...and repeal all laws passed by the Republican, er, PC party since they came to power, and forbid them from acting in any capacity in Canadian government for the next 20 years as punishment for their gross malfeasance and betrayal of trust.
This will never happen, but one can dream.
Re:Basically, what they just did
on
ISO Approves OOXML
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"All MS-OOXML really is is a forwards-compatible XML serialization of the Microsoft Office 2003 formats."
In other words it's not an open document format due to all the legacy proprietary crap it embodies. Thanks, but we knew that already.
Actually, all MS did was make a joke out of the process of establishing standards. That's okay, the world can take a joke. But it holds grudges.
To say that "Trust in windows update is eroding" is just a bit fud-dish.
I'm comfortable with that. A little balance never hurt, and the larger part of the mindshare MS holds is based on FUD and BS.
What amazes me most is that some people who should know better think that the MS monopoly is excusable just because they use/like windows. The fact is that MS's dominance purveys mediocrity and abuse simply because the controls and incentives that competition creates are absent. How can it be a good thing to accept this? Things would be so much better if technically competent people realized that they have a voice, and that it's in their best interest to use it.
Even if you're an MS fanboi, get vocal and get critical. This could only help wake up MS, encourage them to retreat from their market-centric mindset, and push them to deliver some better quality software.
Even though MS has managed to completely alienate me over the past 20+ years, I'd forgive them in a minute if they formed and acted on an agenda that for once served the users rather than themselves.
In short, IMO there are no "sides" to pro- and anti-MS sentiment except insofar as it's MS against the whole universe of computer users.
I like them both. I generally use xfce4 with debian (and usually prefer testing), and it is somewhat zippier, but ubuntu still stands up well for daily things. I prefer ubuntu's meta-packages because it's less of a pain to get what you want. For example, I've been trying openoffice lately (I'm more a vim/latex guy, but I like to try new things). It's very nice on ubuntu, but for some reason it's hideously ugly on debian. I could spend the time to fix it, and I'd perhaps be better off in the end, but sometimes I just don't care that much.
That being said, I only started to like ubuntu as of feisty. In any case, these things are so subjective that it's hardly worth debating them.
The hills with the bloated green start button was an embarassment.
That's the best argument I've heard so far for handing over the bucks for vista and the new hardware it takes to run it. You can pay a lot more to hire an expert to download and install tasteful and attractive wallpaper. As for living with the shame of an ugly desktop, well, vista is to some minds a marginal improvement over suicide.
Many are seeing this as a security exploit, but it seems to be a workaround to gain usability.
Interesting reversal here, but one can argue that, with Vista, the user is the virus. No surprise that people are fighting back to regain control over their machines.
From the summary it says "with the exception of gaming".
Well, that's kind of like saying, "well except for driving [in snow] the car is very useful".
Well, qemu+win95 on linux allows me to play some of my favorite retro games that won't run on XP. It's all a matter of perspective (and perhaps also a matter of how ancient you are). You might just find that, in time, your old favorites won't be supported by the unpredictable spasms of future windows releases. This doesn't exactly address your point, but I think it's relevant insofar as it indicates that microsoft has no interest in you beyond your usefulness in putting cash in their bank. Stick around and you'll see.
If gaming is your main thing, though, by all means stick to windows. But don't think that this is a showstopper for everyone, or that this situation will persist.
... anyone, novice users included, who embarked on learning the basics of shell scripting, gained familiarity with a handful of standard programs, and learned how to use a text editor would find his or her skills just as relevant and valuable today as they did when DOS was commonplace. And chances are they would learned even more as time went on.
Good point. Much of the basic stuff I learned almost 30 years ago (unix v7 on a pdp-11) is still useful to me now on linux.
The parent to this post is also pertinent: the logical failure of the windows power user is in suggesting that linux is hard because they, experienced computer users, have a hard time grokking it. But really they have a hard time because they can't apply their knowledge of windows, and they're uncomfortable being newbies again.
No matter how exciting change is, most people are afraid of it as well. Some people can deal with the tension of these competing reactions better than others, and for that reason alone, there will always be those for whom "linux is not ready."
The more they attack linux and open source the more [they] make it legitimate in the eyes of the business users. They will never win that war.
I agree because it's largely a war of mindshare. Mindshare is what creates the problems with closed, encumbered, proprietary drivers and data formats, which are significant problems facing linux and other foss alternatives right now. The growing insistence of governments around the world on open formats is a huge step in the right direction, and when linux support becomes more viable in the minds of hardware vendors, (ie, when specs are opened up and linux is more commonly offered preinstalled on new machines) the war against Microsoft will definitely be on.
This is actually good news for Microsoft customers as well, since it will force Microsoft to reinvent itself and provide better value.
Start>Run>msconfig...and stop some of those background boot time processes.
I did this the other day, but my approach was more draconian than most people would like: I killed all net services and net-related software after I realized that I don't use XP on the net anymore, anyway... I just keep it around for some legacy apps.
I don't think there's many 5-year-old XP installs that are faster and more secure than mine, though, and I'd recommend this for others who dual boot and prefer *nix most of the time.
Linux is just an os kernel, which confuses this poor guy
horribly. I'm not sure what myth he's talking about, and
apparently neither is he. Here's my favorite bit:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it
doesn't have to compete on merit.
Well, I've been running this "abstracted concept" for twelve
years, and its merits are plain enough to me. His comments
make more sense if you translate "abstract" as "something of
which he has no knowledge or experience on which to base his
opinion." This makes the entire FA pretty abstract, though...
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat
it like a thing?
Whee! This guy is a postmodern genius.
He goes on to suggest that open source is vulnerable to the
nefarious actions of trickster devs. This suggests he has no
clue what "open" and "source" mean when combined into a simple
term. How long could malicious code survive when it's freely
available for peer review? I guess he thinks that vague,
paranoid mumblings amount to an argument, though he fails to
provide even a bad example of what he's talking about.
I think we can agree that sneaky tricks are better played
behind closed doors, and leave it at that.
Three: Do Communes Work?
COMMIE BASTAGES!!! Heh. Yes, the GPL3 might, like, impinge
on one's God-given right to steal the work of others and use
it to rape the public with proprietary lock-ins. To
arms!
There is one word for people that let any group or company
unilaterally write a contract they have to live
under
WindowsUser? Gahhhhh! (Sorry, the irony here was so dense I couldn't
breathe for a second.)
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or
Pro-You?
I guess if you use Linux, you'll lose your job. Unless you
work for Google. Or something like that. For sure, though,
you'll suffer. Somehow. Maybe.
When I first started writing about Linux, I heard from
over a thousand people that they disagreed, some rather
violently, with what they thought I had written.
I don't think even the guy himself has a clue what he's
written. It clearly never occurred to him that maybe the
angry mob is right, and he's a braying dolt. Can anyone
confirm that he's "one of the most recognized commentators on
tech"... ?
Employees often are valued based on the cost of what they
work with. The higher the cost, the easier it is to justify an
employee's salary.
Is this true? I thought an employee was valued based on the
value they brought to the company. Maybe I'm not up on the
latest big biz concepts, though...
Is Linux is "Open"? [sic]
How can anything be "Open" if honest discussion isn't
allowed?
This guy is painfully unequipped to survive an honest
discussion, but like most of the points he's tried to address,
he just doesn't get it. He's upset because people who are
familiar with his chosen topic think he's an idiot. Cue
martyr complex.
In sum: a fine example of empty rhetoric seasoned with an
unassailable sense of self-importance. Entertaining in a
train wreck kind of way.
Slashdot Mirror
...and repeal all laws passed by the Republican, er, PC party since they came to power, and forbid them from acting in any capacity in Canadian government for the next 20 years as punishment for their gross malfeasance and betrayal of trust.
This will never happen, but one can dream.
"All MS-OOXML really is is a forwards-compatible XML serialization of the Microsoft Office 2003 formats."
In other words it's not an open document format due to all the legacy proprietary crap it embodies. Thanks, but we knew that already.
Actually, all MS did was make a joke out of the process of establishing standards. That's okay, the world can take a joke. But it holds grudges.
To say that "Trust in windows update is eroding" is just a bit fud-dish.
I'm comfortable with that. A little balance never hurt, and the larger part of the mindshare MS holds is based on FUD and BS.
What amazes me most is that some people who should know better think that the MS monopoly is excusable just because they use/like windows. The fact is that MS's dominance purveys mediocrity and abuse simply because the controls and incentives that competition creates are absent. How can it be a good thing to accept this? Things would be so much better if technically competent people realized that they have a voice, and that it's in their best interest to use it.
Even if you're an MS fanboi, get vocal and get critical. This could only help wake up MS, encourage them to retreat from their market-centric mindset, and push them to deliver some better quality software.
Even though MS has managed to completely alienate me over the past 20+ years, I'd forgive them in a minute if they formed and acted on an agenda that for once served the users rather than themselves.
In short, IMO there are no "sides" to pro- and anti-MS sentiment except insofar as it's MS against the whole universe of computer users.
etch is miles ahead of ubuntu
I like them both. I generally use xfce4 with debian (and usually prefer testing), and it is somewhat zippier, but ubuntu still stands up well for daily things. I prefer ubuntu's meta-packages because it's less of a pain to get what you want. For example, I've been trying openoffice lately (I'm more a vim/latex guy, but I like to try new things). It's very nice on ubuntu, but for some reason it's hideously ugly on debian. I could spend the time to fix it, and I'd perhaps be better off in the end, but sometimes I just don't care that much.
That being said, I only started to like ubuntu as of feisty. In any case, these things are so subjective that it's hardly worth debating them.
The hills with the bloated green start button was an embarassment.
That's the best argument I've heard so far for handing over the bucks for vista and the new hardware it takes to run it. You can pay a lot more to hire an expert to download and install tasteful and attractive wallpaper. As for living with the shame of an ugly desktop, well, vista is to some minds a marginal improvement over suicide.
They nearly won, and it isn't over yet - there is another vote coming up in Februrary.
There's no way they can win. OOXML is a joke, as everyone knows, and it's naive to think that MS could pull this off without huge repercussions.
Many are seeing this as a security exploit, but it seems to be a workaround to gain usability.
Interesting reversal here, but one can argue that, with Vista, the user is the virus. No surprise that people are fighting back to regain control over their machines.
From the summary it says "with the exception of gaming".
Well, that's kind of like saying, "well except for driving [in snow] the car is very useful".
Well, qemu+win95 on linux allows me to play some of my favorite retro games that won't run on XP. It's all a matter of perspective (and perhaps also a matter of how ancient you are). You might just find that, in time, your old favorites won't be supported by the unpredictable spasms of future windows releases. This doesn't exactly address your point, but I think it's relevant insofar as it indicates that microsoft has no interest in you beyond your usefulness in putting cash in their bank. Stick around and you'll see.
If gaming is your main thing, though, by all means stick to windows. But don't think that this is a showstopper for everyone, or that this situation will persist.
Good point. Much of the basic stuff I learned almost 30 years ago (unix v7 on a pdp-11) is still useful to me now on linux.
The parent to this post is also pertinent: the logical failure of the windows power user is in suggesting that linux is hard because they, experienced computer users, have a hard time grokking it. But really they have a hard time because they can't apply their knowledge of windows, and they're uncomfortable being newbies again.
No matter how exciting change is, most people are afraid of it as well. Some people can deal with the tension of these competing reactions better than others, and for that reason alone, there will always be those for whom "linux is not ready."
The more they attack linux and open source the more [they] make it legitimate in the eyes of the business users. They will never win that war.
I agree because it's largely a war of mindshare. Mindshare is what creates the problems with closed, encumbered, proprietary drivers and data formats, which are significant problems facing linux and other foss alternatives right now. The growing insistence of governments around the world on open formats is a huge step in the right direction, and when linux support becomes more viable in the minds of hardware vendors, (ie, when specs are opened up and linux is more commonly offered preinstalled on new machines) the war against Microsoft will definitely be on.
This is actually good news for Microsoft customers as well, since it will force Microsoft to reinvent itself and provide better value.
Start>Run>msconfig ...and stop some of those background boot time processes.
... I just keep it around for some legacy apps.
I did this the other day, but my approach was more draconian than most people would like: I killed all net services and net-related software after I realized that I don't use XP on the net anymore, anyway
I don't think there's many 5-year-old XP installs that are faster and more secure than mine, though, and I'd recommend this for others who dual boot and prefer *nix most of the time.
This is likely just a fast track off a short pier.
One: Is Linux a Myth?
...
... ?
...
Linux is just an os kernel, which confuses this poor guy horribly. I'm not sure what myth he's talking about, and apparently neither is he. Here's my favorite bit:
The reason Linux has been abstracted into a concept is so it doesn't have to compete on merit.
Well, I've been running this "abstracted concept" for twelve years, and its merits are plain enough to me. His comments make more sense if you translate "abstract" as "something of which he has no knowledge or experience on which to base his opinion." This makes the entire FA pretty abstract, though
Two: Is Linux Secure?
I already said there is no "Linux," so how can I now treat it like a thing?
Whee! This guy is a postmodern genius.
He goes on to suggest that open source is vulnerable to the nefarious actions of trickster devs. This suggests he has no clue what "open" and "source" mean when combined into a simple term. How long could malicious code survive when it's freely available for peer review? I guess he thinks that vague, paranoid mumblings amount to an argument, though he fails to provide even a bad example of what he's talking about.
I think we can agree that sneaky tricks are better played behind closed doors, and leave it at that.
Three: Do Communes Work?
COMMIE BASTAGES!!! Heh. Yes, the GPL3 might, like, impinge on one's God-given right to steal the work of others and use it to rape the public with proprietary lock-ins. To arms!
There is one word for people that let any group or company unilaterally write a contract they have to live under
WindowsUser? Gahhhhh! (Sorry, the irony here was so dense I couldn't breathe for a second.)
Four: Is Linux Pro-Developer, or Pro-You?
I guess if you use Linux, you'll lose your job. Unless you work for Google. Or something like that. For sure, though, you'll suffer. Somehow. Maybe.
When I first started writing about Linux, I heard from over a thousand people that they disagreed, some rather violently, with what they thought I had written.
I don't think even the guy himself has a clue what he's written. It clearly never occurred to him that maybe the angry mob is right, and he's a braying dolt. Can anyone confirm that he's "one of the most recognized commentators on tech"
Employees often are valued based on the cost of what they work with. The higher the cost, the easier it is to justify an employee's salary.
Is this true? I thought an employee was valued based on the value they brought to the company. Maybe I'm not up on the latest big biz concepts, though
Is Linux is "Open"? [sic]
How can anything be "Open" if honest discussion isn't allowed?
This guy is painfully unequipped to survive an honest discussion, but like most of the points he's tried to address, he just doesn't get it. He's upset because people who are familiar with his chosen topic think he's an idiot. Cue martyr complex.
In sum: a fine example of empty rhetoric seasoned with an unassailable sense of self-importance. Entertaining in a train wreck kind of way.
Keep in mind that this exact same functionality is _free_ under Windows.
It's free if you didn't pay for your copy of windows, I suppose.
Otherwise the price of the codecs could well represent your entire cash outlay for a linux distro.