn
(tmiller.@.haverford.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:27PM EST
(#586)
(User #44979 Info)
http://www.students.haverford.edu/tmiller
|
Had they done their extensions in a way that remained compatible with Sun's or IBM's VM, I wouldn't have minded so much -- it may have spurred Sun to make a better product -- but they didn't. Extension is fine -- nVidia's version of OpenGL, for instance -- but incompability is not (AFAIK, straight OpenGL calls will work fine with nVidia's library).
-_Quinn Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd. |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:1)
by JohnDenver
(spamspamspamhamandspam@hormel.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:03PM EST
(#788)
(User #246743 Info)
http://www.hormel.com/
|
>Had they done their extensions in a way that
>remained compatible with Sun's or IBM's VM, I
>wouldn't have minded so much -- it may have
>spurred Sun to make a better product -- but they
>didn't.
What could you run on Sun's VM that you couldn't on Microsoft's, and how did the inclusion of JDirect break that compatability?
|
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @04:24PM EST
(#740)
(User #1449 Info)
|
"We also develop software that is not based on an established standard - either no standard exists or the standard that exists does not meet our customer requirements. Should we be required to publish the source code or underlying designs of all our software so that anyone can copy it? I would hope not - much the same that companies in other industries have the right to build products and retain the intellectual property rights associated with those products."
In response to his answer, NO, you shouldn't be REQUIRED (by law) to publish the source code or underlying designs of all your software (so that anyone can copy it). You should be REQUIRED by a strong sense of wanting to fulfill customer desires, to publish source code and underlying designs of all of your software. Not "so anyone can copy it" but so anyone can fix it, extend it, understand and trust it. Hard-coded binary-only software is useful in the limited set of features and functions that were designed into it. But if it's broken, doesn't perform as advertised, or cannot be extended or ported, to fulfil customer requirements, how is that good? It's not! It's shit! All because you're terrified of people freely copying and pirating your software, you can't accept the FACT that most legitimate businesses WILL pay for software, even if it's freely available. You thow chains on the advance of the software, it advances at the pace YOUR dev budget says it can, bugs get fixed at the pace set by Marketing's drive for shiny new features of questionalbe technical merit. Security is an afterthought.
You should be REQUIRED by a sense of honesty, and commitment to the customer to open your software. Keeping it closed leads to no accountability, and skewed requirements based on internal corporate politics, rather than what the user truly needs.
If you close your source, your customers lose a great deal of flexibility, and only the gullible ones feel truly secure. I guess that's taking advantage of the PT Barnum business ethic "sucker born every minute". What a proud corporate legacy.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @05:30PM EST
(#811)
(User #1449 Info)
|
My company has a software package that was marketed at Enterprise accounts for $450. Our marketing research indicated that IT managers did not take us seriously, because of the low "commodity market" price, and determined a lower threshold of $2000. The price was raised to $1995, and I'm not shitting you, sales skyrocketed.
Of course, take this all with a grain of salt, because I'm not revealing my employer's name for obvious reasons.
Why would they pay for Open Source? Because Microsoft asks for legitimate $$$ for a legitimate license to use the software. Open Source has nothing to do with it. Today, nobody's stoping companies from borrowing someone's Win2k CD and installing it on their machine and entering in a SN they got from Hotline. Microsoft still gets their money, because businesses want to be legitimate. No accountant says, "say, why did we pay for solution B here? We didn't HAVE to." Just because some software's source code is open doesn't mean it's legal for a customer to just violate licensing. That may be possible for the GPL, and I don't care. I'm not saying MS should go GPL, I'm saying that MS should open it's source code, for the obvious benefits it can provide to it's customers.
My point is, if MS truly was oriented to customer needs, they'd do this.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Pathetic Answers (Score:1)
by Rick BigNail
(ca.blaze@rickywkt)
on Friday April 06, @05:41PM EST
(#1090)
(User #242669 Info)
|
Hello,
I don't have time now to read the finding of facts of MS anti-trust trial again, but...
How did they 'break' the JAVA Standard? Is it the case that
A) MS JVM could not run some bytecodes compiled from Sun Java compiler? Or
B) MS Visual J++ include non-portable feature?
I don't have a problem with B, as long as they are not advertising 100% portability (even if they did...)
But if they did not follow JVM specs, then it is REALLY bad.
Ricky I AM Joe Canada. |
skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:4, Insightful)
by TheGratefulNet
(bryanFNORD@gratefulFNORD.net (-FNORD))
on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#89)
(User #143330 Info)
http://www.Grateful.Net
|
note how there wasn't one bit of content reply in the question of how the end user (with a laptop or continually changing hardware config) will deal with the 'get a fingerprint, call in to M$ and then get the license key' issue.
this doesn't seem well thought out other than being a way to suck more money from the end user.
in no way is this 'customer friendly', its a pure money-grab.
in a corp environment, sure, most of the time the hardware doesn't change from its initial install config. so this scheme might work ok for this env. but home users DO upgrade their own boxes. do you (M$) plan to alienate home users who want to upgrade a single component (video card, drive controller, sound card, etc)?
if there was one and only one thing I could use as an argument against M$ and their licensing, this issue would be it.
and its sad that it was asked but not answered in this forum ;-(
-- "It is now safe to switch off your computer." |
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:3, Interesting)
by Col. Klink (retired)
(wklink@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:09PM EST
(#245)
(User #11632 Info)
|
I thought he answered it quite directly: "We charge money for our software."
This allows them to sell more software. Never mind the first-sale doctrine or any of that nonsense. They want your money, and they have the technological means to extract it. What more did you expect him to say?
-- He's dead, Jim. |
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:1)
by Alan on Wednesday April 04, @03:44PM EST
(#689)
(User #347 Info)
http://arcterex.net
|
Well yes and no. Of course they charge money for the software, but he skirted the issue of paying once for it, paying more than once? Paying multiple times for different computers, paying multiple times for differnt computer, etc etc. The issue comes back to "I upgraded my hard drive and now I have to go and re-activate my XP." Or better yet, my computer was destroyed in a fire and when I try to re-install XP (from the CD kept in the fireproof safe of course) it tells me I'm over my re-install limit and have to buy the software again".
Or something like that. I know that's not exactly the case, but you see what I'm saying (or more specifically, what he's not saying) :)
ajb
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:3, Informative)
by mikej
(spam@jurney.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:17PM EST
(#272)
(User #84735 Info)
http://jurney.org
|
Actually, MS released their required specification for a pc that will be allowed to carry the "Windows XP' logo (like that little metal sticker saying "Designed for (list of windows versions)) not that long ago, and it included a clause that the case not allow access to the internals. They basically stipulate that for a machine to be deemed 'XP Compatible' it cannot be upgraded by the end user. That's how they plan to get around the problem: The service tech. gets a new key from MS after the hardware has been upgraded at his shop.
--
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you. |
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:1)
by luge
(luisS.villaP@dukeA.eduM)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:58PM EST
(#433)
(User #4808 Info)
http://tieguy.org/
|
Do you have a link for that?
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:3, Informative)
by Coward, Anonymous
(nardo@pobox.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:06PM EST
(#452)
(User #55185 Info)
|
There's an article at ZDNet which lists the requirements and recommendations. It does not say which are requirements and which are recommendations, so it's unknown whether the no upgrade policy will be a requirement.
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:2)
by IntlHarvester
(vcs2600 yahoo)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:47PM EST
(#522)
(User #11985 Info)
|
Before everyone takes this informative post at face value, check the previous discussion --
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World. |
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:1)
by mech9t8 on Wednesday April 04, @01:43PM EST
(#514)
(User #310197 Info)
|
In the feedback in the /. article about that spec, someone pointed out that the 'no upgrade' was only part of one spec - the 'Easy PC' (which would imply to iPaqs and other enterprise- or consumer-friendly iMac type machines). The standard desktop PC spec actually has a requirement for easy hardware access. --
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Find out what they are. |
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:1)
by mech9t8 on Wednesday April 04, @01:39PM EST
(#508)
(User #310197 Info)
|
They probably should've prepped him (being a server guy, he probably isn't familiar with how the hardware licensing thingy works. Anyway...
The licensing system is supposed to be designed to allow components to change. It's based on the entire system, and will only complain when installed on a completely different system (and it will even allow being installed on several completely different systems before complaining). You could gradually swap out every component on your system, and it'll let you do that indefinitely.
I'd wait to see how well that works before assuming you're never going to be able to change anything... Microsoft isn't that stupid. What they're going after here are the same serial number being installed on 10 machines in a single week. --
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Find out what they are. |
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:2, Informative)
by shyster on Wednesday April 04, @01:52PM EST
(#531)
(User #245228 Info)
|
According to the (now-defunct) Winmag.com's Insider column (Google cache), the Product Activation will be unaffected by "minor" upgrades. Changing of a motherboard, BIOS chip (I assume flashing the BIOS to a new revision would be OK) or (perhaps?) the CPU could affect it.
Microsoft's FAQ on the subject is a little more vague, specifying only that "It is able to tolerate a certain degree of change in a hardware configuration so that users can change their hardware without having to reactivate the product. If the user completely overhauls the hardware, then activation may be required again, which would take place by telephone." What is a complete overhaul? I'm not sure...I've overhauled my engine before, but not my computer.
Volume licenses should be unaffected, OEM licenses may or may not be, retail definitely will be.
The EULA in Office (apparently) states that the primary user of Office on a desktop may install on a laptop computer for exclusive use. You would get an activation code for that laptop the same way. Windows (retail and OEM) and OEM licenses of Office only allow for a single installed copy.
Office may be reinstalled as many times as necessary on the same machine without a different activation code...but a reformat may require a new code. The FAQ only states that Windows can be installed as many times as necessary on the same machine, but does not say if a reformat (which is really the only way to install Windows properly) would require a new code...I'd guess it wouldn't, however.
All in all, this may actually be a good thing for small corporate customers (those not on the Volume Licensing programs, anyway). Remember those Slashdot stories about small governments and corps being confused on MS licenses? Well, now there's no excuse. If you've got a code for the HW, then you're legal. SPA Audits may become a thing of the past.
As for Windows warez and those that are admitted pirates, we'll just have to wait until some enterprising coder cracks it and links it to Astalavista and bypass it. Shouldn't be any more of an annoyance than other copy protection schemes have been, hopefully.
Any other questions?
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:1)
by chasec
(/dev/null)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:21PM EST
(#875)
(User #157393 Info)
http://covello.cjb.net/
|
we'll just have to wait until some enterprising coder cracks it
Several of my friends _are_ running cracked copies of Windows XP and Office XP already ;)
|
The Response to #9 is also circumlocuitous (Score:1)
by Mr. Bob Arctor on Wednesday April 04, @03:25PM EST
(#663)
(User #223605 Info)
|
It's a funny thing when an honest guy tries to distort or evade...he'll try and retain his sober, straightforward demeanor, but will simply not answer the question.
In the case of the question about "exbrace and extend" this was painfully obvious. Sorry, but the charges of standards abuse brought against microsoft do not "confuse standards and IP"...JScript, M$ Java, the DOMM model in IE are all cases in which standards were extended in such a way that scripts written for them (often written in them to take advantage of features that were available to a wide percentage of the target market due to M$s monopoly position) were no longer compatible with standards-compliant softaware packages (whether or not such packages actaully extisted :)...
But what can you expect really, i guess...are they supposed to fess up and say "yeah, we like to screw with standards implimentations because it mucks up our competitors' plans"?...oh well...
|
Re:The Response to #9 is also circumlocuitous (Score:1)
by STSeer on Wednesday April 04, @05:13PM EST
(#800)
(User #119553 Info)
|
Actually he also mentioned that standards are never specify every feature required by customers and to satisfy customers a product has to go beyond a written-up standard specification.
|
Re:skillfully skirted the 'hardware fingerprint' Q (Score:2)
by TheGratefulNet
(bryanFNORD@gratefulFNORD.net (-FNORD))
on Wednesday April 04, @04:22PM EST
(#739)
(User #143330 Info)
http://www.Grateful.Net
|
you mod'd me 'flaimbait' ???
sheesh! I addressed an issue that was ignored so conveniently by the guy answering the questions.
guess there must have been a M$ person moderating today.
-- "It is now safe to switch off your computer." |
"Better interoperability" ?!? (Score:1)
by A nonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:30AM EST
(#90)
(User #7548 Info)
|
I actually believe we have better interoperability today than any other OS out there.
With an answer like this to the very first question, it's hard to take any of his answers seriously.
--
Don't give your right name, no no no --- Fats Waller |
|
Re:"Better interoperability" ?!? (Score:1)
by thrig on Wednesday April 04, @12:10PM EST
(#246)
(User #36791 Info)
http://www.sial.org/
|
Seeing and believing are two different things.
We've been trying to support a HP DesignJet at work, which needs a special software rip thingy running on a Windows box. Tried services for Mac and Unix, and the NT 4 box spent the next few hours crashing as jobs came in. Granted, W2K may have fixed those problems, but that's expensive, and begs the question why an upgrade is needed to provide a functionality that they claimed to be present in NT 4.
Microsoft can't even interoperate with software they wrote; before moving over to mainly unix duties, I was dealing with "I've got a Word N document on platform X, and someone with Word M on platform Y can't read/send the document to me" issues all the time. And it's not like they couldn't have used an existing technology at the time, like, oh a subset of SGML or TeX instead of their current proprietary virus prone document format...
If I sound bitter, I am. :)
"You cannot control, only catch." -- Tsung Tsai |
Aw, be fair (Score:1)
by Tony Shepps
(anton@NOcatalystSPAMinternet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:33PM EST
(#345)
(User #333 Info)
http://www.cellar.org/
|
Microsoft components usually interoperate with other Microsoft components, and everyone in business uses Microsoft, so Microsoft interoperability is nearly perfect.
Blow your mind, every day, with my Image of the Day |
Re:Aw, be fair (Score:1)
by johnnyrae on Wednesday April 04, @11:19PM EST
(#943)
(User #159227 Info)
|
Interoperability with other systems is fair given the context of Doug's answer:
"Interoperability is a key competitive strength. We clearly accept that customers will choose multiple operating systems depending on how they need to solve their business problems."
He is not talking about interoperability strictly between MS components, but among all components.
|
Re:Aw, be fair (Score:1)
by Tony Shepps
(anton@NOcatalystSPAMinternet.com)
on Thursday April 05, @10:05AM EST
(#1033)
(User #333 Info)
http://www.cellar.org/
|
Well it's dead easy to talk about interoperability when you're Microsoft, because nobody dares develop a piece of software that doesn't interoperate with you. Microsoft's entire strategy is based on non-interoperability. That's exactly what is meant by "embrace and extend". Wake me again when they completely document a Microsoft "standard" so interoperability is made simple for developers.
Blow your mind, every day, with my Image of the Day |
Re:Aw, be fair (Score:1)
by johnnyrae on Thursday April 05, @11:06AM EST
(#1041)
(User #159227 Info)
|
Tony Shepps Van Winkle?
Even if someone does have the guts to develop software that doesn't interoperate with Microsoft if it becomes popular among other platforms and is open, Microsoft will get interested and ... yep, you said it - embrace and extend or at the very least borrow and break.
|
no weasling? (Score:1)
by MartinG
(martin@wrasse.daemon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:31AM EST
(#92)
(User #52587 Info)
|
without a hint of weasling
The thing about people who have probably spent years perfecting their ability to not really answer questions whilst sounding like they have answered, is that they can look very much like they have not weasled out of answering.
Some of us can see through it. Roblimo apparently cannot.
--
MartinG
To mail me: echo $fakeaddress | sed s/daemon/demon/
|
|
dang skippy (Score:1)
by Low2237
(lowca@from@my-hyphen-deja.period.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:44AM EST
(#152)
(User #209489 Info)
|
Take a look at question #8, the one that Phoenix_SEC asked about licensing. Phoenix talked about end-user configs "changing constantly," thereby possibly requiring a new license key for Windows XP. I noticed how Doug didn't even answer that part of his question; instead, he changed the subject ever so slightly and talked about developers needing to get paid for their work.
If Doug's gonna evade such an important question as that, I certainly won't be buying Windows XP. Of course, I'd be apt to change my mind if Doug posts a better response, but it's still a question that he could've answered in a much more straightforward manner.
|
Boy alot of gobbldy gook... (Score:1, Troll)
by Chanc_Gorkon
(jmclaugno-spam3@columbus.rr.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:32AM EST
(#98)
(User #94133 Info)
|
That doesn't tell us much of anything! I LOVE how this guy wormed around the stupid Windows XP license issue. I mean I know he's probably been NDA'd out the ying yang, but why not tell us he can't answer the question instead of skirting the issue? I WANT, as well as my Dad, who might be considered right smack in the middle of the target demographic for Windows XP, the ability to upgrade my Motherboard. I want to upgrade my Graphics card. I also don't want to have to call in for a new license string everytime I do it either. Even doing it on the net is NOT acceptable. The idea I have to call to activate something I am holding in my hand is....is....revolting! I like the line in the first question saying Microsoft has always cared about what the consumer wants when some of the things in Windows XP is just....just idiotic! I also don't see them selling much of the Home version (everyone wants what they have at work.....Professional). Hopefully, for their sakes, it won't be a release filled with just the flashy Luna interface. I am sorry for the full flame job but sheesh! What does he think EVERYONE is an AOL user???
Gorkman Holy Crap! I am Trapped in a box of Fruit Loops! - From Normal, OH |
|
Re:Boy alot of gobbldy gook... (Score:2, Funny)
by pvirdone on Wednesday April 04, @11:47AM EST
(#167)
(User #172171 Info)
|
does he think EVERYONE is an AOL user???
There are enough AOL users out there to make a lot of money...
|
Re:Boy alot of gobbldy gook... (Score:1)
by rehannan on Wednesday April 04, @01:53PM EST
(#532)
(User #98364 Info)
|
The idea I have to call to activate something I am holding in my hand is....is....revolting!
Gotten any new credit cards lately? Last I checked, you always have to activate those.
|
Bee-ess (Score:2)
by supabeast!
(supabeast@supabeast.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:34AM EST
(#103)
(User #84658 Info)
|
"There is nothing like good competitors to help a company focused on building even more value in their offerings..."
So why does Microsoft work so hard to cruah competition through other means? Wouldn't they have been better off making Internet Explorer 4.0 a better browser, instead of tying it into the OS to make it hard for Windows users to remove? Couldn't Microsoft have just have fixed all the performace and stability problems in Windows that made OS/2 Warp look like such a great alternative, instead of strongarming IBM into dumping it? Why didn't Microsoft just fix the bugs in NT sooner to compete with Linux, instead of pushing Compaq to not support it years ago when Compaq wanted to ship Linux machines?
While I am sure the Slashdot guys are pleased to be able to have a Microsoft representative answer questions, stating that he is not weasly is little more than an ass-kissing attempt to get Doug to come back for more. The truth is, Miller simply spouts out the standard Microsoft line, trying to make his company look a little bit less like the corporate scum they are.
Unite!
Join NORML and support re-criminalizing prisons! |
|
Re:Bee-ess (Score:1)
by pod on Wednesday April 04, @06:25PM EST
(#838)
(User #1103 Info)
http://www.domainofdarkness.com/
|
So why does Microsoft work so hard to cruah competition through other means?
Uhm, because Microsoft is a business and that's what businesses do to their competitors?
|
Re:Bee-ess (Score:1)
by Rick BigNail
(ca.blaze@rickywkt)
on Friday April 06, @06:10PM EST
(#1091)
(User #242669 Info)
|
I guess you could not if you are a monopoly... I AM Joe Canada. |
Re:Bee-ess (Score:1)
by TheCarp
(sjc-slashdot@carpanet.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:32PM EST
(#591)
(User #96830 Info)
https://www.carpanet.net/
|
Heh well... if you think any non-trivial OS (im ruling out DOS, CP/M, etc etc) is NOT buggy then you havn't played with too much software.
All software sucks. Some sucks less...some sucks more. But it all sucks.
-Steve
--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again" |
Re:Bee-ess (Score:2)
by supabeast!
(supabeast@supabeast.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:20PM EST
(#653)
(User #84658 Info)
|
I wish that this was not in response to one of my comments, just so I could mod it up! Unite!
Join NORML and support re-criminalizing prisons! |
They surely do! (Score:1)
by felipeal on Wednesday April 04, @11:35AM EST
(#105)
(User #177452 Info)
|
Interoperability is a key competitive strength. .... Providing ways to plug into those other operating systems - both at a system level (e.g. files, user directories etc.) and at an application level (e.g. data formats) is essential.
Did somebody say M$ Word?
|
"hard to call it an operating system" (Score:2)
by bob_jordan on Wednesday April 04, @11:35AM EST
(#106)
(User #39836 Info)
|
Strange how he says ...
"It is hard to call it an operating system when in fact "Linux" typically refers to a distribution that includes contributions from hundreds of projects"
... when Microsoft has no problem calling windows an operating system even though it includes contributions from other projects such as internet explorer.
"Pot, meet kettle."
Bob.
|
|
Re:"hard to call it an operating system" (Score:1)
by BiOFH
(bitch at biofh dot org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:09PM EST
(#937)
(User #267622 Info)
http://www.biofh.org
|
Yeah, kinda like I had a problem calling Windows 95 an Operating System when it was really just a pretty shell/GUI for DOS with some tasking stuff thrown in... "Watch me jump when I get rooted." - l33t j03's@$$h0l3 |
Typical M$ (Score:1, Insightful)
by mmmmbeer on Wednesday April 04, @11:37AM EST
(#115)
(User #107215 Info)
|
I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
What a typical narrow-minded, self-important Microsoft attitude. This fool actually believes the ridiculous notion that one and only one GUI could be best for everyone. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since this is perfectly in line with Microsoft's "we-know-what-you-need-better-than-you-do" attitude, but it still amazes me that people can be so blind.
KDE and Gnome both exist because different people need different things. Miller's suggestion that the two projects don't share with one another simply shows that he can't grasp the concept of open source. Of course they share, they're open source! Anything that goes into one can be used by the other.
|
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:4, Troll)
by juri on Wednesday April 04, @12:16PM EST
(#268)
(User #3177 Info)
|
Can isn't the same as actually doing it. Yes, the code is out there, but there isn't very much cross-pollination, AFAIK, at least not from KDE to Gnome. Much of the code isn't directly transferrable and I think there's a bit of NIH working against it too. Of course you can run KDE and Gnome programs at the same time, but I don't really know how often that happens.
As for narrow-mindedness: Yes, it's nice to have a choice and competition is good as he himself pointed out in another part of the interview. However, he was mainly talking from the POV of a commercial developer who has to decide which environment to support when creating/porting a product. And it can be a problem: how can you be sure that when you choose KDE libs, the Gnome users won't shun your product, or the other way around? Besides, you can't be nowhere near sure that a user actually has the needed desktop environment on her Linux box.
Don't be blinded by the fact that he works for Microsoft. He does have a valid viewpoint and things aren't perfect in the Linux community. The current situation does have it good points, but there's the flipside, too.
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:2)
by (void*)
(voice@void.)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:05PM EST
(#632)
(User #113680 Info)
|
This just shows misunderstanding on the developers part. You can install the KDE and GNOME libraries on the same harddisk. You can run them and they will run without stepping on each other's toes. the only choice you have to make is the choice of window manager, session manager, sound daemons, etc.
In fact, I look forward to the day that Miguel de Icaza promises, where GNOME and KDE can talk to each other. Not only will they not tread tread on each other, they will actually interoperate.
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by LazloTheDog
(moranjonATpilotDOTmsuDOTedu)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:24PM EST
(#661)
(User #39236 Info)
|
Of course you can run KDE and Gnome programs at the same time, but I don't really know how often that happens.
Every day, all day.
Jonathan Moran Oink, Oink!! |
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by bryanbrunton on Wednesday April 04, @03:41PM EST
(#682)
(User #262081 Info)
http://www.merchantempires.net
|
>>but I don't really know how often that happens
It happens a lot. The most popular desktop distro in the US has a menuing system where KDE apps and Gnome apps exist side by side.
Everyone I know has their favorite KDE apps along with Gnome apps.
Don't be blinded by the fact that you've got fools moding your post for no apparent reason.
Play Merchant Empires. TradeWars meets Python and PHP. |
Re:Typical M$ (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @04:38PM EST
(#756)
(User #1449 Info)
|
Really, let's say Microsoft DOES want to do an Office for Linux. How hard would it be to parallel-develop one for GNOME and KDE? Really.
They can USE the fact that there are a lot of very vocal opponents to Microsoft on slashdot as a means of justification for NOT writing a Linux port. We all know the REAL reasons.
We also all know that there are at least as many, if not more, Linux users who still require the use of MS Office, and would glady pay for and buy a Linux version. In fact, I would say that they could probably ignore GNOME, for philosophical reasons that people running GNOME are probably doing so because they are rabidly anti-closed-source, and therefore less likely to pay for a close-source MS Office.
How hard would it be?
Has Microsoft done any marketing research to find out whether they could make any money off of a KDE LInux port?
I'm sure they haven't bothered, because would just weaken their OS monopoly. What's the point?
Well, the point would be, if they DID do a Linux port, they could also support an implementation on Solaris, and Mac OS 10, and BSD. Stuff in the Unix world ports around VERY easily. Sure, they may have to hack it in as an XFree86 interface on Mac OS, but obscene hacks have never stopped them on the Mac side before. . . (or Solaris, for that matter, as anyone who has used the abomination called IE for Solaris knows.)
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by ethereal on Wednesday April 04, @12:52PM EST
(#419)
(User #13958 Info)
|
It is narrow minded, but from the perspective of a software vendor, you don't want to have to support multiple platforms or desktop environments. I agree that this isn't the user's perspective, but Microsoft (and really most business) is officially in the business of selling what they tell you you want rather than what you really need.
Of course they share, they're open source!
Anything that goes into one can be used by the other.
I don't think it's as straightforward a relationship as that - can anyone name significant portions of code that are shared between Gnome and KDE? The gecko engine has been, but of course that was developed by a 3rd party. I mean code that was written for KDE specifically and later picked up by Gnome, or vice versa.
I think it would be better if they did share, and I agree that there's nothing stopping them from doing so, but I'm not sure that such sharing is really taking place. I would be happy to be proved wrong, though.
It seems like in many areas where there would be a great advantage in sharing, like printing support, object paradigm, advanced font handling, etc. the two projects are implementing parallel development efforts. These are things which the user doesn't experience directly (they're not look-and-feel) and so it wouldn't detract from end-user choice to standardize these components somewhat. Or at the very least a compatibility layer - my understanding is that menu options are interoperable now, so how about drag-n-drop for a next step?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous! |
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by SCHecklerX on Wednesday April 04, @12:52PM EST
(#420)
(User #229973 Info)
|
Read the thread above for a good discussion on this.
Let's put it a different way...having both GNOME and KDE is like having two different mail protocols. You'd have to pick the right one depending on who you were sending mail to. What if you were sending to a list of people? UH-OH!
He didn't say a single GUI. He said a single environment. Having two different API's is STUPID. If we could have a single OO IPC API for graphical environments, it would be great.
IF THIS WERE THE CASE, you could still use any windowmanager, filemanager, apps, whatever you like. And guess what? They'd actually all work together. Imagine that!
Why don't you think a bit before you post in the future?
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:2)
by mmmmbeer on Wednesday April 04, @02:51PM EST
(#620)
(User #107215 Info)
|
GNOME and KDE are both GUI's. They both go beyond that, but that is their main difference. Their API's could be merged, but they would still be TWO GUI's. Miller specifically stated that the two should join together and make ONE GUI. He did NOT say that they should create two GUI's with shared API's. That would be a good idea, one that has been proposed repeatedly in the past, but THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE SAID!
Why don't you read the subject matter before you post in the future?
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1, Flamebait)
by mmmmbeer on Wednesday April 04, @04:06PM EST
(#715)
(User #107215 Info)
|
Well I guess you told me. Your sharp wit and clever innuendo are just too much for me. I've really seen the error of my ways. I bow before your obvious superiority. Now I see why you dare not put your name on your posts: you fear I would try to find you and lick your boots, a right of which I am so clearly not worthy. I beg you, please let me go crawl back under my rock, so I can hide from the blinding light which is you.
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by mrdogi
(barbey dot jose at uwlax dot edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:05PM EST
(#448)
(User #82975 Info)
|
I think his point was that the need for commercial vendors to either program for multiple GUIs or choose one GUI is what will prevent them from offering much software for Linux (and the various BSDs, for that matter). Now, whether the above statement is actually true or not is another matter. For instance, Netscape seems to work equally well in both KDE and Gnome, as do many other packages.
As to the interview on a whole, I think some things he answered fairly well, and some he completely missed the question (i.e. Kerberos). It was, at least, somewhat interesting to hear another point of view to the general MS vs. Everybody Else question.
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:1)
by frknfrk
(sam_at_caveman_dot_org)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:09PM EST
(#458)
(User #127417 Info)
http://caveman.org/
|
what i would really like to see is a very nice graphics library which sits on top of both KDE and Gnome. that way i could write 1 app and both desktops could grok it.
|
Re:Typical M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
by mmmmbeer on Wednesday April 04, @02:58PM EST
(#625)
(User #107215 Info)
|
You don't have to let the KDE or Gnome teams decide for you. Use one sometimes and the other other times. Not what youi want? Take the code and make your own. Don't like that? Don't use a GUI at all. Like windows? Use windows. But don't act like whatever works for you should work for everyone.
|
Re:Well... (Score:2)
by mmmmbeer on Wednesday April 04, @03:21PM EST
(#656)
(User #107215 Info)
|
What a load of crap. The reason Windows is installed in MOST (not all, you fool) big, dumb businesses is because they want to use Word. It's simple momentum. Other companies use Word, we need to be able to share documents with other companies, therefore, we need Word, so we need Windows. (This is true of other products as well, but Word is one of the big ones.) Microsoft has a chokehold on the market, that's what that whole antitrust thing was about.
And as for Windows being easy to support? I laugh in your face! HAHAHAHA! What universe do you live in? Try telling that one to your IT guys. Windows is a pain in the ass to support - I've been there. Hell, Windows is so bad that at my old company we banned Win95 because it wouldn't work right with WinNT.
And as for that last paragraph, could you have missed the point any worse? You CAN'T have one GUI that satisfies everybody, particularly the "nerd" people (although we prefer "geek", you obvious "Org" person).
|
Glad he answered our questions, but ... (Score:2)
by WillSeattle
(alfred.e.neumann@whitehouse.gov)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:38AM EST
(#122)
(User #239206 Info)
http://www.shinyredbutton.whitehouse.gov
|
as someone who modded up the first posts (three made it as final questions), I was a tad disappointed in some of his answers.
Until I got to his answer for Microsoft applications like Office, Visio, and Project being ported to Linux.
Overall, while I'm not too surprised by some of his more ambiquous answers, one feels that we learned some things from this exchange, especially in regards to how MSFT will market to compete with Linux and BSD. It looks like the Oracle TPC debate - they'll aim at the "total cost for the system over the years", ignore the time and salary costs for dealing with security and other bug fix glitches, and just come up with lots of nice Total Cost Per Project Year charts.
Have to agree with his assessment on the likelihood of MSFT marketing products in the Linux space, given our awe and wonder at all the really keen MSFT tools ... not.
Will in Seattle - we don't need no steenkin Boeing! |
|
Re:Glad he answered our questions, but ... (Score:1)
by Photon Ghoul on Wednesday April 04, @12:57PM EST
(#431)
(User #14932 Info)
|
Actually, Visio is a keen tool. I would use a Linux alternative, but they all kind of suck and don't export to Visio - which everyone else in the office uses. no sig |
Hmm (Score:1)
by aristotle2000
(aristotle@(MAPSON)unholyrouter.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:39AM EST
(#126)
(User #415164 Info)
http://www.unholyrouter.com
|
I would feel a lot better about his answers if not for the privacy (or lack thereof) clause in Passport, etc. And his evasiness is enough to make you wonder a bit as well.
Microsoft has grown too arrogant, too far from what the users want. We were dicussing the possibility of Microsoft losing ground in the corporate world in one of my grad classes recently. No one believed that anything would surpass MS in the next five years, probably not even the next ten. With schools teaching kids the Windows version of computer more and more, many will have little desire to branch out of their comfort zone later on; the vast majority of office software runs on Windows; you can send a document from one company to another and be almost positive that they can open it; etc
I think he raises good points about the diversity of Linux though. What incentive do developers have to cretea software for one distro or another when no standard exists. I believe that the computer revolution has happened in no small part to the ubiquitousness of Windows on IBM machinces taking the market leader position. You can go from you office in New York or Los Angeles, go to an office in Hong Kong, Calcutta, or Israel, sit down at a computer and use it with little or no problem. Linux seems to practically be on the verge of Balkanization at times. He was not wrong when he challenges the viability of Linux in the corporate world despite its promising advances... Disclaimer: There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood |
He doesn't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
by panda on Wednesday April 04, @11:41AM EST
(#129)
(User #10044 Info)
|
He makes it very clear that he doesn't understand the nature of Free Software and GNU/Linux when he says, The model around Linux is truly bizarre. How much do RedHat or Caldera really make from selling their distributions?
He is focusing on the busines side of things, on the competitive side. He reflects the Micro$oft ethos and figures the only thing that matters are the other corporations and businesses. He overlooks what is really driving the Free Software Movement, the users and developers who actually do the work.
The model around GNU/Linux isn't bizarre at all. It's about what everyone should have learned in kindergarten: sharing, cooperating and playing nice with your friends. These are lessons that Micro$oft still needs to learn.
GNU/Linux isn't about bu$ine$$ or selling software. GNU/Linux is about a guy in Cambridge, MA and a guy in Helsinki who thought that the world would be a better place with a free implementation of a UNIX-like operating system, and the thousands (now millions) of other people who agreed with them.
|
|
Re:He doesn't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Ill_Omen on Wednesday April 04, @12:05PM EST
(#224)
(User #215625 Info)
|
Actually, I think you missed his point.
He's not talking about Open Source or Free Software. He's referring to the business model around companies 'selling' Linux, eg RedHat and Caldera. RedHat is a publicly traded, for profit company. RedHat needs to make money to exist. While GNU/Linux may be about all those great things that come with Free and/or OpenSource Software, RedHat is not, despite the fact that they are basing a company around it. That is what he means by "bizarre."
I happen to agree with him. It is bizarre. That doesn't mean it's not going to work, however.
|
Re:He doesn't get it. (Score:1)
by ethereal on Wednesday April 04, @01:05PM EST
(#450)
(User #13958 Info)
|
I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft sees "Linux" and reads "RedHat" or "Caldera" or "Corel", etc. They mistake the movement for the businesses that are the froth on top of the wave. He's correct in that there is not a Microsoft-style business model for Linux, but that's the rub.
One of the most insightful comments I've ever seen was in an interview with one of RH's founders a year or two ago, when he said that their goal is not to take a sizeable chunk of the current billion-dollar OS market. Their goal is to shrink the size of that market, and once it's much smaller their current share will be very competitive.
This is why all the "business model" arguments against Linux are ultimately wrong - Linux is only going to get better, and it is always going to be free. There will always be some price point where companies can eke out a living as Linux integrators, it just won't be anywhere near the premiums that Microsoft is used to charging. Linux-as-business-model probably is never going to be extremely rewarding in the capitalistic sense, but Linux-as-user-solution is going to be increasingly rewarding on the basis of cost, ease of use, flexibility, and power. LinuxCo has and will continue to fail (stock bubble or not); Linux itself will be the answer to more and more user questions as time goes on.
Sure, Linux isn't there right now, but it is a movement that Microsoft can't destroy and can't even face without seriously adjusting its costs. IMHO this is better than any business model in this industry for quite a while.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous! |
Re:He doesn't get it. (Score:1)
by pastie on Wednesday April 04, @06:04PM EST
(#828)
(User #80784 Info)
|
It is bizarre.
That was an obvious typo. I'm sure he meant that it is bazaar.
;)
|
Re:He doesn't get it. (Score:2)
by warpeightbot
(warpeightbot at-sign yahoo! dot-com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:03PM EST
(#1046)
(User #19472 Info)
http://www.lp.org
|
(This was said before, but there wasn't any substance to it and didn't get modded up, so I'll say it again.)
Not bizarre. Bazaar.
No need to kneel before the altar every month and make offerings of gold. No need to present your machine to the monks when you want it upgraded. Most of all, no need to trust the Cathedral with your private data.
Indeed, you are allowed to commune with the gods of software themselves, who know little of MarketSpeak, but are honest, direct, and often very funny. Moreover, should one be so inclined, one can become one of them (what heresy!), without shaving one's head nor wearing a badge, without even leaving the comfy confines of one's own lair. But if one doesn't want to, one doesn't have to do that, either. Yea, verily, there is even now being made a
version of the Penguin specifically for those seeking escape from the Cathedral.
Of course, with this freedom comes responsibility.... but even that can be made easy. But no longer do you have to be dependent on the Cathedral to get your computing fix.
It comes to mind that the last time somebody said you could talk to G-d directly without having to part with your gold at the door of the cathedral they fought several bloody wars over it...
|
Re:He doesn't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
by Chris Johnson
(chrisj@airwindows.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:29PM EST
(#329)
(User #580 Info)
http://www.airwindows.com
|
Very good point, and very revealing, too: sometimes you forget that to some people, the idea of cooperating and behaving socially is not only bizarre but frightening and possibly dangerous. I think the accepted term for this is 'sociopathic'.
Rather than have open source outlawed as being anti-American *g*, maybe it would be good to question everybody in the country, 'why would people do this?'. Anybody who literally did not understand why people cooperate and behave socially would be locked up as a sociopath, on the assumption that normal people can choose to behave socially or not, but people who don't even understand the concept are a danger to others :)
|
Ooh, I can see right through that one! (Score:1)
by AFCArchvile
(talk_is_cheap@lies.are.expensive.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:41AM EST
(#132)
(User #221494 Info)
http://www.verizoneatspoop.com/
|
Doug Miller's response to the hardware-based copy protection question:
There are others at Microsoft who are better equipped to answer this question than me. I know we are continually looking at ways to protect our software but balance it with an acceptable user experience. Software piracy for all commercial software companies around the world is a huge problem...
Translation: "RED ALERT!!! RED ALERT!!! Copy protection question! Shields up! Charge the FUD cannon! Prepare a legitimate excuse! FIRE!!"
Software designers are so infatuated with the fact that they can, that they don't stop to think if they should. |
Some Feedback (Score:1)
by kstumpf
(ken@(nospam)stumpf.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#140)
(User #218897 Info)
|
For those of us who are not Microsoft fans, exactly who is Doug Miller?
Anyway, interesting interview. He gave decent answers aside from the faint "hear no evil, see no evil" stance on a few things.
Did anyone else notice how he skirted around the question regarding hardware copy protection and the one about licensing per hardware configuration?
His answer regarding standards is a copout. I usually associate a standard as a ruleset others should consider in order to maintain interoperability (simplified for the scope of this post). Consider the Samba example used. Why would MS not publish standards for interoperability with SMB if they felt products like Samba are not a threat?
It is fun to have fun. |
***OFF TOPIC*** (Score:1)
by Razzious
(razzbuten@MSBLOWZ.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#142)
(User #313108 Info)
|
I know I run the risk of losing some GREAT Karma points with this, but I am so excited I had to risk it.
Last night I finally did it. I bought Redhat and installed it. I allowed it to delete Windows and decided to learn it I would need to be thrown to the wolves.
Why am I posting this? Well cause this is the only place I visit where anyone would care about that. Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left. |
|
congratulations! :-) (Score:1)
by ida_no on Wednesday April 04, @04:25PM EST
(#741)
(User #201299 Info)
|
congratulations .. and enjoy:-)
|
If you need any help... (Score:1)
by errorlevel
(errorlevel@geek.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:52PM EST
(#776)
(User #415281 Info)
http://www.errorlevel.org
|
I've heard one of the best things about the Linux community is that it likes to help new members.
That said, I'd like to list a few places where you could get help if you need it.
On IRC you can use the server irc.openprojects.net and join the channels #linuxhelp , #linpeople , or #redhat . (To get on irc you can use kvirc, bitchx, x-chat, or whatever else might have came with Redhat)
You could also check out the documents at http://www.linuxdoc.org
Or if you can't figure it out through those sources you could try the linux man pages (type man man)
As a last resort you could contact me at errolevel@geek.com or on irc.dal.net in #qbasic. IF ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO HELL |
Spin, spin, spin... (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#143)
|
With due respect to Doug (I'm certain he's constrained in what he can and cannot say, and how he can say it, PR people or not) -- With the amount of spin he was feeding in some of those answers, I could run my washing machine's agitator with them...
|
Patents and "other industries" (Score:2)
by QuantumG
(whatever@yomama.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#145)
(User #50515 Info)
http://biodome.org/~qg/
|
Should we be required to publish the source code or underlying designs of all our software so that anyone can copy it? I would hope not - much the same that companies in other industries have the right to build products and retain the intellectual property rights associated with those products.
Go on, show me one other industry where a company has the right to make a product and not provide an enabling specification as to how it works. Only with copyright (which btw, is supposed to cover expressive works, not functional ones) do companies have such a good deal as to be able to create something and not tell anyone how it works.
Doublethink me some more of that quantum mechanic insanity.
|
|
Re:Patents and "other industries" (Score:2)
by leviramsey on Wednesday April 04, @01:13PM EST
(#465)
(User #248057 Info)
|
Only with copyright (which btw, is supposed to cover expressive works, not functional ones)
By your logic, computer code is not speech? Based on the DeCSS discussions, I think a lot of /.ers will disagree with you. Linux is a trademark of Linus "Not as sexy as Elvis" Torvalds
[From an IBM ad] |
Computer Code is Not Speech (Score:1)
by Dlugar on Wednesday April 04, @01:51PM EST
(#528)
(User #124619 Info)
|
Compiled computer code is not speech. IMHO, it should not be given copyright.
Source code is speech. You can copyright it all you want. But if you want to copyright your software without giving them the expressive part of the work, *shrug*, I don't agree much with that.
Dlugar
|
Re:Patents and "other industries" (Score:2)
by QuantumG
(whatever@yomama.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:05PM EST
(#557)
(User #50515 Info)
http://biodome.org/~qg/
|
The point is that software has both functional and expressive portions and we cant copyright the expressive part seperately, so copyright ends up covering purely functional portions which is not right. If all software patents were required to contain source code and be submitted to a searchable database we would have a wealth of code to use. You could choose whether you want to use a patented technique to perform some computation or come up with your own. As it stands, we reimplement and reimplement stuff over and over because we wrap it up with compilers and copyright and never stand on each other's shoulders.
Doublethink me some more of that quantum mechanic insanity.
|
Copyright isn't the point at all! (Score:1)
by Lupus Rufus on Wednesday April 04, @02:46PM EST
(#608)
(User #11262 Info)
|
The original poster was saying that copyright, in its defense of computer code, is being improperly used. Computer code is functional speech, and so is SUPPOSED to be widely, freely disseminated! That's part of the whole purpose of patents, anyway, to have a system of both exclusivising rights to a method and publicizing that method for use whenever it may be needed in the future (e.g. after the patent has expired.) Using copyright to control these nonexpressive works is a destruction of the ideal of freedom of information embodied in the U.S. patent system. DeCSS was being distributed freely, but the DMCA would (under the guise of protecting someone else's copyright) strip technicians of the rights afforded them by their trade, specifically the right to communicate in the language of computer programmers.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I think it would be a natural extension of the U.S. patent system if the agency were to accept computer source code as a patentable process (just as it accepts engineering methods now as patentable processes). The code would be made public. For a limited time (say 5 years) the code would be usable for profit only under contract with the patent holder. Microsoft might release its code on a license basis, GNU under a GPL-like contract. In any case, this would drive competition, for all competitors could examine the code of others and create their own workalikes. It would eliminate concerns about back-doors and privacy, for all the source code would be available to all. It would also, of course, allow Microsoft and other closed software manufacturers to make money for a limited time. But most importantly in my opinion, it would force media companies to open their methods, so that they may be examined by their consumers. Code, being offered no more protection under copyright, could only turn a profit if it were patented, and that would immediately make the method public.
There's a small ambiguity with this idea, that is in how to define when code has been used by another party. There ought to be ample work done in this area in patent law, though, I would think, and I'd guess there would be appropriate analogies to be made there. All this hinges on the idea that software code is functional speech, which I think is quite arguable in court. This is a scheme, I believe, which would successfully bring pre-PC ideas of a patent system into the information age.
Banach-Tarski: Because size shouldn't matter. |
Re:Copyright isn't the point at all! (Score:2)
by QuantumG
(whatever@yomama.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:19PM EST
(#730)
(User #50515 Info)
http://biodome.org/~qg/
|
Although I think a wholesale replacement of copyright with patent law would be better than our current system I still like to think that there is something expressive about code that should be copyrightable.
Doublethink me some more of that quantum mechanic insanity.
|
Re:Copyright isn't the point at all! (Score:1)
by Lupus Rufus on Wednesday April 04, @04:46PM EST
(#767)
(User #11262 Info)
|
I guess what I imagine is a sort of coupled system, as in engineering. Expression in computer programming could be showcased and copyrighted (and bartered over, as the case may be) in an academic setting, perhaps in a variety of online journals of sorts (more organized than slashdot, i'd hope). Work that is functional (that is, intended for distribution) could be distributed via a patent system. I suppose then an academic publication would often come with a patent (or patent pending) to protect the code in the paper, but the ideas would be disseminated.
Banach-Tarski: Because size shouldn't matter. |
Hardware hacker's lament (Score:5, Interesting)
by Fervent
(fervent@NOSPAM.slc.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:44AM EST
(#148)
(User #178271 Info)
|
While most of the questions were answered pretty succinctly (I liked the straight-forwardness in saying "We sell software. This is what we do. That's why it's proprietary."), the unfortunate dodge of the Windows XP "fingerprint" ID upsets me.
I hack my machines regularly. Video cards and occasionally motherboards move on a 6-month to 1-year basis. I also reformat my partition every 3 months for Windows, every 6 months for Linux. Does this mean I'll have to be constantly calling in to get new keys? That's just ridiculous.
For those of us who have followed the rules, who haven't made a million copies of our W2K CDs and passed them around the campfire, this is like a shot in the face. I severly hope this is corrected.
(And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently [How often does a hardware hacker completely change his ethernet card? Not often.])
|
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by Jeff Ballard on Wednesday April 04, @12:50PM EST
(#414)
(User #25222 Info)
http://18446744071568951051/~ballard/
|
I hack my machines regularly. Video cards and occasionally motherboards move on a 6-month to 1-year basis. I also reformat my partition every 3 months for Windows, every 6 months for Linux. Does this mean I'll have to be constantly calling in to get new keys? That's just ridiculous.
Which is probably what is going to make it fail. The problem with this will be that as hordes and hordes of people call up Microsoft to get new keys, Microsoft has to pay for many things, including:
- The people manning the phone
- The database of people who are valid and what they came from.
- Keeping the whole process so your normal user doesn't give up and say "Screw it".
In reality its probably the last one that Microsoft is most worried about. Sure people cost money and the big database will be non-insignifigant, but its the turning customers off to your product thats the biggest worry. It will make it RIPE for competition to come along and say "We don't make you call us every time you change something in your system..."
Its in the same vein as the copy-protected CD debaccle... in Europe they released a copy-protected CD and they ended up re-releasing it because 3% of the people had problems.... Thats not a lot. And think about trying to explain/help all the novice computer users out there... (*shudder*)
-Jeff
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by powerlord
(SPowerlordAM@worldnet.att.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:08PM EST
(#456)
(User #28156 Info)
|
What makes you think MS will have to pay for it?
The key will probably be a combination of a CD key (like with 98/2000 where the key only works for that CD) and the machine config.
After the CD key is used X number of times, they just start charging the user an 'administrative fee' of say $20 to generate a new key. (although I bet key generators make the rounds on warez sites rather rapidly).
"The next time you feel like downloading 'The Little Engine That Could' into a weapon of mass destruction.DONT!" |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by Trepalium on Wednesday April 04, @07:43PM EST
(#864)
(User #109107 Info)
|
If they start charging administrative fees, they're going to have some really pissed off legitimate users. For a gaming computer, the configuration might drastically change monthly as someone attempts to tweak the performance, or upgrade components. Then again, if you assume all your customers are criminals, they will not let you down.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by BorgDrone on Wednesday April 04, @12:50PM EST
(#416)
(User #64343 Info)
|
[quote]I hack my machines regularly. Video cards and occasionally motherboards move on a 6-month to 1-year basis. I also reformat my partition every 3 months for Windows, every 6 months for Linux. Does this mean I'll have to be constantly calling in to get new keys? That's just ridiculous[/quote]
You'd better get yourself extra phone line + phone (program the MS number under speeddial #1) ---
Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean THEY are not out to get you |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by slashdot.org on Wednesday April 04, @01:03PM EST
(#439)
(User #321932 Info)
http://slashdot.org
|
(And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently [How often does a hardware hacker completely change his ethernet card? Not often.])
I do change my network cards A LOT. It's a bad assumption.
In any case, a MAC address is not unique enough, and would make the algorithm easily crackable.
The solution to this problem is really simple though: just don't buy it. I know I wont.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by Fervent
(fervent@NOSPAM.slc.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:19PM EST
(#475)
(User #178271 Info)
|
Unless you're working a server, why are you changing your ethernet card regularly on a Windows machine.
(By the way, if you're running a server anyhow you should probably be using FreeBSD/Linux).
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by shepd
(moc.liamtoh@rezulaer)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:04PM EST
(#552)
(User #155729 Info)
|
(I'm not the original poster, but here's a good reason for swapping cards):
For some strange reason, 10/100 cards cause my ATI Radeon to get _very_ jerky motion during LAN games (it will work fine for about 5 seconds, then freeze for 1), yet a plain 10 Mbps combo card doesn't. I've tried Tulip, RTL8139, and various DLink cards, and various Hubs and Switches. Even tried new drivers for all these cards and my Radeon, which, sad to say, NEEDS ATI to make some new driver updates very badly. Heck, I've even tried different versions of GameOS (windows) -- 98, 2000, ME. No help.
I like the 100 Mbits for file transfers, and need the 10 Mbits for games. That means they get swapped every other week, at a minimum.
How's that explanation? :-) (My email address is reversed...) |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by Fervent
(fervent@NOSPAM.slc.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:06PM EST
(#714)
(User #178271 Info)
|
In Windows 98 and higher you can install two network cards and have them run concurrently (I currently have that for my central Windows 2000 machine which doles IP addresses out to the rest of my home network). Try putting both cards in and just manuevering the cable around when you want to play games.
Still no reason to completely take out both cards and replace them entirely.
|
Re:(OT)Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by shepd
(moc.liamtoh@rezulaer)
on Thursday April 05, @07:49PM EST
(#1074)
(User #155729 Info)
|
They're all PCI. Could be the motherboard, but I've played about with just about every setting in the BIOS, and no combo seems to fix it. Maybe I need to try harder though. :-) This is on a "Generic" style BX motherboard ("EupaComputer" brand, if you must know), running a PIII 733 (at 550, due to 733 requiring a 133 Mhz FSB, and therefore overclocking my PCI slots on this el cheapo motherboard and crashing my Fasttrak 66...).
I can't recall if it did that on my KT7-RAID Athlon board. Gave up on that when I couldn't get much of my hardware to work properly on it (Diamond MX300 soundcard, the Radeon Card itself -- I hate VIA chipsets!).
Oh well. Thanks for any help! (My email address is reversed...) |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by slashdot.org on Wednesday April 04, @03:34PM EST
(#674)
(User #321932 Info)
http://slashdot.org
|
Sheesj, why not? Is it so hard to imagine someone behaving a little different than you? This is exactly why this stupid ID thing sucks,- M$ would force you to behave the way they think you should.
But anyways, some things that change your MAC:
Let's say you have a notebook and because you keep loosing stubs you decide to leave one Cardbus Ethernet + stub at the office and one at home. (My boss does this)
Let's say you have a notebook and need to take a dump. Pull out the Ethernet and plug in the 802.11b. (I do this)
See?
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by Tarpan on Thursday April 05, @03:02AM EST
(#983)
(User #114764 Info)
http://www.jpl.nu/~fallman/
|
I don't, but if they used it for authentication, i would :) And btw, you don't have to change ethernet card to change MAC address.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by OmegaDan
(omegadanthehumbleguys.com)
on Thursday April 05, @09:03PM EST
(#1079)
(User #101255 Info)
http://www.thehumbleguys.com
|
you're asking the wrong question, why SHOULDN'T you be able to change out ethernet cards? ...
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by Spooge Demon
(Spooge@Demon.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:43PM EST
(#515)
(User #413208 Info)
|
Even MAC addresses can be spoofed. Take a look at the Cable/DSL routers that spoof their MAC addresses to match that of the Ethernet card the cable modem's supposedly connected to.
--
You people have such dirty minds! |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2, Insightful)
by shyster on Wednesday April 04, @01:58PM EST
(#544)
(User #245228 Info)
|
And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently [How often does a hardware hacker completely change his ethernet card? Not often.])
MAC addresses can and are faked. Never rely on them for bulletproof security.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by nekid_singularity
(naked_singularity@MS-owned-free-web-based-email-se)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:43PM EST
(#955)
(User #196486 Info)
|
And what if the computer doesn't have an ethernet card? Does a modem have a MAC address? Click here and make a spammer spend some money |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by freq on Thursday April 05, @08:34AM EST
(#1019)
(User #15128 Info)
http://lala.com
|
i love your sig.
i will definitely pass it around. "Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller |
Did you even read his answer? (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @02:05PM EST
(#554)
|
What part of "There are others at Microsoft who are better equipped to answer this question than me" don't you understand.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by LarsG
(larsg_trustix.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:32PM EST
(#592)
(User #31008 Info)
|
(And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently [How often does a hardware hacker completely change his ethernet card? Not often.])
An eth card is one of the better solutions if you _must_ do this sort of thing.
However, I know that WinME will be the last ever version of Windows I'll buy. If they don't honour the concept of first sale, they won't see my money.
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by Alan on Wednesday April 04, @03:49PM EST
(#695)
(User #347 Info)
http://arcterex.net
|
What if you don't have an ethernet card? I know it's silly to some of us (I have at least two home networks, plus a vpn to the office, and have been modem free for about 2+ years), but there are people that simply don't have a network card. What happens when one of these people buys XP and doesn't have a modem, much less an internet account, how is that going to work for registration?
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by jmpresto_78 on Thursday April 05, @07:43AM EST
(#1013)
(User #238308 Info)
|
MS: "Good morning, Microsoft Registration Department, how may I help you?"
Customer: "Yes, I have Windows XP but I don't have an internet connection. I'd like to register though."
MS: "Ok, if you would please click on the 'Manually register' button."
Customer: "OK... WHOAH!!!"
MS: "Yes, I understand, if you could read me that 512 character string you'll be all set!"
Customer: (click)
MS: "Well, chalk up another product return"
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by drig on Wednesday April 04, @03:44PM EST
(#687)
(User #5119 Info)
http://www.noses.org
|
(And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently [How often does a hardware hacker completely change his ethernet card? Not often.])
Actually, as a laptop user, I have 2 ethernet cards which I switch out. When I'm on a 10baseT network, I use a standard NE2K. When I'm on a wireless network, I use an Orinico WaveLAN card. Citizens Against Plate Tectonics |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by Fervent
(fervent@NOSPAM.slc.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:09PM EST
(#719)
(User #178271 Info)
|
Once again, every OS from Windows 98 on supports multiple installed network cards. I have the exact same configuration on my laptop (NE2K card in one slot, Dell TrueMobile Wavelan in the other).
|
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by toast0
(toast@dont.spam.me.ruka.org)
on Thursday April 05, @09:25AM EST
(#1027)
(User #63707 Info)
http://www.yourofficegeek.com/
|
while the os may support it, the physical configurations of the cards may not
i've seen several nics which in the interest of not having those damn annoying dongles take up two pc card slots, and i've also seen wireless lan cards that seem to (maybe they don't actually) use both spaces because of the antenna
not to mention with a laptop, power consumption is potentially at a premium and i'm sure the cards will use some power even if disabled (if you aren't going to use it on battery, there seems to be little point in getting a laptop... but thats just my opinion)
What do you get when you mix FreeBSD and linux?
A daemonic penguin who has just fed on the souls of a bunch of herring |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by Syberghost
(syberghost.NOHAM@NOPORK.eiv.com)
on Thursday April 05, @11:48AM EST
(#1045)
(User #10557 Info)
http://www.eiv.com/users/syberghost
|
That's nice, but what if you have something ELSE in the other slot?
- FOR GREAT JUSTICE. |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by drig on Friday April 06, @05:05PM EST
(#1089)
(User #5119 Info)
http://www.noses.org
|
The point wasn't that Windows can't support multiple NICs. The point was, that if you restrict software to running on a machine with a particular MAC (based on the NIC), then said software will fail when I change to a different NIC. The original poster said that people don't change NICs. I was saying I may change my NIC multiple times a day, depending on where I'm accessing the LAN from. Citizens Against Plate Tectonics |
a Hardware solution to a hardware hacker's lament (Score:2)
by evil_one
(freesex at spacemoose.com)
on Thursday April 05, @06:01AM EST
(#1006)
(User #142582 Info)
http://www.evilinc.org
|
A dongle that provides an encrypted key.
poof.
make it a USB passthru device. ---
The true heros of this world are the parents that strive to break pokemon dependance. |
Re:Hardware hacker's lament (Score:1)
by John Sullivan
(jssldc@kanargh.force9.co.uk)
on Thursday April 05, @12:57PM EST
(#1055)
(User #234934 Info)
|
(And as a suggestion, change the ID to the computer's MAC address. These things change a lot less frequently
Having read some of they other points that were made in response to this, they are good points. What I don't think has been mentioned is a potentially crippling aspect of hardware signature based licensing.
Imagine that you're a company running some mission critical process (it could be a particular piece of server software, or it could just be a developer's machine and you have a release/bugfix deadline tomorrow which *must* be met) on a particular machine. Of course the OS and possibly other software is keyed to the hardware configuration. Half-way through the night/weekend your ethernet card lets out its magic smoke.
Without hardware keying, hardly any company is going to be seriously affected by this. Any company worth its salt will have a few extra cards and other spares lying around. It probably wouldn't take more than a couple of hours to fix, and if you're on the ball you could be running again in under 20 minutes.
With this licensing scheme though, you replace the faulty hardware only to find out the OS/software won't run, and being out of hours you can't get a replacement for possibly a couple of days. The software vendor has just single handedly made your own internal support's 24/7 provisions completely useless.
|
Piracy and intelectual property (Score:1)
by jjn1056
(jjn1056@yahoo.SPAM.DIE.DIE.DIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:44AM EST
(#150)
(User #85209 Info)
|
In the abstract, I would agree with his statement that if an author choses to charge for her work, she deserves a way to agressively protect her interests. As much is laid out in the US Constitution. Unfortunately we are not talking about a single developer, or a small group of developers. Microsoft is a large company with tremendous economic and political clout; clearly they have abused this power, which reduces their moral authority to speak on these issues. Their monopoly control of the desktop OS, the office productivity suite and looming internet monopolies with IE and Outlook, threatens the rights of those who are required to use those applications. Intelectual property law has to strike a balance between the rights of the producers and those of the users. I believe the current situation gives too much power to Microsoft and their new anti piracy schemes only bias the situation further to their side.
It also avoids the greater philosophical question as to what should be consider public intrastructure, shared by all and maintained for the public good, and not for the profit of a few. I believe an OS has become a vital part of our public intrastructure, much like roadways became inportant in the past. This level of importance overides the rights of a few to make a profit. You are doomed to discover you can never recover from the narcolyptic country in which you once stood; where the fire's always burning but there's never enough |
|
A special kind of arrogance (Score:1)
by BVis on Wednesday April 04, @11:44AM EST
(#151)
(User #267028 Info)
|
What struck me about this interview was the reply to the "embrace and extend" question, which Mr. Miller nicely obfuscated by replying with the non sequitur "First of all, I think it is worth pointing out that standards, on their own, are not substantial enough to fully solve customer requirements."
If MS thinks it knows what's best for a certian protocol, programming language, or technology, let them reply to the RFC's like everyone else! Seems to me they're sidestepping the whole standards process by just declaring "We have more users therefore we know best what our customers want, and if it screws over some non-customers, too fscking bad, they should buy our products like everyone else. We know better."
He then goes on to talk about POSIX. What about IMAP, Kerberos, Java, etc? Way to not answer the question! Seems MS only supports technology that they develop or that they can bastardize. Granted, that's capitalism in action, and not despicable in and of itself, but you can't do that and then turn around and talk about providing "the best user experience for the largest majority of users" or some other similar PR dreck.
The problem with MS isn't that they're a giant monopolistic megalomaniacal monolith of a company, the problem is that they deny it. /* The word of the day is "crufty". */ |
|
Interesting Comments (Score:2)
by cluge
(cluge@no_italian-cars_fucking_com.spam)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:45AM EST
(#158)
(User #114877 Info)
http://www.italian-cars.com
|
I find it some of the comments a little funny.
Bill Gates is forceing you to rent his software NOW. If you don't believe me talk to the poor IT guys in a large corporate env. trying to keep up with the latest software demands of his users. Office is out every 2 years (or less sometimes) it uses a slightly newer, slighty different format that isn't read by the older format. Go upgrade. NT will no longer support XYZ, it is only available on win 2000. Of course if you just bought NT 6 months ago because win2k drivers weren't ready for your other equipment sorry. Go upgrade. Your new frontpage won't work with your old frontpage server? Oh so sorry go upgrade. You want some of the new features in exchange 2000 (now that it's not a default open relay?) we're sorry go upgrade.
The continual upgrade cycle is no more than renting software. New releases purposely break old, security updates are made available ONLY if you register with MS (outlook and SP2 for office).
MS is trying to keep this big profit wheel going. They are pulling out all the stops to try and keep one of the longest and largest growth spurts in ANY companies history going. To that end we see that NET initiative, MS has invented it's own engineers. (You memorize 150 questions and are called an engineer, and can reccomend MS upgrades for you clients).
Eventually there will be a contraction at some point. How MS handles it's current customers will dictate how big the contraction will be. Providing an ever diminishing return on their software investment may mean that the contraction will be much larger than it has to be.
|
|
Re:Interesting Comments (Score:2)
by Ig0r on Wednesday April 04, @03:59PM EST
(#707)
(User #154739 Info)
|
I think that should read:
Take as much as you can
Getting assumes that someone else is giving it to you.
-- Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn. |
KDE and GNOME (Score:1)
by skwang on Wednesday April 04, @11:46AM EST
(#160)
(User #174902 Info)
http://www.umd.edu/~skwang
|
We have looked at both KDE and GNOME. There is some interesting work going on there. I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
It is absolutely necessary that Linux be built on gone graphical environment? I have gtk underneath KDE and run GNOME apps all the time. I can do the reverse under GNOME. What is important is that the underlying architecture the compatible, not the graphical interface.
I can change my shirt anytime, but it is what underneath that counts.
|
|
Re:KDE and GNOME (Score:1)
by cworley
(cworley[at]symbionsys[dot]com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:12PM EST
(#254)
(User #96911 Info)
|
>It is absolutely necessary that Linux be built on one graphical environment?
Of course not. That's the beauty of competition. And for Open
Source, it means they can legally steal each other's code if one of them
does something really well.
Open source is the only way to bring about competition in software.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates
-- for once, make him clean up after me! |
Re:KDE and GNOME (Score:2)
by johnnyb
(johnnyb@wolfram.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:01PM EST
(#436)
(User #4816 Info)
http://members.wri.com/johnnyb/
|
I think this speaks to the whole idea of "Linux" being one thing. "Linux" is a technology, not an operating system. RedHat is an operating system. To say "Linux" is an operating system that should be compatible with every other "Linux" system is like saying "BSD" is an operating system that should be compatible with every other "BSD" system. When in fact this is not correct. There is no reason why Mac OS X should be compatible with FreeBSD even though they use the same Kernel. "BSD" is a technology used in OS X, but that doesn't mean that it should retain compatibility with anything else.
RedHat is an operating system. Mandrake is an operating system. SuSE is an operating system. Linux is not. The fact that you _can_ make an application run on all of these systems is an interesting side-effect of the fact that they use the same kernel. However, to think that this is absolutely necessary is silly. "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die" -Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
Re:KDE and GNOME (Score:1)
by ignorant_newbie
(geekintraining@yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @03:23AM EST
(#986)
(User #104175 Info)
|
no, OS X uses gets it's userland from Free & NetBSDs. it's kernel is Mach, from carnegie melon, by way of NeXT.
|
Re:KDE and GNOME (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:30PM EST
(#668)
(User #212894 Info)
|
"I can change my shirt anytime, but it is what underneath that counts."
So tell me, where is that "underneath" when I try to paste image from Gimp to some other KDE program?
|
interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
by austad on Wednesday April 04, @11:46AM EST
(#162)
(User #22163 Info)
|
I liked his last response about KDE and Gnome and deciding on one, or joining the best aspects of both. I know that both of those groups have their differences, and it probably will never happen, but just think of the progress that would be made on one project with double the number of developers, instead of on two completely separate projects.
I'm actually torn between the two. I use KDE 2.1.1 at work, and Gnome 1.2 at home. Sometimes I switch, but I think both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Recently, I decided to write a small app which I'll soon GPL once it's functional. I looked at both Gnome and KDE, and decided that KDE seems simpler to write code for (I'm not a code wizard :).
I probably just started a huge flame thread, but Linux seriously needs one desktop standard that nearly everyone can agree on. Unfortunately, alot of work has been put into each system, and if someone did start a project to merge the two, we'd just end up with Yet Another Alternative, which would make 3 major environments. Lot's of choice for users, but it sucks for commercial developers who want to port to Linux.
|
|
Re:interesting (Score:1)
by maelstrom
(mmichie@[nospam]linux.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:08PM EST
(#235)
(User #638 Info)
http://daimyo.org
|
You should read The Mythical Man Month sometime; just because you double the number of developers, doesn't mean you automatically get an increase in development speed.
Each of the developers would have to familiarize themselve with the new codebase, reconcile major differences in style, and more importantly design.
Having two or more desktop environments does it difficult for commericial apps to be ported to Linux, but after using Linux since '96, I'm to the point of thinking that's a feature and not a bug :)
---
The more you know, the less you understand. |
Re:interesting (Score:2)
by Tim C on Wednesday April 04, @04:49PM EST
(#768)
(User #15259 Info)
|
Not only that, but you need to be able to split the tasks between that many people sensibly. Also, as the number of people working on a project increases, so does the overhead of managing it and making sure that people are communicating effectively, that everything gets done and nothing gets done twice, etc
After a point, throwing more people at a project at best has no effect, and at worst slows it down.
Cheers,
Tim
|
Re:interesting (Score:1)
by borzwazie
(borzwazie@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:38PM EST
(#504)
(User #101172 Info)
|
Well, here's the the problem with one desktop:
Do we, as the the Linux community want to push Linux into the mainstream? People want to use things that are familiar. To really capture a business market, we would have to consolidate desktops.
If we, as the Linux community, care more about using Linux the way we want to use it, then more desktop environment choices are better.
I have not used the latest versions of either Gnome or KDE, but I can tell you from the versions I'm using (whatever's on Redhat 6.2) that neither is as easy to use as Windows or MacOS.
So, what do we want? Will we ever even agree on it?
Slightly OT - Something that got dicussed a while back, and something I think needs revisiting now is the idea of "compliancy levels."
For instance, we all know what glibc 2.1, Mesa 3.4, SDL 1.1 and X Windows DRI 4.03 means. (your versions may vary.) The average user doesn't, and doesn't care. Application programmers do. Maybe we should consider designating "levels" to which a system contains at least some baselevel of the included libraries. Call it "Gamelevel" or "Application Level" and give it a number, like what M$ does with DirectX. Give developers a common target to shoot for, at least. Make it easy for users to upgrade their machines to this level.
I think this would go a long way toward helping Linux achieve greater distribution.
Now I swear...the next one of you primitives even TOUCHES me...
|
KDE and Gnome (Score:2, Informative)
by Dlugar on Wednesday April 04, @01:56PM EST
(#537)
(User #124619 Info)
|
The big benefit I see to this is that I prefer the window manager Enlightenment. I can run Gnome applications. I can run KDE applications.
So what's the big deal? Just pick whichever one you want to write code for (like the above poster). It's not as if Gnome users can't use KDE programs, or as if KDE users can't use Gnome programs.
Of course, I'm in favor of a standardized GUI protocol, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Dlugar
|
Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Greyfox
(nride@uswest.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:50AM EST
(#175)
(User #87712 Info)
http://www.paratheoanametamystikhood.net
|
Several times he dismisses Linux as not being particularly revolutionary. But it is revolutionary in several ways. It runs on damn near every hardware platform ever. There's no other OS that does that. I can take a program on my IA32 archetecture, move it right on up to an S390 (or down to IBM's Linux watch) and be pretty sure that compiling it there will work pretty much the same way. I reiterate, no other OS does that.
The cooperation Linux encourages in developers is truly revolutionary. While BSD was the first "free" OS, for some reason it didn't seem to encourage the level of cooperation that Linux does. I don't know why. Maybe it's the GPL, maybe it's the timing, maybe it's the marketing but the Linux community has managed to grow while BSD has remained out on the fringe. The fact that all these developers are coming together from all over the world is pretty revolutionary.
The GPL in and of itself is pretty revolutionary too. Some people don't like it, but I do. If you want to profit off my work, I want you to give something back to the community. I tend to be more inclined to muck about with the lgpl which strikes me as being more evenly balanced. At a time when Corporate America wants to tie your computer up in proprietary standards that keep you from using your computer in any way without their express permission, the GPL will become more and more important in encouraging hobbiests to tinker with hardware and code.
I'm pretty sure the "Revoltionary" vision Microsoft is trying to force down our throats is one where your only choice is that you lease a propetary machine, run Microsoft's proprietary OS and pay for each application by the minute. I really don't want to live in that world.
Got Evil?
|
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
by bmajik
(matt@mattevans.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:15PM EST
(#263)
(User #96670 Info)
http://www.mattevans.org
|
No other OS runs on lots of platforms ?
I'm sure you're familiar with NetBSD :)
Linux is not "#1" in platform-variety. Many linux ports are half assed or unusable.
Your microsoft paranoia is a bit unfounded. Why would microsoft give a damn if you wanted to run linux on your computer ? It's your computer - not theirs. If linux is what you want to use, by all means, go for it. They'd rather sell you windows, but if you dont want to buy it, they can't make you*
*A long time ago it was difficult to get a cheap name brand computer without paying "the windows tax". even this is no longer the case. But it was never _impossible_.
|
They're damn well trying (Score:5, Insightful)
by Greyfox
(nride@uswest.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:34PM EST
(#352)
(User #87712 Info)
http://www.paratheoanametamystikhood.net
|
I was attending a keynote by Scott Draeker last week and he was quite concerned with the possibility of newer video cards putting DirectX right on the hardware. While I don't know a lot about CPRM (Which fortunately was shot down this time) worst case I would have to have a special driver to run my hard drive. A driver I'm sure I wouldn't be able to get for Linux. I can't get a free (speech, not beer) DVD player for Linux. Intel and Microsoft (and a bunch of other people including IBM) were working on the I20 spec which originally was structured to shut out open source developers. The RIAA and MPAA want nothing less than end to end encryption from your computer to your output devices and none of that shit will be ported to Linux, I guarantee you that.
And you think my paranoia is unjustified and that they can't make me buy windows? Well if I can't legally get drivers for my hardware, I can't choose to put Linux on that hardware.
Currently I have a choice and only buy hardware that I know I can get true open source drivers for (Matrox G400, Creative SBLive, that sort of thing) but I can see a day coming when there will be no choices. When that day comes, you'll get your computer free with your lifetime MSN subscription which I'm sure will be a very reasonable $100 a month. All your hardware will be "Windows Optimized." All your data will be in remote .net data stores. All your applications will charge you to access that data by the minute. You won't be able to get a C compiler because "The average user doesn't need to bother with that sort of thing." Am I being paranoid? They're pretty much spelling out their business plan. If anything, your Microsoft complacency is a bit unfounded.
Got Evil?
|
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:1)
by Pete
(pete@cygnus.uwa.edu.au)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:52PM EST
(#530)
(User #2228 Info)
http://cygnus.uwa.edu.au/~pete/
|
I can't get a free (speech, not beer) DVD player for Linux.
Just had to correct this. Yes you can. I've been watching DVDs in Linux for a few months now using
Xine.
It's great. Well, as long as
you're not overly
attached to the pretty DVD menus, which it
doesn't do (no great loss).
Anyway, if you want to play DVDs under Linux/FreeBSD, get Xine and try it.
Pete.
|
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:1)
by drinkypoo on Wednesday April 04, @03:01PM EST
(#626)
(User #153816 Info)
|
While I don't know a lot about CPRM (Which fortunately was shot down this time) worst case I would have to have a special driver to run my hard drive. A driver I'm sure I wouldn't be able to get for Linux.
CPRM is supposed to be a standard, right? Ostensibly, all CPRM devices will have a standard interface, so only one driver will have to be written for linux to handle all devices. I remember from some earlier conversations that they (the industry) were talking about having two standards, one for IDE, and one for SCSI. Schmucks. In any case, maybe you'll need two drivers. Certainly some part of the driver subsystem will need to be updated in some way.
The RIAA and MPAA want nothing less than end to end encryption from your computer to your output devices and none of that shit will be ported to Linux, I guarantee you that.
None of that shit HAS to be ported to linux, though. The data stream only has to be pushed to the device, and the device will play the audio; There is some indication that the primary music protection scheme will be hardware decoding in USB speakers, or similar. So the drivers are very simple, and in fact reverse-engineerable without too much difficulty.
And you think my paranoia is unjustified and that they can't make me buy windows? Well if I can't legally get drivers for my hardware, I can't choose to put Linux on that hardware.
Preliminary discussions indicate that the "hardware" copy-protection methods to be used in hard drives do not need to be disabled unless you want to use those features. This shouldn't affect you in the least.
Currently I have a choice and only buy hardware that I know I can get true open source drivers for (Matrox G400, Creative SBLive, that sort of thing) but I can see a day coming when there will be no choices.
You're just not feeling the slashdot/old school geek/kitbash spirit, are you? What with the impending eminence of inkjet printed circuits, and the various free (as in speech) processor and computer architecture designs that are currently in development, people will be able to create their own computers, to a degree. Notably, if someone develops a free (again, as in speech) design for a motherboard, which uses free components and so on, some manufacturer will be free (ha ha) to pick up the designs, produce them, and sell them. Naturally a certain amount of QA will be required, but the results from that development work will go back into the pool, right?
Then, all people have to do to satisfy the (somewhat draconian) GPL requirements is to put the netlists and so on onto the CD which ships with the motherboard. CPU sold seperately, your parents help you put it together.
Yeah, I know, we're not quite there yet, but we as a community are capable of doing such things. I believe that the only reason it hasn't happened to date is that it hasn't had to; You can go buy an Abit BP6 and a couple of celeron chips for $200, attach various other bits of hardware (all of which I have sitting around, except DIMM-carried RAM) and put a significant number of operating systems on the resulting system, with various degrees of capability - And a system like that, frankly, is more than most of us NEED.
Now, what you want is another thing. Certainly, Microsoft is planning to own the future of gaming. What you say!? X-Box, DirectX on Windows, microsoft game controllers, microsoft speakers, how long before Microsoft acquires a graphics card company and we have to decide how to break them up again? Perhaps whatever is left of 3dfx is for sale?
So how do we combat this new threat? I'm not sure we can. Certainly, some of the hottest titles will hit X-Box first, and some number of them will never go anywhere else after that. I'm guessing that just about every successful (or marginally successful) title that used WinCE on Dreamcast will end up on X-Box with updated graphics, or at least higher resolution. Armada, for example, which is the only DC game I've acquired thus far, runs on WinCE (and it shows, especially when it crashes and you haven't saved in a while.) It would likely require little more than a recompile to work on the X-Box.
When that day comes, you'll get your computer free with your lifetime MSN subscription which I'm sure will be a very reasonable $100 a month.
You already do, don't you? Or damn near. And it's a lot cheaper than that. But Windows won't ever be the only player in the industry, because we won't let them. I know that sounds simplistic, but consider what "we" means here; All the mac addicts who have eschewed microsoft all these years in favor of cute cases, one platform - one OS, and the antiquated technology which, up until X, has made up MacOS. Let's face it, MacOS hasn't been cutting edge since version 6 and the multifinder. The Lisa had a nice little OS before they abandoned it (the OS) in favor of MacOS 5, too, but that was long ago.
All your hardware will be "Windows Optimized."
Some of it already is. NVidia, for example, does Direct3D in hardware on every card since the TNT.
All your data will be in remote .net data stores. All your applications will charge you to access that data by the minute.
I part company with you again in this place. Yes, all your data will be in remote .net data stores; About goddamn time. Why should I have this data on my hard drive, where I have to back it up (and seldom do) when I could pay someone else to do it for me? They pay less for storage, they pay less for power, they pay less per GB (or what have you) for backup because they do it in bulk. I won't put all my data there; Some of it will likely be in a local .NET data store. Hell, most of it. But anything important to me will go into a third party data store which has an AUP and T&C which I approve of. Like that mp3 of Rock Me Amadeus, you know, the Salieri remix.
Anyway, as for data stores charging you by the minute... I'm sure some actually will. Some will charge you per megabyte stored, and/or megabyte downloaded. Some will charge you a flat rate, but cap your transfer limit and/or storage space, per day, per week, or what have you. But the point is, one day you will be able to pick a service on the 'net to store your data which you can trust, and which charges you a fee you can live with. I wouldn't pick anything run by microsoft, but I do not have the inherent fear of all software written by microsoft which has become so common today. I just don't trust it as quickly as open source software which has been subjected to a thorough peer review.
And before you pooh-pooh away the peer review, remember it only takes one particularly clever or lucky user to discover the one back door, or the one stupid mistake which may bite me in the ass. Some peer review is better than no peer review.
Am I being paranoid? They're pretty much spelling out their business plan. If anything, your Microsoft complacency is a bit unfounded.
You're not being paranoid, exactly, you're just overreacting. Microsoft is dangerous, yes. The place I worry about them the most is the console game market, though we know that at least Nintendo will never die, unless they hire some of the people who are now doubtless leaving Sega. But anyway, I digress. Microsoft is not going to kill Linux, *BSD, Sun, or Apple. Linux and *BSD can simply not be killed that way. Sun is too damned mean, and too damned useful. Apple is useful mostly as someone Microsoft can point to and say, "Look, Apple's still alive, we're not a monopoly" while they buy up more Apple stock. As for the others, well, I guess I can go through a few; QNX continues to have a future on low-CPU-power devices. Be doesn't need to be killed by Microsoft, because it's committing suicide anyway. Not getting picked up by Apple was pretty much the end of Be being a viable commercial product, IMO. Maybe JLG will prove me wrong; I sure hope so. On the other hand, I'm not going to turn blue over it.
-- ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US FOR GREAT JUSTICE METAMODERATE EVERY ZIG |
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:2, Funny)
by WiPEOUT on Wednesday April 04, @06:10PM EST
(#831)
(User #20036 Info)
|
You won't be able to get a C compiler? You've obviously never worked as a developer on Microsoft's platforms. They have the best developer tools, documentation, training and support options I have ever seen. Nothing else from any other company comes close. Novell, Sun, IBM and all the largest software vendors are simply playing catch-up in this ballgame, and Microsoft is not letting up.
Microsoft is firmly committed to providing the best development environment around.
Sure, with Linux you have the source code. There's no denying that is useful. Does it have anything approaching the quality of Visual Studio? Any developer documentation as comprehensive, accessible and easy to use as the MSDN Library? Regular training events, developer conferences by the dozen even out in Australia? Anything to rival COM+ for power, scalability and relative ease of use? Notice I haven't even mentioned the .NET framework yet, which is probably the best thing since sliced bread.
|
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:1)
by rabidcow on Wednesday April 04, @11:13PM EST
(#939)
(User #209019 Info)
|
have to have a special driver to run my hard drive.
Think about this a minute. Where would the driver be stored?
|
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:1)
by stux
(stux@mactrixNOSPAM.com)
on Thursday April 05, @02:57AM EST
(#981)
(User #1934 Info)
http://www.mactrix.com
|
I thought I'd just point out (BTW I'm using OSX fulltime now, and it rocks :))
I'd just point out a different future ;)
Apple ships GCC and ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder and ALL the Mac OS programming documentation and the kernel documentation WITH THEIR CONSUMER OS RETAIL DISTRIBUTION!
These are the same tools that the OS was built with!
I'm just pleased at the prospect of all them kiddies finding their Developer CDs with their iMacs and getting into it ... one day... well, thats how I got started programming :)
Of course, it wasn't with iMacs ;))
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr |
Re:They're damn well trying (Score:1)
by praxim
(praxim@removeifnotspam.earthlink.net)
on Thursday April 05, @04:34PM EST
(#1071)
(User #117485 Info)
http://www.thepatsite.com
|
"All your hardware will be "Windows Optimized." All your data will be in remote .net data stores. All your applications will charge you to access that data by the minute."
All your base are belong to them.
Sorry, I had to. Really, I apologize.
|
Mr. Miller was talking about features (Score:1)
by Ronin75 on Wednesday April 04, @12:23PM EST
(#304)
(User #21473 Info)
|
Two of the three revolutionary things that you list about Linux (distributed development, GPL) have to do with the development side, not the end product. Yes, they're both cool. But, I got the impression that Mr. Miller was talking about the features it brings to the table. Your first point (insane portability) is a strong one, but also your only one.
|
Re:Mr. Miller was talking about features (Score:2)
by mpe on Thursday April 05, @09:34AM EST
(#1032)
(User #36238 Info)
|
Two of the three revolutionary things that you list about Linux (distributed development, GPL) have to do with the development side, not the end product. Also they could just as easily be labeled as "back to basics" :)
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Ars-Fartsica on Wednesday April 04, @12:29PM EST
(#328)
(User #166957 Info)
|
It runs on damn near
every hardware platform ever. There's no other OS that does that. Because when it boils right down to it, there is no reason to have one OS on every platform. Added to which, we are not talking about an identical piece of software running on an IPAQ and a 390. The tweaks are signficant enough from a developer standpoint to almost consider them separate products. While BSD was the first "free" OS, for some reason it didn't seem
to encourage the level of cooperation that Linux does. The FreeBSD core committers model has worked very well, and by the looks of it, linux is heading in the very same direction.
|
Same OS on all platforms (Score:2)
by Eric Green
(eric@badtux.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:26PM EST
(#584)
(User #627 Info)
http://www.badtux.org/
|
I know that my own employer's job would be a lot easier if the same OS ran on every platform. There are tons of stupid differences in non-standard areas such as tape drivers that make porting any software that deals with tape drives a pain in the %$@!@. One way we got around that on some platforms was to write our own tape driver, but that adds its own compatibility problems. E.g., on Solaris, we must compile it for: Solaris 8 64 bit SPARC, Solaris 8 32 bit SPARC, Solaris 7 64 bit SPARC, Solaris 7 32 bit SPARC, Solaris 2.6 64 bit SPARC, .....
It would also help if there was a such operating system as "Linux", but that's another issue (grumble grumble).
-E
-- Proud member of the EFF. |
Re:Whatever... (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @03:49PM EST
(#696)
(User #1449 Info)
|
fuck, there's a lot of very GOOD reasons to have the same OS on every platform.
Scalability, being one.
Sure, you want an OS that runs on high-end server platforms, midrange desktops (that doesn't force you into a yearly hardware upgrade due to software bloat), and perhaps even handheld devices. Then you can write your apps more easily to port across the various devices in your enterprise, your support people don't have to learn different tools and standards and document formats and protocol implementations.
It's a dream. Why can't it be a reality? Because of capitalism. The vendors can't screw down the standards and suck optimal profits out of their IP monopoly if systems were that open. Only the customer would benefit from a system like that. The customer, and their customers.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
Re:Whatever... (Score:2, Informative)
by Hoo00 on Wednesday April 04, @12:32PM EST
(#340)
(User #123566 Info)
|
Technically, GNU/Linux is revolutionary. But to most desktop users who know nothing behind the scene, GNU/Linux is just an ugly unix-like OS with confusing applications available for free. This is how Microsoft sees the picture, i.e. from their customers' eyes who they assume are non-tech consumers.
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:2)
by mpe on Thursday April 05, @09:33AM EST
(#1031)
(User #36238 Info)
|
But to most desktop users who know nothing behind the scene. Unless they run an OS which likes to give out register dumps if things go wrong... For a supposedly "non-tech" system Windows sure does expect the user to do a lot of sysadmin tasks too.
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:3, Funny)
by TheGratefulNet
(bryanFNORD@gratefulFNORD.net (-FNORD))
on Wednesday April 04, @12:49PM EST
(#410)
(User #143330 Info)
http://www.Grateful.Net
|
it runs on damn near every
hardware platform ever. There's no other OS that does that.
obviously your net connection to netbsd.org is filtered by your ISP. you should ask them to remove that entry since its making you look stoopid.
-- "It is now safe to switch off your computer." |
Re:Whatever... (Score:2)
by shren on Wednesday April 04, @03:03PM EST
(#629)
(User #134692 Info)
http://www.shren.net/
|
Hey, propaganda, modded up. Whee. Refutations:
Several times he dismisses Linux as not being particularly revolutionary. But it is revolutionary in several ways. It runs on damn near every hardware platform ever. There's no other OS that does that. I can take a program on my IA32 archetecture, move it right on up to an S390 (or down to IBM's Linux watch) and be pretty sure that compiling it there will work pretty much the same way. I reiterate, no other OS does that.
Linux doesn't do that either. Linux is a kernel, a kernel that a great many people have made to work on a great many machines. Linux uses a lot of things that were around a long time before Linux was.
If you have Linux running on your machine, then you can download and compile things. So? You can do that with most any kernel that you've gotten GCC to run on top of. The fact that it's the *same* kernel deserves a round of applause. But where's the revolution? You promised a revolution, dammit.
The cooperation Linux encourages in developers is truly revolutionary. While BSD was the first "free" OS, for some reason it didn't seem to encourage the level of cooperation that Linux does. I don't know why. Maybe it's the GPL, maybe it's the timing, maybe it's the marketing but the Linux community has managed to grow while BSD has remained out on the fringe. The fact that all these developers are coming together from all over the world is pretty revolutionary.
Once upon a time, if you ran Unix home, you probably ran BSD. They had pretty much all of the home Unix marketplace. Now Linux has almost all of the home marketplace for Unix. The home marketplace for Unix is larger now (because more people need router boxes, etcetera), but this is a massive victory for Linux only if you see the world through penguin-tinted glasses. You haven't supplaned anybody but BSD, and BSD is far from gone. It moves from the home market to the buisness market because people know how to use it. Interesting, noteworthy, predictable. Still no revolution. Same thing happened with BSD.
The GPL in and of itself is pretty revolutionary too. Some people don't like it, but I do. If you want to profit off my work, I want you to give something back to the community. I tend to be more inclined to muck about with the lgpl which strikes me as being more evenly balanced. At a time when Corporate America wants to tie your computer up in proprietary standards that keep you from using your computer in any way without their express permission, the GPL will become more and more important in encouraging hobbiests to tinker with hardware and code.
Pyramid marketing in code form. No wonder it's taking the net by storm.
I'm pretty sure the "Revoltionary" vision Microsoft is trying to force down our throats is one where your only choice is that you lease a propetary machine, run Microsoft's proprietary OS and pay for each application by the minute. I really don't want to live in that world.
Nice persecution complex. "They" wanted to crush tapes, and failed. VCRs, and failed. Ectetera. Do you see the US government collapsing into feudalism any time soon, as well?
This gets a five. *This* gets a five. They're giving moderation points to anybody who stumbles off the street with a forty these days, I see.
--
shren.net |
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by ChannelX on Wednesday April 04, @04:01PM EST
(#709)
(User #89676 Info)
|
This gets a five. *This* gets a five. They're giving moderation points to anybody who stumbles off the street with a forty these days, I see.
I agree. I don't quite get why the previous posting was modded up to 5. The fact that he decided to say that Linux is the only OS to run on a ton of platforms was enough to keep it at 0 in my mind.
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by Fyndo
(moore@fyndo.myip.org)
on Thursday April 05, @08:49AM EST
(#1021)
(User #11748 Info)
http://fyndo.myip.org/
|
Nice persecution complex. "They" wanted to crush tapes, and failed. VCRs, and failed. Ectetera. Do you see the US government collapsing into feudalism any time soon, as well?
Digital audio tapes, and pretty much succeeded. MP3, jury's still out, may or may not succeed (I'm bettting not), Napster (probable success). The copyright industries are getting better at crushing things that worry them. Not that all this is relevant to a MS discussion :)
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by curunir on Wednesday April 04, @05:02PM EST
(#787)
(User #98273 Info)
|
That depends on your definition of revolutionary. If you mean "something that has never been done before," then yes, linux is revolutionary. But I believe revolutionary in the case was meant as "necessitating a reaction (providing there is one) by Microsoft"
Linux runs on every platform. Wow. That is a great achievement. How does that change Microsoft's strategy. Should they port windows to every OS. No. They are a for-profit software company. It needs to be profitable for MS to expend the effort to bring windows to a given Platform. When the time comes that millions of people are running apps on their wristwatch, you better believe that there'll be a WindowsWWE.
Likewise, the GPL is a radical concept. Developers around the world freely sharing code. Revolutionary? That's debatable. But from Microsoft's POV, its a non-issue. They are for profit. They don't share their code. The GPL doesn't affect them.
Remember. MS doesn't care about the developer-level market. Their bread and butter is the mainstream user (where pre-requisites are the ability to use a mouse, basic knowledge of how to store/retrieve files off a filesystem, etc). When Linux offers something revolutionary to the mainstream user, it might be revolutionary to MS.
The only thing I see that is revolutionary is a free ($$) OS. Microsoft has to be very careful not to price themselves out of the OS market (it would take a huge effort for that to happen anytime soon). But, like he said, BSD has been free for a long time.
All that said, I hate using windows. I only use it (in VMWare) for company mandated Outlook functions. I use linux whenever possible. I would consider myself a linux proponent. But it's uses are still speciallized, and it *isn't* truly revolutionary...yet ;)
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by XO
(eblade@blackmagik.dynup.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:35PM EST
(#842)
(User #250276 Info)
http://mi-net.dynup.net/
|
Well, he is fairly correct in that it is -not- particularly revolutionary in several ways, also. It's primarily another Unix variant. Yes, it runs on damn near everything from palms to wristwatches to gigantic server farms, but it's still a Unix variant, with nothing really super technologically outstanding about it.
What is different about Linux, as I see it, is that there are so many -options- available. When you go to recompile your kernel, you can choose what you want in it, where, when and how. This determines it's configuration ,and it's size.. wether it's tuned for running on a wristwatch, or tuned for running a multi-gigabyte RAM server box. If you take a monolithic Linux kernel and build into it the most common set of drivers and supports, you end up with a mostcommondenominator system. It'll run, but it won't run as well as it could.
Another thing is that I think a lot of people see 'revolutionary' as 'new'.. and in computing terms, Unix, Linux, GPL, BSD, and everything Microsoft are definitely not new. I've been involved with free software for as long as I've been on the internet - the internet wouldn't exist, as far as i'm concerned, without the GPL'd software out there.
But it's not the GPL itself that makes it revolutionary.
It's the GNU tools backing everything that make it revolutionary. The GNU tools are the really pivotal point in the compatibility issues. I can take virtually any program source code out there that will compile in gcc on one machine, and go forth and compile it on any other machine with gcc and the proper library support.
Yes, some systems provide this and that neato-keen library that some author may have used that your system doesn't... but that's not a problem with GNU, that's a problem with the architechture of that Unix implementation/distribution.
Linux would be nothing without the GNU software. And the GNU software would still be something without Linux. The GNU software runs on virtually every platform, Unix and non-Unix based. And without that software, you'd have nothing to be talking about this subject with.
Think about that one.
---===*> XO
mi-net.dynup.net
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by chriss on Thursday April 05, @02:33AM EST
(#976)
(User #26574 Info)
|
The three points you mention to prove Linux being revolutionary are:
- superior platform diversity
- first time cooperation of very many developers
- GPL
The revolutioners here would be:
- NetBSD
- Anything from the FSF
- RMS
All these predate Linux instead of being introduced by it, making it evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Chriss
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
by hqm on Thursday April 05, @08:40PM EST
(#1077)
(User #49964 Info)
|
ABout BSD, I can give you an example of why
it didn't catch on so fast. A number of years
ago, when the BSD386 versions came out, I had a small software and web hosting company.
I bought BSDI licenses. Sure you could get the
source, but they had very restrictive licenses
on their code. I was not encouraged to make
changes and give them away, in fact I was
prevented from doing so. We switched over to linux as it became more stable. Simple as that.
It didn't matter that BSDI had top notch support
and customer service. What mattered was that we
were constrained from sharing improvements to the
system with others.
|
Re:Whatever... (Score:2)
by Bongo
(bongo@mori.greatxscape.net)
on Saturday April 07, @06:48AM EST
(#1096)
(User #13261 Info)
|
Several times he dismisses Linux as not being particularly revolutionary. But it is revolutionary in several ways.
Yep. Mr. Miller talks about customers, value, competition, market, products etc. etc. Every sentense is pure business achievement speak. And looking through this filter, knowledge is just a saleable asset.
Linux and other free software makes no sense in this worldview. I think Linux only registers with people who's worldview is beyond business achievement, and is rather about love of truth, utility, competence and discovery. Linus says he wanted to be a famous scientist. A person who's just interested in science, is really just interested in discovery.
Linux and free software is more of a leading edge in culture, because its a movement who's principles and ideals are not about success and competitive slaughter, but about knowledge and integration. Business success, while a part of society, is not the cutting edge in society's development.
Our world faces new levels of problems that are not going to be solved by business competitive thinking. And MS is pure business competitive thinking par excellence. They are kings of the marketplace.
But the children of these business achievers know that in the end, their parents grew old and unhappy. Success brought money, but it didn't bring lasting joy. So newer generations look for higher values. They measure themselves not by the paycheck, but by something higher. Not that there's anything wrong with paychecks. It's just that they aren't enough. People want more, but not more money, rather, more community, or maybe more knowledge, or meaning or spirit etc. This is the leading edge in culture.
So the "products" of tomorrow have to work for the whole planet, not just the corporation or the market. MS is culturally like the pyramids. Very large, and rather immovable. But also history.
|
Really now... (Score:2)
by Svartalf
(fearl@!spammers!die!airmail.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:13PM EST
(#467)
(User #2997 Info)
http://members.xoom.com/svartalf
|
I'd think that it was a close call with that- pretty much a push in my opinion.
While they're on "more" machines, it seems that a LOT of those machines are not really in use (As in extant machines- not really pertinent to this discussion) and that there's a lot of "requested" ports for architechtures that Linux seems to be stably running on already or there's ports already in beta stages...
Machines like the s390. There's no completed version for the s390 per the netBSD pages.
Machines like the AS400. There's no mention of that on the netBSD pages.
Embedded machines like the Versalogic VSBC-6 (x86, EBX form-factor, specialized hardware)- *BSD doesn't, to the best of my knowlege have device support for the on-board industrial I/O on the VSBC-6. Any distribution using the 2.2.X Linux kernels does- I know, I wrote a driver for it and officially maintain it.
I think you'll find that the original poster referred taking a source of an app from an x86 Linux box and compiling it for execution under Linux s390 and IBM's experimental wrist computer- and expect to have the app run largely as it's supposed to. You can't do that with netBSD- at least not right now.
Yes, netBSD sits on "more" platforms. More doesn't equate to better in all cases. "All we are is dust in the wind..." -- Kansas, Dust in the Wind |
Licensing reponse - are you kidding me? (Score:1)
by jailbrekr2
(jailbrekr@SPAMMERS.ARE.DUMB.FUCKS)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:52AM EST
(#181)
(User #139577 Info)
http://www.digitaladdiction.net
|
To quote:
For Microsoft, we simply want to have a fair system to be compensated for the use of our software - much the same way other companies are compensated for the use of their products or services. It is sad that we have seen so much talk in the industry about devaluing the worth of software. Software is core to the computer experience. People create software and it is essential that we pay people for their valuable and creative work.
Nice try at ducking the question. And exactly how do you propose to get fairly compensated, when the end user and or administrator will have to invest even more time in monitoring and re-licensing YOUR product?!
Sorry, but when one calculates the per-user support costs, your OS will become prohibitively expensive to use. If you think Linux is a serious threat to your company right now, just wait until you try implementing this licensing scheme........
|
You gotta understand (Score:1)
by Apreche on Wednesday April 04, @11:54AM EST
(#188)
(User #239272 Info)
http://www.rit.edu/~slr2777/
|
Microsoft is all about making software that idiots can use. They like things like only 1 desktop because then all the stupid computer users only have to learn it once and they can use every windows computer.
Most people learn computers in a procedural way. For example my grandma. She knows click on AOL, click sign on, wait, type in addresses. That's what she knows about computers. That's what most people know. They have a memorized procedure for each task they use their computers for. If you move their icons around they would be hopeless.
Microsoft likes it this way. They market their products as user-friendly. Which they are, stupid computer users can use microsoft products because they look the same as windows does and they will easily memorize the new procedures they have to follow to complete tasks.
We, as linux users, know how a computer works. It's an amazing thing. That means, gasp, we can figure things out! Microsoft doesn't like people who can figure things out. Because these people will realize hey, I can make my computer do what I want it to do, and I can use difficult software, even some command line stuff. And I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars for an office suite because I can use KOffice.
What we need to do is have television commercials. We need to promote the fact that hey, linux isn't that hard to use. It gives you choices, unlike windows. You can make your desktop be the way you want, not the way windows wants. And you don't have to pay 100$ for it. And it comes with all the software you'll ever need for free. No more buying software. Advertisements such as these will show people, hey windows sucks!
As for the issue of charging money for software and piracy. First of all if you are charging money for software that's ok. I mean if I coded something myself for a long time I would charge for it too. Open source stuff can be free because a lot of people worked a little bit on it and none of them expect to make money. However when you charge $100 for an operating system, that's higway robbery. So people pirate it. Piracy occurrs because of high software prices, not the reverse as you would be led to believe. Heck, look at all the 0 day warez. Those games cost 50$. Most 10 year olds who play these games haven't ever had that much money. If you look at a lot of those games months after they are release they now cost 20 or even 10 dollars. I can pick up a copy of half-life at media play for 10$(Counter strike retail is 30, it's pretty funny). If they would just charge 10 or 20$ in the first place then nobody would pirate it. They would just buy it.
Those who have too many morals to pirate software and are smart enough to know how computers work are us. The linux users. We get all our software free, legally. it's the only way to go.
The smart thing to do is not always the right thing to do.
If you do the right thing, you are damn smart.
-Me |
|
Re:You gotta understand (Score:2)
by SuiteSisterMary
(cent@nospammies.deathsdoor.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:36PM EST
(#597)
(User #123932 Info)
|
It gives you choices, unlike windows. You can make your desktop be the way you want, not the way windows wants.
You just gave the reason why the average user won't like Linux. Reread the first paragraphs of your own post. Sister Mary, virgin Mary, silent in her sin. |
Standards (Score:2)
by donglekey on Wednesday April 04, @11:56AM EST
(#192)
(User #124433 Info)
|
All that crap about standards and other companies extending them is pure bullshit. Good examples are SQL extensions made by people like Oracle and OpenGL entensions made by people like Nvidia are completely different. They give extra options to someone using the standard without actually breaking why the standard is in place to begin with. Microsoft had to settle with Sun because they broke Sun's license agreement. If they thought something needed to be added to java they could have gone through the same process that I could go through if I thought something should be added to java. Instead they put their own infections into it and defeated the purpose by making java that could only run on Microsoft VM's. They broke the standard, they didn't extend it in any way. There is a definite difference.
DTA - Death To Acronyms |
|
Re:Standards (Score:1)
by cworley
(cworley[at]symbionsys[dot]com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:55PM EST
(#427)
(User #96911 Info)
|
>All that crap about standards and other companies extending them is
pure bullshit.
I actually agree with Mr. Miller on this point.
"Unix consortiums" are comprised of vendors saying they desire a standard,
while simultaneously thinking how they will subvert the standard to their
benefit. They smile and shake with one hand, while using the other
hand to shove the knife in.
Microsoft likes to refer to this as "The Balkanization of Unix".
It all boils down to: their bottom-lines are at stake, and in the current
software paradigm, the victor is the vendor who can best lock their customers
into their proprietary software.
The "proprietary lock-in" means, in order to change software, customers are
going to go through an expensive learning curve (and all learning looks threatening
from the uneducated side), and the prospect that existing data might not
convert correctly (marketing hype), an incalculable loss.
Microsoft does the "proprietary lock-in" best: they can integrate their applications
with the OS using unexposed API's. No applications vendor can compete
with MS on the MS OS. They just chase MS's tail until they go bankrupt.
Microsoft's high level of integration is a two edged sword: when the application
goes berserk, it takes the OS down with it.
But, the Unix vendors play this game too. Just not as well.
Open Source, without the profit motive on the individual components and with
intense peer review, creates standards that are robust and can easily be
complied with (you can see the source).
If the applications vendors (and the customers) would move to Open Source
based distributions, then the paradigm would shift and they could compete
on the merits of their product, not the fear they can instill in customers.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates
-- for once, make him clean up after me! |
HOLD IT DOUG! (Score:3, Interesting)
by HeUnique
(hetz-home@cobol2java.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:03PM EST
(#218)
(User #187 Info)
http://www.sweeet.com
|
I would like to respond to your comments about buying software, and selling the office to Linux.
Lets start at the end of your comment (I'm reffering to question 4)
You've mentioned Corel Linux. I happend to be one of their beta testers and used Corel Linux for a couple of weeks.
IMHO, the Corel Linux is something like "proof of consept" - yes, they did a nice job of packaging and making it easy for end user - but what a disribution is worth if there is only 1 security fix in 6 months? (go ahead, count the security fixes that debian had in that same branch they made the Corel Linux). Also, what about compatibility? they changed the QT libraries that they were practically useless for avrage programs to be compiled? haven't they heard about compatibility libraries? even RedHat puts compatibility libraries with a new major version of their distributions.
And updates? I didn't see any update besides the 1 security fix there.
So lets summorize this point: people don't just buy or use a product unless they read reviews about it and maybe following it along the way. With Corel Linux track so far - I wouldn't bother to use it.
Now - the porting to GNOME or KDE - come on Doug, you can do better then that! you're using Motif with applications that you port to Unix (or Linux), so whats GNOME or KDE got to do with it? you can use the XDND protocol (along with some others RPC like Sun RPC's) to do OLE. Go ahead - ask the guys at Mainsoft how they're doing it. Besides - all the distributions today are installing BY DEFAULT all the libraries that are necessary to run both GNOME and KDE applications.
As for your point of buying commercial software - You are more then welcome to call VMWare and ask them how they're VMWare for Linux is selling and why they make they're product first to Linux and then to Windows - they sell pretty well. In fact - they have been profitable since they started to sell their product.
So yes, an avrage Linux user doesn't buy lots of commercial software since most of them are free - but do a survey and you'll find that for a good commercial products with a good price - they'll be lots of people and companies who will buy commercial applications.
And another thing - MS attitude to Linux in terms of porting applications to Linux: Microsoft is porting their MSIE and Windows media player to Solaris and HP/UX - why not to Linux? We both know that by any count you have more Linux workstations then there are Sun's and HP Unix workstations COMBINED! so why not port your MSIE and Windows media player to Linux? if you already ported it to other unices - it wouldn't be that hard to move it further along to Linux. Even the GUI stuff can be ported with QT Libraries
my email address on this post is real, please - feel free to correct me or to respond me.
Hetz (Heunique) |
|
Re:HOLD IT DOUG! (Score:1)
by mech9t8 on Wednesday April 04, @03:14PM EST
(#646)
(User #310197 Info)
|
And another thing - MS attitude to Linux in terms of porting applications to Linux: Microsoft is porting their MSIE and Windows media player to Solaris and HP/UX - why not to Linux? We both know that by any count you have more Linux workstations then there are Sun's and HP Unix workstations COMBINED! so why not port your MSIE and Windows media player to Linux? if you already ported it to other unices - it wouldn't be that hard to move it further along to Linux. Even the GUI stuff can be ported with QT Libraries
Linux is not generally used for corporate workstations (CAD and the like). Solaris and HP/UX (I think) are. The main point of those particular UNIX ports are to encourage corporate adoption of Microsoft intranet solutions. --
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Find out what they are. |
Re:HOLD IT DOUG! (Score:1)
by fuckface on Wednesday April 04, @05:05PM EST
(#791)
(User #32611 Info)
http://web.they.org/RAThaven
|
You wanna run IE on your bazillion dollar CAD station?? You're fukn looney!
|
Another lie... (Score:1)
by nachas on Wednesday April 04, @12:04PM EST
(#222)
(User #409812 Info)
|
..."We fully support data, directory and system interop with UNIX, Linux..." - no they don't. Where is support for ext2 or ext3?
|
on #8 (Score:2)
by Locutus on Wednesday April 04, @12:05PM EST
(#225)
(User #9039 Info)
|
It is sad that we have seen so much talk in the industry about devaluing the worth of software. Software is core to the computer experience. People create software and it is essential that we pay people for their valuable and creative work.
Now come on. What did they do to Netscape by giving Internet Exploder away for free?
This just shows you, MicroSerfs are hippocrites(sp?) and don't be fooled by their use of the word OPEN. It means something totally different in Redmond.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road
look like roadkill to me."
--Linus |
|
Re:on #8 (Score:2)
by SuiteSisterMary
(cent@nospammies.deathsdoor.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:34PM EST
(#595)
(User #123932 Info)
|
Slashdottie: SOFTWARE WANTS TO BE FREE!
Microsoftie: Oh, ok. Here's IE for free.
Slashdottie: HOW DARE YOU RUN NETSCAPE OUT OF BUSINESS?! Sister Mary, virgin Mary, silent in her sin. |
Re:on #8 (Score:2)
by Locutus on Wednesday April 04, @08:27PM EST
(#877)
(User #9039 Info)
|
Oh, I'm sorry did I say they just gave Internet Exploder away for free? What I meant was THEY FORCED IT DOWN EVERY WINDOWS USERS #&^!#%^'ing THROAT AND THREATENED EVERY OEM IF THEY DIDN'T COMPLY. That is what I meant.
And now the poor little MicroSerfs are crying that people are devaluating software. Well, fork you Bill Gates and company and that high horse your riding too.
Since you replied to my post, how dare you assume I believe all software should be free!
LoB "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road
look like roadkill to me."
--Linus |
Re:on #8 (Score:1)
by dfalgoust on Thursday April 05, @02:41PM EST
(#1065)
(User #409341 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/dfalgoust
|
Funny, I don't remember Tony Soprano showing up with my PC and "suggesting" I stick with IE...
|
Re:on #8 (Score:2)
by Locutus on Friday April 06, @10:48AM EST
(#1084)
(User #9039 Info)
|
Are you THAT naive? I'd say 90% of the NON techies I know who have PC's wouldn't even consider installing another browser because they already have one. PERIOD. If that doesn't tell you that forcing applications on users via pre-installs is the same as eliminating most, not all, of the distribution of anybody else's application serving the same purpose.
The browser is an internet/networking application and paying $50 for what a browser does is not unreasonable. That money could have producted a better product very quickly but we'll never know that because Micro$oft used its MONOPOLY MONEY to fund it's browser application and all but eliminate all other browsers via forced OEM pre-installs. Just look at the stat's, 80% Exploder....... just over 10% for Nav/Communicator.
They, M$, has done the same with Java. They knew they didn't want Java on client PC's going out the OEM door. The only way to stop that was to stop Netscape and fool the OEM's into using a corrupt M$ JVM to keep that precious DOS application called Windows protected.
bla bla blah. They are so F$CKed this could go on for months and you say Tony yada-yada didn't force you to keep your preinstalled browser. BFD IMO
LoB "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road
look like roadkill to me."
--Linus |
Re:on #8 (Score:1)
by dfalgoust on Friday April 06, @03:52PM EST
(#1088)
(User #409341 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/dfalgoust
|
Whooptie-freakin'-doo. Many cars come with basic stereo systems standard, and that doesn't seem to hurt third party stereo manufacturers.
Most "non-techies" will keep their current browsers if it meets their needs, much like folks like my Mom will keep Wordpad in lieu of MS Word or StarOffice or whatever if Wordpad is sufficient to meet their needs.
What you really want is to prevent consumers from getting a good deal. Look, back in the dark old days of DOS I had to buy separately from the OS a memory manager, basic disk utilities, and screen saver software. Now it's all bundled in the OS. Are you really going to claim this is a bad deal for consumers? Do you really want them to shell out $50 for EMM386, $50 for Norton, and $50 for After Dark?
Look, there is one way and one way only that Netscape could continue to charge for its browser, and that is if that browser provided significantly more functionality than IE. It didn't, so they couldn't, so here we are. If your product is good enough, people will pay for it even in the face of a free (but inferior) alternative. If that wasn't true, we'd all be using Wordpad.
There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Microsoft, but this just isn't one of them.
|
Re:on #8 (Score:1)
by Rick BigNail
(ca.blaze@rickywkt)
on Friday April 06, @07:19PM EST
(#1094)
(User #242669 Info)
|
THEY FORCED IT DOWN EVERY WINDOWS USERS #&^!#%^'ing THROAT AND THREATENED EVERY OEM IF THEY DIDN'T COMPLY
And that'was in 96, when Netscape are the most famous brand and IE still sucks.
I don't hate MS. But threaten oem? If MS doesn't have windows monopoly, it would not have succeeded. Thus we have the anti-trust trial.
Ricky I AM Joe Canada. |
Re:on #8 (Score:2, Insightful)
by dfalgoust on Sunday April 08, @11:18AM EST
(#1098)
(User #409341 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/dfalgoust
|
First of all: settle down, you'll live longer.
As I noted, there are legitimate reasons to dislike Microsoft. To the extent that they prevented OEM's from including Netscape, they are rightly condemned.
But simply including IE as a part of the OS isn't a terrible thing; indeed, it is to be applauded. It provides the consumer with greater value for his OS dollar, and it does not prevent a consumer who is so inclined from grabbing Netscape if the consumer thinks he would prefer that browser to the one provided by Microsoft.
If you're going to condemn Microsoft simply for making a browser part of the OS, then you also have to condemn them for providing memory management, disk defragmentation, and screen savers with the OS, since all of these once had to be purchased separately.
|
Re:on #8 (Score:1)
by Rick BigNail
(ca.blaze@rickywkt)
on Tuesday April 17, @12:53PM EST
(#1110)
(User #242669 Info)
|
Thanks for replying.
Looks like we agree a lot. I don't think bundling IE for free is bad.
Did i send out signal to show that i am a anti-ms zealot? I guess i replied to the wrong thread at the wrong time.
And you are an attorney! So I should not behave as if i were a laywer and threw out jargon like 'anti-trust trial':)
I AM Joe Canada. |
The ugly truth (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @12:06PM EST
(#226)
|
The part about Doug's replies that really struck me is how accurately his comments in the reply to question 4 echo those I've heard time and time again from other companies. Doug says problems with porting apps to Linux include the lack of a single desktop and the unwillingness of many Linux users to pay for software. He's right, whether people here want to admit it or not.
Even worse, it leads to the following chain of events:
1. Linux continues to do its own thing with too many options for every component (wm, de, whatever) of a working system.
2. Software companies don't port apps to Linux.
3. Desktop users can't get the apps they want to run under Linux, even though many of them desperately want an alternative to Windows.
4. MS continues to own over 90% of the desktop market indefinitely.
In other words, you can have it your way, or you can conquer the world. You can't do both.
|
opera ?? (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @12:07PM EST
(#227)
|
>Show me one product that is built exclusively on a standard specification that does not include code beyond the standard. It doesn't exist.
Here's one : Opera
Fully compliant with HTML-spec from W3C (or at least they try to be fully compilant)
And I don't see the fuss from kerberos besides that M$ makes itself partly un-interoperatable
|
Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:2)
by DG
(trog@SPAM-ME-NOT.wincom.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:07PM EST
(#230)
(User #989 Info)
http://farnorthracing.com
|
You know, I don't think they're _ever_ going to Get It.
- He's barely even started when the first FUD hits "Linux is advertised as free", hinting at vague hidden costs lurking out there to bite the unwary (Gee, like MS Tech Support doesn't soak you per incident)
But he misses that it's Free; that universal access to source code that you are *encouraged* to use elsewhere results in an ever-growing knowledge base - which not only lowers the barriers to (development) entry for those so inclined, but also results in ever-growing numbers of people qualified to provide ad-hoc support - which in turn works against the never-quite-voiced "support costs will kill you" FUDbit.
- He complains about competing desktop standards as being "confusing", but he totally misses that being able to pick, choose, and configure my desktop experience is something I WANT - it makes me more productive. And he also doesn't seem to grasp that this can be done per-user, so that the complexity of the desktop can be adapted to whoever logs in to the machine without disrupting the others.
"Any color you want, as long as it's black" went out with the Model T. Why is MS so intent on reviving it?
- He goes on at length about Linux's lack of a "revenue model", but is completely oblivious that Linux doesn't NEED a revenue model. Linux is NOT about selling software, it's about solving problems.
"Linux is one of our primary competitors" - no, it's NOT! "Competitor" assumes that both parties are struggling over some territory in a shared space. MS is about making money by selling software; Linux is about solving computing problems. If people can use Linux to make money along the way, fine, but the success or failure of Linux is not measured on financial scales.
MS has some very smart people working for it, no question about it. If they were totally incompetant, they wouldn't be where they are today. But the more interviews I see with MS personages, the more I realize that they don't understand the nature of of the beast they're facing. They cannot attack the problem, because they don't comprehend it.
Want to know what the dinosaurs said when they saw the first mammal? Ask a MS rep about Linux.
DG |
|
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:1)
by joeytsai
(joeytsai@email.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:29PM EST
(#330)
(User #49613 Info)
|
Want to know what the dinosaurs said when they saw the first mammal? Ask a MS rep about Linux.
As an aside, I find it rather interesting that you're making the analogy of dinosaur : microsoft :: mammal : linux. I'm sure you knew this, but evolutionarily speaking, dinosaurs are considered very successful. Remember, dinos roamed the earth for MILLIONS of years. In terms of earth's history, us mammals have been here less than a blink of an eye. Sure, in our biased opinion we like to believe that our intelligence, science, culture, art, etc. make us somehow "superior" than than the thundering lizards, but in reality, our true test of survival is in the test of time and adaptability.
And you're right, that's very similar to Microsoft and Linux.
|
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:2)
by DG
(trog@SPAM-ME-NOT.wincom.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:43PM EST
(#385)
(User #989 Info)
http://farnorthracing.com
|
Thank you - and your comments are well taken.
It will not be lost on you, however, that the dinosaurs were very successful as long as a certain set of environmental conditions held. Once those conditions were no longer in place, they failed to adapt and died out almost instantly (in evolutionary timescales)
Mammals, while they've been around for less raw time, have demonstrated greater adaptibility - noteably, surviving a few ice ages.
Of course, we have those pesky insects and microbes all over the place that tamper with our Darwinian analogy, but that's niether here nor there. :)
I see it like this: the combination of widespread, high-speed access to the Internet and the return of the concept of software as shared knowledge (instead of for-sale product) is to MS as the asteroid smacking the Yucutan is to the dinosaurs.
The old conditions that encouraged their past success are rapidly disappearing - can they evolve and survive?
We've got ringside seats at least. :)
DG |
A little nit-pick (Score:1)
by Weasel Boy on Wednesday April 04, @01:43PM EST
(#516)
(User #13855 Info)
|
Mammals, while they've been around for less raw time, have
demonstrated greater adaptibility - noteably, surviving a few ice
ages.
Ice ages happen every few thousand years. I'm sure that in their 60 million years, Dinosaurs faced their fair share of ice ages. They were also terrifically adaptable. Some might even argue that, by their relation to modern-day birds, dinosaurs are not completely extinct.
Humanoid apes have only existed for a handful of million years, and human civilization is only a couple tens of thousands of years old. Let's wait and see another 10 million years or so (and/or survive the impact of a mile-wide asteroid into shallow water) before we get too haughty about the dinosaurs.
|
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:1)
by Denial of Service on Wednesday April 04, @01:41PM EST
(#510)
(User #199335 Info)
|
Oh, I'm so sick of this Linux counter-FUD that it's finally time to vent. I'm very, very pleased to see that you have such a philanthropical view of Linux, but you're in the minority, buddy. "Linux is all about solving computing problems"... my ass it is! Linux has become a cause to champion for anyone who is fed up with any number of Microsoft's questionable tactics, nothing more. Windows and Linux are (inexplicably, I might add) damn sure in direct competition, and if you don't believe it, I encourage you to carefully read any thread that involves a Linux desktop enhancement of virtually any description or severity or a Windows deficiency of, again, virtually any severity. There you'll surely find literally hundreds of people writing Windows' eulogy (again) as Linux takes its (supposedly) rightful place at the top of the heap. Difference in corporate philosophy or not, there you have competition.
You can use all the evolutionary metaphors you like, the fact is that Microsoft is a successful business and Linux, thus far, is simply not because Linux as a whole has chosen to stick to its ideals. Right or wrong, this philosophy along with the decreasing trust and increasing frustration with piss-poor public representatives like Cox, Raymond and the simply loathsome Stallman has lost this fight for Linux before the bell even rings.
Maybe you think you Get It, but until you're willing to look sadly at your Linux CD and admit aloud that it will never, ever be more than a 10% player in this world while attempting to push idiotic business ideals and relying on people who look and speak like street-urchins as public representatives, you simply don't Get It at all. As unpleasant as it is, this is not now, nor will it ever be a world where philanthropy rules. If you like Linux, use it happily (I do), but if you honestly believe you're wildly misplaced mammals versus dinosaurs analogy, you're in for a whole host of rude awakening.
--- Don't make me come in there! |
You're missing the point... (Score:2)
by DG
(trog@SPAM-ME-NOT.wincom.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:21PM EST
(#576)
(User #989 Info)
http://farnorthracing.com
|
Railing against "the Linux public representatives" - true or not - is to miss the point. Linux _does not care_ what its public representatives do. I'll grant that if some of our more visible figures were more... marketable... the process might be sped up in certain circles, but that's just a matter of speed. One year or ten years, it really doesn't matter.
Every line of code written for "Linux" is publically available. Every line of code, no matter what the root justification at the time of writing (be it a personal itch scratched, or a problem solved, or a feature added to improve someone's bottom line) becomes part of the common, freely available whole.
As long as there is still one lone hacker coding and publishing, Linux will continue to advance. The rate of advance may ebb and flow, but the net advancement is unstoppable.
MS's past history with competitors that have mounted challenges to their hegemony have either been to tamper with the core product, (to make it either incompatible or irrelevant) or to purchase the competitor outright (and either co-opt the product or bury it) Niether strategy can work against Linux - Linux does not need MS compatibility for the large part, and can react much faster than MS to API changes in the small part. And as for outright purchase... they can join the party, but they cannot extinguish it.
You simply cannot "fight" Linux using the language and tactics of business. It's like trying to drill an oil well with a chicken - it just doesn't work that way.
Dismissing Linux as "the Anti-Microsoft", as if it were just some sort of form of protest or backlash (of which there is undoubtedly a large amount) is also to miss the point. Around here, (Fortune 100 company) Linux is being installed anywhere and everywhere it can. Why? Because it works. It's good enough for the job, and it marks the freedom from reliance on vendors and proprietary code. The fact that there's no license fees to pay is just gravy (nice gravy, but gravy)
IT departments solve problems. They provide services. They don't care about politics, marketing, market share, or whatever. But every single one of them has (many, many times over) seen a key vendor go under, stop support of a key product, or discovered problems that cannot get fixed (for whatever reason) With Linux, you get source - for EVERYTHING. Having the source means never getting caught with your pants down.
Here's a harsh fact - the VAST MAJORITY of coders, admins, and other computer professionals do not write code for sale. Instead, they are employed by other businesses as support personel. They are problem-solvers. And they are adopting Linux like manna from heaven. I see it all around me. Projects that 5 years ago would have had MS as a direct partner are now being developed on Linux without MS ever being told about their missed opportunity for a sale - and if it wasn't for the enormous amount of legacy data (Spreadsheets and documents) produced on MS tools that only work on MS tools, Linux would be all over the desktops here.
Never be a 10% player? Brother, we passed 10% a long time ago. The "idiotic business ideal" is that we EVER paid money for software. Software is a SERVICE, not a "product" - and Linux is a long overdue correction.
DG |
Re:You're missing the point... (Score:1)
by Denial of Service on Wednesday April 04, @04:42PM EST
(#759)
(User #199335 Info)
|
I apologize in advance for picking at your last post piece by piece, but there's a lot of material to cover here unfortunately.
Linux _does not care_ what its public representatives do. I'll grant that if some of our more visible figures were more... marketable... the process might be sped up in certain circles, but that's just a matter of speed.
I simply must disagree. As long as 'radical' figures such as the ones I listed originally are at the forefront of Linux's public image, it will always appear as a "hippie culture", for lack of a better term -- especially in the eyes of corporate PHBs who are responsible for adopting anything new. Not everyone is as enlightened as I'm sure most Linux zealots wish.
As long as there is still one lone hacker coding and publishing, Linux will continue to advance. The rate of advance may ebb and flow, but the net advancement is unstoppable.
Here's where we share some common ground. You're right, but will it move forward into the mainstream with the current structure? No. Is that okay? I personally would be very happy to see Linux (and BSD, for that matter) remain in the unprostituted "underground", but that's not the same goal as many free software users.
Niether strategy can work against Linux - Linux does not need MS compatibility for the large part, and can react much faster than MS to API changes in the small part. And as for outright purchase... they can join the party, but they cannot extinguish it.
True again, but a refusal to work with the uncontested king of the industry at this point does nothing, again, to move toward mainstream acceptance. Look at it however you like, if most people are forced to choose between products like MS Office and StarOffice, the answer is obvious. Perhaps not among people who can comprehend the ramifications, but that's certainly not the majority.
With Linux, you get source - for EVERYTHING. Having the source means never getting caught with your pants down.
This is a common argument, and one that irks me, frankly. Having the source is only worthwhile if there are people proficient in C on staff (or readily available). At my last job, I worked for a very small consulting firm (less than ten people total), none of whom were coders. How valuable is megs and megs of source in such a case? Being a system administrator of any OS does require scripting skills, but should I have to be a C hacker in order to administer Linux? I sure think not. The fact that Linux isn't proprietary is a completely moot point unless there's a coder in the office, not to mention someone willing to foot the bills while he slogs through the source.
...and if it wasn't for the enormous amount of legacy data (Spreadsheets and documents) produced on MS tools that only work on MS tools, Linux would be all over the desktops here.
...in a group of computer-savvy users. Again, my point is that, in its current state, Linux will never penetrate the desktop market as a whole, because it does not offer anything revolutionary, aside from an attractive price, to those who are not as computer literate as we who hang out on Slashdot. Again, that's fine with me, but it's really another nail in the coffin for your original mammals/dinosaurs metaphor. My Dad bought a new (ick) Chevy because he knew that he could rush back to the dealership and talk to a real person with any problems. Not being able to do so (in most cases) with Linux is not a point in its favor in the eyes of the average user.
Never be a 10% player? Brother, we passed 10% a long time ago.
Consider this article at theregister.co.uk. I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but even if the ones quoted in the above link are off by 100%, it's still not even close (in terms of desktop penetration, at least).
--- Don't make me come in there! |
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:2)
by Nailer on Wednesday April 04, @07:53PM EST
(#865)
(User #69468 Info)
http://www.cyber.com.au
|
He's barely even started when the first FUD hits "Linux is advertised as free", hinting at vague hidden costs lurking out there to bite the unwary.
Not hidden costs, but certainly a stack of other coists beyond licensing. Eg, quality documentation (sorry, the LDP doesn't fit imnto that category - try getting your parents to use the modem-HOWTO some time costs money. So does support you can have on site at 4:20 AM, who will respond within a half hour. Yes, there's hidden costs to Windows too - its more expensive to own as a server IMO becuase its less reliable, and downtime wates money. But the basic point - that licensing costs mean NOTHING in terms of owning a server is compeltely true.
But he misses that it's Free; that universal access to source code that you are *encouraged* to use elsewhere results in an ever-growing knowledge base - which not only lowers the barriers to (development) entry for those so inclined, but also results in ever-growing numbers of people qualified to provide ad-hoc support - which in turn works against the never-quite-voiced "support costs will kill you" FUDbit.
The quality of free support is limited. It always will be, simply because one cannot wake up a mate on the net at get them on site when the routers down.
He complains about competing desktop standards as being "confusing", but he totally misses that being able to pick, choose, and configure my desktop experience is something I WANT - it makes me more productive.
Yes, but the fact that KDE and GNOME apps aren't compatible (in the sense that drag and drop, menus, panel apps, themes, all common dialoge boxes, and other aspects aren't consistent) means a user must learn the basic of a Linux desktop twice. Competiton doesn't have to mean incompatibility, but riught now, it does.
And he also doesn't seem to grasp that this can be done per-user, so that the complexity of the desktop can be adapted to whoever logs in to the machine without disrupting the others.
You can't eliminate the complexity of File -> Open in Gimp looking and working completely differently from File _> Open on Konqueror.
"Any color you want, as long as it's black" went out with the Model T. Why is MS so intent on reviving it?
Windows has more than one toolkit - MSs MFC, Borlands VCL, and others. They just wrap[ around a common base layer called Win32. This is exactly what Linux should do.
He goes on at length about Linux's lack of a "revenue model", but is completely oblivious that Linux doesn't NEED a revenue model.
But damn stright it *wants* one. A huge reason for the explosion in Linux popularity since 98 was the formation of the Open Source Initiative and its more business friendly message. It doesn't need a softare licensing model beyind the GPL, but it does need a revenue model. X development is being funded by SuSE and VA, GNOME by Eazel and Ximian, KDE by SuSE, Webmin buy Caldera, and more. IF funding for these projects dissappeared the would continue, but at a snails pace. Most larger Open Source projects are commercial in nature.
Linux is NOT about selling software, it's about solving problems.
For Linux companies (and most businesses want commerical support arrangements), it about making money by solving support needs. You're right in that it not about selling software,
"Linux is one of our primary competitors" - no, it's NOT! "Competitor" assumes that both parties are struggling over some territory in a shared space.
The shared space is the server and to a lesser degree the desktop. Just because Linux companies and Microsft have different business models doesn't mean they're not competing.
the success or failure of Linux is not measured on financial scales.
Depends on who you speak to - IMO, its measured by market share.
MS has some very smart people working for it, no question about it. If they were totally incompetant, they wouldn't be where they are today. But the more interviews I see with MS personages, the more I realize that they don't understand the nature of of the beast they're facing. They cannot attack the problem, because they don't comprehend it.
You don't see Windows and Linux competing. IMO, I don't think you comprehend it. IYO, I guess I'm wrong.
Want to know what the dinosaurs said when they saw the first mammal? Ask a MS rep about Linux.
The dinosaurs never asked Mammals to help develop the next versions of dinosaurs (MS tried recruiting via LUGs in Australia recently_. NEither did they hire a team to study mammals in anticipation of the threat. ------
Mechanics shouldn't be the only people to drive cars.
Linux isn't more stable if they can't install it. |
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:2)
by nitehorse
(webmaster@konqueror.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:43PM EST
(#885)
(User #58425 Info)
http://www.konqueror.org
|
But the basic point - that licensing costs mean NOTHING in terms of owning a server is compeltely true.
Actually, you're wrong. I work as a web designer/programmer/sysadmin for a small web company (100+ clients, though) and it's a fact that we chose FreeBSD for these reasons (in no particular order):
1 - It's Free, dammit! You just can't beat free.
2 - It's OpenSource(tm). I don't hack the kernel, and I'm not skilled enough to try, but if somebody else does, I get the benefits.
3 - It's stable, fast, and powerful. FreeBSD will beat WindowsNT on the same hardware for *anything* that we, as a web design (and now hosting) company can do. [This means web page serving - apache; databases for our clients pages - mysql; scripting languages for dynamic code - perl, php; file serving - ftp... the list goes on)
Now, if NT had been free, I would have been more inclined to consider it; but I'll be damned if I'm going to try to convince my boss to pay $1500+ for an OS that I *know* isn't as stable, reliable, or fast as a FREE one. So cost doesn't have *much* to do with it, but it does (from time to time) have something to do with these kinds of decisions. This comment posted with Konqueror. |
Re:Microsoft Blinkers (TM) (Score:2)
by Brian Knotts
(bknotts@europa.com)
on Thursday April 05, @08:00AM EST
(#1016)
(User #855 Info)
http://xfmail.slappy.org/
|
But the basic point - that licensing costs mean NOTHING in terms of owning a server is compeltely true.
This is utter, utter horseshit, designed to deflect from the truth of the matter.
I work for a small company (15 employees). I built our web/email/etc. server, and it runs Debian Linux with Interbase.
The machine would need a sysadmin regardless. If it were not me, and the machine ran Windows, an NT monkey would cost at least 75-80% of my salary. A good one would cost just as much as me.
I handle all the "support" for the machine. If you have a bit of knowledge, it's not all that hard. What I can't answer myself, I do through mailing lists.
If we used Microsoft solutions, instead of Free or Open Source Software, let's see what we'd have to pay: Win2K w/ Internet license - $2,000; SQL Server - $40,000 (it's a dual proc system); Exchange - roughly $3,600 for 15 CALs...more when we get more employees
That's nearly $50,000, not counting various development tools that we would probably have to pay for as well.
That is not an inconsequential amount of money, and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is.
Get on OpenNIC now! |
He Said ... He Said (Score:1)
by nick_danger on Wednesday April 04, @12:07PM EST
(#231)
(User #150058 Info)
|
Microsoft is very standards driven. We are an active participant in many of the standards bodies and have been leading the charge in promoting the use of XML, SOAP and other standards for our .NET initiative.
Yeah, sure. Whatever.
We should be very clear in defining the difference between standards and proprietary intellectual property
Ahhh... Now we come to the crux: When it's got an RFC number, it's a standard. But when it gets "embraced and extended" it becomes "proprietary intellectual property." It's all becoming very clear.
So with respect to *n[ui]x interoperability, what he seems to be saying is: "Sure, we'll play ball. We'll make our systems work so that they can play nice with the heathen-OS'd boxes you've got. That's 'cuz we conform to standards. But if your boxes want to interact with our boxes, you'll have to use OUR solution, because that's proprietary intellectual property.
|
Not bad (Score:1)
by austinc1 on Wednesday April 04, @12:08PM EST
(#234)
(User #411743 Info)
|
Pretty good answers for an MS guy. Pretty straight forward answers about where MS stands in relation to Linux in particular.
The only one that really rubbed me the wrong way was his dodge of #9, going off into a couple of instances (XML) where Microsoft does support standards rather than talk about what we obviously wanted him to (Java). Oh well.
- Austin
|
Doug seems to misunderstand the meaning of "Free" (Score:1)
by kerskine on Wednesday April 04, @12:10PM EST
(#248)
(User #46804 Info)
http://www.whatiflinux.com
|
Doug talks a lot about "Free" software - as in no-cost, but not about "Free" - as in free speech. I'm wondering if this is his misunderstanding of the concept, or a general message Microsoft is trying to push
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx |
|
Re:Doug seems to misunderstand the meaning of "Fre (Score:1)
by TheShadow
(rwienholt@legion(removethis)tech.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:48PM EST
(#612)
(User #76709 Info)
http://legiontech.com
|
Well, then maybe there needs to be a new term. Since the idiots don't know the difference... we should come up with a new word to mean "Free as in speech".
-- "What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today." |
Profit margins (Score:1)
by LuckyLuke58 on Wednesday April 04, @12:15PM EST
(#266)
(User #207964 Info)
|
I don't have a problem with Microsoft wanting to make money off their software. So many Microsoft execs seem to jump on the defensive quickly about them 'just wanting to make money off their software'.
What I do have a problem with, and what I would have liked to seen answered here, was how MS can justify having such huge profit margins? It's not "just making money", its outright extortion/gouging. How do they justify/explain a profit margin which is more than ten times (percentage-wise) what is standard in other industries? If their rates were fair I'd buy his arguments (and their software). But they're not.
|
Wasted minds..... (Score:1)
by iron_weasel on Wednesday April 04, @12:18PM EST
(#279)
(User #415177 Info)
|
Very glad MS has this man on the payroll. I can now rest easy knowing that MS still has no chance in the OS wars to be. At least not against Linux
(who he doesn't understand is a OS).
The line about resolving customers problems is
straight out of looneyville.
They would gut Linux code in a minute, much like the Chicoms are doing right now with the EP-3, were it not for the GPL
|
Outlook E-Mail Security Update (Score:2, Informative)
by aengblom on Wednesday April 04, @12:18PM EST
(#283)
(User #123492 Info)
http://gwu.edu/~aengblom
|
...For example, after the "I Love You" virus of last spring, we took the initiative to change the balance between security and functionality by releasing the Outlook E-Mail Security Update. The Update prevents executable attachments from being delivered to an Outlook user, and also prevents code from sending mail on the user's behalf without the user's permission. No user who's installed the Update has been harmed by any of the e-mail viruses that have been seen since "I Love You"...
UGG! This update is a security update in the worst of ways. It is totally brute force. It simply cuts off access to potentially harmful files even if the user knows the file is safe. This includes VBS files, EXE files, but also Access database files and so on. It literaly says "Outlook has blocked access to FileA, FileB, ETC." Even worse It made no warning I would be denied access to such files and there is no way to turn it off. I can't TELL YOU HOW MUCH THIS PISSES ME OFF! I had to turn an assignment in LATE because Outlook blocked my MS Access file
I sent to MYSELF!!
(yeah it um real gets to me)
|
Single Desktop Environment (Score:2, Insightful)
by jmu1
(jmullmanSPAMISDADEBUL@gasou.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:24PM EST
(#312)
(User #183541 Info)
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/jmullman
|
Miller states serveral times that he feels that unless there is one unified desktop environment that Linux on the desktop will fail. Why is that again? I have been using StarOffice for much longer than I have KDE _or_ GNOME and you know what... it looks the same and acts the same no matter what. Could it be that someone has been reading /. and has noticed (even though the holy war seems to be at a stalemate) that KDE vs GNOME has been an inflammatory subject for some time? Could it be that seed of doubt that we are always dodging? Could be... and I am sure it is. I think this guy is defenately an M$ employee. He obviously fears all things not M$, so he looks into them... finds out what we bicker about the most and exploits them. A true strategist. But, let's keep in mind who can discern facts from opinions, and let's also remember what camp this fellow is coming from. Who cares what his background is, or where he has been. We all know where he is now. We all know we can't bow down to "his" speculations.
You feel like moderating today punk? Huh? Do ya? BTW, if I were going to post, I would not post offtopic... |
Dont blame MS .. blame people! (Score:2)
by SirSlud
(garret@spam.sirsonic.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:26PM EST
(#316)
(User #67381 Info)
http://www.sirsonic.com/
|
>Microsoft is a commercial operating system company that makes most of its revenue from selling its software. We charge money for our software. That is how we pay our developers, our support people and others to provide for the ongoing existence of our company.
We live in a capitalist economy. MS is fully within its rights to do anything and everything to try and get more money. Thats what capitalism is. No where in the capitalist doctrine does it say, ' .. but you should give up your attempt to amass more riches should you feel you are not being /nice/.' If MS, Nike, McDonalds, and all the other conglomerates have prooven anything, its that the consumer has no boycott power. For every anti-MSer, there are 9 people who could be told 'the whole story', and still not care. So what it really comes down to is the lack of 'checks and balances' in capitalism .. there is nothing to dissuade a corperation from becoming 'too big', or 'too .. unnice'. People complain that MS does all this evil stuff, and then go to work and probably work their own web-of-lies to see product (hell, the internet boom practically owed its existance to the near-hysteric levels of hyperbole in business exchanges in the late 90s.)
So don't complain about the traffic cop who gives you the ticket .. complain about the fact that the traffic law exists in the first place. MS is just doing what the all-american dream is - beating the hell out of your competition, getting stinkin' rich, and relaxing by the pool. While I may not fundamentally believe that they deserve it from a technological point of view, you have to give them credit just for doing what any other huge corperation has succeeded in doing; convincing millions and millions of people to run their software by /any/ means neccessary. Sure they 'embrace and extend' .. sure they market to dummies .. I'm sure MS has made hundreds of questionable decisions not based on technical merit alone. But McDonalds, up until three years ago, used to feed dead cats and dogs from animal shelters to your BigMac cows, and people still ate it (you probably did too, according to statistics). Nike has the sweatshops, but kids look up to the NBAers who make more than all of Nike's factory workers salaries with one deal than the factory workers do in a year. So when it comes to the MS whining and bitching, do it at your terminal (I sure do); I dont think its a revelation to /anyone/ that MS will do just about anything to Get Your Money, but in the end, its all relatively harmless in the context of the big picture. The real irony here is that the reason Microsoft thinks it needs to do this (with respect to the serial key situation with XP) is because people copy and use MS for free. I'm always confused by how much 'anti-commie' sentiment is still around, in the same climate as 'things should be free if you want them to be' (witness Napster as a recent case). Again, MS is just doing /everything/ they can to make the /most amount of money/ .. its capitalism baby! "Karmashmarma." - me |
|
Spin (Score:1)
by yoshi_mon
(nippon@kodo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:32PM EST
(#342)
(User #172895 Info)
|
It seems to me that Doug, while answering the questions as well as could be expected for a corporate suit, seems to hide behind the “customer”.
When was the last time you got a marketing survey from MS? When was the last time that you were asked if you wanted a product cycle every 1-2 years? When was the last time you were asked if you needed 100 more features for MS Office even though it’s already got enough to choke a horse? How about them even asking if you wanted a browser with your OS?
I try to participate in surveys as much as I can. It’s the only way you can get corporate America to understand what you want, however I’ve never seen or heard of such from the likes of MS.
Bottom line, MS is a virtual monopoly. They can do what they want with what they produce and if you don’t like it, tough. Ask them why they did x instead of y, spin spin spin.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons! |
Windows XP (Score:1)
by slashdot.org on Wednesday April 04, @12:34PM EST
(#350)
(User #321932 Info)
http://slashdot.org
|
If you haven't seen the beta of Windows XP, check it out - it is VERY cool.
Yeah, for a 3 year old, maybe.
WTF? Why don't you tell us the REAL story? Windows XP is just there to get everyone to buy a new Windows again. You can't really continue to sell these 'enhancements' that are new Windows versions (98, 98SE, ME). There's nothing so drastically different that people should pay for that.
So you come up with something 'new, fresh and kewl' and scream really loud how kewl and revolutionary it is. I hope this time it wont work for you, I hope people will use their common sense, and actually try before they buy.
If you want to improve your OS products, try to design one that has a device driver architecture that actually makes sense, for starters.
|
Real answers??? I think not... (Score:2, Insightful)
by GreekGeek on Wednesday April 04, @12:38PM EST
(#369)
(User #107994 Info)
|
Here are some quotes from this interview:
"I can't really say if anything has changed over the years..."
"I'm not sure much will change ..."
"We clearly accept that customers will choose multiple operating systems depending on how they need to solve their business problems"
"Today, there is an almost violent dislike for anything Microsoft in the Linux community"
"I personally think that we will see a mixed model for the foreseeable future"
"...I don't see a major revolution here"
"In the end, it all comes down to solving customers' problems "
These answers to questions are about as vague as saying, "It depends on what the word "is" is...".
Please, nothing came out of this interview that surprised or even raised any eyebrows. Yes, Microsoft makes money and doesn't like it when an equivalent product out there competes with it but doesn't use the profit model as the reason for its existence. So what, we've all known that for years.
LINUX and Microsoft represent two distinct and fundamental splits in the IT world. One world, the Open Source world, considers software to be a commodity--an advanced engine whose purpose is to lower the cost to the "consumer" to almost zero. To Microsoft, software is a very valuable piece of a corporation. Because of its cost-saving capabilities, it should charge a premium for its product.
Microsoft charges for its OS--LINUX distros allow themselves to be used for free.
Microsoft uses proprietary protocols to perform many of their tasks--LINUX doesn't.
The real question is--which fundamental split is the way to go with in the future. No answers have been given...
|
RMS and M$ Agree (Score:1)
by Linux_ho
(linux_hoAtSemerutechDotCom)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:40PM EST
(#376)
(User #205887 Info)
|
Some of these enhancements were based on other standards but often these features were
proprietary code that they did not share with the rest of the world. Why? Because they wanted to have features
that they felt were compelling to customers and gave them an edge over their competitors. Extending
standards beyond a given specification is a way of life for all software vendors. Show me one product that is
built exclusively on a standard specification that does not include code beyond the standard. It doesn't exist. It looks like both Microsoft and Stallman agree that a cooperative, highly interoperable computing environment can't exist with proprietary software unless the entire environment is proprietary to a single vendor. Or until GPL'd software becomes the de-facto standard and proprietary software must interoperate with it to survive.
Live your dream - get Motivated! |
We still have a LOT of WORK to do! (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @12:42PM EST
(#383)
|
An operating system is not only the kernel and a bunch of device drivers! We didn't even start the most important project of them all: consolidating our manpower and our technologies. We could really use a component object model. The good news is: we have that technology. The bad news is we are working on more than one.. XPCom part of the Mozilla web browser project and ORBit part of the Gnome Desktop project. Speaking of desktops, like Doug said, we are working on two competing projects, Gnome and KDE. We already have all the technologies Doug thinks put Microsoft ahead in the game. Mainframe / AS400 connectivity? Linux-SNA. A kick-ass web browser? Mozilla vs. Internet Explorer. Word processor, spread-sheet, Business presentations? Star-Office. I could go on and on but I guess you get the picture. What we have to do now is to consolidate all that into a coherent system.. I want to be able to manipulate Star-Office spread-sheets using a system-wide scripting language (how about perl? python?..?).. I want to be able to embed that spread-sheet into any application, not only into Star-Office's word processor (XPCom? ORBit?) I want to be able to use the same printer driver from Star-Office and any other application on the system (anybody working on a printing subsystem for X? Or do we put it into GTK's GDK?).. There's still a lot of work for us to do before we can really kick their asses on the desktop. I'm looking forward to both.
|
Microsoft *is* innovative (Score:2)
by Richy_T
(slashdot@perihelion.demon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:44PM EST
(#392)
(User #111409 Info)
http://www.nashvillegazette.com
|
If the Linux
community could take the best thinking from both the KDE and GNOME
projects and join forces, they would have the best chance for success.
I believe I have just seen the first ever attempt at "unite and conquer".
Sure, unite up then Microsoft only has a single target to aim for and squash. I personally think the strength *is* in the diversity. Otherwise we'd all just be stuck with some extension of twm.
Rich Sig: Hey, how come the sigs suddenly shrank? |
|
Roblimo? (Score:1)
by drivers
(drivers@spam.uswest.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:45PM EST
(#393)
(User #45076 Info)
|
Doug Miller deserves your respect ... for telling it like it is ... without a hint of weaseling.
Roblimo, are you sure we read the same interview?
|
XP Answers. (Score:1)
by SomeOtherGuy
(deskjock@NOSPAMMANfirstlinux.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:48PM EST
(#404)
(User #179082 Info)
|
Man -- why are so many "Linux Advocates" so up in arms over Microsofts new licensing schemes. I would be pissed if I was a "Pirate" dead set on a free ride...This would throw a big wrench into my "cartel". However, they can do whatever they want -- because I have been "Microsoft Free" since 1997, and things just keep getting better and better. (And even before 97, I was apt to pay for software that had a price tag -- using the same method I use to get groceries and gas for my car....) As soon as I deemed the price to high -- well I started using Linux, and have not looked back. If you want to cry about the new XP license scheme -- I am sure you can find some pro windows haXor site where you can trade war stories and cry in your beer.
All in all, I was happy with his answers. Straight forward -- with truth.
People who live in glass houses....yadayada |
Here it is: (Score:1)
by EEEthan
(emh26@columbia.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:49PM EST
(#408)
(User #41747 Info)
http://3than.com
|
And I quote:
I had this debate with Bob Young once where he stated it was great that so many desktop options exist for the Linux user. I don't see it. Lots of choices of desktops in the academic community might be good for stimulating many different approaches but having too many choices in a commercial platform environment in the end, confuses developers and users.
(end quote)
This, if you ask me, is the gap that can't be bridged. MS is a company supporting a product, and thus, they want to have a unified environment, so neither users nor developers get confused.
But this would be the death of linux. Linux is beautiful because there's so much stuff going on...so many different environments and projects. KDE/GNOME doesn't even begin to tell the story, if you ask me. The real stuff is KDE/Blackbox integration, or GNOME with Enlightenment...multiple environments at the same time. I run GNOME and KDE apps simultaneously, and I'm hardly alone in doing so. Ultimately, MS is confused by linux...they can deal with it as a server OS, but when it comes to desktop...they know that there are features in linux already that they can't compete with. Windows will never be as reconfigurable as any unix, and linux is the most flexible of them all.
So good. If you ask me, keep windows easy to use, and keep linux big, confusing, and flexible. Sure, I won't fight you if linux gets easier to use somehow, but you can't deny that UNIX, though cryptic, is perfectly usable. So MS doesn't think that the average Joe can learn enough UNIX to copy his files out of a paper bag...so what. Let the sheep stay with MS...us wolves will take care of ourselves...even with too many choices.
|
I got it (Score:1)
by Tony Shepps
(anton@NOcatalystSPAMinternet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:50PM EST
(#415)
(User #333 Info)
http://www.cellar.org/
|
What do you think of OS X?
"Ultimately, application support will be the most important factor... In the end, the OS has to do something useful."
Will you port Office, Visio and Project to Linux?
"First, there would need to be significant consumer demand from Linux users that actually use Linux as a desktop operating system and were all using the same desktop environment."
In other words, it's same old same old, the catch-22 that we've known about for almost two decades now. MS is so certain of this situation continuing that they will even point it out directly, right to us: hey, you guys aren't going to get the desktop because you have no applications, and you have no applications because you aren't going to get the desktop.
Blow your mind, every day, with my Image of the Day |
standards? What standards? (Score:1)
by elmegil on Wednesday April 04, @12:50PM EST
(#417)
(User #12001 Info)
|
Most of the answers seemed well thought out and direct, but the answer to the question about standards was a total sidestep. Two specific examples, Java and Kerberos (one of which *didn't* have a lawsuit associated with it, so he could have at *least* responded to that) were handed on a platter, and all we got back was "everyone extends the standards". Problem is, not everyone extends the standards to the point where they don't interoperate with other vendor's versions of these standards, do they? Left claw North! RIGHTCLAWSOUTH!! |
Not the content, but the tone... (Score:2)
by connorbd on Wednesday April 04, @12:58PM EST
(#432)
(User #151811 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Station/2266
|
If he truly believes the party line, than at least I give him credit for not sounding totally like a MicroDroid.
He's made some interesting points; screening for the MicroSerf factor, even though I disagree with a lot of it, he's not stupid and he's not spending 100% of his interview time talking down to us.
/Brian
|
|
Re:Not the content, but the tone... (Score:1)
by doppleganger871
(doppleganger871@yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:27PM EST
(#486)
(User #303020 Info)
|
But, as a traditional PR mouthpiece, he does dodge some of the questions. The question about the Unique Key for the hardware configuration was answered with the "need to make money" rhetoric.
It would be nice to hear straight answers, but that's not going to EVER happen from anyone behind the M$ doors.
-Jay (doppleganger871@yahoo.com) |
Re:Not the content, but the tone... (Score:2)
by connorbd on Wednesday April 04, @01:48PM EST
(#523)
(User #151811 Info)
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Station/2266
|
Hey, I didn't say he was being 100% straight either :-)
Besides, that line rings hollow anyway, with MSware getting ripped off right and left and yet still somehow they manage to make money anyway. But I don't need to say that to this crowd.
/Brian
|
Linux market for Office (Score:2, Informative)
by wytcld on Wednesday April 04, @12:58PM EST
(#434)
(User #179112 Info)
|
As someone with a long-term dislike of Microsoft products (I preferred ZCPR-CP/M on a Z80 to DOS, I always ran DR-DOS under Win 3.1, and I still vastly prefer the Lotus SmartSuite to Office, but I've been using Linux for most things since '93), I have to say this guy is totally wrong about the market for Office on Linux. I have good-sized clients who could be moved very rapidly to Linux + Office, were Office only available on Linux. And I would strongly urge them to make the move. As it is, I have to wait until there is the equivalent of Office on Linux (which is probably still 1-2 years away - my bet's on the KDE efforts - StarOffice sucks in all the ways Office does, and worse, IMHO). And then I, and a lot of sysadmins who feel like me, will move everyone to Linux + whatever.
So the Microsoft marketing choice is this: Don't issue Office for Linux and hold on to your OS market share in the short run, because business users demand Office-level functionality; or issue Office for Linux and gain a longer-term advantage for Office, but lose the OS advantage in the short term.
Again, I would have major clients buying Office for Linux tomorrow - because they could throw out Windows. There's a great advantage in OS standardization on the best, and all these clients already run Linux and perhaps Solaris for their critical servers - only the Office hold on the workstations prevents Windows going out the window in total. But there's all sorts of money Microsoft can only make in the long term if it quickly takes advantage of the openning for a good Linux desktop suite for folks who really do want to run Office - or the better equivalent that will come along in 1-2 years if Microsoft doesn't seize that ground fast.
|
|
Re:Linux market for Office (Score:1)
by Micah
(micah at geeks4christ dot NO SPAM dot org)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:03PM EST
(#789)
(User #278 Info)
|
Only problem with that is that if Office is available for Linux and your clients buy it, that's Windows revenue that MS is losing. And your clients will buy Office licenses anyway.
So why would MS go out of their way, spending millions of dollars, to port Office to Linux when it will mainly sabatage Windows sales?
In the long run Microsoft is screwed no matter what. There will be great open source office suites that do 90% of what Office does, and that will be good enough for almost everyone.
I have a lower user ID than you do! |
Does anyone here develop software? (Score:1)
by uslennar on Wednesday April 04, @01:01PM EST
(#437)
(User #210535 Info)
|
I've read /. for some time and suspect the majority of posters are either students or hypocrites. I develop software for a living and it's what pays my bills. If I didn't get paid, I would write far less code and I suspect this is true of most people here. Lets imagine that tomorrow all software was required to free, or even open source. How many companies would go out of business? It's naive to assume none. In fact, I believe that this would cause a decrease in competition over the long run.
Why spend months developing a product if the moment you release it your competitor can simply co-opt all your work? Not everyone can make a living providing technical support. This is the key point that Doug Miller was making.
Asbestos T-Shirt is on, and no, I don't work for MS!
|
|
Re:Does anyone here develop software? (Score:2)
by proberts
(proberts@clark.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:02PM EST
(#867)
(User #9821 Info)
|
It may be true of most people, however there are a lot of people writing a heck of a lot of code gratis. If *all* software were free (as in beer), not many companies would go out of business which weren't ISVs or Microsoft, or software consulting houses. If it were all required to be Open Source but not free very few at all would go out of business (companies like SuSe and RedHat open source all their software and they seem to be in business, so you see it's possible to do.)
The only externally used software I've written for my current employer was given away. Eventually software will reach the same stage of life as stock photography- almost all the pictures necessary are already taken- what will happen to your economics then?
Remember, unless you're playing, software isn't an end, it's a tool. If hammers were free, only the hammer makers and sellers would be impacted. The fact that there are very few commercial DNS server products on the market, for instance, doesn't mean people won't sell non-generic name service solutions or go hungry.
The opposite question is why spend years paying for a product if, after you've purchased it, the developer has made the fair value from you?
Finally, not everyone who is being paid to write software _should_ be. Narrowing that field down wouldn't be a bad thing in all cases.
Doug's point is only key if you're a one trick pony with only one way to make a living, otherwise it's not a very important point.
I spent almost 5 years at an ISV (mostly as an assembly language programmer), and let me tell you- "product" code is nowhere near as lucrative as custom code, which would be cheaper if most of it was already built- but the fact that VB programmers make more than teachers isn't necessarily a good thing.
Look at the stock photographic industry and understand what happens if you've only got one skill and the market shifts to commoditize it and be full of talented ameatures who don't mind making a tiny ammount or no money producing as good or better material.
Paul
|
Office Suites (Score:1)
by jimlintott on Wednesday April 04, @01:03PM EST
(#441)
(User #317783 Info)
http://www.jlintott.ca
|
I think Office Suites are really a non-starter in the *nix world as they violate the principal of small applications that do small jobs well. A monster behemoth single one app does all, is and always has been a bad idea. Small offices are buying MS Office and then in reality only using one or two of the included apps. If MS was really sensitive to customer needs they would unbundle these and make them available as stand alone apps.
I have tried Star Office and hate it for exactly the same reasons I don't like MS Office. It's bloated.
Just compare Word to LyX particularly in ease of use. LyX does virtually everything better and has a wider range of output options. I'd pay for LyX.
Think about it, does a distribution that has Word Processors, SQL databases, decent spreadsheets, and several competent programming languages really need an office suite?
Look at a small office of say ten networked users. Ten copies of Office and only two people use word, one person uses Excel and the rest need Office just to read the output. Gee, if those MS apps would just output in PS or PDF then this same office could buy two copies of Word and one copy of Excel. That would be sensitive to customers needs.
My personal experince with Windows users confronting Linux (Gnome or KDE) for the first time suggest that there is zero learning curve as far as the GUI is concerned. Blackbox usually gets responses of "I want that". The look on their face when I launch about seven applications as fast as possible, is priceless. You can see them just waiting for it to crash.
Back Off, Eh. |
NOT worthy of respect! (Score:1, Flamebait)
by small_dick
(small_dick@threeinches.FAKE_ADDRESS.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:04PM EST
(#445)
(User #127697 Info)
|
An implication was made by the poster that this person is worthy of respect because he is "100% straight up" and "honest with his answers".
I would like to point out that hitler and stalin were fairly straight up and honest about their goals, but I do not beleive I am obligated -- in any way -- to respect them.
Similarly, I could give a f*ck what some luser microserf has to say.
"chocolat" the movie. A metaphor for Linux? Is that a penguin on the back of the guitar? |
|
Re:NOT worthy of respect! (Score:2)
by abelsson
(henrik@S.P.A.M.abelsson.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:32PM EST
(#498)
(User #21706 Info)
http://abelsson.com
|
Sheez.. you cant compare hitler or stalin - both who caused the death of millions of human beeings with Microsoft who's just another company.
Give me a break..
-henrik
|
Re:NOT worthy of respect! (Score:1)
by Quickfoot
(jsheets-at-shadonet.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:41PM EST
(#509)
(User #319356 Info)
http://www.shadotech.com
|
The difference between a Unix user and a Linux user is a Linux user want's everything for free.
Microsoft isn't a bad company, all their products are not bad and they have some of the brightest and most intelligent people on the planet on their staff.
You don't have to like windows, you don't have to like Microsoft and you don't have to like bill gates but you can at least come up with a professional or intelligent reason not to.
This Linux way of thinking is very just script kiddies trying to talk. "A will is the minimum requirement for jumping out of an airplane, but a parachute is recommended." |
Re:NOT worthy of respect! (Score:1)
by west on Wednesday April 04, @01:43PM EST
(#513)
(User #39918 Info)
|
Similarly, I could give a f*ck what some luser microserf has to say.
Which is why you didn't read the thread or respond to the article :-).
|
ALERT: Godwin's Law (Score:2)
by (void*)
(voice@void.)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:42PM EST
(#604)
(User #113680 Info)
|
demands that this thread of argument be closed.
|
Dodge of the Windows XP "fingerprint" ID (Score:1)
by spiffy99 on Wednesday April 04, @01:07PM EST
(#453)
(User #410746 Info)
|
Man, he slipped right by that one. How annoying.
Anyhow, I constatntly swap out my gaming video card with a video card that does video capture (Endless tinkering trying to get them both to work in the machine at the same time has proven futile.) And I also sometimes yank out my CD-RW and pop it into my wifes machine so she can burn some CD's. And I also swap out a hard drive on occasion for MP3 storage.
This STUPID "fingerprint" ID lameness will screw that all up for me. I'm sure as hell not going to be calling M$ every damn time I want to swap out a device. Guess I'll just stick with 98 or 2000, or until someone comes up with a hack for XP that disables the ID "feature".
em/Lame
|
Solution to the Windows XP Situation (Score:1)
by Da VinMan on Wednesday April 04, @01:09PM EST
(#457)
(User #7669 Info)
|
Let's assume for a moment that MS does require you to contact them EVERY time you make a hardware change or otherwise change the "signature" of your machine.
Here's how you get MS to give up the practice: Simply follow it.
They will be so deluged with calls that they'll either give up the practice or wind up eating the cost of keeping it (which I think is unlikely).
There will have to be some middle ground here so no one group (MS + customers) gets too worked up about it.
I wouldn't sweat it. Besides, you could just use Linux and forget Windows if you don't like it. (Why so much complaining if everyone is using Linux?)
|
Awesome display of OS bigotry by the /. community (Score:2, Insightful)
by Shivetya on Wednesday April 04, @01:14PM EST
(#468)
(User #243324 Info)
|
Awesome display of OS bigotry by the /. community and moderators.
The guy was right, why bother trying to create software for Linux. Just read the responses to the article, see which ones were "moderated up" and /. simply proves his point.
The /. Linux crowd is so damn fucking hostile to anything microsoft they will get downright stupid in their comments and such just to "put down" Ms or any of its people.
Corel is proof that it doesn't work to try and sell stuff to the "we must have it free, and we must have the source, or your not going with the spirit of Linux" crowd. Why should any company step into that.
There is nothing wrong with wanting it all to be free and open (both mentally and financially). However get off your frigging high horse and realize that the rest of the world, specifically corporations which exist to make money for their owners, don't have to agree with you, let alone cater to you.
What originally started out as an interesting subject became truly depressing as a I started reading what was actually modded to the top. (Yes I sort on highest first, it drops the FPs very quickly).
I expect to have to read below my threshold to see this, but after all its apparent that even moderation is done to support OS bigotry without regards to logic or reason.
You asked the questions, don't get all pissy because he anwsered them.
|
Darwin's voyage (Score:4, Funny)
by Richy_T
(slashdot@perihelion.demon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:15PM EST
(#469)
(User #111409 Info)
http://www.nashvillegazette.com
|
The scene: The Galapagos Islands, on board "The Beagle" which has been at anchor for two weeks. We are in Charles Darwin's cabin, he is studying some books intently
A knock at the door
Darwin: Come in
Dougabus Miller, a young socialite enters. Dougabus has made his money by exploiting a monopoly on grain exports to Namibia to extract exorbitant prices and to force unecessary purchases of umbrellas from his factory in Scunthorpe. On board the Beagle by accident (he thought he was boarding a ship bound for Jamaica for a two week "fun in the sun" holiday), he amuses himself by pestering anyone who will pay him attention
Dougabus: Hey-ho, Darwin. What's up.
Darwin: I am just finishing up these drawings for my journal
Dougabus: Drawings? Nothing Lewd I hope? Can I have a look?
Darwin: No, Dougabus. Nothing like that. I am drawing the finches that we have been studying on the island that Jaques noticed on Sunday
Dougabus: Finches? That's rather a lot of drawings you have there. Why so many? Why not just one? Isn't one finch much like another?
Darwin: Ah no, you see, young Dougabus. That is the interesting thing. Each of these finches is slightly different. See, this one has a beak adapted for pulling insects from bark, this one a beak adapted for cracking open small snails and this one, claws that can open this shrink wrap on CDs in under a second. All slightly different, all adapted to exploit their environment to the maximum.
Dougabus: Well, Darwin, old chap. I don't see it. I mean, surely all these differences just cause confusion for the lady finches and finding a dinner jacket to fit must be pure hell. No, they should take the best features from each of these "adaptations" and unite them. Then they would have the strength and the power to rise up, march forward and TAKE OVER THE WORLD! Muahahahah Muahaha Muahahaha Hahahaha
Darwin: No, you see...
Dougabus: Muahahah Muahahahaaaaa
Darwin: Dougabus!
Dougabus: Muahaha Muaha All your base are belong to us Muahaha
Darwin: Stop it
Dougabus: Muahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha
Darwin reaches down and draws gun from under the table
Darwin: The things I do for evolution.
Darwin points the gun at Dougabus and pulls the trigger. A loud bang rings out and Dougabus falls to the ground, fatally wounded
Dougabus: Muaha?
Darwin puts the gun down, having saved the human race for another day. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Darwin, at that very moment, a seamstress from Portsmouth Harbour is carrying the spawn of Dougabus Miller.
The End
Rich Sig: Hey, how come the sigs suddenly shrank? |
|
Re:Darwin's voyage (Score:1)
by Richy_T
(slashdot@perihelion.demon.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:33PM EST
(#670)
(User #111409 Info)
http://www.nashvillegazette.com
|
Jeez, 3 "+1 Funny"s? I was at least hoping for one "insightful" ;)
Rich Sig: Hey, how come the sigs suddenly shrank? |
Re:Darwin's voyage (Score:2)
by konstant
(mpriest@microsoft.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:14PM EST
(#726)
(User #63560 Info)
|
Blame this response on too many months spent on talk.origins, but..
The flaw in this analogy is that the entire purpose of minor speciation events like Darwin's finches is to reduce the commonality between strains of finch. Thus, the newly derived finch does not compete with the older, successful finches and consequently has a chance at being successful in its own right, by exploiting different resources in the environment.
However, with software - which is what I assume you're talking about - all the "finches" want to exploit the same "resource" of customer dollars. Therefore they are constrained; they simply cannot speciate in certain ways because it would prevent them from getting more of the common resource. For example, if the only edible thing on the island were walnuts, you wouldn't see any finches speciating to have thin, delicate beaks because they would starve.
Likewise there are certain things required by consumers of software that are not negotiable. One of these *appears* to be a well-understood UI theme. Another one *appears* to be certain metaphors like menus, shortcuts, buttons, whatever.
So while the software can certainly innovate in all kinds of crazy, cool ways to improve efficiency behind the scenes - a bit like some finches getting more efficient lungs or hardier stomachs - they can't dramatically change their interfaces to the customer because the customer is not malleable on certain issues.
That is why we are all stuck with the original Mac metaphors after all these years, despite the likelihood that point-and-click is not the best way to get work done. Only with long training and gradual acceptance can users be brought around to think of things in a completely new way.
Funny post though :-)
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I don't speak for Microsoft. So please don't speak for me. |
Re:Darwin's voyage (Score:1)
by msaavedra on Wednesday April 04, @05:43PM EST
(#819)
(User #29918 Info)
|
Your analysis has some problems as well.
First of all, not all software competes for customer dollars, though, working for Microsoft, I can see how you would make this assumption. ;^) There are plenty of Free Software projects that have no prospects for ever making money, but people use the software and write the code nonetheless. I think you could amend your statement to say that all software requires users, not customer dollars. Then I would agree with you.
Also, its true that adaptive radiatation will not occur when there is only one resource to exploit. However, saying that "customer dollars", (or "users") are a single resource is really a stretch. That's like saying that all organisms require an outside energy source, therefore there can be no adaptive radiation since they compete for a single resource: energy.
That is obviously untrue, though. There are many different niches and strategies for getting energy. For instance plants get their energy from the sun, herbivores get energy from the plants, and carnivores get energy from the herbivores. Then their are whole ecosystems that derive all their energy from geothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean and don't rely on the sun at all.
I hope you see my point, which I've probably belabored by now :^). All software needs users, but there are many different types of users, with many different needs. Therefore there are plenty of niches for software packages that have similar general goals, but go about things in different ways. ---------------------------
"The people. Could you patent the sun?"
--Jonas E. Salk, when asked who owned the patent on his polio vaccine. |
Re:Darwin's voyage (Score:1)
by lahvak on Wednesday April 04, @05:57PM EST
(#826)
(User #69490 Info)
http://www.sf.edu/jhlavacek
|
> However, with software - which is what I assume > you're talking about - all the "finches" want to
> exploit the same "resource" of customer dollars.
This is like saying that all the real finches want to exploit the same resource: food. There are huge differences between consumers. With some consumers, it is easy to extract their money with Windoze, some consumers are not going to pay a penny for it. If nobody liked Gnome better than KDE, Gnome wouldn't even be born. If nobody prefered KDE, all KDE development would cease.
The point is, in a free market, just like in nature, problems like this are not really problems. If a finch develops that doesn't have any food to eat (how can that happen? What caused the development of that particular finch at the first place?) it will die.
What you and Doug Miller are advocating is central planning. That have been tried many times already, and it simply doesn't work (not to speak about the fact that it is completely unamerican ;)). Do you think you could design better finch than nature, "Misrosoft Finch (TM)"?
--
lahvak
|
3 dollar crack on sale again (Score:1)
by Richy_T
(slashdot@perihelion.demon.co.uk)
on Thursday April 05, @12:14AM EST
(#967)
(User #111409 Info)
http://www.nashvillegazette.com
|
Aw heck, guys. Come on, fair enough if you don't think it's funny. Overrated fine. Flamebait even. But how in the heck could you think it was a troll or offtopic?
It is a satire on Doug Miller's suggestion that there should be only one GUI for the world. Jeez, I bet all your other friends have to explain jokes to you too.
Rich Sig: Hey, how come the sigs suddenly shrank? |
Standard GUI == Good Idea (Score:1)
by MaestroSartori
(maestrosartori@larry.prestel.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:18PM EST
(#472)
(User #146297 Info)
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/larry/
|
I've spotted a few people slating the MS guy for saying that a single standard GUI is a good thing. Well, even though he explained why (sort of), I think I better say WHY its a good thing! Well, firstyl it would be goot to have a unified interface for Linux which everyone could learn how to use, rather than trying to choose which one to learn. Its hard to choose when you don't know much about them, e.g. when I first installed RedHat, KDE was the default. I then tried to run some Gnome programs, and got some evil errors. This is the kind of thing that a single interface would help to avoid! As well as this, it would provide the kind of target platform the MS guy talked about. Writing an application for Linux would become a hell of a lot simpler - target the standard GUI! This would attract more commercial apps for people like me who want to use Linux, but generally don't because of the absence or quality of the applications currently available. Anyway, thats about all I have to say. Please remember to keep an open mind, or you're as bad as the people you hate...
--
"What is now real was once only imagined..."
-- |
I beg to differ on interoperability... (Score:1)
by Cerebus on Wednesday April 04, @01:22PM EST
(#481)
(User #10185 Info)
http://sackheads.org/~cerebus
|
We fully support data, directory and system interop with UNIX, Linux, Novell, Mac, IBM mainframes through our base OS protocol support as well as through products like Services for UNIX, Interix, Services for NetWare, MetaDirectory and Host Integration Server.
This is pure crap and everyone knows it. If this is the case, why is it I can't have my MIT Kerberos realm issue tickets to access Win2K domain services *directly*? Or perhaps I really would prefer to use my Novell Directory Service instead of Win2K's Active Directory... No can do. Or perhaps I'd like to replace the Microsoft CA *required* for AD SMTP replication signing and DC-to-DC SSL with my own CA based on Netscape Certificate Authorities-- I can't.
Microsoft gives *interoperation* without *interoperability*. Modern, flexible systems are constructed out of modular components with defined standard interfaces. This allows the replacement of any component with any other component offering the same interface-- but this is *impossible* with Microsoft systems.
Mr. Miller's comments are the same lip service we always get. Sounds good to the press but doesn't have the technical meat to back it up. Mr. Miller should definitely know better, and probably does.
-- Cerebus
|
Money is a great motivator (Score:2, Insightful)
by JohnnyX
(nsarwark@cuc.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:30PM EST
(#490)
(User #11429 Info)
http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~nsarwark
|
As mentioned in a previous question, if the Linux community wants to attract great applications, then they need to be willing to compensate developers and that means paying for software.
The willingness of Windows and Mac users to pay for software has led to a much larger pool of production quality desktop applications.
Similarly, back in the early 90's, it was well known that writing shareware for Macs was more lucrative than writing it for Windows/DOS, since Mac users were more likely to register and pay for it.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...freedom...
|
microsoft and politics (Score:1)
by de Selby
(amyouren@nmu.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:31PM EST
(#493)
(User #167520 Info)
|
this guy has the spinning ability of a politician.
let's elect him to something. i don't care what--anything.
|
Some points ... (Score:5, Interesting)
by Helmholtz on Wednesday April 04, @01:31PM EST
(#494)
(User #2715 Info)
http://nimh.freeshell.org
|
First of all, many thanks to Doug for his candid and non-obscenely-lawyerized comments/answers.
Something I would like to point out, however is the interesting non-mention of the GPL. "free Open Source software" is often mentioned, but never is the fact that the power of the "Linux movement" if I can use that term is pretty firmly rooted in the GPL. While I agree that RMS can come off as very strong most of the time, I do think it is significant that most software designed for Linux is not only available free of charge, and with the source code, but that it is protected by the GPL. This is the major difference, in my mind between the BSDs and Linux. Anyone can use BSD code (stuff like, oh I don't know ... a TCP/IP stack for instance), incorporate it into their code, and then hide it.
Microsoft has been in the profitable licenscing business for a long time now, and I think that while they say that Linux is their number one "target" right now, what they really mean is that the GPL and all its implications is their target, for it effectively competes on the philosophical level with Microsoft's licenscing stategies ... or at least I think it does. Many peole don't care about any of this, but they will in future. When the US Consitution was drafted up the Bill of Rights as we know it wasn't seen as something that was needed ... but some of the more extremeist of the drafters foresaw that it would become important in the future. I think the GPL should be looked at in the same light. Many think it's try to defend something that isn't that important right now ... and that may be true, but far in the future it is going to be extremely important. And the general public has shown time and time again that they often don't think about the far reaching consequences until it is way too late. IMO, the Microsoft licensing philosophy exploits this.
Also, when it comes to a single desktop environment, I think that compatibility would be nice, but that GNOME or KDE or any of the hundreds of individual window managers should not "concede" and merge together into a "unified linux desktop". That is the purpose of the distribution in my mind ... already some distributions, like Mandrake, default to a specific environment. If you are saavy enough to change it, hooray, if you don't want to futz with it, hooray.
In Brave New World stability was chosen at the cost of choice. Having a wide degree of choice does cause problems, does make some people feel bad emotions (anxiety, frustration, powerlessness), but I see the alternative of having the maddening hordes take the easy road of numbing happiness as a danger, not a boon.
Well, I guess that's about all I have to say about it. Thanks for reading.
|
|
Re:Some points ... (Score:2)
by Spyky on Wednesday April 04, @07:11PM EST
(#859)
(User #58290 Info)
|
My response to the subject: (feel free to flame, correct, mod me down for being a karma whore, whatever)
1) I think many people who are familiar with both Microsoft Windows and various versions of Unix from an IT perspective will disagree with his statement that Windows has "better interoperability today than any other OS out there." Interoperability requires two-ways of information exchange. Windows products do allow you to connect them to nearly any type of server, Unix, Netware or otherwise, however, using a Windows server in an environment with Unix workstations is quite a bit more difficult. The Samba development team has had to reverse engineer with little or no help provided from Microsoft. Is that interoperability? It is if you have a one sided definition of interoperability.
2) Linux has been very viable in the past and I'm sure it will continue to thrive in the future.
3) Security: One of the largest drawbacks of a commercial software enterprise is that they are only accountable to their customers if a product is found to have a security flaw. In a sense, there is a certain amount of "security through obscurity" in any closed source product. When a security flaw is discovered, the closed source commercial software enterprise reacts in two distinct and simultaneous ways: assure the users that the problem is not serious, two issue a fix as quickly as possible. Damage control. There is also the ongoing effort to ensure that any security flaws are fixed (silently, if possible) but real effort to fix flaws in a timely fashion isn't made unless the flaw is publicly known about. This begs the question, what security flaws are present in the software, and also known to the company but information about such flaws is certainly not released to the public? Only if the flaw is found and exploited does the company have any reason to acknowledge it. Compare this to the open source software security model. Since the code is open, anyone interested can observe the code for security flaws, any flaws discovered are found much more quickly, and fixed much more quickly then any closed source product can be. This is a result of the sheer number of developers ("eyes") working on open source products. This practice has been shown to be incredibly sucessful in OpenBSD.
4) I agree that there is likely little economic incentive to release Microsoft software for Linux, and likely other Unices. It would be nice if the DOC standard were made publicly available in full, because developers in the Unix world would be able to create a product which could "interoperate" with documents and spreadsheets created on the latest versions of Office. Instead, developers are constantly playing "catch up" by reverse engineering their specifications, which as features, some of dubious value, are added, becomes significantly more difficult. Microsoft understandably has no incentive to do any such thing. Unfortunately, as I feel productivity applications like office have generally shown the least amount of sophistication when created under the open source development model. We'll see...
5) I think the services model is very interesting and I certainly wonder were it will take commercial software enterprises. Open source software doesn't fit very well in this model. Why would you pay to "use" software if you have access to the source? I see Microsofts strategy as a possible way for them to gain significantly more control over the software and ensure their revenue stream. What commensurate benefit there is for customers remains to be demonstrated. Interestingly, the idea of distributed applications (one install, used on many networked machines) is hardly a new one. It dates well back to the era of timesharing mainframe computers. Any Unix system using the X Windows system has this capability natively. Since all display information received by the X Windows Server can come from any source, the actual machine, or a server across the country, the only limitation is bandwidth and the computing power of the server. Microsoft is attempting to leverage this model (as have companies like Citrix already) to use this feature with Windows based servers and windows based desktop machines. I will be incredibly impressed and pleased if Microsofts software will allow it to operate on *any* desktop (Unix, mac or otherwise). Since the software is essentially abstracted from the hardware, this step is technically quite feasable, much more possible then porting an application like Office to Unix. Likely, Microsoft will choose to protect their control of desktop operating systems by not developing this software to interoperate with Unix based systems. But of course, I may be wrong.
6) I think he is downplaying the advantages of Linux over other Unices in this response. In addition to being open source (which has many associated advantages, not least of which is that it is free) it also has a *very* large amount of applications available, albeit few good productivity (Office-type) applications. This is partly because the core of Linux users are developers, and there is less demand for comprehensive productivity apps. The fact that Linux development (the development of the kernel, and associated software/tools) as a whole has no economic stimulus (its done for free, and provided for free) and that it is open source has a significant advantage in just how much developers are able "innovate". It is not possible, or at least technically difficult, to change closed source products without "breaking" many other closed source products that rely on it. In the case of an operating system like Microsoft Windows, or a chipset like Intels x86 platform, it has taken many many years to make small evolutionary change. Witness the change from Windows 9x to Windows NT. Its taken years. Changes in chipsets are even more difficult, as Intel has found. Hopefully before too much longer, more then 20 years after it was outdated, the x86 will finally be replaced. Open source products like Linux are significantly more capable of "rolling" with the punches and adapting to technological innovations. An open source product is able to take advantage of it far quicker then the lumbering behemoth of closed source applications. Witness the fact that Unices are available on nearly ever chipset known to man (Sega Dreamcast included).
7) I'm dissapointed to hear that Microsoft was one of the supporters of hardware implemented copy protection in the new ATA standard. This seems to be self serving rather than customer oriented
8) Software protection schemes have been tried over and over again. Workable models are few and far between, and many of them a nusiance to the customer. The need for such schemes on closed source products is an advantage for open source software, since such protection schemes are unecessary. If Redhat were in Microsofts position (installed on 85% of desktop computers) Linus Torvalds wouldn't be a penny richer (at least not directly) and there probably wouldn't be any billionares at Redhat (which sells services and support, not penguins), but software developers can and do still get paid under this model. Just not in billions. Open source and closed source development models can and should coexist. But utter domination of the software world by a private software enterprise is not possible.
9) I have no problem with extending a publicly available specification, provided: other companies/individual software developers are allowed their say in the extensions of the specification, and any such specification is also released in a public manner. Closed source companies that throw temper tantrums (I'm not in any way suggesting that such behavior is even typical and certainly not confined to Microsoft alone) and go off and develop their own standard without the support or input of the community do not get my respect. When software that does not adhere to existing standards (that are available) for whatever reason, is created by a company that dominates the market, issues of anti-trust inevitably come into play. At the very least it is unethical to be in such a position and release software that reduces consumer choice in such a manner. If the goal is truly interoperability and to be "customer driven" then such a goal should outweigh the economic drawbacks such an action would cause.
10) Agreed. Whether or not the goal of the Linux community is to attract great software applications that are also commercial software applications is a subject of some debate.
Spyky
|
Support... (Score:2, Insightful)
by TV-SET on Wednesday April 04, @01:32PM EST
(#497)
(User #84200 Info)
http://www.leonid.maks.net
|
Well, let me say this one...
If I charge about 100 USD for a piece of software I wrote, then, I most probably don't want to here about it when it hits the customer. I've got my money as software vendor. Support? Who cares about support? ;)
If, on the other hand, support (and similar services) is the only thing that can keep me alive, then I will be pretty sure I do my job right :)
Having this in mind, I would really prefer to go to RedHat Inc. for support instead of Microsoft.
Leonid Mamtchenkov
...i don't need your civil war... |
|
Re:You have that backwards (Score:1)
by TV-SET on Thursday April 05, @04:02AM EST
(#992)
(User #84200 Info)
http://www.leonid.maks.net
|
Since my main task is supporting, the product I release, I will try to make my job as fun as possible. So, I will try to kill most bugs and stupid options in my product, and adding some nice features, which are a challange to support :)
Leonid Mamtchenkov
...i don't need your civil war... |
Window's one graphical environment (Score:5, Insightful)
by ChaosDiscord on Wednesday April 04, @01:32PM EST
(#499)
(User #4913 Info)
http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/
|
I personally feel it is too bad that
the Linux community can't agree to build on
one graphical environment.
Yes, Linux needs to grow up and have a
single, consistant interface, just like
Windows. Look at the many products which
accept the need for conformance under
Windows. Products like
Softimage
(example)
(though they may have an advantage, being
owned by Microsoft for a while),
LightWave [6]
(example,
check out the conforming buttons and tabs), and
Kai's Power Tools
(example)
Media players naturally conform to the
standard Windows look and feel.
Winamp
led the way. Soon there were competitors like
K-Jofol
and
Sonique
which felt that they could make their mp3
players conform even better to Windows GUI
standards.
RealPlayer
quickly followed. Apple realized they
couldn't rehash the Macintosh interface for
QuickTime,
and delivered a version that perfectly
matched the Windows standard. Not to be out
done, Microsoft released a new version of the
Windows Media Player
which perfectly complied with the Windows
standards for interfaces.
Even the next version of Windows,
Windows XP,
has been carefully crafted to conform
to existing standards. With such strong and
unwavering leadership, no one would even
think of
using an alternate shell
or
replacing the entire widget set.
Thank you, Microsoft, for getting the
world to agree on one graphical environment.
Thanks to your efforts to end competition,
there is no risk of the Windows platform
fragmenting into a pile of inconsistent
applications, each making their own rules.
|
|
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:1)
by avail on Wednesday April 04, @02:47PM EST
(#611)
(User #84055 Info)
|
I see your points, but here are a couple thoughts I had:
First of all, I don't think it is a valid example to quote programs like Softimage, LightWave and KPT, since those tools appeal to a small segment of the market which is usually more tech savvy. Among common desktop applications, browsers, office progs, and MOST media software a consistent look and feel is kept.
That said, I agree that MS cannot really claim "look and feel" to be standard since they rework their own widget set with each new release of the OS or Office... this is fine by me though, since what I think IS important is that I know that in Windows, ALT-F4 will close the currently focused window, that CTRL-X/C/V will cut/copy/paste... etc.
This is what windows offers in terms of standard interface. This is what I would like to see in Xwindows under unix (currently I find my most productive mix is to use exceed under windows for all my unix needs since I know the windows keybindings... and am too lazy to learn another set.
I see both sides of the argument here... and I don't see as though it would kill MS to make windows Themeable/Skinable. On the other hand, I use my computer for work, so I care about as much as I care about the colour of my monitor.
I find that too many people are hung up on the "look" of the desktop. Isn't the whole point of a GUI to make it easier for you to get your work done? To lower the learning curve for newbies? Is the new user, or the standard work user benefitted by having 2 vastly different widget sets exist on the same machine. So that when one app pops up as QT look, and the other GTK+ look... will that be as easy as if they looked the same?
For that matter, most users will expect stuff like cut and paste and basic keybindings to remain the same. Why? Becuase they are in windows... and that is what most people cut their teeth on.
It's a mixed bag really.
five fingers make a fist
amalgamate and resist |
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:1)
by Chandon Seldon
(nat-at-calug-dot-net)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:15PM EST
(#727)
(User #43083 Info)
http://www.calug.net/
|
Under Linux, with eithor Gnome or KDE, most
of the keystrokes for things such as Copy, Paste,
etc are pretty standard.
To begin with, X standard copy/paste always
works. Select some text with your mouse, and
middle click where you want to paste it. Can't
get much easier than that.
In most Gnome or KDE apps, the Ctrl+C/X/V shortcuts work just like in Windows. No problem
there.
For normal users, KDE and Gnome don't differ
enough to actually cause problems. Menus, buttons, etc all work the same.
Some few things might not work, like dragging
and dropping from one Widjet set to the other, but you have to be a relitively advanced computer
user to even notice.
I wouldn't expect anyone I know to have terribly much more trouble using KDE and Gnome
apps under, say, IceWM than they would have using
Windows apps under Windows.
--------
The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon |
Re:You've got to be kidding me (Score:1)
by Chandon Seldon
(nat-at-calug-dot-net)
on Friday April 06, @01:39PM EST
(#1087)
(User #43083 Info)
http://www.calug.net/
|
Three separate issues.
-- 1.) Play nice together
Got it. If I'm running KDE as my desktop
environment, with X-Chat as my IRC client,
I don't see any problems from this. At most,
the colors will be different.
If I decide that I want to ditch X-Chat
for KIRC (I think that's the standard KDE IRC client), it's not going to automatically use
my X-Chat settings, nor it it going to log to
.xchat/logs, nor it it going to be X-Chat in
any other way - I'll have switched to another
app. This is a normal, perfectly good way to
have things work.
-- 2.) Greater interconnectivity.
Drag + Drop, Cut + Paste, Keybindings
These things aren't really *needed* for normal
users. I can tell you for a fact that I hardly
ever find trouble in not being able to drag+drop between apps, or need to cut+paste anything but plain text.
Keybindings are really a minor issue. If people care, they'll learn them. I don't care, I never use
them.
-- 3.) Development Compatibility
gtk+ and qt are both GUI toolkits, but are designed with different mindsets. This isn't going to change, nor should it, as both toolkits have significant advantages. (Qt in ease of use for C++ programmers, gtk+ in ease of use for everyone else)
APIs for other things may or may not be compatible between the two desktops. If compatibility makes sense - good. If not - good.
If you are writing a GUI app for Unix, it really doesn't matter which desktop you develop for. If you want to use Qt, write for KDE. If you want to use Gtk+, write for Gnome. If you want to use WxWindows, write for that and compile for Gnome.
--------
The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon |
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:1)
by XO
(eblade@blackmagik.dynup.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @06:55PM EST
(#854)
(User #250276 Info)
http://mi-net.dynup.net/
|
I wish I had a link to it.. According to the CUA standards (CUA94 I think? maybe 92), which Microsoft was most definitely a contributor in, it made lots of standards for graphical user interfaces, and keyboard shortcuts and so on so forth.
what really upset me was the move from Windows 3.1 to Windows '95 changed the fact that Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert is no longer the defacto standard - The defacto standard that Microsoft helped create and agreed to.
Maybe it's just me, but I still can't get used to ctrl-x/c/v for cut/copy/paste. Ctrl-X is an end of file marker, Ctrl-C is a program stop, and Ctrl-V is just plain nothing.. that's the way it's always been, that's what the standards once dictated.
*shrug*
---===*> XO
mi-net.dynup.net
|
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:1)
by MrBogus on Wednesday April 04, @10:09PM EST
(#908)
(User #173033 Info)
|
You know of a Windows app where the retardo IBM-style cut/copy/paste strokes don't work?
The original CUA doc was from something like 1988. By the time Word 2.0 shipped in 1990, it already was advertising the Ctrl-X/C/V sequences on the edit menu.
(Since we're harping on this topic, I actually though Apple's alternative support for F1/F2/F3 was one of the best ideas, especially when mousing. They might have dropped it though.)
|
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:1)
by XO
(eblade@blackmagik.dynup.net)
on Saturday April 07, @06:03PM EST
(#1097)
(User #250276 Info)
http://mi-net.dynup.net/
|
yeah, i've encountered MANY windows apps where ctrl-insert/shift-insert don't work. MANY, especially for ctrl-insert. on the other hand, I don't think I've ever found an X app where it didn't... lol.
those key sequences make sense, and don't violate the standards that long-time geeks from the text days are used to. heh.
---===*> XO
mi-net.dynup.net
|
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:2, Insightful)
by ibullard
(ianb@DIEtechnSPAMologiDIEst.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:07PM EST
(#634)
(User #312377 Info)
http://www.mjolnirstudios.com
|
He said "graphical environment" not "graphical interface."
You're right, interfaces aren't consistant across all applications. However, they all use the same environment to get the interface they desire.
On Linux, you have multiple environments in which to create the interface for your application. You can create an interface that looks exactly like a program running on windows but that doesn't mean you can run it in the same environment.
Emphasis added for clarity.
|
Window's one graphical _API_ (Score:1)
by 8bit on Wednesday April 04, @03:45PM EST
(#690)
(User #127134 Info)
http://www.eightbit.org
|
he means API and you know it...the problem with gnome and kde are it's separate use of GTK and Qt. Well fiddlesticks, I don't want to install both! But I think it's about 80% true that any new X software for unix is made with GTK in mind. So in a way it has become the 'standard'.
Roy Miller
:wq! DOH!
[ESC] [ESC] :wq! |
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:2)
by tswinzig
(teddy_swinzig@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:21PM EST
(#737)
(User #210999 Info)
|
Wow, you've found a dozen exceptions to the rule. You left out the links to the thousands or hundreds of thousands of windows applications that use all the standards, and are intuitive because of this. Even when you run these applications under XP, they will look like Windows XP applications.
There's a big difference between the KDE/Gnome type battles, and in the Windows world where you get some renegade applications that use their own interface.
"I will bet you any money that while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will fucking kill you!" --Carlin |
Re:Window's one graphical environment (Score:2, Insightful)
by MeNeXT on Wednesday April 04, @05:19PM EST
(#806)
(User #200840 Info)
|
Has this ever happened to you?
The sytem is running no problemo....oups... while you were not wathcing something happens, dont know what but something must have happened...since everything seems to be OK. the settings are fine but .... you are unsable to do thing A. So you spend a couple of hours looking over your settings everything is fine..then you start asking yourself if you changed something. NO you didn't touch it. So after reinstalling Thing A and it still doesn't work you decide to backup, format, and reinstall. You enter the same info as before and everything works again...but you just lost 5 hours.
OR
You buy this new do hicky of a thing, doesn't matter what you install it on your system then you boot...so the OS finds it but it selects the wrong driver...you put in the Hardware driver that the manufacturer included with the thing and it can't find the driver for your thing...so you waste a coulple of hours and still...but you see the dam driver on the #$%^&* floppy and still you can't chose it... so you decide to add new harware and choose from list pop in your floppy and install... you restart the system... and now it sees it...but you have a conflict with the one that your OS initially saw...so you remove it and restart...
I have more many more...did you guess the OS. It's you friendly Window$...so user friendly in fact that most users need the same Linux/FreeBSd/Unix techie to figure it out.
so for you who think that Windows is so easy all I have to say is THANK YOU MICRO$OFT for all the MONEY YOU HAVE MADE ME. 'cause when I Install FreeBSD/Linux I only get calls 2 to 3 years later due to harware failure or upgardes...When will the OO comunity solve this one..I hope it's after I retire.
Window$ free for over 6 years....
|
One "Environment" and not one look!! Read b4 post! (Score:2, Interesting)
by cybrthng
(cybrthng@pimp.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:46PM EST
(#820)
(User #22291 Info)
http://www.pimp.org
|
I think the article stated "One graphical environment" and clearly stated "one graphical environment" so ISV's can develop for one GRAPHICAL ENVIRONMENT.
That environment is full of many widgets and hooks and features so you can customize and build from it, but it is the same environment.
He's not talking about conforming to button bars, he is talking about coding. He is talking about choosing between KDE or GNOME simply because they're TWO DISTINCT ENVIRONMENTS FROM AN APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE. Hell you can make KDE look like GNOME and make GNOME look like KDE but you can't code for both unless you want to add gobbs of code and headache or have to distinctly different applications on a coding/support level.
I must agree, the beauty with Windows is everyone tries to emulate it. The true power of it is the simplicity to develop for it while having a standard application framework available but also being able to veer from it with your own widgets.
So read again, its not one look vs another look or the conformity of all applications. It is simply the problem that you can spend millions developing a KDE app only to have GNOME come out ahead and have to port the app or fear not both of them dissapear and something new comes about. Atleast with windows you code for one and you code for all. Ofcourse through inovation, new features and technological advancements things will always change. But atleast it is ONE environment with many interfaces and THAT LINUX DOESN'T OR WILL NOT HAVE.
my thoughts exactly.
|
Re:One "Environment" and not one look!! Read b4 po (Score:1)
by ignorant_newbie
(geekintraining@yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @02:58AM EST
(#982)
(User #104175 Info)
|
He's not talking about conforming to button bars, he is talking about coding.
snip
Atleast with windows you code for one and you code for all.
have you ever coded for windows? in my experience the sameness extends about 1 pixel deeper than the user experience. If i write something for WIN9x, i have to go back and fiddle with it to get it to work in NT, and then again for 2000. or maybe that's what you meant by
Ofcourse through inovation, new features and technological advancements things will always change.
which means that as long as i only letmy product be run on one version of windows i'm fine... and i shouldn't expect the new api to deprecate half the previous one.
i don't understand why everyone's so upset about the kde/gnome thing... i use kde for my desktop, run gimp & mozilla off the gtk+ libs, and everything's fine.
|
Re:Most people don't give a shit... (Score:1)
by ChaosDiscord on Wednesday April 04, @04:00PM EST
(#708)
(User #4913 Info)
http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/
|
People, even non-technical people, love customizing their systems. In doing so, they make the machine "theirs." They spend hours messing with the backgrounds, the icons, and the sounds. Given an easy interface, the like messing with themes and skins. People love putting pictures of their children or dog on their background, having a dinosaur for their cursor, and skinning Winamp with a picture of their favorite TV show. The easier it is, the more likely they are to do it.
|
Re:Most people don't give a shit... (Score:2)
by Deluge
(sardokaur@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:49PM EST
(#770)
(User #94014 Info)
|
People, even non-technical people, love customizing their systems. In doing so, they make the machine "theirs." They spend hours messing with the backgrounds, the icons, and the sounds.
Indeed. This machine's mine... background: black (any other crap's a distraction) icons: standard (I prefer to have folders clearly marked as such versus, say, the trash bin being a stegosaurus and my documents folder being a brontosaurus, or some such shit) sounds(!): NONE! one of the 1st things I do on a Win box is turn off all sounds (though I haven't found out how to turn off the PC speaker beep when the trashcan empties) These things are wildly customized especially by the non-technical people because they don't care that it's a distraction - form over function for them. Technical people, outside of a background pic, will usually make more functional customizations to their environment, the reason being they want to get more work done, faster, and not make their machine "pretty." Besides, that's what comp cases are for :)
--- Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth... |
Re:Most people don't give a shit... (Score:1)
by PerlGeek on Wednesday April 04, @10:36PM EST
(#924)
(User #102857 Info)
|
"sounds(!): NONE! one of the 1st things I do on a Win box is turn off all sounds (though I haven't found out how to turn off the PC speaker beep when the trashcan empties)"
I used the screwdriver solution. :) As an added bonus, I don't have to worry about that magnet right next to my hard drive. Yeah, I know it won't hurt anything, but...
The PC speaker really annoyed me. Now it doesn't.
|
Re:Most people don't give a shit... (Score:2)
by Deluge
(sardokaur@hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:34PM EST
(#1052)
(User #94014 Info)
|
I used the screwdriver solution. :) As an added bonus, I don't have to worry about that magnet right next to my hard drive. Yeah, I know it won't hurt anything, but... I *did* have the speaker disconnected on my old machines. But now that I have a motherboard that starts freakin' out if the CPU fan dies or anything overheats, I'm too paranoid to disconnect it :(
--- Getting a hardon doesn't constitute personal growth... |
Re:Most people don't give a shit... (Score:1)
by rabidcow on Wednesday April 04, @11:46PM EST
(#958)
(User #209019 Info)
|
So who says everyone has to be efficient?
If they paid good money for something that looks nice (that they're comfortable using), who are you to say they're wrong? My mother has a hard enough time remembering how to cut&paste, you think she'd care that the background is just a "distraction"?
I prefer to have my own choice between form or function, thank you. In fact, I prefer to be able to choose form AND function... *cough*litestep*cough*
(btw, background ain't much of a distraction if you don't hide all your program icons on it ;)
|
Free != free (Score:1)
by insipid
(abuse@localhost)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:33PM EST
(#500)
(User #176166 Info)
http://insipid.com
|
Miller doesn't get Free software. He like so many other suits doesn't understand that Free doesn't equal free. If he would have reviewed The Free Software Definition before answering these questions he would have seen that developers of Free software can charge as much or as little as they want for the products they create.
I charge for Free software that I develop and my customers understand and appreciate the freedom aspect even though they may never understand the code themselves at least they know that they can hire someone else who will and can make necessary modifications.
It's too bad Miller harped so much on Linux never attracting good developers because they can't get paid because he's wrong.
Microsoft's biggest downfall will most likely be due to the fact that countries like Mexico, Brazil, China and others are using Linux in the classroom becuase they can't afford MS' products. When a generation of developers comes out of these countries they will most likely produce software for the platform they grew up with.
dp
---
http://insipid.com |
Its about time! (Score:1)
by whickie
(root@127.0.0.1)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:54PM EST
(#535)
(User #410287 Info)
|
Finally, someone who's hasn't been brainwashed by all of the OpenSource-Linux propaganda!
Listen up folks!
The business community will not drop reliable establishments like Sun, IBM, Novell, Apple, and Microsoft, for a patchwork of code that comes with no gaurantees, no support, and no stability. And why would they? These companies have proven track records, and experience in their market. Ohh yeah, and relationships with their customers.
You get what you pay for. Case closed.
And, BTW, most people who live in the real world want to be PAID for the their LABOUR.
Will This statement is false... |
The usual BS (Score:1)
by the_rev_matt
(rev_spam@punitiveart.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:57PM EST
(#538)
(User #239420 Info)
http://www.punitiveart.com
|
Wow, so microsoft is all-benevolent and only cares about the needs of end users, I've been so wrong all this time. These responses are the kind of thing I'd expect out of a junior PR flack, and that's probably who actually wrote them. this is getting old and so are you |
Only a matter of time.. (Score:1)
by Ogerman on Wednesday April 04, @01:58PM EST
(#539)
(User #136333 Info)
|
When will MS learn? They have already lost the battle AND the war. Not because of the situation today, but because time is on our side. Open Source will never go away. It is not a competitor that CAN be defeated. I think MS and the rest of "corporate America" have failed to grasp this. Commercial software producters are bound to the rules of their own game. Ultimately: They *must* make money. The Open Source community plays by no rules, and herein lies our infinite advantage.
It doesn't matter if RedHat or other Linux ventures fail. It doesn't matter if free software programmers make less money than others--or even resort to just coding for the love of their art. Granted, I hope this never happens, but it's a matter of principle. Code set free will never die.
Sure, Linux/*BSD aren't ready for the average tech illiterate desktop junkie, but it is only a matter of time. It doesn't matter if it takes us 2 more years to produce an office suite with the same capabilities as MS Office. When we do, MS will lose a *major* portion of its income because nobody in their right mind would pay for something they can legally get for free. Sure, they can try their best to delay the inevitable by keeping ahead in features for the time being. But they have no chance whatsoever competing with an Open Source project that has reached "critical mass." Just look at Apache vs. IIS. The only market left is in the ignorant.
I know even some Open Source advocates will disagree on this point, but it is very conceivable that all of the world's software needs will in time be met by Open Source software. The power of never having to re-invent the wheel is awesome. The lack of it is what keeps proprietary software companies in business today. In a world where all software is Free, there is no room for commercial entities who specialize only in software. That's not to say that programmers will be without jobs--they just won't work for *software* companies.
And MS thinks we don't have anything revolutionary..
|
STOP COMPLAINING (Score:1)
by GatoLoco on Wednesday April 04, @01:58PM EST
(#540)
(User #319555 Info)
http://www.linuxbusca.com
|
dudes, you know this guy don't really give a damn about what you think. how much money he's got in his account right now? you think he gives a damn? sure, it makes me nuts too...but DAMMIT, STOP PLAYING ON THESE SILLY MESSAGE BOARDS FOR 5 MINUTES and GO PROGRAM SOMETHING THAT'S NOT WIN32!!!
viva revolucion... 'Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.' |
BeOS (Score:1)
by scm
(scm-junk@NOSPAM.eds.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:04PM EST
(#551)
(User #21828 Info)
http://www.eds.org/~scm
|
"BeOS is a great operating system technically but hasn't offered the features to obtain the broad ISV support you need to catch on in the mainstream market."
It has nothing at all to do with the Microsoft licensing agreement that says that computers sold with Windows (essentially) cannot have an additional operating system installed on them...
|
|
Re:BeOS (Score:1)
by Krusher55 on Wednesday April 04, @03:08PM EST
(#639)
(User #414674 Info)
|
Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. What do users want to do with computers. Surf the net. Read/send e-mail. Do some word processing. Play some games. Have you tried doing this things on BeOS? If you have you will realize that there just aren't the apps available. I like BeOS. It is a nice OS and I enjoyed programming for it and it ran very well but I would never use it. I can't play games on it. Their web browsers and e-mail apps aren't anywhere near what I can get under Windows or even Linux. As nice as it is, it just isn't useful as an everyday OS because the quality apps aren't there.
|
Software be Tools... not Religion (Score:2, Interesting)
by slattery_jim
(geekierthanthou(at)hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:05PM EST
(#556)
(User #415216 Info)
|
MCSE here... logging in to shoot down a couple of misconceptions about Microsoft, as well as about Microsoft users/admins.
M1. Microsoft is the devil/satan incarnate/ naughty jungle of love.
A1. They are in business. To make money.
M2. Microsoft products suck
A2. For the most part, I would rather support MS software than just about any other. There is a large community of MS admins like myself who share answers to common and not-so-common problems. Through Newsgroups. Mailing Lists. email. (sound familiar?)
M3. Microsoft admins/users buy into the M$ Hype.
A3. Nope.
Predatory marketing practices?
Check.
Windows Errors/Problems that totally baffle your mind sometimes?
Check.
Wonder what kind of logic they used when designing the stuff one moment, and smiling at that wierd quirky thing that is just 'right'
Check
Believe in the power of what works, and screw the hype?
Check.
Believe that there are systems that do some jobs better than Windows?
Damn Straight!!! (Particularly NDS. NDS has an elegance and purpose of design and function that can make any geek, that will take the time to understand it, smile...)
M4. You 'have' to upgrade M$ software.
A4. Not at all. As a matter of fact, we are upgrading all of our systems to Windows 2000 Pro on the desktop, and Windows 2000 Server for one simple reason. It works better than what we have. That is the ONLY reason to upgrade software. XP isn't shaping up to be a heck of a lot better than 2000, and hence... we will NOT be 'crossgrading'
M5. An M$ product that lasts Years? At best I give anything one year until the service release is out, then the next upgrade...
A5. Software is created by humans. Humans make mistakes. (ie, bugs) Software developers release bug fixes. Happens all the time. Anyone subscribed to BugTraq knows that it's not just M$ that has bugs...
M6. Microsoft's treatment of standards is proprietary and bullying.
A6. OK, you got me there... :)
M7. The licensing issue.
A7. I know that I won't stand for it. I have too much crap to do without having to sit on the phone waiting for an authorization number. But I think that the home user is more in danger of this. I am SURE that there will be a way around it for corporate/large volume installations. (Office 2000 is supposed to have this check, but I have installed it MANY times with the same SN, on our network, and have YET to be asked for it.
A quick comment: I'm surprised with the amount of passed-along RUMINT that gets spouted on this list as truth. One person says that M$ has broken a standard, and next thing, it's stated as gospel in here.
BTW, I have been messing around with LINUX for a couple of years now... even had a ipchains firewall running at my last job. Didn't even tell them, and they didn't notice. One of the things that I plan to do along with my upgrade to 2000 is to set up an SAN using LINUX/SAMBA storage... geek fun!
Crap... I do ramble, don't I? (And No... I was NOT waiting for my NT server to reboot...) :)
|
What about products MS doesn't intend to sell (Score:1)
by CptnKirk
(jim at myplay dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:06PM EST
(#559)
(User #109622 Info)
|
I understand that Microsoft is in the business of making software, and in turn making money off their software. I don't fault them for this. I think Doug raised some good points about the Linux community being reluctant to pay for software. In a sense, the Linux community pays for software, in software and derived works. While this currency isn't green, it does have value. How much of this you can actually take to the bank has yet to be seen.
My question is: If Microsoft doesn't see it as profitable at this point to develop saleable software for Linux. What about software it doesn't sell?
MS turns out a fair amount of quality software which it never sells. Sure as stated above, MS makes up for this development by selling services and support based on these products.
Two products that MS gives away for free are it's Internet Explorer web browser and it's Windows Media Player. Microsoft makes no direct profit from these products, yet stands to make huge amounts of money in associated services.
Microsoft has toyed with porting IE to Unix, however IE 4 for Solaris was the last version I've seen. Microsoft also has a version of Windows Media 6 for Solaris. Yet hardly anybody uses Solaris as a desktop OS. MS has shown that it is possible to port these products to a Unix environment, so what's stopping them from a Linux port? These products exist for Apple OSes, and at last check these OSes had less market share than the combined Linux distributions. Also XMMS has proven the ability to develop such an application independent of the windowing system used. If anything it's shown that the windowing system is not the OS!
It seems that MS could make a lot of money, by allowing Linux users to use their services.
An example of one such service would be Microsoft's new MSN Net Music service. This service will undoubtably be "protected" by MS DRM technology. Yet there is no Linux player today which can play DRM 1 or 7 encoded tracks.
Linux users couldn't use this new service if they wanted to. They won't change their OS to use this service. So has MS innovated themselves into a corner?
Thoughts?
|
|
Who picked these questions? (Score:1)
by gelfling on Wednesday April 04, @02:11PM EST
(#567)
(User #6534 Info)
|
Did MS pick the questions they would agree to answer or did /. select the questions? These are fairly softball questions.
|
|
Re:Who picked these questions? (Score:2)
by gelfling on Thursday April 05, @10:21AM EST
(#1038)
(User #6534 Info)
|
Ya know anytime I ask questions like that on /. I get dinged for flamebait -
What about - "why or does Whistler impose licencing restrictions that are absurb, prohibitively expensive and don't insure us of anything other than kowtowing to MS - - How does MS actually fucking propose to do anything that helps us administer desktops?"
Is that too fucking obscure for you buddy? Or are too comfortable sitting in the big fucking easy chair carping about your technical fucking purity?
|
He's missing somthing here.... (Score:1)
by Forrestina
(burn_324_@nospam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:24PM EST
(#581)
(User #120989 Info)
http://truffula.net
|
"I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment."
i personally feel that he's a moron. considering he's only mentioned 2 desktop environments. and seems to belive there are 2 competing. what about XFCE, IceWM, Blackbox, WindowMaker, Afterstep, Sawfish, Enlightenment... only 1/5 of the linux users i know actually use KDE or GNOME. the rest of us like our other choices.
what it comes down to is. i belive people want and deserve choices. i think this is somthing microsoft will always manage to bungle. honestly, if KDE or GNOME was the only choice for a gui in open source operating systems... i'd probably go use solaris or os x instead.
oh well, more evidence that microsoft is against choice of any kind.
-------
"Idiot. 'Lego' actually comes from the Klingon le'Qo', meaning 'building blocks of war'" |
|
Re:He's missing somthing here.... (Score:1)
by Krusher55 on Wednesday April 04, @03:03PM EST
(#628)
(User #414674 Info)
|
Actually, I think most people don't want choices, they just want something that is easy to use and serves their needs which for most desktop users includes e-mail and web browsing, and some applications like a word processor, games, finance organizer, etc. Choices would be considered a bonus but if it comes at the expense of ease of use then it is a huge impedance to acceptance. Everyone needs to remember that we are not among the majority of people. The majority of people don't read Slashdot because the majority of people don't care that much about technology except what it can do for them to make their life simpler and/or more enjoyable. Until Linux can offer the ability to make the average persons life simpler or more enjoyable that the majority of people won't have a use for Linux.
|
Re:He's missing somthing here.... (Score:1)
by Forrestina
(burn_324_@nospam.hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:31PM EST
(#950)
(User #120989 Info)
http://truffula.net
|
great, but i'm tired of people at work asking me why windows locks up on them all the time, and they lose their work. i tell them. it's windows. i get looks like i'm crazy, and life goes on.
wouldn't you like that to _stop_?
-------
"Idiot. 'Lego' actually comes from the Klingon le'Qo', meaning 'building blocks of war'" |
Re:He's missing somthing here.... (Score:1)
by FrankNFurter
(f_pbecker@hotmail.com)
on Thursday April 05, @03:59AM EST
(#991)
(User #89904 Info)
|
It will stop once people have switched to Windows XP. The good thing about Windows is: it doesn't just crash, it
displays a dialog box and lets you click "OK" first. |
You may be a Microsoft Drone if... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Merk on Wednesday April 04, @02:26PM EST
(#583)
(User #25521 Info)
|
I wonder, is there anybody at Microsoft with a somewhat senior position who isn't a drone? This whole thing just sounds like the questions any other senior MS employee would give, with a bit of Unix knowledge thrown in for seasoning.
On question 1 he says "Microsoft has received unwarranted criticism by some for its [in]ability to interoperate with other operating systems" and that "I actually believe we have better interoperability today than any other OS out there". I think just the opposite is true. Linux could read FAT32 partitions when NT couldn't. You can open a Windows formatted floppy in an Apple OS, Linux, or any number of other OSes, but try going the other way. Because MS is the dominant desktop OS, they have no real need to play well with the other desktop OSes. The other OSes, on the other hand, have to play well with MS just to be useful. When MS does make something work well with a competitor's product it's often because that competitor is dominant in that particular area. That's just business.
He could have answered "We're the dominant player in the desktop OS market space, so obviously it adds more value to our competitors products when they make their offerings work well with ours than making ours work well with theirs." That would have been honest and nobody would have faulted him for it. (Well some rabid MS haters would have but they'd fault him no matter what he said). By claiming that MS has better interoperability than any other OS out there he just comes off as yet another MS drone. It really looks like MS is founded on intellectual dishonesty.
Next, on question 2 he seems to lay out a few backhanded attacks like "... Mac OS X, as a result of the new UNIX-like features". Saying that OS X has "UNIX-like features" is like saying that ice has some very water-like qualities. Now it could just be unflattering wording, but it just looks like more incidental MS FUD. "OS X has UNIX-like features but don't get your hopes up".
With the question of MS security WRT outlook and the VBScript viruses he slipped by the question like a seasoned politician. Instead of addressing the issue -- "what caused this horrible security model" he addressed how they fixed one particular problem, then quickly tried to change the focus to something else. It's a model so often used in politics:
Q: Some people are concerned with [LARGE ISSUE W] after [INCIDENT X]. What do you have to say about this criticism?
A: [INCIDENT X] was unfortunate, but we quickly came up with [QUICK FIX Y] and since then there have been no further issues. We'll be doing great things in the future, as evidenced by [DISTRACTING SHINY THING Z].
His answer to the next question tries to take an isolated incident: Corel's poor results in their one and only foray into the Linux area, and turn it into proof of a bigger issue. Corel failed and they had cool stuff, so what hope does anyone else have? Anybody who knows the whole Corel incident well knows that there were a huge number of problems in the way Corel went about doing things, from arguably violating the GPL in their beta test agreements to making their version of Linux look like a bad Windows rip-off.
The next question actually started with a truly honest and straightforward answer "We definitely take Linux very seriously." In less than a paragraph he was again slipping in the FUD: "But looking at Linux technically, there is no real revolution here. Linux looks and feels like UNIX and isn't any better than a commercial version of UNIX."
If Linux isn't better, but is just as good as a commercial version of UNIX then isn't that a revolution right there? An OS as good as a commercial UNIX where every standard component is Free is revolutionary.
Next he tries to dismiss Linux because the concept of a free OS isn't new. But he's again missing what makes Linux such an important thing. Not only is it free (no cost) but it's Free (libre). And not just as a whole, but free *per component*. The GPL, and its widespread use, is revolutionary, and obviously MS recognizes this because they're now lobbying the government to rid the world of this unAmerican scourge.
The next question? Dodged. But if you read between the lines the answer is obvious: "For companies that choose to charge money for their software, there should be ways to ensure they are paid appropriately ... and have some legal or technical assistance to protect their property."
My guess is that as soon as MS builds hardware copy protection into their OS they'll launch a FUD attack against Linux claiming that Linux doesn't care about protecting someone's IP, and that it's a system for "hackers" who only use it so they can get around The Law.
The issue of hardware fingerprints in the next question was ignored completely. He only mentioned RedHat and Caldera enough to insult them. But the end result the attitude was perfectly clear. "We're a propriety software company and that's what we're going to stay, no matter what".
The next answer was actually well written FUD. So well written I missed what he was doing the first time around. He built up a straw man pretending the issue was building software that did what a standard said and nothing more, then showed how ridiculous that was.
At the same time he dodged the real issue of Microsoft breaking standards. Apache can do some really cool things that aren't part of any HTTP standard, but when it comes right down to it, Apache still is a web server that follows the relevant standards. An end-user will never have to know what kind of web server he's using to know if his browser can use it (pages are another matter). Is Microsoft Kerberos truly Kerberos? What about Microsoft's Java? If they had simply added keywords to the language that affected how the code was compiled but the code still ran on all JVMs that would be one issue. But Microsoft's Java extensions made bytecode that could no longer truly be called Java bytecode.
The last answer actually seems like it comes from the heart (I guess his wasn't completly removed when he became part of the collective -- they have it on standby so it can be used in an emergency like this).
Anyhow, I wasn't impressed. Are there any senior level Microsoft employees who can do any one of these things?
- Admit the company made a serious design mistake in a product (say a horrible security model in outlook)
- Concede the company in the past has used shadey business practices
- Say that there are areas they are seriously behind their competition
- Admit that they haven't discouraged piracy at times in order to broaden their market share
|
|
Re:You may be a Microsoft Drone if... (Score:1)
by halbritt
(halbritt at harm dot org)
on Wednesday April 04, @08:17PM EST
(#873)
(User #30189 Info)
|
You make some well-reasoned responses here, though I'd like to comment on a couple of them.
With regard to interoperability you are absolutely correct. Microsoft has proven in the past that they are only willing to interoperate when it's absolutely necessary for business reasons. This is contrary to the corporate mantra of "innovation". The concept of innovation implies that someone gets there first or accomplishes something different before others. Forced interoperability after the fact is not "innovation". When it became clear that Microsoft could no longer rely on obsolete proprietary networking protocols (netbios) they added support for TCP/IP. This is one instance of "interoperability". As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I've really ever seen any sort of real innovation come out of MS. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, and no, Bob doesn't count.
Next, on question 2 he seems to lay out a few backhanded attacks like "... Mac OS X, as a result of the new UNIX-like features". Saying that OS X has "UNIX-like features" is like saying that ice has some very water-like qualities. Now it could just be unflattering wording, but it just looks like more incidental MS FUD. "OS X has UNIX-like features but don't get your hopes up".
I didn't see anything unflattering about this statement at all other than the fact that it may have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps a better statement for him to make would've been something like, "I'm not sure much will change with Mac OS X as a result of its underlying UNIX architecture." I think the point that he's trying to make is something that's already evident to most people. Mac OS X is based on UNIX but most users will never know the difference. With this in mind ISVs shouldn't have to change their application model very much.
It would've been nice if he would've addressed the security issue. The real truth of the matter, and the crux of the security problem is that MS products are designed by committee and unfortunately these committees pretty much exist in a vacuum. As I understand it, developers are pretty much forbidden from even looking at GPL software for fear of IP contamination. MS could probably resolve a lot of security problems by getting a very clueful team of auditors to review products for security issues.
His answer to the next question tries to take an isolated incident: Corel's poor results in their one and only foray into the Linux area, and turn it into proof of a bigger issue. Corel failed and they had cool stuff, so what hope does anyone else have? Anybody who knows the whole Corel incident well knows that there were a huge number of problems in the way Corel went about doing things, from arguably violating the GPL in their beta test agreements to making their version of Linux look like a bad Windows rip-off.
Corel is one example of a for-profit company selling closed-source apps into the Linux market and being unsuccessful. There are other examples as well. Quake 3 experienced poor sales in the Linux market for various reasons. The timing of the release didn't really help much, but as I understand it, sales were way below expectations, and expectations were pretty low to begin with.
If Linux isn't better, but is just as good as a commercial version of UNIX then isn't that a revolution right there? An OS as good as a commercial UNIX where every standard component is Free is revolutionary.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. I honestly don't see much about Linux that's revolutionary. The concept of free (libre) software is certainly not a new one. GNU had been around for years before the first Linux kernel was developed. It seems that the origination of free (libre) software is the academic environment in the early 80's. I would really like to see a compelling argument about how Linux is revolutionary. The only revolutionary thing that I see is the multitude of compromised Linux boxes on the Internet hosted by clueless individuals that wouldn't know UNIX if it bit 'em in the ass, but they can damn sure get through the pretty installation routines. But then, that's a whole other rant.
|
Re:You may be a Microsoft Drone if... (Score:2)
by Art Tatum
(jhclouse at hotmail dot com)
on Friday April 06, @12:47PM EST
(#1085)
(User #6890 Info)
http://www.gnustep.org
|
He could have answered "We're the dominant player in the desktop OS market space, so obviously it adds more value to our competitors products when they make their offerings work well with ours than making ours work well with theirs." That would have been honest and nobody would have faulted him for it. Actually, he *was* being honest--didn't you hear him say that they were in business to make money? <grin>
Independence and freedom for people and nations. |
Re:You may be a Microsoft Drone if... (Score:1)
by de Selby
(amyouren@nmu.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:13PM EST
(#894)
(User #167520 Info)
|
Thinking for yourself is great--I'm sure he's proud of himself. But the biggest thing I need to know is what "facts" does he derive conclusions from?
When some people speak their truth, and no sophestry is intended by them, they usually argue along the lines of "x is true. so y is true. so z is true."; and with valid reasoning to move from x to y to z.
My response is always: "You are mistaken about the nature of x."
In my dealings with MS employees, and most people in general, everything begins with a few *really* wacked out "truths" which lead logically to conclusions that get everyone all angry.
Take for example: "The success of our products show that our software is preferred over that of the competition."
This assumes all things are fair. It includes pre-installed computer software and ignores the impact of the embrace/extend trap among other things.
Or this example: "Microsoft's software innovations, leadership and product quality make Microsoft a valuable and influential entity."
This is deserving of it's own finding of fact... Many will point to MS's life-long _lack_ of innovations (in fact, it's remarkable ability to copy and claim invention), it's hunter-prey relationships instead of it's leadership, and it's truly remarkable ability to hire what are some of the top programmers in the country while at the same time making some of the buggiest and most badly designed software.
I don't attempt to prove that these things are the way I say. I'm just asking, what beliefs does he base his free thinking on? Microsoft is the best? He's helping those who use his softare as opposed to other softare? He has made something more valuable than some competing product?
This is the thinking of many a Linux user:
(at least it's mine...)
1) My needs, and of those I know and read about, require software different enough from what Microsoft makes to justify a new design. Either with feature set x, or without feature set y, etc.
2) I seem to be in the majority. Why did microsoft just go even further from what I want with the latest releases?
3) Company x has made software like what I want.
4) Company x has gone under and MS still controlls the market with softare I do not want. MS appears to have had a hand in Company x's death...
5) We must now use MS software--compatibility you know. It's popular, we can't easily operate on the undocumented file formats without MS and, again, Company x is gone...
6) I'm bummed and I feel an intense lack of control. My needs are ignored; I'm spoken to like a child when MS tries to convince me that their latest tool is what I want.
6 1/2) To add insult to injury, as time progresses compatibility with everyone else and security concerns force me into new versions--that are further away from what I want.
7) I will help make an alternative and everything will be peachy.
Pay close attenction to point 6--the lack of control. This is what I feel causes most of the religious and intense hate aimed at Microsoft. (It caused mine.) The ignored user with needs unadressed, work to do with ill-fitting tools, and MS playing patch-up games... All the while Microsoft exclaims "We're the best!"
Sorry about my rant. This was building up for a while and just came out when passing by your post.
|
Great interview, plus some of my self promotion.. (Score:2)
by defile
(defile[-at-]nyct[-dawt-]net)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:28PM EST
(#588)
(User #1059 Info)
http://netgraft.com/
|
It's nice to see the world from Microsoft's point of view for a change. This interview helped clarify a lot of how I already felt about them. :)
That said, Microsoft seems to be attacking Linux on the grounds that while Microsoft products cost and arm and a leg up front, it will lower your Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) in the future compared to Linux which costs nothing but takes a "genius" to run.
For example, if you deploy Windows NT, you pay however much for the software licenses to have it installed and you hire an MCSE to run it. The MCSE follows the instructions, point, click, configure. Etc. Not to dimish their work, because some MCSE's actually know a lot about NT, but the checklist goes something like: Restart the application. Restart the computer. If it still doesn't work, install service packs. Reinstall the system or call Microsoft support.
If the admin sucks, fire him and hire a new MCSE. My impression (from dealing with NT when I have to) is that most MCSEs really can't do a unique thing with NT. Non-standard problems are real, major problems simply because the system is so closed and the MCSE isn't knowledgable enough to get into it's guts. While your TCO is lowered because the MCSE's salary is less, he is incapable of solving atypical problems. Thusly, you call Microsoft support. Hopefully, you can make the calls to Microsoft support infrequently enough that it doesn't raise your TCO by any significant factor.
With something like Linux, you tend to need to employ people with greater skillsets, and thusly at a higher salary to get any work done with it. The fact that you can't just fire the admin and look for Linux Certified Systems Engineers means that hiring a new admin will be more difficult. The benefits here are that the Linux admin has greater control over your system, and can probably get more done in less time, and have the solution be a better fit.
It seems that people who need an information infrastructure choose commercial NT oriented stuff. People that are in the actual business of selling technology tend to veer towards Linux because they are developing NEW technology, advancing the state of the art, etc. Linux helps them to do this by being powerful.
I am of the belief that the CIO's segment of computing (as opposed to the CTO's segment) which deploys Windows has a higher TCO because their systems aren't an exact fit for their needs. It's sort of there, but the tiny nuisances in dealing with a solution that isn't an exact fit adds up to significant costs that raise your overall TCO. Hopefully this is where I come in and deliver a kickass Linux solution AND support it, cutting your TCO dramatically. Tired of the blue screen? Give me a call :)
A Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is to computing what a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to fine cuisine |
Outlook and Attachments (Score:2, Insightful)
by mttlg on Wednesday April 04, @02:35PM EST
(#596)
(User #174815 Info)
http://www.wpi.edu/~mttlg/
|
In the case of Outlook, we've taken several steps to provide improved security for users. For example, after the "I Love You" virus of last spring, we took the initiative to change the balance between security and functionality by releasing the Outlook E-Mail Security Update. The Update prevents executable attachments from being delivered to an Outlook user
Why stop there? Why not prevent all attachments from "being delivered to an Outlook user?" I know, you could have all e-mail routed through a Microsoft virus-checking server. Or just force everyone to use Hotmail instead. It could be prompted by a message that pops up when someone tries to use Outlook: "You are too stupid to be trusted with e-mail client software. Please sign up for your very own FREE Hotmail account and take care of all of your e-mail with the fun of the latest transparent peer-to-peer file sharing and remote computer access and control features in Internet Explorer."
It seems to me that closing the security hole would make more sense than blocking attachments, but then again I don't work at Microsoft, so what do I know? Just how many average Outlook users use Visual Basic? How many even know what it is? It's been almost 2 years and the best they can come up with is limiting useful functionality? Of course, this is also the company that makes most of its money on bug fixes but can't get a simple patch right...
|
|
Re:Outlook and Attachments (Score:1)
by johnnie
(eric@pickleweasel.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:32PM EST
(#747)
(User #33967 Info)
http://www.pickleweasel.com/eric
|
IANAPOTEL (...Prof. of the English Language) but, does not the word "initiative" imply some degree of preemtion? Don't ask. Go see. |
3d printing (Score:2, Insightful)
by lazn on Wednesday April 04, @02:37PM EST
(#598)
(User #202878 Info)
|
I have a question for everyone here.
Right now if you buy all the parts for a 83 Ford Escort separatly (eg an engine from one place, a replacment fender from another) and put together a complete car, do you have to pay Ford after you are all done and have a complete car?
So how about if you had a real working perfect 3d printer (eg: duplicator) and used it to make a copy of your 83 Ford Escort (right down to the leaky power steering pump) using your own electricty and your own raw materials, would you have to pay Ford for the copy when you are done?
Then take this to copying a new car. Would you have to pay then?
And if not, how is this any different from software "piracy"? Because when someone "steals" a program, the person he "stole" it from still has his program. That person did not loose anything.
Just like if someone copied my 83 Escort I would still have my original 83 Escort, and I would not care if someone did.
(actually I don't drive a escort, I just picked on it as an example)
==>Lazn
|
|
Re:3d printing (Score:2, Informative)
by An Ominous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @03:53PM EST
(#701)
(User #13324 Info)
|
The current legal definition is that you are stealing the exclusivity to the software. The ethical question of whether or not this loss of exclusivity is worse than the social gain of eliminating the concept of software ownership is another issue.
|
Re:3d printing (Score:1)
by mcfiddish on Wednesday April 04, @04:20PM EST
(#735)
(User #35360 Info)
|
You have your original Escort, but Ford has lost a potential customer.
I know the argument that most people who copy software wouldn't have bought it anyway, so what's the harm? But there has got to be some percentage of people who pirate software who otherwise would have bought it. That's revenue the software company is entitled to get for its effort in putting the software out there in the first place.
People DO have to eat, you know.
|
Re:3d printing (Score:1)
by lazn on Thursday April 05, @01:24PM EST
(#1060)
(User #202878 Info)
|
Ford lost a potential (not actual) customer if I copied a new car.
But if I copied a 83 Escort, some other person selling a used car lost a potential customer, not Ford.
Anyone buy used/old software?
Microsoft still prosicute for piracy of Windows 3.1?
Yes software companies should be able to make money. I am not denying that. I am just pointing out that the digital world has different laws than the physical world and sometimes very silly ones.
Look at cybersquating for example. If your last name was Schwab and you registerd www.schwab.com it would be taken away from you, without compensation. Or if you registered "growing business's name.com" same thing. If on the otherhand you were a real estate agency, and you thought Podunk Idaho would grow soon, and you purchased all the land that was for sale in the aria of Podunk Idaho, when the town grew you could resell that land for a profit. Explain that to me.
==>Lazn
|
Vagueness (Score:2, Interesting)
by Junta on Wednesday April 04, @02:38PM EST
(#599)
(User #36770 Info)
|
There is a degree of vagueness in all the answers, and non-comittance, but in most cases he does address the issue asked. The *MAJOR* notable exception in my eyes is the question on licensing. The question seemed to be asking about the technical problems with the scheme, not the dieology of it. He repsonds with almost a sermon on how evil pirates are hurting microsoft and they have every right to do what it takes to control that. I don't think that piracy concerns are the only thing microsoft is worried about here, there are other, much more acceptable strategies such as dongles for this. Having the software strap itself more firmly to existing hardware has a few implications/possiblities.
For one, some people have more than one computer, but do not feel that a single user with multiple computers should have to purchase multiple copies. This seems legitimate feeling to me, but to microsoft, this is considered wrong and lost revenue, but from a legal standpoint, it is an uncertain area. This serves to take care of that "problem".
Also, a number of users have hardware lifecycles that are shorter than their operating system lifecycles. They will continue to buy new systems, but Microsoft is unable to offer new features that warrant purchase of new versions as quickly as they would like. For example, in the environment I work with, brand new PCs have winNT 4.0 and win95 installed, because those are still good enough, and the appeal of ME/98/98SE/2000 has not been enough to purchase new software, though the hardware gains have been great. By tying a purchased version of the OS to the current hardware, they are forcing the consumer to purchase another OS copy, even if perfectly identical to the old one, when buying new computer equipment.
I would much prefer dongles, if they are going to continue to charge outrageous prices for their products, they can afford dongles. If they lower prices to more reasonable levels, fewer people may wish to pirate it. The privacy and limitiations of this new licensing, if it goes in effect, will certainly keep me from purchasing this product, and I have made significant purchases of MS products before... I also think many IT outfits will not go for this licensing idea and search for alternatives/simply not purchase the product.
|
The best Unix clone.... (Score:2)
by Alomex on Wednesday April 04, @02:40PM EST
(#601)
(User #148003 Info)
|
But looking at Linux technically, there is no real revolution here. Linux looks and feels like UNIX and isn't any better than a commercial version of UNIX.
While there might be a bit of hyperbole in that statement, so far what Linux has done is mostly replication of UNIX. This is no mean feat, considering how much work it involved. But Linux must definitely move beyond that and start innovating.
Can it support a better development paradigm (see OS X)? Can it provide by default a more powerful security model (a la Kerberos)? Can we at long last ditch NFS into the trashbin of history and replace it with a decent and secure file server? Could we get rid of X windows, the worst UI to adorn a desktop since Windows 2.0?
|
|
Re:The best Unix clone.... (Score:1)
by elflord on Thursday April 05, @12:58AM EST
(#971)
(User #9269 Info)
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord
|
Can it support a better development paradigm (see OS X)?
IMO Qt/KDE are enormous steps towards that.
Can it provide by default a more powerful security model (a la Kerberos)?
This would certainly be nice. RH and friends already godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement
over network intruder service)
use PAM, but working kerberos OOTB
be a godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement
over network intruder service)
Can we at long last ditch NFS into the trashbin of history and replace it with a decent and secure file server? Could we get rid of X windows, the worst UI to adorn a desktop since Windows 2.0?
I'm all for getting something better than NFS, but
it still needs to be supported for interoperatbility reasons.
As for X, it's not "X Windows", it's not a "UI",
and it's not going to go any time soon. However,
the implementation used on Linux, XFree86, is
constantly improving, with the addition of features
like true type font support, hardware acceleration
and anti-aliasing.
--Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
Always & Never (Score:2)
by ch-chuck
(devnull@schiller.tzo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @02:52PM EST
(#622)
(User #9622 Info)
|
Microsoft has always been a customer focused ...
The Mac crowd has always been a special ...
We have always made an effort to provide highly functional ...
... more than 20 years and you have always been able to get the source ...
"Never say never." Microsoft is continually looking ...
<yawn>
Nothing very enlightening here - pretty much standard Msft party line public relations stuff, like a politicians meaningless july 4 feel-good speech then heading back to the office for more backstabbing, bribes, payoffs, graft, corruption, vote fraud, etc.
</yawn>
|
Standards complience doesn't exist? (Score:1)
by Bob Ham on Wednesday April 04, @02:57PM EST
(#624)
(User #50584 Info)
http://pkl.net/~node/
|
IBM's Microdrive pedantically adheres to the CompactFlash II standard. The speed is _restricted_ so that the device adheres to the standard. And also, what makes you think we want to attract big software producers to the "Linux community"? We can write our own software, do it better and make it free. So to you, good sir, I say: fuck off and take your wallet enlarging values with you.
"Customer driven"? What do you take us for?
|
The death of open source... (Score:3, Funny)
by SnapShot on Wednesday April 04, @03:06PM EST
(#633)
(User #171582 Info)
|
650 comments on slashdot.org as of 4pm EST. Microsoft has finally brought the Linux movement to a standstill. ;)
|
"KDE or Gnome?" (Score:1)
by Gubba
(cwoods@trinagy.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:07PM EST
(#637)
(User #311159 Info)
http://www.trinagy.com/
|
This is something that many seem not to understand. KDE apps run great on my gnome machine. GTK+ apps run fine on KDE. All that's required are libraries, simple as that.
Mr. Miller's hinging point about "which environment do we port apps to" is moot.
Mozilla, for example, is a GTK+ app on any unix, as it is obtained from mozilla.org. They don't ship glib or gtk+ with mozilla, but they provide them on their server, as required by law.
Not to mention the fact that most commercial linux distributions (the ones I'm familiar with, anyway, and also the ones the "average" consumer is likely to use) ship with both KDE and Gnome installed, and all of the libs required to run them.
g./
|
What Happen???? (Score:1)
by cyberkahn
(cyberkahn[dontspam]@usa.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:26PM EST
(#664)
(User #398201 Info)
|
Some one set us up the bomb?
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2 625265,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00 .html
|
|
Training, deploying and other BS he's shoveling (Score:1)
by sheetsda
((my /. profile name)@muohio.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:33PM EST
(#671)
(User #230887 Info)
|
Even free has its costs in the end in the form of user training, support, applications etc. so the fact that the OS is "free" really has little bearing on the fully loaded costs of deploying and using a computing platform.
You think Windows doesn't require some training to use? When was the last time you tried to solve a Windows users problem only to be asked, "Whats a write-click?" Apparently you never have. Well I have, and let me tell you, Windows, Linux, and every complex system that is worth interacting with(not just computers) does require training to use. I see no advantage to Windows here, a user brought up using another OS will find it easier to use than Windows(Apple users anyone?). And about deploying a platform, all recent Linux installations I've done have been fully GUI implemented, and several even allow you to play games after you're done giving it the necessary info, instead of bombarding you useless garbage on how great the product you're installing is. Theres also little chance I'll have to reinstall Linux on those boxen too, Linux is not known to suddenly barf and force me to format and Joe Blow user can't kill the OS by deciding to "organize" all his files by placing them in directories such as "dlls" and "exes"; Linux, and almost all OS's other than Windows, will protect him from himself, and when he does this on Windows, does he not require support? A reinstall? a format perhaps? Does he or his company not pay some tech to do this?. Linux is also not known to lose a 50 page report with an infamous BSOD. Your argument that the costs of using [any non-MS OS] are the completely bogus, bullshit I would expect from a High Ranking Microsoft employee.
</soapbox>
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb" --Half-Life SDK, doors.cpp, line 744 |
Its about the money (Score:1)
by nege on Wednesday April 04, @03:37PM EST
(#676)
(User #263655 Info)
|
I agree with so many of the things that Mr. Miller has to say. And the bottom line is that its all about the money- I have a MAC and I have linux and I have Windows. What I love is internet explorer and Windows Office. They are far superior to any other apps like them that I have seen. My problem? I cant AFFORD 500$ for MS office! If this was 100$ I could do it and feel good about it. Programmers deserve to be paid for their work too and I think that the linux community forgets this from time to time. The real questions is "how much"? If I (and others) dont want to pay 500$ for decent software what must we do? Probably cut the coders salaries and stop lining everyones pockets with gold. Will this happen? Probably not. But the fact of the matter is I have a damn hard time sharing files with my iBook (appleworks) to Windows (everyone else) users.
All your .docs are belong to us.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT dpu s+:+ a-- C++ L U++ P+ L+++ E--- W++ N o- K- w--- O- M V- PS+ PE |
one windowing API (Score:1)
by xDroid
(xdroid at eleven st dot com)
on Wednesday April 04, @03:44PM EST
(#688)
(User #115379 Info)
http://www.11st.com/xdroid/
|
The beauty (or dirge) of MS Windows is there is 1 GUI API. That is why litestep, darkstep and Stardock can be successful. Even though the API was largley hidden in the past, these alternate shells are a hint of things to come...
For example: I could see a windows laptop running Stardock's version of windowblinds (blackbox theme) version of a gui with cygwin installed and the user browsing the internet in Opera while running tail -f on my apache web server through an ssh client in an exported xterm session ...
Oh wait that's me...
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker |
Scored 9 on Weaselmeter. (Score:1)
by iron_weasel on Wednesday April 04, @03:58PM EST
(#705)
(User #415177 Info)
|
Does he have any chest hair left? How low to the ground can one forage?
The language this type of suit utilizes makes one wonder how many trade rags one would have to pore over, how many wasted meetings, how many taskforces, how many shared experiences with sales types in order to develop such convoluted speech
patterns? Language that can run on and on without any content?
Thankfully I didn't count any of the wretched OBVIOUSLYs.
What a waste of oxygen when other single-celled lifeforms can make far more productive uses of it.
|
KDE and Gnome (Score:1)
by Ka0s
(mail@me.not)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:09PM EST
(#718)
(User #134504 Info)
http://127.0.0.1
|
If the Linux community could take the best thinking from both the KDE and
GNOME projects and join forces, they would have the best chance for success.
Screw that. I love having both of them, competing with each other. It provokes more innovation, competition is good - neither of them are going to go away, so both will continue to improve steadily. All we need is for Gnome and KDE to decide on one theming method(or more, for pixmap based or engines) which both Qt and GTK+ can support, and that would be it. Then when you choose a theme, your KDE apps look like your Gnome apps and vice versa. Then MS/*Company* could port to what ever toolkit suited them best, and not have to worry about 'standards'.
I've heard about meta-theme, but AFAIK it requires seperate themes for each toolkit to look the same (hopefully I'm wrong and it does what I said and we're saved).
/* Lame sig made to look like lame code comment */ |
geeks vs. mass adoption (Score:1)
by bwhalen on Wednesday April 04, @04:14PM EST
(#724)
(User #246170 Info)
|
There is some truth to what is being said here. Though there are folks willing to write software for the thrill of completing the task, if that is a no charge item, then you still need a day job to pay the bills. As a result, focusing on development will be a larger chore.
Where do you want to be,
What are you doing to get there. |
question 1 competitiveness comments (Score:1)
by bwhalen on Wednesday April 04, @04:16PM EST
(#728)
(User #246170 Info)
|
Competition; I see none in the consumer desktop area. Where do you want to be,
What are you doing to get there. |
MS porting apps to linux, they'd probably pick Qt (Score:2)
by StandardDeviant
(blah_blah_reply_on_slashdot)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:21PM EST
(#736)
(User #122674 Info)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.goatse.cx
|
I suspect that they would use Qt. The reasons are threefold in my mind: 1) it's C++, and the object model would be fairly familiar to somebody whose done MFC, 2) it's pretty standard looking from one instllation to the next (no wild and wooliness like Gtk+ can get with themes; yes I know Qt is themeable too but frankly I haven't seen many of my KDE friends do that), 3) the company that makes Qt is open to it's use in a commercial, closed-source application (and has the corporate infrastructure to sell it).
Note that I said Qt and not KDE. I think the dithering over KDE or Gnome is a ruse, as I use apps from both "environments" quite regularly in my Enlightenment (0.16.5) WM. I truly don't think the WM has much to do with how the app operates (and if you're anal enough about the way your app's borders look to care about it at all, you've got problems a WM won't fix). Can anyone think of an instance where an application required (I mean would not operate without), Gnome or KDE (as opposed to gnome-libs or kde-libs)?
That being said, I'd gladly pay for some Microsoft applications on linux. Word and Excel spring immeadiately to mind becuase I pretty much have to use them for some of the classes I take (well, I could probably do without word but Excel simply offers things that gnumeric et al. don't). Heck, I'd pay for IE too if it didn't suck like some of the other Unix IE ports apparently have (figure $20 or $30). Further, I think the reason that Linux will never catch on in the corporate envirtonment outside of the IT dept is that it doesn't have Office/IE/Outlook. Too many normal business types (bizdev et al.) simply will not make the change (don't want to or can't), and why should they? The computer is just a tool for them to acheive their real goals, so once they've learned one application or application suite well enough to acheive those goals, why devote more brain power to switching abscent a compelling technical reason.
Anything that speeds the adoption of linux on the desktop and home market is good for linux, even for those of use that use it soley as a servcr and use it on our desktops. Quite simply, the larger our market share is, the more likely hardware companies will develop linux drivers at the same time as win32 ones. Increased hardware support benefits the entire community. --
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
(slashcode based)
|
Just a few more comments in a sea of bits (Score:2)
by MSG on Wednesday April 04, @04:32PM EST
(#748)
(User #12810 Info)
|
We fully support data, directory and system interop with UNIX, Linux, Novell, Mac, IBM mainframes through our base OS protocol support as well as through products like Services for UNIX, Interix, Services for NetWare, MetaDirectory and Host Integration Server.
Well, I'm glad this was first so we can get this out of the way. Doug defends interoperability by stating that MS offers products that will provide it. However, their OS's alone provide interoperability only with other, similar (read: MS) products. If you want interoperability with, say, a UNIX system, you have to pay for additional software licenses. Their customers are criticizing them not because interoperability isn't available, but because they feel like they have to pay for MS licenses for every machine they run, whether it actually uses MS software or not.
Further, Dave goes on to defend MS tactics of 'Embrace and (Extend|Extinguish)' as protecting their IP. If we consider MS's undocumented (for our intents and purposes) extentions to Kerberos, we can clearly see why customers complain about 'vendor lock-in'. In order for a Kerberos ticket to be valid in a Windows domain network, it must contain the additional information that a Windows server will place there. That's valid. That's why there's a chunk of a Kerberos ticket left undefined by the standard. However, because that information isn't documented, only a Windows Kerberos server can be used for authentication. That is not interoperability. That does not give your customers the ability to choose the best solution for the job.
|
The Revolution (Score:1)
by Micah
(micah at geeks4christ dot NO SPAM dot org)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:35PM EST
(#750)
(User #278 Info)
|
But looking at Linux technically, there is no real revolution here.
Debatable, but he may be right. Technically, the revolution is that Linux is more convenient than some other UNIXes because it's so customizable and so much software is included with distros.
Secondly, the area that gets the most attention in the press is the fact that Linux is "free" and you can get the source. Again, I don't see a major revolution here.
MAJOR disagreement here. Free software is a revolution, and he is correct that it started in the 80s (or before). However, the REAL revolution is that people everywhere are becoming increasingly aware of free software, and there is free software to meet most common business needs -- word processing, spreadsheets, quality mail clients and web browsers and desktops that easily compete with Windows, etc. Until very recently, that has not been the case.
In the end, the newfound open source commodity software and people being aware of it will cause it to become the dominant platform. This is huge, and I consider it inevitable.
I have a lower user ID than you do! |
MS will fail; Open Source will win. (Score:1)
by sdprenzl on Wednesday April 04, @04:55PM EST
(#779)
(User #149571 Info)
http://www133.pair.com/dridger/
|
MS will fail mainly because they're on the treadmill of greater and greater profits. I think today's "downturn", "recession" (whatever) is an example of the insanely great profits chase finally hitting the wall. MS will dodge and weave around, looking for new profit sources, but the days of insane, accelerating profits are over. Meanwhile, the Open Source movement will keep on plugging away, impervious to bean counters, or nay-sayers, or downturns, and eventually plow all before it. Great software will result and reasons to buy only marginally better commercial software will disappear. MS has not locked up the server market--Linux will move strongly into all levels of serving--which leaves them very vulnerable. What else makes them money? "Pray for heat death...." |
No weasling? Are you kidding? (Score:1)
by fanatic on Wednesday April 04, @05:09PM EST
(#794)
(User #86657 Info)
|
He completely evaded the point of question 9 - the ruination of defacto standards such as Kerberos and Java. He just ignored it altogether. His answer to this is nothing but blather - which is the best he could do because there is NO good answer for what Microsoft has done to standards. (For a discussion of how they abuse one of the most widely used and useful standards ever, see: Moronic Microsoft HTML)
-- "buckle your seatbelt, dorothy - kansas is going bye-bye." |
Didn't MS say Open projects *stifled* innovation? (Score:1)
by Stavros42
(graeme@cole142.remove_this_bit.freeserve.co.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:16PM EST
(#802)
(User #266211 Info)
|
If I could just point out this little discrepancy... I apologise if it's already been noticed.
...Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
So hardware innovation increased at a rapid rate. But didn't Jim Allchin say a few weeks ago that Open projects stifle innovation? (I couldn't find the exact quote, but the slashdot story is here and the Register's story is here.) -- "Love is a device invented by bank managers to make us overdrawn." - Arnold Rimmer |
Paradigmal Spectral Polarization ... (Score:1)
by johnnie
(eric@pickleweasel.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:19PM EST
(#805)
(User #33967 Info)
http://www.pickleweasel.com/eric
|
is it just me, or do most of Douggie's answers tend towards "Ha! We here at M$ can kick your ass, and your little penguin's ass, too!" ...
it seems to me as if Mr. Miller misconstrues our motives massively, mistaking me and mine for mere marketdroids. (Um, sorry for the alliteration) our strengths lie not in selling this crap, but making this crap work pretty darn well, and the obvious strength of a community where the primary drive is not to screw your neighbor over for a few bucks, rather to help her out pro bono.
i speak only for me own li'l self here, but i'd be interested to see if anyone else thinks similarly.
i don't see that the comparison as far as direct competition between our camp and Mr. Gates' is very valid. although it is nice to see non-hacker-types using linux or other *ahem* "Alternative" OS'es and i try to encourage folks that i am around to at least consider that there are other ways to do all this neat stuff than using M$ products, i really don't see linux as a "commercial OS" that would be going head to head with M$.
not to say that i don't do my fair share of M$ avoidance, as well as some bitching and moaning when i am asked to expose myself to that particular school of computing. in fact, i would be just happy as a pig in shit if M$ dropped right off the face of my time-space continuum. i just don't think it's up to open source to do this to them. at least not in their own area of expertise (fooling idjit consumers into paying them)
Don't ask. Go see. |
Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by Water Paradox
(jared_at_purpleturtle_dot_com)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:23PM EST
(#809)
(User #231902 Info)
http://www.trios.org
|
Linux is composed of people working in a cooperative environment. If it doesn't work right but you've got a great idea, some stranger out of nowhere will arrive and fix it for you: On the condition that you become that stranger some time in the future for someone else. Great implementation of the old concept known as the Golden Rule. From the beginning of his first comment onward, Doug Miller makes it clear that he is working in a competitive environment. (I just used his own term 'competitive.')
Competition has its place, but it need not be the driving force behind software design/selling. The funny thing is that Microsoft, by being large and monolothic does not appear to be competitive to the uninformed. And on the other hand, Linux supporters seem to be fiercely competitive, preferring KDE over GNOME or SLACKWARE over DEBIAN, with virulent flame wars on these topics, while Microsoft supporters rather obediently take what comes to them without complaint.
So when Doug Miller very gently speaks, in an intelligent and articulate manner about 'competition' few people realize that the premise of 'competition' is short-sighted, and far from the fun and excitement that comes from approaching the same goals in a 'cooperative' environment. The scope of this mini-essay is too limited to talk about the fact that fascism can hide behind the guise of 'cooperation' as easily as it can hide behind the guise of 'competition,' so let me remain on the point that it should be clear that Doug Miller, and his company, is extremely competitive.
FUD (stirring up Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt against your opponent) is a way of thinking for competitive folks, who have no immovable ethical boundaries: the boundaries will move if no one objects to their implementation. We object to Microsoft, and this keeps them in line. Linux on the other hand, is built in a process of dialogue (or multilogue?). FUD fails within the Open Source community, because we all want the software to work, not just a few of us. Divide and conquer doesn't work against people who have the same goal. Microsoft is waging war with its own customers; Linux is seeking to serve, by allowing ANY customer to inform himself and transform the product, based on merit alone.
While Open Source by its cooperative nature will eventually grow out of its internal dissension, rising above FUD, FUD is always an option within competition, because competition is founded on a hierarchical structure where one person wins and another person loses. Help yourself win by helping the other guy lose? This is not like Linux!
'Cooperation' on the other hand, is an extremely high standard toward which Open Source strives. It cannot be implemented in any sustainable fashion unless there is a way to manage extremely peripheral perspectives in a way which invites people to work toward the common goal if they find that the current version of the goal is not to their liking. (Some perspectives may be so peripheral they cannot be included, but those would only be ones which are actively destructive to the goal).
'Competition' takes those same peripheral perspectives and says 'as long as we appeal to the main group, we'll always come out ahead, because there's more in the middle.' Statistically true, but statistics are STATIC. The idea is fundamentally non-creative, and ultimately unsustainable. When Microsoft starts creating products that invite, instead of compel, they'll be moving toward the standard of Open Source in a meaningful manner. Until then, they build up low karma. Period.
Why? We in the Open Source community use FUD decreasingly as we learn how to extricate ourselves from the competitive environment of which Microsoft is an authorized member. Open Source, as Jon Katz suggested on slashdot a few days ago, is a form of 'New Jerusalem' because it points to a brave new world which is NOT fascist, or monolithic, or uncreative.
Anyway, while we use FUD decreasingly, Microsoft is bound (until they release from the 'competitive' model) to use it increasingly, until it backfires on them so hard (as the DOJ already helped them foreshadow) they give it up. This is the nature of any short-sighted philosophy; it works for a while, then collapses, while the sustainable philosophy trudges onward.
Open Source is well-established, thanks to the hard work of wingnuts like Richard Stallman, who held to it firmly for years and years, until it had momentum. Now, it is for us to use its premises to quit picking on Microsoft, and let them go through the phases of bloating and collapse which will come by the nature of long-ago choices they adhere to. After they finish taking over the world, and then failing, because all systems are and always will be hackable, Open Source will still be an option.
The true end of Open Source is long, long ways away. It is an operating system which cannot even consider the notion of encryption, because the human mind and soul is liberated to the point that we don't need to hide things from each other, because we prefer the joy that comes from working together to the joy that comes from beating each other down.
Is Open Source in competition with Microsoft? Nope; that's the way Microsoft sees it. We're not in competition with 'em, we're so far ahead of them that we're reaching back to give them a hand now. That's the nature of revolutions. Built on freedom, they laugh at verbiage like Doug Miller's, which though eloquent and striving, is unable to perceive the revolution happening around them, for they are fundamentally a part of the Old World.
Microsoft are the redcoats; Linux is Subcomandante Marcos. The people win in the end, always, cuz the end ain't the end until the people win! :-)
Thanks for listening. "In secret have I said nothing" - john 18:20 |
|
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by uslennar on Wednesday April 04, @05:52PM EST
(#823)
(User #210535 Info)
|
There are so many things that disturb me about this post, but I'll only point out one.
Statistically true, but statistics are STATIC
What the hell does that mean? And by the way, Open Source is cool and interesting, but it's not a religon (at least not a healthy one), nor a fight against facism, nor does it help pay the bills for many people.
|
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:2)
by proberts
(proberts@clark.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @07:00PM EST
(#857)
(User #9821 Info)
|
> nor does it help pay the bills for many people.
It's software, as it becomes more commoditized, it won't help pay many bills in and of itself.
Products and services help pay the bills, no matter what flavor they are. You can charge for the "product" that is software, or you can use it as a loss-leader. You can also do it as well, or better as a hobbiest than as a professional. That makes the software itself much less valuable, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as that affordability makes it easier for people who need the software to have it.
FWIW: I do INFOSEC, so Windows helps pay my bills more than the Open Source OS' that I use to do my work every day. I'm not sure that's the positive thing that you seem to paint it as.
Paul
|
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by Water Paradox
(jared_at_purpleturtle_dot_com)
on Thursday April 05, @09:05AM EST
(#1023)
(User #231902 Info)
http://www.trios.org
|
It means that statistics only give you information about the present. Accurate information about the future comes from a different source. I was talking about sustainability. The point I was making was that Microsoft survives financially because they appeal to the statistically largest portion of the population, while their practices are unsustainable in the long-term, and thus they will fade before Open Source does, because they alienate the peripheral people like Linux users, who don't WANT Microsoft products to think for them. And would rather put together their own OS than bend the knee to the masses, who are fickle and leave ya behind without remorse when something else catches their short attention span. Appealing to the masses always works, but only for a short time each. "In secret have I said nothing" - john 18:20 |
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by Water Paradox
(jared_at_purpleturtle_dot_com)
on Thursday April 05, @09:19AM EST
(#1026)
(User #231902 Info)
http://www.trios.org
|
Oh on your other point, EVERY dogma, EVERY movement, no matter how secular, is a religion, just as EVERYTHING WE DO is either overcoming fascism or accepting of it. Fascism is one of those things which is ubiquitous; if we deny that it exists, we are only fooling ourselves. Freedom is also ubiquitous, and we can either accept it or reject it, but we cannot realistically say that we have no part in it. If you do not include this struggle in everything you do, then you are in the elite who can pretend that the battle is already finished. The rest of us keep fighting to the end. "In secret have I said nothing" - john 18:20 |
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by Dr_Bones
(echo "mlp@pffrqhoo.qhw" | tr [d-z] [a-z])
on Wednesday April 04, @08:43PM EST
(#883)
(User #125791 Info)
|
You seem to hold to some high ideal that "competition is bad, cooperation is good". Fortunately for the rest of us, we realize that life *is* competition. You'll finally realize that your high ideals are worthless when we compete for your food supply. Your ideals will die quietly while you starve, and you cooperatively give me your last piece of bread.
|
Re:Hold your ground; don't be fooled. (Score:1)
by Water Paradox
(jared_at_purpleturtle_dot_com)
on Thursday April 05, @09:29AM EST
(#1028)
(User #231902 Info)
http://www.trios.org
|
Actually, it's much more complex than "competition is bad, cooperation is good." There is a place for competition. But, remember the old story of the guy who only had one tool? Everything looked like a nail to him. Competition is only one tool of the many available. On a physical level, we ARE competing for the same finite resources, but when we get to something like software, which is an infinite resource, we don't need ta compete. We can create a whole new OS on the fly.
As for my ideas dying when I die, tell that to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ. All three of them woulda given you that piece of bread. "In secret have I said nothing" - john 18:20 |
"...I don't see a major revolution here." (Score:1)
by pHaze
(mark@freeusall.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:38PM EST
(#816)
(User #19163 Info)
|
"Secondly, the area that gets the most attention in the press is the fact that Linux is "free" and you can get the source. Again, I don't see a major revolution here. The BSD operating system has been free for more than 20 years and you have always been able to get the source as well."
I think you miss the point Doug. Linux (and Apache) were both a watershed in open source development because they raised the profile of open source and attracted alot of developers to both their projects and others. They helped open source reach a critical mass where the rate of development and evolution of these projects is now far outstripping anything the commercial software houses can hope to deliver - because of the sheer number of coders coding, testing and debugging.
|
Hmm... (Score:1)
by Shin Elendale on Wednesday April 04, @07:32PM EST
(#863)
(User #132746 Info)
|
Seems like at least one of the questions asked the wrong thing. Instead of asking "Will MS ever port Office/similar to Linux&friends" the question should have been "Why has MS not ported Office to Linux and what can we (as the Linux guys) do to encourage the development of Office for Linux" or something like that.
As far as the Red Hat/Caldera comments. I wouldn't choose RH as the example, perhaps Slackware would be better. Slackware is a very solid distribution that is built on a small group making decisions and- more importantly- the company remains private. I feel that this is one of the things that will cause RH or similar companies trouble in the long run. Being a publicly owned company effectively means the only thing important is profits. This will kill someone who's product is basically free. Slackware, on the other hand, has a devout following who use it because it is a very powerful operating system. On par, IMHO, with the BSDs. Another plus is that Slack runs on my hardware while BSD does not.
Also, the comment about Linux not being revolutionary makes the mistake that many people make when the look at Linux: What is revolutionary isn't the OS- as the guy said, its a poor man's Unix clone- what is revolutionary is the method of distribution. Like how the assembly line revolutionized manufacturing, the big part of the Ford car wasn't the actual car but how it was made.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll) |
|
User Space Fork? (Score:1)
by GroundBounce on Wednesday April 04, @08:05PM EST
(#869)
(User #20126 Info)
|
Many of the posts here seem to point out either explicitly or implicitly that the operating system needs of technical users and "regular" (presumably non-technical) usres are quite different. Technical users want more system level choices, more configurability, more capability to compile programs from source and improve those programs, etc., etc., while normal users don't really care about this and just want to "get the job done".
It seems that there is a fundamental fork occurring in the overall user community towards a technical fork and a non-technical fork. Perhaps this was inevitable. In the DOS days, using a computer was a fairly technical task. Non-technical people could use PC's, but they almost always needed help from a technically knowlegable person from time to time. Over time, the dumbing-down efforts by Microsoft and Apple have resulted in systems that are easier for non-technical users to use without as much help, but are not very satisfying for technically inclined users. The trend is exacerbated by the fact that the PC has now also become a major communication and entertainment platform, greatly increasing the number of "normal" turnkey users.
As a result perhaps there is really no one-size-fits-all operating system for all users, at least not at this point in time. Most non-technical users will chose windows or macOS, which they view as the default easy-to-user configuration. While technical users have always had a choice to use something else (be it UNIX or OS/2 or something else), Linux now gives them a very usable alternative with a rapidly growing user and software base, and more importantly, a technical flavor.
Is this really a bad thing? It probably depends on your perspective. RedHat and other Linux distributors would obviously like to see more acceptance among normal users, while many hackers free software "purists" probably don't care as much.
Perhaps in a year or two, KDE or Gnome will have reached the stage of providing a shell over Linux that makes it as easy or easier to setup and use than windows or macOS, and at that time, you might begin to see the migration of normal users, particularly if the price of windows upgrades continues to rise. But util then, there will be a techno-savviness gap between Linux and windows users.
|
Interoperability (Score:2)
by micahjd
(micahjd at users dot sourceforge dot net)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:08PM EST
(#892)
(User #54824 Info)
http://pgui.sourceforge.net
|
It seems that Question 9 is where he really felt pinned, because instead of answering the question, the question got redefined somehow...
The distinction here is that POSIX and the other unix standards had to be _added to_ because other features not included in them are necessary. Java (and kerberos IIRC) were blatantly contradicted in a way that added a few extra features but sacrificed the spirit of the original standard, interoperability. -- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
|
Is it me? (Score:1)
by ChodaBoy
(yeah@right.whatever)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:19PM EST
(#898)
(User #97144 Info)
|
Or did Doug not actually answer question 8 (Licensing)?
He spoke about the differences in Linux distros, Mac, etc. but never really commented on how the hardware specific licensing is affected by changes in an end-user's hardware.
For example, if I have to phone MS (probably getting charged for the call to boot) for a new license when I replace my MoBo, CPU, whatever; I'll be a lot less likely to go with XP. ChodaBoy - The preceding statement is the product of a deranged mind and the sole property of the voices in my head. |
|
Here's an idea (Score:2, Funny)
by ahde
(ahde@kfalls.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:34PM EST
(#899)
(User #95143 Info)
|
You should interview Doug Miller and ask him what he thinks of the answers to the questions that *he* answered.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but at least the proofreaders added their signatures to the final product.
|
Thanks, Doug. We'll be watching you..... (Score:1)
by BiOFH
(bitch at biofh dot org)
on Wednesday April 04, @10:22PM EST
(#918)
(User #267622 Info)
http://www.biofh.org
|
Microsoft thinks Linux is doomed, and predicts that many Linux businesses will falter and fail before the end of the year.
"There really isn't much value in free," said Miller, who also contends that the latest release of the Linux kernel, 2.4, doesn't have the features required for widespread business use.
"And the recent security problems with Linux, coupled with the lack of key enterprise elements in the new kernel, really call into question whether Linux should be used at all," Miller added.
-Wired News- Jan, 2001
*COUGH*bullshit*COUGH*
Maybe Vinod will offer you a job in a year or so when you look back and say to yourself "Did I really say that? Did I really believe that?". We'll probably welcome you back into the *NIX fold... but you'll be required to recant a lot of crap.
I really wanted to thank you, at first, for your candor. Then I looked a little deeper (and re-read the answers). But despite that, I want to say thanks for having the guts to jump in here.
As for the business use comments... Microsoft knows very well this is not true. An extremely large and influential component manufacturing and design company (OK, maybe THE biggest in the IT industry) took this very step not long ago because of issues with Microsoft platforms not living up to their promise (and DESPITE plenty of futzing around by MS support personnel and engineers). They have been helped to realize this platform shift with the assistance of another extremely influential hardware vendor who has embraced Linux (3 letters. Starts with "I"). But... don't mention this to Mr. Gates... he lost his cool over it once (Oh, man, what fun!), I'm sure he'd rather not be reminded.
"Watch me jump when I get rooted." - l33t j03's@$$h0l3 |
Doug provides insights into MS's FUD (Score:1)
by cworley
(cworley[at]symbionsys[dot]com)
on Wednesday April 04, @10:30PM EST
(#920)
(User #96911 Info)
|
Doug: We definitely take Linux very seriously. ...But looking
at Linux technically, there is no real revolution here. Linux looks and
feels like UNIX and isn't any better than a commercial version of UNIX.
...Linux is "free" and you can get the source. Again, I don't see
a major revolution here. The BSD operating system has been free for more
than 20 years...
So, there's no revolution here (times two), and Linux is as bad as every
other Unix!
If they really believed this, then why would they take Linux seriuosly?
Read between the lines: We take Linux seriously, so we've come up with
this FUD.
There are a lot of areas where Open Source is not a revolution.
For example, Linux uses assignment statements throughout the kernel code...
there's no revolution there ;)
In the end, it all comes down to solving customers' problems and
there is nothing revolutionary about that.
How Open Source accomplishes this is revolutionary.
Thanks, Doug, for insight into MS's FUD!
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates
-- for once, make him clean up after me! |
Unix Standards. (Score:1)
by Jarvo on Wednesday April 04, @11:44PM EST
(#956)
(User #70205 Info)
|
> If you look at the UNIX world, the POSIX
> standards were only a subset of what you needed
> in an OS. The attempt by the Open Group to
> define the UNIX 95 and UNIX 98 standards still
> fell short of what it would take to build a > fully functional UNIX operating system.
Of course these standards fell short of a fully functional operating system. If the definitions were too rigid, then there would be reluctance to adopt the standards.
Some people on the standards drafting boards probably would have liked a standard fully functional OS. This has to be tempered by commercial requirements. Few groups would adhere to a standard that made their product exactly the same as everyone else's.
The ideas behind the standards are to give developers / users a core base that they can fall back on. Things that they know will work irrespective of the OS.
|
The wrong idea (Score:1)
by mrdlinux
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))
on Thursday April 05, @12:22AM EST
(#970)
(User #132182 Info)
|
Doug Miller has made some good points, but the thing he's missing is that Linux was not created for the same reasons as Windows was. This especially is evident when he says things along the lines of "Linux should have one unified user interface". Linux was created to scratch an itch. It just so happens that this was an itch felt by millions of other people as well. It's not the best OS, technically, sure, and it doesn't have a "unified user interface". But Linux isn't out there to be one person's idea of what an OS should be. Linux is whatever you need it to be, letting you scratch whatever itch you may need to. That flexibility is its beauty, and main reason for success (brave readers may ponder that Be's failure might have been due to lack of flexibility, I'm just speculating here though).
We don't need your Windows because we can use GNOME, KDE, sawfish, blackbox, E, icewm, fvwm, twm, or whichever one you choose, on the wonderfully flexible X11 implementation XFree86, which may have its problems but also has many benefits (and there's always Berlin, for the adventurous).
We don't need your Word because we've got LaTeX, which is far superior to Word for creating quality documents, and the graphical front-end LyX. And if you don't like LaTeX then check out SGML docbook or the variety of (nasty imho :) manual typesetting programs available such as Kword, abiword, staroffice, or applixware.
We don't need Internet Explorer because we've got Mozilla, Galeon, Skipstone, Konqueror, Lynx, Links, and a few others. Sure, Mozilla may be somewhat slow and bloated right now (though it's holding up pretty well for me here), it's at least pointed in the right direction, and things will only improve.
But don't tell us that Linux needs to be what one person thinks it should be. Linux should be able to be whatever a person wishes to make of it. On a side note, it also seems evident that Mr. Miller does not understand that GTK and QT are separate from GNOME and KDE, that one can have GTK and QT apps and not have GNOME or KDE. Microsoft could easily use GTK, QT, or even Xaw or some similar toolkit, and simply have their applications depend upon those libraries. That's how most Linux developers do it. Or they could write their own toolkit, if they feel like it.
Far Side Cartoon: Sheep grazing; one stands up and
says, "We don't have to be C programmers!" |
Despite Politeness, Doug Irritates (Score:2)
by crucini on Thursday April 05, @01:42AM EST
(#973)
(User #98210 Info)
|
First, Doug attaches too much importance to the fact the Linux is free as in beer:
Our products need to show long term value that goes beyond the initial purchase price so the argument becomes not how much does your operating system cost up front but more importantly, how much will your operating system save you over the years that you use it. and
so the fact that the OS is "free" really has little bearing on the fully loaded costs of deploying and using a computing platform.
In the Linux-based systems I've worked on, the acquisition cost of the OS was not even a factor. Rather, the stability, flexibility and remote management were the factors that made Linux far more attractive than Microsoft's offerings. So while I agree with Doug that initial cost of zero has little meaning, I disagree with his implication that any Microsoft OS offers lower fully loaded costs of deploying. With Microsoft, you're bleeding money all the way. The ratio of sysadmins to machines is too high.
Then there's this 'pretty good' stuff:
... Linux - a pretty good server operating system... and Linux is a pretty good collection of technology...
I have no problem with that characterization in a vacuum. However, if you're going to call Linux 'pretty good', then I hope you call Win2K 'pretty bad', and I get the feeling that Doug wouldn't do that. Given the framework of Microsoft overpraise that implicitly lurks in the background ("innovative", etc.) "pretty good" sounds like damning with faint praise. I sense that Doug is giving us a polite, euphemistic version of the anti-Linux FUD that Microsoft is delivering to large customers.
|
Right... (Score:2)
by dimator
(dimator AT linux.ucla.edu)
on Thursday April 05, @03:34AM EST
(#989)
(User #71399 Info)
http://www.linux.ucla.edu/~dimator/
|
Interoperability is a key competitive strength. We clearly accept that customers will choose multiple operating systems depending on how they need to solve their business problems. Providing ways to plug into those other operating systems - both at a system level (e.g. files, user directories etc.) and at an application level (e.g. data formats) is essential.
I see. So that means Microsoft will publish the full, open specs to all Office formats when exactly?
--
Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. |
|
Re:Right... (Score:1)
by ellem on Thursday April 05, @08:56AM EST
(#1022)
(User #147712 Info)
http://www.wtsg.com/dan
|
--Let's say I hand you a CD with all the Office code. .doc, .xls, .pab, .ppt, etc. are all revealed to you. You now have the keys.
--What are you going to change? ---
If you can see this .sig you are already dead |
Re:Right... (Score:2)
by OmegaDan
(omegadanthehumbleguys.com)
on Tuesday April 10, @12:12AM EST
(#1103)
(User #101255 Info)
http://www.thehumbleguys.com
|
Read the subtext ... Interoperability is a *competitive strength*. Publishing the office file formats would only strenghten other operating systems :) It reminds me of a phrase from applied cryptography [parahrasing] "Almost by definition the 3 letter agencies are more advanced then us. They read all of our research papers, and we read none of theirs." Same thing with MS ... they read lots of formats ... they don't publish them :)
Me? I'd like to see MS Word tget friendly with PS/EPS and latex ... I'm not holding my breath
|
consufion of open source vs. free software (Score:1)
by Hillie
(aeq at reginweb dot com)
on Thursday April 05, @12:57PM EST
(#1056)
(User #63573 Info)
http://www.reginweb.com/~hillie
|
Nope, no typo in the subject :)
I thought his responces were quite nice, but they also were riddled with misunderstanding of the philosophy that Linux is built upon.
Linux is free software. It is also open-source, but open-source is not free software. Therefore the claims that Sun giving away source is the same as Linux is a completely invalid point. Now, as for BSD. Some would say the same thing, but I won't go there, coz I avoid BSD vs. Linux issues at all costs, and I really don't care :)
As for his responce saying that Microsoft gives solutions for people who need Windows support for Unix standards like NFS. I challenge any of you readers to find an NFS solution for Windows that doesn't cost you your arm and possibly a leg to implement. Charging for software is one thing. Overcharging to the point of robbery is another.
Yes, Microsoft offers interoperability with open standards, but this interoperability comes as a blatant disregard for everything those open standards stand for, and also at a hefty price tag I will say. After examining the NFS solutions out there for MS, I decided I will stick with Samba, because I do not feel it is worth paying that much just so I can map an NFS share on Windows.
I don't have a problem with paying for software if it is worth paying for and the cost is not a robbery. No, I will not pay upwards of $500 for software because I feel that the software is not worth nearly that much. This is the result of the software companies wanting to squeaze every possible dime out of us, and remember that $500 is just for a one-user license. Companies really reap the gold in when they charge multiple thousands of dollars for some inane business application that isn't really too complex in the first place.
I am a happy owner of two legitimately bought copies of Quake 3: Arena (the Linux version and the Windows version) and I am also a happy Open Sound System customer, and have been for years. I have even paid AGAIN to get the SBLive module when I got my SBLive!. I have also bought official Slackware CD-ROM's and would gladly do it again, even though I can download them from slackware.com.
UCITA and the corporate supporters of it are both proof of the proprietary software companies' fear that if people find out they can get the same functionality in software for free, they will be out of business. If they would only not over-charge for their software, and their software was in fact better than the alternatives, people would buy it.
It's true that there are people who say "I will never pay for software." just as, in the Napster case, you will have people who will say "I will never buy CDs if Napster is around." but those are simply differences in the morality of different people. I believe the majority would pay for software if it was worth it and not obviously a rip off. I believe the w4r3z community is a minority, not a majority.
About Windows XP, there is no real revolution there either. I saw very few things that I thought were hawked from Mac OS X, but I did see a whole lot of stuff basically hawked from the idea of theming that comes with using any X Window Manager.
With this in mind, it is kind of hypocritical for him to criticize Gnome, KDE and the Window Managers for their ability to look like Macs or anything else, when the new Microsoft OS implements that as one of its main features.
I will, however, not blatantly accuse them of copying. I will simply say when multiple people look at something and say "I have seen that before", regardless of whether it came from OS X or anywhere else, something is not right.
--Hillie |
What a lying weasel (Score:1)
by hqm on Thursday April 05, @08:32PM EST
(#1076)
(User #49964 Info)
|
We fully support data, directory and system interop with UNIX, Linux, Novell, Mac, IBM mainframes through our base OS protocol support as well as through products like Services for UNIX, Interix, Services for NetWare, MetaDirectory and Host Integration Server.
Let's see, SAMBA lets your unix box talk to
Microsoft's filesystem. And the authors had
to reverse engineer the whole thing, because
Microsoft did not want to let anyone
know the technical details of their network
filesystem.
This guy is simply a liar. Microsoft historically only
allows interoperation with other systems when
their backs are pressed to the wall hard.
Assholes.
|
More lying weasel talk (Score:1)
by hqm on Thursday April 05, @08:54PM EST
(#1078)
(User #49964 Info)
|
We should be very clear in defining the difference between standards and proprietary intellectual property as the above question seems to arbitrarily mix the two. When it comes to implementing standards-based software, we respect the standard and expect that our software will fully interoperate with other products that have also implemented the standard. We also develop software that is not based on an established standard - either no standard exists or the standard that exists does not meet our customer requirements. Should we be required to publish the source code or underlying designs of all our software so that anyone can copy it? I would hope not - much the same that companies in other industries have the right to build products and retain the intellectual property rights associated with those products.
That was his response to the question about
how the SAMBA authors got the bums rush from
Microsoft. He is such a weasel here. The question was specifically about interoperation of standards. What he is saying is that Microsoft's
network filesystem is specifically and intentionally not going to be interoperable. Microsoft wants to keep it proprietary. It's theirs, ok, fine.
But we're talking about the
the network and use of the filesystem. That's
so basic to modern networked computer use. If Microsoft wants to claim that they can make their network
filesystem proprietary and yet still claim to
have great open interoperation with other systems, then they are just huge hypocrites.
Mr. Miller is such a weasel here, he equates
Microsoft giving away its source code with
producing an open spec of the filesystem protocol so
others can do independent implementations.
He and they really are eeevill!
|
Fingerprinting (Score:1)
by icemind on Thursday April 05, @10:34PM EST
(#1080)
(User #191210 Info)
|
Y'know, respect to the man for just answering the damn questions rather than saying no to the interview of giving no comments like your average company rep/politician type etc. His sidestepping of the fingerprinting question was a bit weak though, he sorta changed to talking about how Redhat etc do (or do not) make their money. Fact is, this fingerprinting idea is the worst to come out of MS in years (no jokes please) and I won't be touching a new version of windows with it in there. Having said this someone is bound to crack it as they always do so I don't know why MS is bothering really. It's gonna earn them more hatred rather than more money.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by Dionysus
(dionysus@SPAMREMOVEfjellstad.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:08AM EST
(#13)
(User #12737 Info)
|
Shouldn't you be asking that of the person who decided to interview the MS guy? Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by DeeKayWon on Wednesday April 04, @11:11AM EST
(#21)
(User #155842 Info)
|
"The model around Linux is truly bizarre." about sums up his experience with Linux it seems.
Or maybe he just can't spell.
|
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by DeeKayWon on Wednesday April 04, @05:10PM EST
(#796)
(User #155842 Info)
|
That was my pathetic attempt at a thinly veiled ESR reference. Reference: The Cathedral and the Bazaar
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Stephen
(sret1@cam.ac.uk)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:12AM EST
(#24)
(User #20676 Info)
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
|
Does anyone in Redmond think the /. crowd will
feel like they got real answers out of this?
You know, apart from question 8, I was surprised to find that I do feel like I got real answers. Of course, it's Microsoft's own special view of the world -- but I still feel that it was answering the questions clearly and coherently. Don't confuse a different point of view from your own with a failure to truly answer the question.
|
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:3, Funny)
by RareHeintz
(brad@bradandkristin.DIESPAMMERDIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:18AM EST
(#43)
(User #244414 Info)
http://www.bradandkristin.com/brad.php
|
I know the pitfall you're speaking of, but I don't think I'm doing that here. I really don't feel like I got anything out of this that I couldn't have read in any of Microsoft's content-free press releases. For example, just saying that "Microsoft has always been a customer focused company" neither makes it so nor does it represent an answer (or even a useful part of an answer) to a question about how the anti-trust case has affected MS's interoperability strategy. It's a feel-good non sequitur.
OK,
- B -- Mu! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by man_of_mr_e on Wednesday April 04, @01:42PM EST
(#512)
(User #217855 Info)
|
Hmmm... If you don't think MS is a customer oriented company, then I think you're blind.
Everything MS does is customer oriented; The pretty interfaces, the marketing, etc... everything has a very customer driven focus. It may be that you as a customer are not represented in that, but then you're a minority. That doesn't mean they're not customer oriented simply because they don't address the concerns of EVERY customer.
It's not a non-sequiter. It's fact, and one most often overlooked by their opponents. They depend on customers demanding their product to survive, and the only way they can do that is to appease them in ways they like.
It's much like the roman emperors appeasing the people of Rome with gladiator games, while they went off and did whatever they wanted.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2)
by RareHeintz
(brad@bradandkristin.DIESPAMMERDIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:58PM EST
(#542)
(User #244414 Info)
http://www.bradandkristin.com/brad.php
|
You know, if customers were really demanding the product because it was better (by whatever standards) than alternatives, I'd buy the argument. Unfortunately, much of the "demand" exists because Microsoft has suppressed alternatives in the market and engaged in predatory licensing practices that limit OS offerings from major PC vendors.
For those reasons, I don't buy the "customer oriented" argument at all. They don't drive demand, they reduce choice.
OK,
- B -- Mu! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @03:37PM EST
(#677)
|
I would respectfully disagree with this argument. Consider the alternatives to Microsoft Office:
Wordperfect Office Suite:
Wordperfect 5.1 was a great DOS app. It did what people wanted, never crashed and allowed psuedo-Print Previews of your documents. But then it was ported to Windows 3.1. Wordperfect 6.0 (and subesquently 6.0a and 6.1) was riddled with bugs, didn't offer anything Wordperfect 5.1 didn't already have and crashed constantly. Later versions have continued this tradition of poor quality (from a code standpoint, not featureset). One could argue that we should have just stayed with WP51. But now that we have WYSIWYG word processors, do you really want to go back?
Lotus SmartSuite:
SmartSuite (in my opinion) is a pretty decent little productivity suite (I own Millienium Edition). But it never really caught on because it was too late to market, didn't offer any better features than other office suites and never really had any marketing behind it.
On the otherhand, even though Microsoft Office is somewhat overpriced it includes a featureset unrivaled by any other office suite available. It's not fair to try counting apples for apples, since office suite developers have differing opinions on the future route they should take. But Microsoft Office has a well-rounded group of applications that even OSS tries to emulate. Why emulate Office? Because what Office offers is useful.
I like Office. I use it every day. Sometimes it's in our own best interest to swallow our pride and actually welcome Microsoft into the Linux development arena (I didn't say "community"). Would having Office for Linux really trample on what Linux stands for?
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by Graspee_Leemoor on Wednesday April 04, @10:06PM EST
(#907)
(User #302316 Info)
http://www.nehelenia.com
|
Damn. I'm sorry, I just just used up my lost mod point a few seconds ago, or I would have given you a + 1 boost for sure. Why did you post AC? Consider allowing cookies so you can get logged in automatically, or create an account- it doen't take long and is well worth it.
AC is for trolls, Karma whores and erm... ships called Enterprise...
Graspee I'm a cross compiler. At weekends I dress up as Pascal... |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by man_of_mr_e on Wednesday April 04, @03:47PM EST
(#693)
(User #217855 Info)
|
You are again ignoring the fact that being customer oriented doesn't mean that you are a saint and have your customers best interests in mind. It means you are *APPEASING* your customer. Giving them what they WANT, not what they NEED.
They reduce choice because they reduce demand for other products, and they do this by increasing the demand for their product.
Customers DEMAND Office. I know this because i've worked for OEM's that got sweet (pardon the pun) deals on Suites from Corel and Lotus, but when they tried to sell them, found their sales dropping through the floor on models with those products.
Office outsells Wordperfect and SmartSuite on the retail shelves by about 10:1 as well. People just don't WANT anything else, and that is a result of MS's "customer oriented" appeasement.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by pohl
(pohl@screaming.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:42PM EST
(#758)
(User #872 Info)
http://screaming.org/
|
Be honest, though. If a hypothetical business organized around the idea of building a captive customer base through network-effects of controlling APIs, protocols, and document formats . . . couldn't they call that being "customer oriented" too?
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by RareHeintz
(brad@bradandkristin.DIESPAMMERDIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @09:37PM EST
(#903)
(User #244414 Info)
http://www.bradandkristin.com/brad.php
|
Thanks! You make the point well. -- Mu! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2, Interesting)
by Krusher55 on Wednesday April 04, @12:09PM EST
(#242)
(User #414674 Info)
|
I agree 100%. I especially liked the answer to #10. Applications are what will make Linux successful on the desktop. The reality is that writing software for Linux is like shooting multiple moving targets. Variations among distributions, kernel versions, desktops, etc. make software development a real pain for commercial software developers. Can a company claim Linux support if it only works on Redhat 6.2? What if it only works on Linux kernel 2.2.x using XFree86 4.0.2 with KDE 2.0? Is that enough to claim Linux support? Do you think customers would understand that although we claim support for Linux that our software will not or may not work on a large number of configurations? This is a real issue for Linux that really needs to be tackled for Linux to really make it on the desktop. The nice thing about developing software for Windows or the Mac is that the API's for Windows 98 will be the same on all Windows machines. Windows 98 is firm target that won't change and isn't different on every machine.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by jon_c
(jonclegg@nospan.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:32PM EST
(#495)
(User #100593 Info)
http://streamripper.sourceforge.net
|
ya, sure void main(){printf("hello, world\n");} will run on everything. but if your trying to do shit with the system, (aka outside of libc) your fucked. #ifdef's will become your bane, even in simple apps.
do you think pthreads is even implemented in a standard way? hell try to get into the message loop for a GUI app. look at all the failed "cross platform" windows toolkits. and i'm not talking about GDK for windows, i mean something that will actually use the native look and feel of each OS. Try to do sound, try to do use some more modern Socket code.
Even in Win95/98->WinNT/2k there are problems. some functions are "supported" win98, but only if you have IE4 or later, others arn't. GDI is a complete FUCK on win95, you need to baby site every fucking HDC you get. the list goes on. Even different hardware can be a bitch, look at games.. people will have the exact same software, but the game pushs the video card memory, everything to it's limits and doesn't work well on some machines.
-Jon
Streamripper
Records Shoutcast.com & Live365.com Streams |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by Curien on Wednesday April 04, @03:09PM EST
(#641)
(User #267780 Info)
|
ya, sure void main(){printf("hello, world\n");} will run on everything
Damnit, I was gonna use some of my newly acquired mod points in this discussion, but I just couldn't let this one slide.
void main() { /* ... */ } is not guaranteed to work ANYWHERE. In C and C++, main is REQUIRED to return ant int. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
main() { /* ... */ } ain't kosher either, even in C. As of C99, there is no such thing as implicit int. Sorry... pet peave.
-- Curien
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falshood when preceded by its quotation.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by jon_c
(jonclegg@nospan.yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @10:12AM EST
(#1035)
(User #100593 Info)
http://streamripper.sourceforge.net
|
I know it's not ANSI, but it does work on darm near every compiler, so stop bitching. i just wanted to make it small and clear like K&R meant it to be.
-Jon
Streamripper
Records Shoutcast.com & Live365.com Streams |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2)
by kevin@ank.com on Wednesday April 04, @12:21PM EST
(#296)
(User #87560 Info)
http://www.ank.com/~kevin
|
Well, apart from question 8 the answers were mostly consistent. But did anyone else notice that Q8 (and the immediately preceeding statements
in Q7) were inconsistent?
I think he should have answered Q7 as "We like to think of ourselves as customer focused, and indeed we are where that doesn't interfere with our first priority which is profitability (or the ability to offer software for profit.)"
Or generously, perhaps his answer to Q7 was
intended to include software developers as the
customers on which Microsoft focuses, in which case the two statements become consistent again.
It certainly isn't driven as a first priority by end-customer needs though...
Still happily hacking away on my AD&D game...
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2, Insightful)
by shyster on Wednesday April 04, @01:03PM EST
(#443)
(User #245228 Info)
|
Well, apart from question 8 the answers were mostly consistent. But did anyone else notice that Q8 (and the immediately preceeding statements in Q7) were inconsistent?
I think he should have answered Q7 as "We like to think of ourselves as customer focused, and indeed we are where that doesn't interfere with our first priority which is profitability (or the ability to offer software for profit.)" Or generously, perhaps his answer to Q7 was intended to include software developers as the customers on which Microsoft focuses, in which case the two statements become consistent again.
It certainly isn't driven as a first priority by end-customer needs though...
He may like to think of Microsoft as "customer-focused", but every corporation is, at the end, shareholder focused. The only goal of a corporation is to maximize shareholder wealth. If, by being customer-focused, you can get more sales, then great. Otherwise, you're right...once customer focus gets in the way of the wealth, then you've got to change gears. That's Business 101, and any company who doesn't follow it will fail.
Luckily, Linux isn't a company, but a community. Think of it as a nonprofit, volunteer, organization. Linux has no "shareholders" to answer to, and so can be totally customer driven. (Un?)fortunately, different customers have different needs, and so we end up with fragmentation and different solutions to the same problem...which really shoots talk of standards and interoperability in the foot, don't you think?
Perhaps we should get a grip on standards and interoperability (for applications) within the Linux environment before we trash on Microsoft....After all, they are just doing what comes naturally--maximizing shareholder's wealth.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by man_of_mr_e on Wednesday April 04, @01:54PM EST
(#534)
(User #217855 Info)
|
When you think "customer oriented", you think "concerned that my customer's needs are met in the best way possible".
That's not what it means, and it's certainly not what MS means. They mean "We appeal to our customers ego and make them want our products whether they are technically good for them or not".
The marketing and interfaces and point and drool mentality is all completely customer oriented.
Companies succeed by producing products their customers want, not products their customers need. And MS knows this.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2, Insightful)
by pz
(pz@no-spam-thanks.hms.harvard.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:22PM EST
(#301)
(User #113803 Info)
|
Don't confuse a different point of view from your own with a failure to
truly answer the question.
Then, I suppose something like Bill Gates' famous gaffe is, oh, well,
merely a "different view" (Stephen (sret1@cam.ac.uk)'s words) about
mathematics:
The obvious mathematical breakthrough
would be development of an easy way to
factor large prime numbers." (Bill Gates, The
Road Ahead, Viking Penguin (1995), p. 265.)
The opinions Doug Miller presented in this interview are nothing more than
propaganda from a big company. He clearly misunderstands basic technical
issues (eg, exactly whence Linux developed, what constitutes an operating
system, how competitive Linux vs. MS operating systems are in
high-availability deployments, what the difference is between free software
and open source, etc.), but is very savvy on business models (eg, how MS
really makes its money, effective models for future revenue, what divisions
within the Linux community are important in terms of competitively
threatening MS, etc.).
Certainly, one could not expect anything of real import from such an
interview. No trade secrets, no meaningful glimpses of strategies. And we
saw none. MS has been built into a powerful corporation not because it has
ever produced good software, but because it has had a leader who knows the
business world very, very well. That confusion has lead to such assertions
as Mr. Miller's, "Microsoft has always been a customer focused company and
to satisfy customers, you need to build solutions that are competitive,"
which, while narrowly accurate, does not imply that these solutions
are meritorious in any technically relevant way. And we know that they are
not. I stand by my long-repeated claim that we, as a society, are 10 years
behind were we could be, because of Microsoft.
Personally, I'd rather not have seen this interview, and I disagree
strongly with Roblimo: this man should not command our respect, other than
being part of a company with a proven track record of success so pervasive
that the US Government felt it had gotten too big. Sadly for MS, other
companies which have achieved similar success had far different ethics
(Ever used a pre-breakup AT&T phone? High-quality and
indestructible. Ever heard of what Andrew Carnegie did with his money?
Among other things, a large series of architecturally beautiful public
libraries. Bill Gates had not given any money away before the DOJ case.),
but we fortunately live in a world where we are not forced to use their
products.
-- pz.
Put my fist through my alarm clock
with it's ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by Amokscience on Wednesday April 04, @12:41PM EST
(#378)
(User #86909 Info)
|
With all due respect, *I* could have answered all these questions just as well as this person did. It's the party line and we are all familiar with it. Is there really an iota of info in the interview that you didn't already know ahead of time? Just read a few press releases and go through the marketspeak on the MS website and you'd be fully capable of answering questions with stuff like "we have tough competition so we really focus on innovating to give our customers a key edge in delivering success"...
Real answers perhaps but hardly meaningful answers. Then again, this is what I'd expect unless I got info form a 'behind the scenes' source like a friend.
|
How about question #9? (Score:3, Insightful)
by hey!
(mattleo@treehouse.acrcorp.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:42PM EST
(#380)
(User #33014 Info)
|
It seemed to me like he is confusing two different issues: publicly documenting extensions to standards that might undermine interoperability, and opening source code.
This is either a failure to consider the question thoughtfully, or a deliberate straw man argument. The questioner didn't raise the issue of opening source code, Mr. Miller did. So far as I know nobody wants access to Microsoft's Kerberos code, they only want information about what Microsoft Kerberos clients expect to see on the customers' wire so their servers will interoperate correctly.
Why not open Microsoft's source? Well, Mr. Miller would argue that Microsoft's software is a valuable commodity and that users should expect to pay for it.
Fair enough. But what are standards? Standards happen when different parties put work into a common set of public specifications rather than incompatible private ones. That work has value, and they should be able to enjoy the benefits of that work: a larger and more robust market.
There's nothing wrong with extending a standard, so long as it doesn't raise serious interoperability roadblocks for users for trivial reasons. But by extending Kerberos in the way that they did, Microsoft is benefiting from the work of Kerberos' developers while denying thos developers the same benefits.
There is a word for this: freeloading.
----
It's bad luck to be superstitious. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by cwhicks
(mr_winkee@tinkletown.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:38PM EST
(#505)
(User #62623 Info)
|
I'm going to have to go back and read it again. Maybe I have become jaded, or maybe I just didn't like the answers.
I felt as though I heard absolutely nothing I haven't read in MS press releases before, or BG's sh*t-eating-grinned presentations.
"Our super products are designed to give our customers a powerful, integrated, exciting user experience."
You felt like you got an answer to #3?
"We have always made an effort to provide highly functional software that makes the user experience as intuitive as possible. At the same time, we are sensitive to the growing security threats to our customers, and providing enhanced security has been and continues to be one of our top priorities."
What a steamy pile of nothing. I see words there, but I don't see any meaning. Blah blah blah, buy our product blah blah buy product...
Here is an honest answer:
Yes, some of a products do have glaring security holes that we should have anticipated, but security is at the bottom of our priority list. Getting a product out onto the market to get the cash stream coming in is the main goal. And then once it is sold, we have little to no interest in it, unless you pay us for support. The only reason we do bug fixes, is for those who haven't yet bought the product, the fixes for current users is just a side bonus. -
I like pudding. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by flatrock on Wednesday April 04, @03:17PM EST
(#651)
(User #79357 Info)
|
I don't know how you expected him to answer the question, but I think the major points are in his answer. Our software has security holes. As we find them we try to fix them. This is becomming an increasing problem for our customers, and we're making it a higher priority because of it.
Microsoft is a big company and change takes time. It's pretty easy to see that functionality took precedence over security and stability in their designs. At the time it seemed to take precedence for their customers too. Four or five years ago you wouldn't consider a Microsoft OS for any part of your network that needed to be secure, but for the average users desktop, the security risk was acceptable. Customers no longer find the security risk acceptable. Microsoft has responded by increasing the security of thier OS and applications. They aren't there yet, but they are making improvements. They also have a problem that many of thier users are security stupid, and won't apply the patches even when Microsoft fixes the problems.
The reason you didn't get an answer that you're happy with is that there is no answer he could give that would make you happy.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by d_dirt on Wednesday April 04, @09:35PM EST
(#901)
(User #302857 Info)
|
"..functionality took precedence over security and stability..."
You are right about this, precedence in design. But as a developer, why sell the product and collect the buck$ before re-evaluating your design to address both issues. It's a package, the functionality and security.
You make a stupid excuse for your shortcomings.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by TheHaas on Wednesday April 04, @01:48PM EST
(#524)
(User #13095 Info)
http://www.binary.net/thehaas
|
Go ahead - call me a troll, but I, too, thought that Doug Miller gave us honest answers - except for #8. That was a hot button question, and he avoided it (and thanks to Phoenix_SEC for asking it).
Of course he was schooled by the spin doctors in the marketing dept. Of course I didn't agree with it all. But I *do* agree that we in the Linux community need to unite under one desktop. Paraphrasing Larry Wall: "Throw out what sucks, keep what rules."
And he was asking how much money Red Hat and Caldera made?? Well, I know that Red Hat made money last year. Okay, not the billions that MS made, but they still made money.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2)
by IronChef on Wednesday April 04, @02:21PM EST
(#577)
(User #164482 Info)
http://wrongcrowd.com/
|
I feel like he dodge the answer to #7, hardware-level copy protection. He turned it into a Windows piracy issue, when the question clearly is about our right to have control over all the data on our systems.
----
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
(Try actually thinking about that for a minute.) |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by flatrock on Wednesday April 04, @03:33PM EST
(#672)
(User #79357 Info)
|
For Microsoft it is a Windows piracy issue. Microsoft is concerned with getting paid for the software they develop. They are most likely also concerned with copy protection because it would make Windows an opperating system that would have wide industry support from comercial copyright holders. The sale of copyrighted material over the internet is likely to be a huge business in the near future, and they don't want left out.
I don't like the concept of hardware-level copy protection. I don't like these business models where the copyright holders want to control every aspect of how their material is used and distributed. However, I can understand why microsoft will support copy protection in their OS.
|
Re: RedHat profits (Score:1)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @04:19PM EST
(#731)
(User #34294 Info)
|
I thought Red Hat posted numbers amounting to a LOSS of $600,000. They called it "break even" in comparison to losses of millions. They are projecting a possible profit NEXT quarter/year. --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by natet on Wednesday April 04, @05:56PM EST
(#825)
(User #158905 Info)
http://www.cs.usu.edu/~slq3b
|
I agree, except that I also felt that question 9's answer was a total evasion as well. The asker specfically mentioned Kerebos and Java, in both of which the changes M$ implemented interfered with the interoperablility between the existing standard and the "extended" standard.
|
Moving from vi to notepad - did it hurt? (Score:2)
by BigBlockMopar
(slant6mopar@I.HATE.SPAM.yahoo.com)
on Tuesday April 10, @11:40AM EST
(#1104)
(User #191202 Info)
|
Of course, it's Microsoft's own special view of the world -- but I still feel that it was answering the questions clearly and coherently
I wonder how long it took for them to brainwash him from vi to notepad when he got to Redmond....
UNIX? They're probably not even circumcised. Savages. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:3, Insightful)
by wcb4 on Wednesday April 04, @12:12PM EST
(#252)
(User #75520 Info)
|
(ie: free software is bad. Only proprietary software can be good).
This is typical OS zealotry. Its not what the man said. There is good OSS software, and always will be, but admit it, there is also a lot of crap out there. Its the same in the Windows world. There is a lot of really good freeware and shareware out there, and there is a lot of junk. There is also a lot of good commercial software out there and some junk as well. In the commercial software arena, the signal to noise ratio is a bit better, as the REALLY poor software companies cannot afford to stay in business and disappear. In the free software arena, subpar software is accepted simply because "what do ou expect...its free" is the accpeted attitude. If the linux community did not mind paying for SOME of their software, some that is actually worth having (not to say that they cannot continue to use the truly good free stuff) you might find more quality developers moving into this space. Commercial developers will not move into a space where the attitude is "a half asssed peice of software that is free will beat a great piece of commercial software every time".
A (not so)prime example is GIMP. GIMP is a fantastic piece of software for 90% of the market, but for the other 10%, there simply is no substitute for photoshop, yet adobe, which does make a superior product (and whoever disagrees has obviously never really learned to use photoshop......flame if you will, but I've used GIMP extensively under linux and spent 12 years in printing where hot-retouching was a major part of my job, so I speak form experience) will never move into that space because there is a "good enough" attitude simply because GIMP is free and photoshop never could be. While many of you may argue that GIMP is not a good example (and I agree to the extent that GIMP is *very* close to commercial quality) there are many examples of this attitude. When the linux community wakes up and realizes that some of us make a living at this stuff and have families and children who actually want to have food to eat and house to live in and we need people to pay for the services and software we create, the sooner linux will grow up. Its not the technology behind linux that's keeping it from being mainstream, its the attitude of the community behind linux that keeps it from growing up. I think....therefore I am
I think you are annoying....therefore you are
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:3, Interesting)
by alexhmit01
(alex@feratech.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:00PM EST
(#931)
(User #104757 Info)
http://www.feratech.com
|
Because most don't have any money.
Most of the screaming on Slashdot is your high school and (to a lesser extent) college crowd. I remember futzing with Linux about 4 years ago, and I didn't mind that it took a few days to get everything to play nicely. At my last job, getting Linux configured to my liking took the better part of the day. Now that I sit on the other side of the employment divide, I realize the value of my employee's time. I want them enhancing the bottom line, not losing 4-6 hours getting sound to work.
This crowd talks about buying games. Most of the probably pirate them, or buy one copy and burn many copies. I found that as I have more money and less time, it isn't worth hacking anything. It is rarely worth the effort to get half assed solutions.
Professionally, at a job a while back we tried to mess with some open source stuff to adapt to our needs (including Slashcode!). Most of it was BEYOND subpar. The code being available was nice, but the documentation was lacking and the coding involved few abstraction layers so getting inside was a nightmare.
I have often found it easier to play with a few OSS packages, poke around when needed, but implement our own stuff. Having it available under the GPL is nice (to give back, we tossed a few of our building block pieces up, but never got around to polishing up the rest for release... maybe when we're not too busy) for learning, but most of the code out there is garbage.
I just dropped $130 to get MacOS X for my G4 Cube on my desk for playing around. It's nice, and I want to move over to it (to keep my development and application environment on one machine), but knowing Windows as well as I do (MCSE and NT Admin for the past 4 years, just moved back into the programming side of IT recently), it isn't worth it.
The problem is that people playing with Linux are mostly doing it as a hobby. Hobbyists don't want to spend money for the hobby, it's a labor of love. They learned Linux to learn Unix, and now find that they like some of the software and prefer to use it professionally.
However, despite all the GUI copying, KOffice is a joke compared to MS Office. When companies make an effort to develop something cool for Linux (VMWare, for starters, that was mentioned before), the OSS community immediately attempts a copy of it. That is somewhat self defeating. If you want software available right away on your platform, it would be nice to buy it instead of trying to copy everything.
Oh well, we'll just reimplement everything twice. Company 1 will make something useful and sell some copies. The OSS world will try to FUD them out of existance with a crappy substitute that will be good enough "real soon now".
Maybe the Open Source Advocates should start playing nice. Talk to Apple about GNUstep. Maybe if they toss some effort into it and OpenSTEP again, we'll have a real cross platform development environment. KDE/GNOME boys, you can provide your hooks.
Maybe we all write OpenSTEP applications to run on MacOS X, Linux/KDE, and Linux/GNOME, and when source is available, you can compile on *nix/KDE or *nix/GNOME... but maybe we'll all just flame Microsoft instead.
However, when a game purchase is a major portion of your income, $500 for Photoshop seems outrageously priced. But if you saw the salaries of your Graphic Designers... they get whatever they want.
Alex
Application development and deployment on Open Source Technologies, Feratech. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2, Interesting)
by btlzu2
(rejohnson@DIESPAMMERSDIE!pobox.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:16AM EST
(#35)
(User #99039 Info)
|
I'm not sure what you expected either actually, because he addressed it in a straightforward manner. He said that they're having a struggle trying to balance functionality and security and what they're doing to try and alleviate it. What was "marketroid-speak" in his answer? He didn't dodge it as far as I can see, unless you could explain a little further what you meant! "We hope that you choke." -- Radiohead "Exit Music" |
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by mwa on Wednesday April 04, @11:59AM EST
(#203)
(User #26272 Info)
|
"having a struggle trying to balance functionality and security" is not doing anything. If you think that was a straightforward answer, you where snowed.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2)
by jovlinger
(NOjohanCAPS@ccs.neu.edu)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:13PM EST
(#256)
(User #55075 Info)
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=jovlinger
|
The question was aimed at delving into microsoft's development practices that seem to inevitably produce insecure-by-default products.
The answer was about how quick they are at fixing/patching/disabling the holes as they are publicised.
Yes the patch came out and fixed that hole, but that was just one example. The question was why there seems to be so many, as if they are put in on purpose.
When the answer doesn't address the question, that is a dodge. Plain and simple.
I'd stop coming back if this place weren't so funny |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by shyster on Wednesday April 04, @01:11PM EST
(#464)
(User #245228 Info)
|
Here...let me see if I can explain this to you:
Why does it seem that Microsoft routinely ignores glaringly obvious security concerns in favor of "convenience"-related features? Is this a false impression, and if so, why is that the impression so many security professionals form when confronted with the history of security in Microsoft products?
No, that is not a false impression. "We have always made an effort to provide highly functional software that makes the user experience as intuitive as possible." Translation: we consciously choose/chose intuitiveness over security (remember that for 90% of Windows users, right clicking and saving an attachment is not intuitive). He then goes on to say that Microsoft is becoming more conscious to security concerns, and are defaulting to some more secure settings to comabt email virii/worms.
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by Epimetheus
(james_r_penickATyahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:21AM EST
(#53)
(User #28918 Info)
http://www.bluedwarf.net/james
|
In a fashion I believe he's right. The model for linux does break the mold a bit. Typically software costs money and the developer is compensated. Or the software is free and the support compensates the developer. Linux is both free and community supported. Companies based around linux seem to make their bucks in any way possible.. It is a bizzare setup
"Why, arent YOU the ladykiller?" "Aquitted!" |
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by kalleanka2 on Wednesday April 04, @11:41AM EST
(#133)
(User #318385 Info)
|
The support doesn't compensate the developers. How much of the money red hat makes on their support do all the Linux developers get?
|
Read it again (Score:1)
by Zone5
(zone[nospam]@no.spam.home.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:26PM EST
(#485)
(User #179243 Info)
|
That's his whole point... read a little more closely. The fact that Redhad makes very little money through direct sales OR support is what makes the business model wierd. This sig for sale... |
Re:Read it again (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, @10:19PM EST
(#917)
|
"Redhat" makes very little money period.
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by Vinson Massif on Wednesday April 04, @11:47AM EST
(#166)
(User #88315 Info)
|
Perhaps he meant a bazaar setup.
|
an image attached (Score:1)
by zealousness
(will_stupid@[NO_SPAM]yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:23AM EST
(#61)
(User #258105 Info)
|
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20010329 /mdf28952.jpg
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:5, Insightful)
by update() on Wednesday April 04, @11:23AM EST
(#62)
(User #217397 Info)
|
Does anyone in Redmond think the /. crowd will feel like they got real answers out of this? Looking at your question, there wasn't much to say and he said it. There's a trade-off between security and ease of use. They erred on the side of convenience and some users got burned -- but those users didn't have to setuid their CD player software to get it to work. What were you expecting him to say? "We're idiots. Linux r00lz!"? Like a lot of Slashdot interviews of "The Enemy", questions that are basically "You suck. Don't you suck? Admit you suck." got moderated ahead of ones that might produce interesting answers. And then when the answers fall short of, "Yes, we suck." everyone complains that it's just a lot of marketroid-speak. The interview with the Carnivore reviewer was a great example -- 5 of the 10 questions essentially are "You're a liar. Why should I believe you when I say you're not a liar?"
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP. Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. - Helen Keller |
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by jon_c
(jonclegg@nospan.yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:07PM EST
(#454)
(User #100593 Info)
http://streamripper.sourceforge.net
|
I wish there was a +6 because you should get it. Thats is an awsume great discription of whats going down here. All the (majority) slashdot croud wanted to hear was "yes, we suck" as a respose to every question.
As I was reading the posts all I could think was "jezz that just don't get it, Microsoft is a software company, and they do what they think is best to reach that goal", and it seemed that darn near everyone here was thinking "they don't understand it's Free maaan, like Free Software maan, like you don't get it dude". Like microsoft can pay the bills thinking "we need to give away out shit"
-Jon
Streamripper
Records Shoutcast.com & Live365.com Streams |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by KingKenny on Wednesday April 04, @02:03PM EST
(#550)
(User #307071 Info)
|
What is all this ease of use crap? An email client does not get any fscking easier to use because it runs some wanky scripting language! Jeeez...
All computers are crap, some are just less crap. |
Outlook Scripting (Score:1)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @04:37PM EST
(#754)
(User #34294 Info)
|
It does if you are doing e-mail merges from a Word doc or an Excel spreadsheet.
It does if you don't want to duplicate an contact list in an Access database.
It does if you want to use it in a corporate environment with document approval, routing, voting responses, etc.
Outlook (not Outlook Express) is NOT just an e-mail client. It is a groupware-enabling messaging client. It is the communications infrastructure of a Windows box. It is VERY powerful and VERY useful -- but potentially dangerous if misused/improperly configured.
--
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Re:Outlook Scripting (Score:1)
by KingKenny on Thursday April 05, @02:07AM EST
(#974)
(User #307071 Info)
|
Mailmerge processing merely needs an API, you don't need an email client, this is trivial. And if one loves the vb scripting, ms office already provides it (chap here does 2 gig of emails a month this way with no problems (other than excel crashing ever now and then)). Databases should use unique, thus enforcing the rule and should not be left to the whim of any programmer, this is very basic. Corp environments (not exactly sure to what you are refering), but I've been using similar sounding environments since '84. Conformity seems to be well down the more standard and somewhat flexible HTTP path in the sites that I've worked at over the last 5 or so years. The non-express may offer more than email, but at the end of the day, its email client does not have to run a script. As another poster said, Lotus has similar functionality and suffers none of the security problems that ms does. Personally, I don't like the Lotus environment as it always feels clunky and bloaty! I'd guess that's IBM's influence.
All computers are crap, some are just less crap. |
Re: Lotus Scripting (Score:1)
by chill on Thursday April 05, @02:30PM EST
(#1064)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Is it more secure by design, or simply because so many less people use it/know about it?
I don't use Notes, so I don't know.
What in it's design makes it more secure, yet offers the same functionality as Outlook/Exchange? --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Re: Lotus Scripting (Score:1)
by KingKenny on Thursday April 05, @05:01PM EST
(#1073)
(User #307071 Info)
|
Unfortunately the functionality model is completely different, i.e. ms have never taken an interest in security. Their late "patch" for melissa was pathetic. iloveyou should never have been allowed to happen with updated software. It just emphasis the disrespect they have for their customers (hence why I spend a lot of time dumping their installations (if only there was a standard for sharing wordprocessing and spreadsheet data and formatting)). Here's what Lotus have to say about it (about half way down). I know far more sites using Lotus than outlook/exchange. They're big site too, so the user base is pretty substatial, and yet I've not come across a single virus problem (yes, attachment in the mail can be opened/executed, so perhaps note users are wiser when it comes to non-script virus issues too). Those I know of (companies that is) that use the ms product have been crippled by the two big vb virii. Amazingly they're still using it, and will undoubtably get cripple on the next one. Boy, did their "techs" look fscking stupid after their "ms is great, it's the admin that the causes the problems" speeches. I guess that just because a problem can be solved with a particular solution, doesn't mean that that solution should be used? And why should express have the same problems (along with a nice nntp client (pity about that "searching for url" cockup))?
All computers are crap, some are just less crap. |
Re: Lotus Scripting (Score:1)
by chill on Thursday April 05, @10:45PM EST
(#1081)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Interesting. My last job was as a sysadmin for two depts. (65 users & 20 users) of a decent-sized company (low end of Fortune 500).
We were 75% Exchange and 25% MS Mail (on Novell). About 6000 users total in 10 locations around the world.
Melissa & I Love You hammered 8 of our locations -- taking them offline for two days by crashing the e-mail and gateway servers (Novell & NT 4.0/Exchange).
The two locations I was responsible for had 0 (I counted twice) hits. We were running NT 4.0/Exchange 5.0 and Red Hat 6.1/OpenMail. All of the clients were Outlook 98/2000 on Win95 or NT 4.0 sp6a.
The lack of virus incidents I can attribute to two things: diligence on my part as sysadmin -- antivirus was on every machine and automatically updated nightly; and user education. I actually gave classes to the entire facility about viruses and e-mail attachments about a month before the big ones hit. The facilities were small enough I could face-2-face with everyone and put the fear of God into them. (Wanna use an abacus, slide rule and #2 pencil for a week to do reports?)
Education of users was a big part. None of them reported infections at home, either. Those that got infected messages handled them properly.
--
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Re: Outlook Scripting (Score:1)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @08:43PM EST
(#884)
(User #34294 Info)
|
I didn't say they did it RIGHT. :-) I was just pointing out why scripting is a good thing.
I've loved scriptable apps since ARexx became pervasive on Amiga. --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Not that bad actually (Score:2)
by RandomPeon on Wednesday April 04, @02:49PM EST
(#615)
(User #230002 Info)
|
I don't think the questions were all that bad for an interview to a hostile audience. A couple were quite valid - why do you make the security decisions that you do? Will I ever see Office for Linux? and so forth. This is how hostile interviews go - watch GW Bush try and bullshit his way out of questions about racial profiling after his NAACP speech. (Flame suppressant - this is an example, you could pollute the thread with 10,000 examples involving Al Gore/Ralph Nader/Harry Brown/Cowboy Neal and they'd be true. Please don't.)
We got some loaded questions, we got some good ones. We got some reasonable responses ("Supporting Linux can be a real pain in the ass"), we got some total nonresponses, and we got some outright denials of embarrassing facts("We don't break standards, ever"). Par for the course.
What do you expect? A completely objective, level-headed discussion? You'll never get that on issues people feel this strongly about. I'm fairly impressed.
|
Re:Not that bad actually (Score:2)
by update() on Wednesday April 04, @04:12PM EST
(#722)
(User #217397 Info)
|
OK, but there's a tradeoff between asking hostile, loaded questions and getting informative answers. Personally, I would have preferred more neutral technical questions so I could have learned something from the answers. But it's unfair to ask questions like "Why is your security so poor?" and then complain that the answer was inadequate. I agree that there were some decent questions here. (Although no one asked whether there really are MS astroturfers on Slashdot!) Half the questions in the Carnivore interview I referred to, though, were rude, pointless attacks with question marks at the end. you could pollute the thread with 10,000 examples involving Al Gore/Ralph Nader/Harry Brown/Cowboy Neal and they'd be true Hey, we read Cowboy Neal's interview -- you don't need to tell us. ;-)
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP. Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. - Helen Keller |
Re:Not that bad actually (Score:1)
by catfood on Wednesday April 04, @11:05PM EST
(#934)
(User #40112 Info)
http://schumann.cleveland.oh.us
|
But it's unfair to ask questions like "Why is your security so poor?" and then complain that the answer was inadequate.
It was a perfectly reasonable question. The dude asked why they prioritize cute features over security. The Microsoft guy neither answered the question nor denied its premise. He just went on about how hard they're working to fix the bugs. But that wasn't anything like the point of the question.
If someone had asked Linus why he chose to make Linux more geek-oriented than user-oriented, and Linus replied that he had dozens of helpers working on user interface improvements, that would have been a non-answer too.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by jonathan_ingram
(jon.ingram@i.am)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:48PM EST
(#405)
(User #30440 Info)
http://jon.ingram.i.am/
|
...or 'when did you stop molesting you children?'
(for more examples of leading questions, see any TV interview with Jeremy Paxman). --
Jonathan Ingram. http://i.am/jon.ingram |
this one is correct... (Score:1)
by zealousness
(will_stupid@[NO_SPAM]yahoo.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:25AM EST
(#66)
(User #258105 Info)
|
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20010329/wl/mdf2 8952.html
|
|
Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:3, Insightful)
by donutz
(donutz.at.yahoo.(d'oh!))
on Wednesday April 04, @11:25AM EST
(#68)
(User #195717 Info)
|
t does make one wonder, though, why he even bothered doing the interview.
We all know we're biased anti-microsoft, so I think you're asking the wrong question. Why did WE bother to even ask the questions? We know we're not going to get answers we like, and whatever answers we get, we will see as him being biased against us...
I think he did a good job with the interview. He knows he's walking into the flames, but he answered anyway. His answers may not make us happy, but so what? did you stop to realize that the Open Source movement isn't perfect? It's made of people...I've said it before, and I'll say it again...people are stupid! Yes, even in open source. What I see from this interview is that we've got some stuff right, they've got some stuff right, and there's obstacles in the way to getting all of our right stuff together...
ok, enough ranting.
. . .
Me fail English? That's unpossible! |
|
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:1)
by java_sucks on Wednesday April 04, @01:45PM EST
(#521)
(User #197921 Info)
|
Right-O. He has a job and I'm guessing some long term interest with stocks and the like, of course he is going to tow the corporate line. He pretty much mirrored the standard MS corporate line... Linux is no revolution.. no new innovation... it's only free if your time is not worth anything, Windows might cost money but you save in the long run becasuse it is so blah blah blah... Nothing new here but what do you expect. And also some of what he said was pretty much spot on too.
What would you do if you were interviewed and asked some questions about your company? "Oh all we care about is taking money from our customers.. we usually sit about and laugh at the fools who buy our crap"... no... you would do what he did. It's his job for Christs sake. I did sense a little angst a few times though..
Microsoft is a commercial operating system company that makes most of its revenue from selling its software. We charge money for our software. That is how we pay our developers, our support people and others to provide for the ongoing existence of our company
Like duh... how else do you think a company is going to make money and grow except to charge for it's products. In his shoes I would feel the same way though. Standard disclaimer, I'm no fan of MS or their business practices but i think we need to be realistic here.
|
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:1)
by oconnorcjo on Wednesday April 04, @02:11PM EST
(#566)
(User #242077 Info)
|
What I was hoping is that he would speak for HIMSELF ("I") rather than speak for Microsoft. If he spoke as himself then he could say "yeah ... I wish that had been done better but I know XYZ are working on that". Instead he spoke as "WE" in which case nothing interesting is ever said.
|
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:1)
by donutz
(donutz.at.yahoo.(d'oh!))
on Wednesday April 04, @02:33PM EST
(#594)
(User #195717 Info)
|
Well, when you work for a company...do you trash talk it in a big wide public forum? Probably not...
Same goes for saying anything negative about your company...do you want to create a PR nightmare by letting people know that you're not completely confident in your company? That is, assuming you're not fired immediately...
. . .
Me fail English? That's unpossible! |
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:1)
by wifflefan on Wednesday April 04, @02:25PM EST
(#582)
(User #23164 Info)
http://wifflefan.webjump.com
|
I second what donutz has said. Thanks, Doug, for your time.
|
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:2)
by jafac on Wednesday April 04, @04:58PM EST
(#783)
(User #1449 Info)
|
I'm not biased anti-microsoft. They really do, empirically suck.
". . . it's like 60 Minutes, on acid." - - David Byrne |
He was smart to answer this... (Score:2)
by alexhmit01
(alex@feratech.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:07PM EST
(#936)
(User #104757 Info)
http://www.feratech.com
|
Slashdot is officially news for nerds. It is unofficially a Linux advocacy site. However, it also has GREAT information on technical issues. It is easier to read Slashdot then to follow 10 websites.
When a student, I could read Slashdot 5 times an hour to get every new story quickly. Now, some days I check twice, some times a few days before reading. Sometimes I'll post 10 times in a day, then not post for a money.
However, I also like keeping up on technical topics from Slashdot. However, it is a very anti-MS site. As an MCSE that got burned in the NT4 screw on the MCSE program, I have my own MS rants. However, he took a good opportunity to look good. When someone is reading Slashdot, they see that MS is being reasonable, and the kiddies on /. throwing tantrums marked up to a 5 shouting about Linux, and you get some good points.
He painted MS's blemishes in a good light. From someone whose server room is divided between NT4 Boxes and OpenBSD boxes, knowing the MS wants to fix it's mistakes is a good thing.
Alex
Application development and deployment on Open Source Technologies, Feratech. |
Re:Why did we ASK the questions? (Score:1)
by donutz
(donutz.at.yahoo.(d'oh!))
on Wednesday April 04, @01:05PM EST
(#447)
(User #195717 Info)
|
that was kinda funny though, you should have claimed credit for it :p
. . .
Me fail English? That's unpossible! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2)
by RareHeintz
(brad@bradandkristin.DIESPAMMERDIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:25AM EST
(#72)
(User #244414 Info)
http://www.bradandkristin.com/brad.php
|
Anonymous cowards like you hurt the whole site. So why don't you shut the fuck up?
First off, my argument was neither vague nor hand-waving, and I happened to give a concrete example. I brought up a pretty basic issue with how Microsoft builds software that affects corporate security the world over.
My response? He gave me some hand-waving bullshit about how Microsoft is "sensitive to the growing security threats to [their] customers", and answered my specific example by saying that a patch made it all better (which, you may have noticed, it did not). He did not address the larger concern - and the thrust of my question - which was how such ill-designed software got out the door in the first place.
So, he did not answer my question. He dodged it, hoping that saying "Microsoft is conscious of security" would make it so.
OK,
- B -- Mu! |
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by AX.25
(abuse@hotmail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:42AM EST
(#135)
(User #310140 Info)
|
I believe he answered your question. His response in three words, "We don't care." Anytime you see phrases like "protect the user" and "is conscious of security" without facts to back them up you know the person (or company in this case) couldn't GARA about the subject. Microsoft only cares about protecting its monolopy and until we produce something that rocks the sheep like Microsoft users world, not much will change. If only the melissia virus had done something worthwhile ;) I like slow links! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by mandolin on Wednesday April 04, @11:52AM EST
(#182)
(User #7248 Info)
|
He did not address the larger concern - and the thrust of my question - which was how such ill-designed software got out the door in the first place.
oh please. I could ask the same about redhat 6.0 and the should-have-been-beta version of gnome they shipped by default *and all the security flaws they didn't catch*. people make mistakes sometimes and being some big faceless monster corportation doesn't change that. either you're not a developer, or I'd really like to work for your company.
Anonymous cowards like you hurt the whole site. So why don't you shut the fuck up?
because he has a different take on it than you?
buck
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:3, Informative)
by RareHeintz
(brad@bradandkristin.DIESPAMMERDIE.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:59AM EST
(#205)
(User #244414 Info)
http://www.bradandkristin.com/brad.php
|
Perhaps you weren't paying attention.
My question was not about individual security flaws. Everyone knows that every product has those. I don't know why (if you actually read the article and the rest of this thread) you think I don't understand that mistakes get made.
My question was about the set of attitudes and practices that systematically ignore the most basic security principles and lead to frequent releases of software with gaping security holes. Note the difference: honest mistakes vs. deliberate adoption of poor doctrine and practices. If you don't get it now, I can't be bothered to explain it to you further.
OK,
- B -- Mu! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by yakovlev on Wednesday April 04, @12:47PM EST
(#401)
(User #210738 Info)
|
Okay, so you're saying that your question was not:
Microsoft seems to have erred and released products with significant security flaws which should have been discovered during the design process. As this has happened in many products, it seems to be a problem with how Microsoft designs software, and not just a few isolated incidents.
Which was answered by saying that useability and features had been the focus, but that that is changing as Microsoft is becoming aware that security is important, and that they need more focus on it.
(which is the way many here interpreted it.)
Instead, you were saying:
Microsoft has serious flaws in the way they design software. These flaws result in software with shoddy security. If Microsoft had not ignored "basic security principles," they wouldn't have these problems.
Or perhaps you meant:
Microsoft has intentionally ignored serious security flaws in their software and included them anyways to allow more user "convenience" ("features").
I don't really understand your question at this point. You seem to be making an accusation of Microsoft design practices (as opposed to just calling them poor). Are you trying to imply that "basic security principles" were consciously ignored in Microsoft's design process (as opposed to simply not emphasized or being overlooked), or are you implying that Microsoft released software with known security holes?
Remember, it's easy in hindsight to say that a security hole should have been obvious, but if you're not used to considering security when releasing products, you may simply not recognize a problem.
Just trying to understand.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by pohl
(pohl@screaming.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @05:18PM EST
(#804)
(User #872 Info)
http://screaming.org/
|
Just so you know, every time in your post where you were "trying to understand" his question, you restated it as a declarative statement. Try rephrasing it as a query. (Just trying to be helpful.)
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by mandolin on Wednesday April 04, @12:52PM EST
(#421)
(User #7248 Info)
|
Perhaps you weren't paying attention.
guess not.
My question was about the set of attitudes and practices that systematically ignore the most basic security principles and lead to frequent releases of software with gaping security holes. Note the difference: honest mistakes vs. deliberate adoption of poor doctrine and practices.
Occam's razor is going to dictate that some clueless wank(s) at microsoft didn't consider the consequences. Also, you're going to have to give more examples of 'poor doctrine and practices', because I don't think anybody agrees on what qualifies. I'm sure ms is isoxxxx compliant. If you're talking about poor practice in general, I would refer you to linux-mandrake 7.2. They took a kde 2.0 beta and deliberately shipped it to meet an xmas deadline. They give a pretty good justification of it. (disclaimer: I use LM, but not 7.2)
If you're talking about security in particular, we could either talk about the long history of sendmail exploits, but how vendors shipped it anyway ("this time for sure!") or how several key linux distributors enabled (what turned out to be) remotely exploitable services by default with old releases, because *they didn't consider the consequences*. Even though in *retrospect* it seems obvious and suspect of some systemic flaw. Or to put it in your terms "poor doctrine and practices".
People screw up. You're living in a dream world. You've also incorrectly assumed that your priorities agree with everyone else's priorities.
buck
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:2, Insightful)
by Thordain on Wednesday April 04, @11:56AM EST
(#191)
(User #263078 Info)
|
He did not address the larger concern - and the thrust of my question - which was how such ill-designed software got out the door in the first place.
Really. That was the thrust of your question? I guess you expect that no software should ever be released. Windows is not the only software in the world released with security bugs present...it's just one of the most publicised (and hated, amongst O/S ppl.). Whenever a Microsoft security flaw is made known to the public, people flock into the message boards and say "See, just another example of how the monopolistic bastards are allowed to release half-baked, bug riddled software into the grasps of the poor, un-educated and un-knowning public who are forced to deal with their stupidity."
However, whenever a Linux security bug, or a BIND security bug, or Apache, or has a bug published its more of a "See how our infinitely superior peer review system coupled with availble published source code allows us to squash bugs easily?".
Don't get me wrong...I am not a huge fan of Microsoft, I don't like the way they run their business and I think that often times they do stupid things that I don't agree with. But that doesnt mean their software is so inferior because it was released with security bugs. What about software like BIND. The thing is older than the planet earth practicly, but they are STILL finding security holes in it.
I am forced to agree with the guy that said somethign like Every time Slashdot posts an interview about "The Enemy" people seem to post questions asking them to admit that they suck and are stupid and would add to that that often times they think that their software is perfect and vastly superior.
Perhaps Linux is vastly superior for certain people and for certain particular purposes (indeed, in my eyes it is) but you would be a fool to think that it is superior in, per say, the home user desktop market. The uneducated in the computer world (or rather, those people who do not need to user computers on a high scale in their daily life, and therefore have no need to learn every in and out of them) would rather have a simple, easy to use, eye-candy riddled operating system where every type of application under the sun that could possibly be imagined for a home user exists. What operating systems fit this mold?
However, I digress. Think about the questions you ask in reference to everybody before you start blaming one particular entity for their lack of an answer towards it. You can't accurately measure the world if you use a ruler that changes based on what (or who) you are measuring.
"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new
Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS proccess!" |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by Shadowlion
(shadowlionc@netscape.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:28PM EST
(#325)
(User #18254 Info)
|
But that doesnt mean their software is so inferior because it was released with security bugs.
I think the original question isn't so much about security bugs (as in "Oh, somebody discovered this wierd bug in IE...") as it is about security by design.
For instance, allowing scripts unfettered access to the OS - that's not a "bug," that's a design flaw that should have been caught before Outlook/Windows ever went out the door. sort of sandbox would have been better, but instead we have rampant viruses.
Other things, like enabling autoexecution of scripts and macros as a default, are fairly obvious oversights.
To be fair, many Linux distros suffer the same problem. Virtually all of them come with every known daemon enabled, which is similar to the autoexecution of macros - it's just something dumb that detracts from the overall system security.
--
Nothing promotes discussion and dialogue better than a naked woman in a cage. |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by mcjulio on Wednesday April 04, @11:58AM EST
(#198)
(User #68237 Info)
|
You're right, he didn't give an answer, but the reason for that should be obvious: Microsoft wasn't thinking about the Internet when they shipped Outlook, and so they fucked up and shipped it anyway because they had to get something out the door.
But answering the question you really asked would have made for a piss-poor answer. "Um, yeah, we screwed up on that one. Sorry 'bout that." I'm glad he took your dead-end question and used it as a chance to talk about the company's new focus.
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @04:29PM EST
(#746)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Actually, some of the distros now have an "autologin" feature that will bring you right in. I use it on machines that I have controlled physical access to (locked in my room) that have nothing critical on them.
Also, you can set a policy in Windows 9x to require a valid network login. Is it 100% bulletproof? No, but it stops casual abuse. --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Same old same old - example: (Score:2, Troll)
by Spamalamadingdong on Wednesday April 04, @11:26AM EST
(#73)
(User #323207 Info)
|
Good ol' Dougie said this about standards:
Should we be required to publish the ... underlying designs of all our software so that anyone can copy it? I would hope not - much the same that companies in other industries have the right to build products and retain the intellectual property rights associated with those products.
In other words, Doug wants Microsoft to be able to use the hard work of others involved in creating architectures and protocols to engineer his own proprietary, incompatible protocols which he then refuses to share with the people whose work he exploited. Did anyone expect any better from him?
I'll accept that Microsoft plays fair when they publish all their file formats and protocols for all their products, make their own products adhere to the published formats and protocols, and allow anyone and everyone to use the published standards to produce competing products. Fair's fair, and that's what interoperability is about. --
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he gets sunk by a nuclear submarine. |
|
Re:Same old same old - example: (Score:1)
by plague3106
(ajj3085@rit.edu.no.spam)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:35PM EST
(#354)
(User #71849 Info)
|
Exactly. If they don't want to open thier code and share their hard work, they should not be taking someone elses work without permission and modifying it. If a standard doesn't fit the customer need, let them start from scratch.
The other problem i have with MS is this; they say they are all for interoperability. But only if you use THIER products to interoperate. Otherwise they do seem against it.
|
Re:Same old same old - example: (Score:1)
by dbrutus on Thursday April 05, @12:19PM EST
(#1047)
(User #71639 Info)
http://www.laycatholic.org
|
If I take a Sears hammer, drive an extra weight in the end to give it better balance, does that make the underlying hammer mine? No. The individual hammer has to be bought or the design has to be licensed.
There is a progression of law in all aspects of society where unwritten customs get challenged by some asshole and then, in annoyance, things get hashed out and formal codes are developed. Most of these areas of human endeavor are so old, we've forgotten about when customary, unwritten, or common law was the only law around. But computers are a new field and MS is the asshole challenging the informal, low overhead system of everybody trying to adhere to the standards or at least not trying to wreck them.
Capitalism and communism are economic systems, both are enhanced or encumbered by whether an informal/formal legal system is used.
DB
|
Re:Very few politicians have vagueisms (Score:1)
by TheCarp
(sjc-slashdot@carpanet.net)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:28AM EST
(#79)
(User #96830 Info)
https://www.carpanet.net/
|
Sure mostly... but does it really matter?
Women, men, black, white, gay straight... they are still politicians. As Nikita Krushev noted:
"Politicians are the same everywhere.They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river"
-Steve --
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again" |
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by jargoone on Wednesday April 04, @11:43AM EST
(#147)
(User #166102 Info)
|
"The model around Linux is truly bizarre." about sums up his experience with Linux it seems.
Wait... so the fact that he thinks it's bizarre [sic] means he has no experience with it. But Linux zealots who think Windows is bizarre have the experience to make that judgment. Bullshit.
What a lame ass first post attempt.
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:4, Informative)
by bmajik
(matt@mattevans.org)
on Wednesday April 04, @11:46AM EST
(#163)
(User #96670 Info)
http://www.mattevans.org
|
I hope you don't mean to imply that he is unknowledgable about Linux and UNIX in general.
Remember OpenNT ? Softway Systems ? The re-implementation of the NT posix subsystem to let you run and develop unix/x11R5 apps natively on NT ?
Same guy.
|
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by HerrGlock on Wednesday April 04, @12:07PM EST
(#229)
(User #141750 Info)
http://www.cavalrypilot.com
|
Not in the least. I just think it is funny that he considers the Linux phenomena to be bizarre when all it is is a different delivery system and distribution system than MS is used to.
What I find interesting is how many years downloadable software has been around and how many thousands of software products have been both downloadable only or dual accessable by download and in shrinkwrap, but this is a bizarre way of software distribution? Or did he actually mean of Business model? Reading the interview suggests the second, yet it seems he equates 'Linux' with the commercial entities who distribute the software.
Not unknowledgable, just interesting the way Linux is lumped into commercial companies instead of acknowledging the community as a whole.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by kalleanka2 on Wednesday April 04, @11:48AM EST
(#170)
(User #318385 Info)
|
"marketroid-speak"
What do you mean? It was quite straightforward, wasn't it?
|
|
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by ethereal on Wednesday April 04, @12:28PM EST
(#326)
(User #13958 Info)
|
I think that may be the mark of a good marketroid - you feel like you really got something out of it, but really you didn't. Look at how skillfully he dodged some of the questions but at the same time kept you nodding right along with him. It really was a pleasant read and an interesting take on reality; Mr. Miller is clearly a master of his craft.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous! |
Re:I don't know what else I expected... (Score:1)
by jallen02
(:-( .)
on Wednesday April 04, @01:27PM EST
(#487)
(User #124384 Info)
http://terminalvelocityclan.net
|
Yes, yes is, he is a master.
We need people like him on our side :-\
He could make that interview do a 180 if he replied differently.
It is that trait that makes him into a good Executive. Keep in mind no matter what hes doing his job of being a higher official at Microsoft he has to speak the party line and he does it oh so well. No wonder he doesnt have to check with public relations before he replies to a public community. He is a PR god ;) Jeremy
--Insert Quarter Here[]-- |
Re:On KDE and Gnome (Score:1)
by Sloppy
(sloppy@spam^H^H^H^Hrt66.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:00PM EST
(#207)
(User #14984 Info)
|
No, no, no...
Although he doesn't really say it, I think his main problem with Unix's
UI diversity isn't that the UIs look and feel different, it's due to them
having different APIs.
If you run a KDE desktop, a GNOME app looks funny. If you run a GNOME desktop, a KDE app looks funny. But when you write an app, you have to pick one.
If there was just one main API for app developers (like MS) to use, then
they wouldn't have to make the hard decision about which API to use, and also
wouldn't have to worry about their app not really fitting in with half of
their customer's desktops. No one really cares that some people
use sloppy focus and some don't, how how the dock works, etc. ---
Have a Sloppy night! |
|
Re:On KDE and Gnome (Score:1)
by kurioszyn on Wednesday April 04, @03:38PM EST
(#678)
(User #212894 Info)
|
Then you app will be bloated because it will have to have twice as much code.
|
Re:On KDE and Gnome (Score:1)
by Sloppy
(sloppy@spam^H^H^H^Hrt66.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @04:05PM EST
(#713)
(User #14984 Info)
|
That could get a bit complicated, but something
like that might make some app developers quite happy.
(And as for bloat, I don't think that's a major
concern for Microsoft.) ---
Have a Sloppy night! |
Re:On KDE and Gnome (Score:1)
by jargoone on Wednesday April 04, @12:00PM EST
(#209)
(User #166102 Info)
|
can't understand *why* people would want to change the way their windows respond to focus and clicks, or why they would want to change the way the dock responds
Can you read? He didn't say they don't understand why people might want to customize their environment. He said he felt it would be better if there were a single interface. Period.
I like customizing, too. But how often does a desired customization require changing your WM?
|
Re:Interesting interview, but he is only one man (Score:1)
by Anonymous Slackard on Wednesday April 04, @12:38PM EST
(#365)
(User #254578 Info)
|
>I believe Doug Miller is really sincere in his answers.
(Score -1, Gullible)
|
|
Re:Interesting interview, but he is only one man (Score:1)
by northwind on Thursday April 05, @02:44AM EST
(#978)
(User #308027 Info)
http://www.ringworldengineers.com/
|
I do believe that he is sincere, but if also do belive that his sense of reality was changed by exposure to the Microsoft environment. (Resistance is futile). I thought I was clear enough on that. Sorry if I wasn't.
|
Re:Origin of the Negro Species (Score:2, Interesting)
by CmdrPinkTaco
(morpheus_solo@prettyDangWarmMail.com)
on Wednesday April 04, @12:51PM EST
(#418)
(User #63423 Info)
|
Yet another theory is that Cain and Abel represent the split of modern agricultural man from the hunter-gather man. Abel was the gatherer and Cain killed him, much like man used to be a gathering animal who then learned how to harvest and use the land strictly for themselves by means of agriculture, effectively killing off the gathering man's land.
just a little food for thought. --------
"Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs."
- Tom Lehrer
|
Re: What Customers Want (Score:3, Insightful)
by chill on Wednesday April 04, @02:24PM EST
(#580)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Customers want convenience first, last and in between. EVERYTHING else is a distant second (if not third or fourth).
Windows is a major success because it is everywhere. You can get software for it at every store that sells software (except the 0.01% that sell only Mac or Unix). This means CompUSA, Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
99% of the files/data found on the 'net can be loaded/run in Windows. (You might not be able to get them out once in, but that is a different story.) Convenience.
Convenience will convince people to put up with blue screen crashes, crappy software, extra expense and everything else.
I can't remember how many times I drove by my local CompUSA or Best Buy and wanted to buy a game -- but they don't have them for Linux. (The manager at the local CompUSA now tells me "nope -- nothing yet" before I even ask if they are going to stock anything.)
Linux won't be able to match them on the desktop until it can match them in convenience. Eazel is working on one track with Nautilus and their services -- so is Red Hat. More needs to be done. --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
|
Re: What Customers Want (Score:1)
by ignorant_newbie
(geekintraining@yahoo.com)
on Thursday April 05, @03:29AM EST
(#988)
(User #104175 Info)
|
Customers want convenience first, last and in between. EVERYTHING else is a distant second (if not third or fourth).
snip
Convenience will convince people to put up with blue screen crashes, crappy software, extra expense and everything else.
where i work, the people who make purchasing decisions do so based on percieved cost, not Convenience. the problem is that they think that getting something gratis means they'll never be able to get support, and they don't bother to find out differently.
|
Re: What Customers Want (Score:1)
by chill on Monday April 09, @11:38AM EST
(#1102)
(User #34294 Info)
|
Convenience is a big part of perceived cost in many organizations.
i.e. -- They compare costs only with "approved" vendors. Many large companies only deal with vendors that will accept P.O.s (and then only those that aren't rabid about getting paid on time).
You're right about the perceived support bit. The perception of "accountability" is also there. They want someone to blame/sue if it doesn't work.
Like any of these companies is ever going to sue MS because of faulty software. If you don't think your legal dept. has a sense of humor -- suggest that to them! --
Charles E. Hill
"Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control..." -- MS Them |
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by badfish2 on Wednesday April 04, @02:43PM EST
(#605)
(User #316297 Info)
|
gouged? nickeled? dimed? I get all my service packs for free - same as my rpm's that need upgrading when THEY break. Despite the different operating systems, I think ALL software developers share one cross-platform feature: you don't always get it right the first time. The anti-Microsoft rhetoric on this site is not only getting old, but starting to sound ridiculous.
|
Re:He only dodged one. (Score:1)
by bwhalen on Wednesday April 04, @04:20PM EST
(#734)
(User #246170 Info)
|
Yeah, it is important to not have the Linux is the only option microsoft burn in hell blinders on. Use the best app to solve your problem(s), and let the chios fall where they may. If Microsoft's software turns out to be inferior, and another easy to use for the typical consumer option comes along, they will fade. Where do you want to be,
What are you doing to get there. |
Re:Origin of the Negro Species (Score:1)
by NumberSyx on Wednesday April 04, @04:45PM EST
(#764)
(User #130129 Info)
|
Yeah when the many realize that they've toiled an entire life fearing that some big bad boogey man
I think what he was saying is, people who say they believe in god and yet spread war, hate and discontent, will goto to hell and will be suprised. We Athiests on the other hand will only be suprised if there is a judgment day.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
-Patti Smith
|
*** HAPPINESS *** (Score:2)
by f5426 on Thursday April 05, @04:47AM EST
(#1000)
(User #144654 Info)
|
is a state of mind
-- #1000 --
(Posting logged)
1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
Re:choices = bad? (Score:1)
by Krusher55 on Thursday April 05, @08:38AM EST
(#1020)
(User #414674 Info)
|
Choices are not bad but most users would choose to have one really good GUI with a set of quality apps that integrate very well into that GUI over having a large number of choices that are sometimes difficult to configure if you are not a computer whiz. You need to remember that you and I are not Microsofts target market. Microsofts target market is the mass of people that just want to use computers to perform a particular task or tasks and want to be able to do it in a simple straight forward way.
|
Re:I've heard him before (Score:1)
by kuzinov
(kuzinov@islanderis.net)
on Thursday April 12, @10:10AM EST
(#1106)
(User #155239 Info)
|
He is right, the average poster here automatically assumes Microsoft sucks. MS service packs are always free. Show me any OS that has shipped to be used on such a wide variety of hardware configurations and installed by the average computer user that doesn't have a few bugs in it. Microsoft's technical archive online is really good for when you get stuck. And here's some news for you Linux heads out there. Linux is in no fucking position yet to take over the desktop market. If you think it is come to work with me as tech support at an ISP and speak to the average computer user. Then we'll try to get them to untar a few files and attempt to compile some software. Apple pulls way more propietary bullshit on people and everyone kisses Steve Job's ass. Bill Gate's come out with a web browser that doesn't suck goat ass and gets taken to court by Netscape(really AOL and their browser sucks ass). Great minds think alike,but,fools seldom differ. |