Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:They couldn't wreck the movement from the outsi (Score 2) 216

by excelsior_gr (#48622549) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

I think you are rather confused with the meaning behind EEE.

The EEE strategy of MS was harmful, because MS used its monopoly to screw up widely used open standards, thus eliminating competition at birth. This was bad not only for startups, but for consumers as well. Remember IE6?

As the article that you linked to yourself describes, there are a lot of Android versions that are based on the open source version of the OS. Google is actually giving its competitors the Android code for free, thus enabling them to enter the market, rather than shutting them out of it. Lack of other Google services is actually a feature in many of these cases (like in Chinese implementations). If you weren't allowed to use Google as a search engine in such competitor Android implementations (as if, for example, by means of a malicious code license) then *that* would be EEE, because Google would be using its search monopoly as leverage to prevent a competitor from entering the mobile OS market (as in Embrace the mobile OS technology by open-sourcing Android, Extend it with the Google search feature, and Extinguish it by showing everyone how lame those other Android phones are that don't have the Google search feature). As far as I know, this is not the case. You can even get the closed-source Google apps to play on a Kindle Fire, for example. There is definitely some bad karma created at Google for abandoning the open-source projects, but this is not a case of EEE. And on the other hand, who said that Google was obliged to invest into the open-source projects indefinitely? I'm not familiar with the exact license of each piece of Android code, but, in general, once it has been open-sourced the community will decide when it's time for the software to die. If Google stops development of an open-source app and the app dies, then it is *our fault* for not picking up where Google left off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Google fanboy or anything, but the EEE technique that MS pioneered is *very* harmful and evil. We have to make sure we don't cry "wolf" at every sign that might resemble it, even if open-source fans (like me) have to come to the defense of a multibillion corporation like Google. Otherwise we will get no reaction when shit does in fact hit the fan, like we had with the OOXML fiasco.

Comment: Re:Does the job still get done? (Score 1) 660

by excelsior_gr (#48617971) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

Humans will be necessary to make new machines and repair those that break down. Administration, supervision and similar tasks will create jobs. Also, the work that is left for humans to do can always be spread out to more humans, so that everyone works part-time. Instead of having 10% of the humans work full-time and the rest just sitting around, you can distribute that work to all humans and have them work only 10% of their time.

Comment: Re:James Tour made me a Comp Sci (Score 1) 187

by excelsior_gr (#48607969) Attached to: Graphene: Fast, Strong, Cheap, and Impossible To Use

That's a pity, because chemical engineers usually leave the actual chemistry to the chemists. Chemical engineering is more about process design, process control, upscaling and debottlenecking. You mostly get the chemical process outlaid by the chemists and you "only" have to worry about everything around it. We have started to dabble with material design, but you can be a good chemical engineer without a profound understanding of chemistry. Chemistry is mostly about the basic "what" and "how" whereas chemical engineering is about "how fast" and "how much".

Comment: Re: You're Doing It Wrong (Score 1) 567

by excelsior_gr (#48576655) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

It was present in XP (and probably even in Win98, but my memory may be playing tricks again), it just worked differently. You had to open two windows and select both of them with the mouse on the taskbar while holding ctrl pressed and then right click on any of them and choose "arrange side-by-side" or something like that.

"Probably the best operating system in the world is the [operating system] made for the PDP-11 by Bell Laboratories." - Ted Nelson, October 1977