Windows 2003 Going Gold

chill writes "According to CNet's News.com, 'Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.' With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4 -- the NT 4 that is so broke it can't be fixed -- Microsoft is hoping for quick adoption."

Comments

FP 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

FP 2003

Re:2003...in 2003?

[Anonymous Coward]

Luna Lane is seriously hot. Too bad she's got moose knuckle. It looks like two big ass slices of wet roast beef stuck to her thighs.

A Warning to those planning to switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your'e a NT4 user who has been burned, please concider switching to linux. But whatever you do, use kde, not gnome! Why? because the GNOME armageddon has started.

First of all I want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it.
Belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language.
Even if you don't care at all for GNOME, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.

On the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the GNOME community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

Many of us like the GNOME desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. GNOME is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of *NIX, only to name some of its advantages.

Unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of GNOME. The core development team somehow got the idea of targeting GNOME to a complete different direction of users, the so called corporate desktop user.
In other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting GNOME on their computers.

Having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like RedHat,Ximian and Sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. So far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

Some of the new ideas, features and implementations such asgconf, an evil Windows Registry-like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that GNOME leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. These are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. Now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.

You may imagine that users got really frustrated http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1280 because their beloved GNOME desktop matured into something they didn't want. During the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the GNOME mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Octo ber/msg00021.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Octo ber/msg00033.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/GNOME-devel-list/20 02-September/msg00017.html

But the core development team of GNOME don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. The reply they give is mostly the same -- users should either go and 'file a bug' at BugZilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Augu st/msg00261.html

If you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. The core development team actually don't care for the complaining home user -- it's more important for them to reach the customers with the cash. It seems that this has been told t

A Warning to those planning to switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your'e a NT4 user who has been burned, please concider switching to linux. But whatever you do, use kde, not gnome! Why? because the GNOME armageddon has started.

First of all I want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it.
Belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language.
Even if you don't care at all for GNOME, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.

On the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the GNOME community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

Many of us like the GNOME desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. GNOME is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of *NIX, only to name some of its advantages.

Unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of GNOME. The core development team somehow got the idea of targeting GNOME to a complete different direction of users, the so called corporate desktop user.
In other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting GNOME on their computers.

Having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like RedHat,Ximian and Sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. So far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

Some of the new ideas, features and implementations such asgconf, an evil Windows Registry-like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that GNOME leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. These are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. Now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.

You may imagine that users got really frustrated http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1280 because their beloved GNOME desktop matured into something they didn't want. During the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the GNOME mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Octo ber/msg00021.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Octo ber/msg00033.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/GNOME-devel-list/20 02-September/msg00017.html

But the core development team of GNOME don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. The reply they give is mostly the same -- users should either go and 'file a bug' at BugZilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-Augu st/msg00261.html

If you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. The core development team actually don't care for the complaining home user -- it's more important for them to reach the customers with the cash. It seems that this has been told t

Re:2003...in 2003?

[Listen Up]

Your signature "Only God may judge Osama Bin Laden, It's our job to arrange the meeting." is really sad. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and any religion has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Death is death. Outside of the human mind, the universe is not ruled my mysticism. All people die, whether your or the "enemy's" religion makes you righteous in your own mind or not. The actions of men are what is real. The actions of men kill people. The actions of men are the reasons for war.

Re:Early Adapters

[sydb]

I don't think I was being a smart-ass. I found the error amusing.

I know the USA is not the only country in world. I live in one of the other ones.

Why pick on me? Is there a chip on YOUR shoulder?

Re:Early Adapters

[sydb]

Read Txiasaeia's other posts. He speaks English very well.

What makes you think he is not a native English speaker?

Re:let's consider age

[Anonymous Coward]

no one has fixed this hole yet.

Re:Early Adapters

[dTaylorSingletary]

And besides, the meaning of the word "adapter" is also true to the intentions. One who adapts is very similar to one who adopts, whereas one could say adapting is even more preferable due to its progressive nature. Adopting seems like a blind act to me.

Re:2003...in 2003?

[fitten]

For being wrong.

"Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and any religion has absolutely nothing to do with reality."

This statement in itself is completely false. Regardless of what you believe, the fact that other people believe these things, some of which dictate the policy of whole nations, make these things have everything to do with reality. It is real and a fact that the religious rules of Islam dictate how people dress and act in some countries, for instance. That makes it reality.

(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS

[labratuk]

Notice that the anti-fascists are the first to cave when it comes to fighting a real Fascist?

I think maybe the 'anti-fascists' just disagree as to who is the fascist.

The fascist is the one who is (and has been for 50) going around starting wars to furthur its international political and business interests.

The fascist is the one who brainwashes its public into thinking that if they remotely disagree with the government they are siding with the evil enemy.

The fascist is the one whose most popular news networks show heavily biased information.

The fascist is the one who uses his religion to justify killing people, while condemning people for doing exactly the same.

The fascist is the one who condemns 'terrorism' but goes and does exactly that. (heard anything about this 'shock and awe' thing over the last few days? you dont think that's the same thing? go and look up the definition of terrorism.)

The fascist is the one whose government actively admits that they want their nation to be leader of the world, and that this action is just a stepping stone in that process.

I think I've got a bit off the subject now, and we're no longer technically talking about fascists, but my point remains.

Re:(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS

[DavidBrown]

Sorry, but the fascist is the one who orders his secret police to shoot his own citizens in the back when they flee Basra.

The fascist is the one who has dissenters thrown head first into plastic shredders - long before hostilities have started.

The fascist is the one who kidnaps women and children and holds them at gunpoint to coerce their husbands and fathers to take up arms.

The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.

The fascist is the one who has one of his own civilians, a woman, hung after she expresses gratitude towards coalition forces she feels is liberating her country.

The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.

Please feel free to blame President Bush and Prime Minister Blair all you want - you have the freedom to express yourself any way that you want as long as you don't live in Iraq. But it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist, and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this. Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.

The tragedy of Iraq is that if Saddam Hussein had taken an open and cooperative approach from the very beginning, sanctions would have been lifted ten years ago and Iraq would have been a relatively pleasant place to be - even if it remained under the leadership of a fascist dictator.

When photographs of George Bush line every street, and you actually get arrested for the comments you have made, I will agree with you that Bush is a fascist. Until then you are off the deep end. I do not believe that you are unpatriotic for saying that Bush is a fascist, but it's also not an act of fascism to say that you are unpatriotic. Bush gets to speak his mind with no limitations just like you.

Re:(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS

[labratuk]

and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this.

I'm not saying that. He's a nasty piece of work. I don't support him in any way. However, this is not the reason that the U.S. is invading. The plans for invading Iraq were written up many years ago, by the people who are currently in power, and not once in those plans does it talk about 'regime change', how saddam is oppressing his people, and not a word about terrorism.

it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist

I agree, it is an exaggeration, and I didnt mean it entirely seriously.

The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.

Can I remind you that this is what the U.S. did during the Vietnam war? They deliberately set up their defensive positions in and around villages with the same intention.

Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.

So how responsible is the U.S. in all of this, seeing that they sold them the Chemical weapons? Furthur, it was Rumsfeld himself who did the bidding. How responsible was he? It's not as though he sold them to Saddam on the condition that he wouldn't use them. Enough nerve gas to kill 1m people is enough nerve gas to kill 1m people.

When photographs of George Bush line every street

Where does the distinction come between actual photos of the leader and little obnoxious U.S. flags stapled to everything in sight?

it's also not an act of fascism

I agree. Here, fascism is a misnomer, I just started talking about it because it was in the original sig. Let's just drop the f-word.

The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.

I'm confused here. Whose fault are you saying this is? The U.N.'s? Or Iraq's? It is Iraq's fault for not immediately agreeing to do whatever some random countries tell him to do otherwise they'll beat him up? If someone said this to the U.S.(not that anyone would ever be in the position to), the U.S. would definitely not conform, using it as an act of solidarity and defiance.

I've been discussing (arguing about:) this with friends for months now, and we've basically agreed it comes down to this.

You believe it is more dangerous to allow people like Saddam to continue ruling unchallenged.

However, I believe that it is more dangerous to allow the U.S. to believe it can continue getting away with this kind of stuff. Running around thinking it has the right to invade any country it likes, not conform to international law, hold prisioners in a legal black hole indefinitely, be immune to war crimes charges and hold its companies and citizens goals above anyone else's is not the sign of an advanced society.
Meanwhile at home trying to silence dissenters from the academic community.

Re:(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS

[Frymaster]

good lord, did neither of you bother to read "today's isms" or whatever the heck yr grade 10 social studies textbook was called? fascists are:

1. segregationist there is a two tiered legal system for "in-groups" and "out-groups". these groupings can be religious, racial, ethnic.
2. expansionist usually through direct force of state (viz. war). but also via economic imperialism.
3. ultranationalistic some sort of mystical, mythical or quasireligious importance is placed on the nation.
4. capitalist contrary to the nsadp's name, there ain't no socialism in national socialism.
5. reactionary makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems.
6. repressive all the secret police stuff that we associate with fascism.

so...

1. iraq wins (treatement of kurds worse than treatment of african americans. hands down)
2. u.s. wins (have you been listening to the "pax americana" stuff from pearle &co? that plus the habit of the u.s. running "proxy wars" to expand their influence (hussein was a pro-us proxy warrior to fight iran once) gives this to the u.s. hands down)
3. tie. maybe down in the states you don't see it, but from the outside american nationalism looks really scary! i can't speak for iraqi nationlism - but i am willing to wager it's pretty hefty
4. u.s. wins - although not socialist, iraq is not as ideologically committed to laissez faire capitalsim as the u.s. is.
5. tie - iraq has been struggling to avoid internal collapse for twelve years. survival struggles are by definition reactionary. the us has based it's entire foreign policy in response to s11 - a reactionary stance.
6. iraq wins - well, duh. in the united states the cops don't shoot you without trial... well sometimes but not very often... but homeland security may be looking to change that( here, here, here)

fascism comes in 31 different flavours. feel free to oppose them all.