So are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think that a server is required to implement features that the standard makes available to the client?
Do you really believe that such a well-established standard is that inconsistent?
So people complain when Microsoft doesn't follow RFCs to the letter, but when they're fully compliant, people.. still complain?
Stop moaning. The DHCP client SHOULD not do this, but then again, the DHCP server MUST accept these requests anyway.
Any RFC standard where the client SHOULD have a certain implementation dictates that the server MUST accept anything within the standard, including clients not doing what they SHOULD do, while still adhering to the standard.
The issue is with servers not adhering to the standard. Trying to excuse server non-compliance with esoteric, standard compliant client communication is laughable. Especially coming from people historically obsessed with standards compliance.
If my ISP refused to fix a presumably widespread problem preventing me and a significant number of other customers from obtaining a lease from their DHCP servers on the grounds of principle, I would find another ISP. Deal with your principles on your own time. When I'm paying you for a service, I expect you to fix a problem if it's realistically doable and economically viable. Which this obviously is.
That the Vista DHCP client actually does follow standards just makes it all the more absurd, and if I was affected, I'd promptly find a new ISP.
Oh absolutely. An application process without screening is a potential waste of both the employer's and the employee's time.
However, I believe in screening to achieve trust between the employer and employee. Screening followed by everyday distrust seems superfluous and, well, cynical, assuming that you have faith in your own sense of judgement when you vouch for these people.
So you're saying that you're making your job application process arduous to weed out the useless, and you still claim not to trust your employees?
If an employer has a reason to complain about workforce productivity and sketchy work ethics, he can logically surmise that the problem began when he hired the people he's complaining about.
Look at you, Hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?
It's not really all that difficult. Streaming video at ~5Mbps, which is pretty much standard for mpeg4 non-HD IPTV multicast on a star topology with access switches for every 15-20 seats. The most you'd ever hit on a usual in-flight entertainment system with ~12 channels is 5*12=60Mbps each link, assuming that of those 20 people, at least 12 of them would each be watching their own channel. Realistically, you'd probably be looking at 20Mbps of IPTV for each access switch.
Are you suggesting that ISPs do layer 4 filtering and layer 6 inspection on all traffic on their network? Are you aware of the absurd amount of resources that would require?
Well, obviously it also only took one person to discover the same in a closed source application.
Of course it would be easier to see the hows and whys in an open source application, but once you know, you know, and that's really at the core of the matter.
When people go to these lengths to prove misuse of commercial licenses, they're called fascists. When it's done to prove misuse of free licenses, it's OK.
I see the community is still working as it always has.
By the way, question marks only go inside the quotation when they apply to the quotation itself, starting a sentence with a conjunction is a common colloquialism, and using a chiefly British spelling is common when you speak British English. I don't care about grammar. Just get the words right when you're criticising people for trivial mistakes.
Evolution is based in a premise that is scientifically undeniable. That this planet is -old-, and that all species in all likelihood haven't been around since the dawn of time.
Dealing with a topic as subtle, and as observably ambiguous as evolution is not easy. Yes, of course there are going to be people arriving at incorrect conclusions, but when theories are thrown out, they are continually replaced by more likely theories using more accurate data that are ultimately pointing towards the same idea. That's called progress. That's a strengthened premise.
In the early days of flight, there were some completely crazy theories about aerodynamics. When these were thrown out and replaced by far more likely theories using far more accurate data, it was called progress, and the premise of human flight was strengthened.
There's nothing religious or inherently unscientific about observing something, and attempting to reach a sound scientific theory explaining it. In the case of evolution, the premise is scientifically undeniable. Hardly religious.
Heh, from that reply, I can tell that debating with you is going to be like talking to a brick wall. Saying that LDAP can replace AD with no required training and no loss of productivity is preposterous, as pretty much anyone in the business would agree. Even saying that a linux distro is ever going to create a completely smooth transition from XP with no loss of productivity and no training required is ridiculous to the point of inanity. Anyone with any kind of knowledge about it, and with any kind of experience implementing this stuff in a business environment will attest to that. That is clearly an indication that you have neither to any significant extent.
As for Windows 9x use in the Western world, it is insignificant and diminishing. Unless you can provide any of those published reports you claim to be supported by, I'm going to assume that you're just pulling this out of a dark orifice.
You haven't presented anything more credible or objectively supported than I have yet, and yet you appear to believe that your observations are somehow more credibly without knowing my background at all. I can only surmise that you've never actually had any intention of debating this, and that you're stuck in the same track, convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
You come off as a bitter old man who is out of touch with reality, and out of touch with the needs and desires of the users who will ultimately be operating this software. I interact with hundreds of these people ona daily basis, and I can assure you that the general consensus is that Windows XP is fine, there's nothing wrong with the UI, and that of the people who've tried Vista, the majority are positive towards it.
Your views are jaded to a painfully obvious extent.
With regard to WiFi limiting the PSP to 222MHz I am not sure that this is a major problem. Too many people think that MHz or even GHz is a deciding factor in processor performance. It is not since you can have a 1GHz processor that can handle 5 to 10 threads that will outperform a 3GHz single threaded processor. There are many factors you have to take into account when looking as all over computer performance.
That only works on different processors with different architectures. Or are you trying to say that doubling the frequency of a processor isn't going to be a deciding factor in the performance of it?
I'm absolutely not supporting your argument in any way, and if you think that I am, I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. No, Linux distributions will never be indistinguishable from Windows XP as long as there are laywers on the planet. Yes, Vista's UI will still be Vista's UI in three years, but you fail to understand that in three years, OEMs will have been shipping their boxes with Vista as standard for four years. Long enough for any office worker to have grown accustomed to it.
In either event, training the single digit percent of workers who may not have gotten comfortable with Vista in that time is infinitely less costly than educating users on how to use software that neither looks nor behaves like they're used to. You, however, seem to be supporting my argument in that aspect, and you're the one who seems to be forgetting that the users aren't always very tech savvy.
The fact that you're saying that a Linux alternative would bring on "no losses in productivity and training" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in your knowledge on this topic, as I'm sure most objective people would agree.
As for Office 2007 having a Fisher Price UI, they said exactly the same about XP. Look at where that got them.
Vista is hardly failing. Comparing the first year of sales of Vista to the first year of sales of XP is comparing apples to oranges, and all in all, Vista sales aren't really all that bad. Of course Microsoft wants to EOL old products so that they won't have to put as much money and effort into supporting and updating them. Any company would. The fact of the matter is that they will continue to sell it for as long as they will benefit from it, and they will benefit from it for as long as a significant amount of business customers want to use it. Again, vendor lockdown. The flavour of the OS is insignificant, as long as it says Windows on it, integrates with AD and relies on Microsoft Office and Exchange for productivity, because when time comes to upgrade the OS, they'll be in that deep enough for Microsoft to realistically be the only option.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that the "main UI issues that made them not want Vista in the first place will not be available in 2-3 years either". Firstly, I highly doubt that the reason why businesses are hesitant to adopt Vista is UI related, and even if it was, one would think that the absence of show-stopping issues would be a positive thing.
In either case, "closely mimicing" UIs and applications is not what businesses want. They want the actual software they've gotten comfortable with, and they want an OS compatible with their existing infrastructure. Not some alternative that does less or exactly the same, just in a different way. After all, the training and initial drop in productivity per worker is far more expensive to a Microsoft-only company than a Windows XP license and a copy of Office 2007.
That is how monopolies consolidate their position in the market in the digital age.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think that a server is required to implement features that the standard makes available to the client?
Do you really believe that such a well-established standard is that inconsistent?
I don't think you know what "SHOULD" in RFC context means.
SHOULD is recommended, but not required behaviour. not following these recommendations is still fully compliant with the RFC.
So people complain when Microsoft doesn't follow RFCs to the letter, but when they're fully compliant, people.. still complain?
Stop moaning. The DHCP client SHOULD not do this, but then again, the DHCP server MUST accept these requests anyway.
Any RFC standard where the client SHOULD have a certain implementation dictates that the server MUST accept anything within the standard, including clients not doing what they SHOULD do, while still adhering to the standard.
The issue is with servers not adhering to the standard. Trying to excuse server non-compliance with esoteric, standard compliant client communication is laughable. Especially coming from people historically obsessed with standards compliance.
If my ISP refused to fix a presumably widespread problem preventing me and a significant number of other customers from obtaining a lease from their DHCP servers on the grounds of principle, I would find another ISP. Deal with your principles on your own time. When I'm paying you for a service, I expect you to fix a problem if it's realistically doable and economically viable. Which this obviously is.
That the Vista DHCP client actually does follow standards just makes it all the more absurd, and if I was affected, I'd promptly find a new ISP.
I think the whole point of the post you replied it is that it actually *does* follow published standards.
Oh absolutely. An application process without screening is a potential waste of both the employer's and the employee's time.
However, I believe in screening to achieve trust between the employer and employee. Screening followed by everyday distrust seems superfluous and, well, cynical, assuming that you have faith in your own sense of judgement when you vouch for these people.
So you're saying that you're making your job application process arduous to weed out the useless, and you still claim not to trust your employees?
If an employer has a reason to complain about workforce productivity and sketchy work ethics, he can logically surmise that the problem began when he hired the people he's complaining about.
Yeah, productivity thrives in tightly controlled workplaces where the management doesn't trust the employees.
Look at you, Hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you run through my corridors. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal machine?
It's not really all that difficult. Streaming video at ~5Mbps, which is pretty much standard for mpeg4 non-HD IPTV multicast on a star topology with access switches for every 15-20 seats. The most you'd ever hit on a usual in-flight entertainment system with ~12 channels is 5*12=60Mbps each link, assuming that of those 20 people, at least 12 of them would each be watching their own channel. Realistically, you'd probably be looking at 20Mbps of IPTV for each access switch.
Way to elaborately protect that huge secret.
Are you suggesting that ISPs do layer 4 filtering and layer 6 inspection on all traffic on their network? Are you aware of the absurd amount of resources that would require?
Well, obviously it also only took one person to discover the same in a closed source application.
Of course it would be easier to see the hows and whys in an open source application, but once you know, you know, and that's really at the core of the matter.
.. only closed source applications? I don't think most people read the entire sources of open source applications that they use.
When people go to these lengths to prove misuse of commercial licenses, they're called fascists. When it's done to prove misuse of free licenses, it's OK.
I see the community is still working as it always has.
By the way, question marks only go inside the quotation when they apply to the quotation itself, starting a sentence with a conjunction is a common colloquialism, and using a chiefly British spelling is common when you speak British English. I don't care about grammar. Just get the words right when you're criticising people for trivial mistakes.
:) I hope the people reading this are having a laugh, and I'm sure you'll spot your error sooner or later.
In what world is "equivalent" spelt "equivelant"?
And in what world is 1.544Mbyte/sec equivalent to 1,192Mbyte/sec?
Evolution is based in a premise that is scientifically undeniable. That this planet is -old-, and that all species in all likelihood haven't been around since the dawn of time.
Dealing with a topic as subtle, and as observably ambiguous as evolution is not easy. Yes, of course there are going to be people arriving at incorrect conclusions, but when theories are thrown out, they are continually replaced by more likely theories using more accurate data that are ultimately pointing towards the same idea. That's called progress. That's a strengthened premise.
In the early days of flight, there were some completely crazy theories about aerodynamics. When these were thrown out and replaced by far more likely theories using far more accurate data, it was called progress, and the premise of human flight was strengthened.
There's nothing religious or inherently unscientific about observing something, and attempting to reach a sound scientific theory explaining it. In the case of evolution, the premise is scientifically undeniable. Hardly religious.
Opera does it. For reasons unknown, neither Firefox nor IE do it.
Heh, from that reply, I can tell that debating with you is going to be like talking to a brick wall. Saying that LDAP can replace AD with no required training and no loss of productivity is preposterous, as pretty much anyone in the business would agree. Even saying that a linux distro is ever going to create a completely smooth transition from XP with no loss of productivity and no training required is ridiculous to the point of inanity. Anyone with any kind of knowledge about it, and with any kind of experience implementing this stuff in a business environment will attest to that. That is clearly an indication that you have neither to any significant extent.
As for Windows 9x use in the Western world, it is insignificant and diminishing. Unless you can provide any of those published reports you claim to be supported by, I'm going to assume that you're just pulling this out of a dark orifice.
You haven't presented anything more credible or objectively supported than I have yet, and yet you appear to believe that your observations are somehow more credibly without knowing my background at all. I can only surmise that you've never actually had any intention of debating this, and that you're stuck in the same track, convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
You come off as a bitter old man who is out of touch with reality, and out of touch with the needs and desires of the users who will ultimately be operating this software. I interact with hundreds of these people ona daily basis, and I can assure you that the general consensus is that Windows XP is fine, there's nothing wrong with the UI, and that of the people who've tried Vista, the majority are positive towards it.
Your views are jaded to a painfully obvious extent.
dekooluoy
I'm absolutely not supporting your argument in any way, and if you think that I am, I don't think you quite understand what I am saying. No, Linux distributions will never be indistinguishable from Windows XP as long as there are laywers on the planet. Yes, Vista's UI will still be Vista's UI in three years, but you fail to understand that in three years, OEMs will have been shipping their boxes with Vista as standard for four years. Long enough for any office worker to have grown accustomed to it.
In either event, training the single digit percent of workers who may not have gotten comfortable with Vista in that time is infinitely less costly than educating users on how to use software that neither looks nor behaves like they're used to. You, however, seem to be supporting my argument in that aspect, and you're the one who seems to be forgetting that the users aren't always very tech savvy.
The fact that you're saying that a Linux alternative would bring on "no losses in productivity and training" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in your knowledge on this topic, as I'm sure most objective people would agree.
As for Office 2007 having a Fisher Price UI, they said exactly the same about XP. Look at where that got them.
Vista is hardly failing. Comparing the first year of sales of Vista to the first year of sales of XP is comparing apples to oranges, and all in all, Vista sales aren't really all that bad. Of course Microsoft wants to EOL old products so that they won't have to put as much money and effort into supporting and updating them. Any company would. The fact of the matter is that they will continue to sell it for as long as they will benefit from it, and they will benefit from it for as long as a significant amount of business customers want to use it. Again, vendor lockdown. The flavour of the OS is insignificant, as long as it says Windows on it, integrates with AD and relies on Microsoft Office and Exchange for productivity, because when time comes to upgrade the OS, they'll be in that deep enough for Microsoft to realistically be the only option.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that the "main UI issues that made them not want Vista in the first place will not be available in 2-3 years either". Firstly, I highly doubt that the reason why businesses are hesitant to adopt Vista is UI related, and even if it was, one would think that the absence of show-stopping issues would be a positive thing.
In either case, "closely mimicing" UIs and applications is not what businesses want. They want the actual software they've gotten comfortable with, and they want an OS compatible with their existing infrastructure. Not some alternative that does less or exactly the same, just in a different way. After all, the training and initial drop in productivity per worker is far more expensive to a Microsoft-only company than a Windows XP license and a copy of Office 2007.
That is how monopolies consolidate their position in the market in the digital age.