Well, not to rain on your parade, but Microsoft's not exactly known for doing the Right Thing(TM) for the end user... in general they're much more interested in doing whatever will most benefit their pocketbooks and share prices. The day Microsoft does what's best for the end user is the day I fly south for the winter (and I do NOT mean in an airplane!).
Well, I doubt the LICQ guys are making money from their development (at least, probably not directly). From what I understand, M$'s messaging client has advertisements in it - so they're directly making money from advertisers by providing a messaging client and "borrowing" AOL's protocol.
I'm not advocating AOL's action. However, I can certainly see why they did it.
Well, that sounds about like standard M$ embrace/extend procedure. That sounds like just what they'd do... that's what they did with IE after all. (Of course, I think what they did with IE was even lousier... but that's another rant, I guess.)
Guess this makes me a pundit too, huh? It's contagious!;)
Funny that they were worried about a standard so long ago, considering the fact that they really haven't done any serious work on making a client of "instant messaging". For a long time, it was just AOL's AIM, Mirabilis' ICQ, and more recently, Yahoo's instant messaging client. And then they start cloning AOL's protocol, then complain when AOL changes their protocol?
I'm not saying AOL randomly changing their protocols is a good thing... but considering how many times Microsoft has done the same with their own products, they should either put up or shut up.
If you were from a foreign domain that was obviously from a non-English-speaking country, I'd buy this excuse. I don't think that 'wvsc.edu' falls under that particular area, however.
Ethics is a major class in most colleges that I know of. I just find it quite amazing that someone who is (obviously) going to college wouldn't know that.
I'm not a "newbee" (newbie), but thanks for playing anyway.
I'm not that anally retentive. Or maybe I am. I've never bothered to check.:p
And I'm glad you love me so much as to reply to me. If I'm just a "newbee flamer" who isn't worth your time... I'm just so glad you care so much!;)
Well, just so you all know, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic that follows some democratic tenets. People seem to confuse the two quite frequently.
You've hit the nail squarely upon the head, my friend.
I said the same thing in a comment to another article regarding this same topic. The guy was basically stupid to do something like that - he had just barely enough experience for night flights (you are apparently required to log 40 hours minimum, he'd logged about 44), and the conditions were (as you said) very bad for flying anyway. It was a final, foolhardy act on his part.
No death is a funny matter, even if it's someone you don't particularly like. But I think the original point stands - if I was flying a plane out over the ocean, and did a nose-dive into the deep blue, I don't think anyone would be out looking that hard for me. Basically, some people are making more of this than there really was - the guy did something really dumb (flying late at night without enough experience in bad conditions). The consequences of that kind of thing frequently involves the person who screwed up not living to laugh about it. I fail to feel too heartbroken - he screwed up, and the consequences got him. Let's move on.
I know this isn't really the time, but it's as relevant as you get... With M$'s Direct3D API morphing slowly into something very OpenGL-ish (from what I understand, with every release of DirectX the D3D API looks more like OpenGL) there may be no NEED for Fahrenheit to even happen. Besides, I've heard no recent mutterings about it anywhere. In my (admittedly non-insider, totally unscientific, yadda yadda) opinion, I think Fahrenheit's just plain dead.
Re:XFree86 needs the GPL!
on
XFree86 News
·
· Score: 1
Well, of course, XFree86 isn't even under the BSD license. It's still under the X Consortium license, has been for a long time, and hopefully will stay that way, contrary to some past attempts by the (not-so-)Open Group.
*hiding his face in shame* Ooops... I guess enabling the pre-alpha LVM support was a bad idea... 2.2.10-ac11 works fine now...:)
Re:Making a 'kids movie' is a lost art
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
Umm. The Simpsons? I think the Simpsons are great, but I certainly don't think it's aimed at kids. I believe Matt Groening himself has said that it's not aimed at kids. Kids may ENJOY it, but that doesn't mean it's made for them.
Well, with most of the know-nothing public, it'll take a while for that to become an issue. We, the geeks, aren't their core revenue source (we're not as big a group) so if we figure it out, oh well, so they lose part of their potential audience. For all the rest though, it'd take long enough to sink in where all that hype would work on them for a nice, long while.
"Broken" fonts? You mean like PostScript and TrueType fonts? There are utilities available for making fonts.scale files for TrueType and PostScript fonts. 'ttmkfdir' for the TrueType side, and something else I can't remember for the PostScript side. (Search Freshmeat.)
You're using RC1, which __JUST__ shipped, and you're already giving your final opinion on it? Sounds like your company should heavily downplay your opinion on these things.
Well, it is a RELEASE CANDIDATE. That means Microsoft thinks that this code is probably about ready to SHIP. If this thing's supposed to be ready to go out the door, and it has nearly zero hardware support, I'd certainly have a hard time wanting to use it. (Not that I'd want to use NT/W2k anyway.)
Rest assured that in a couple of months when Windows 2000 ships there will be robust, high performance drivers for the top 99% or so of hardware.
Robust. High-performance. Gee, that sounds like *gasp* market-speak! Give it a rest, guy. We all know how robust the current generation of Windows drivers (not to mention the OS itself) is. (In other words, not at all.) And high-performance? Well, sure, in benchmarks. That's all that matters, right? RIGHT?
In any case I do find your assertion that it doesn't support much of "anything" interesting. Already I am fairly certain the hardware support of Windows 2000 dwarfs Linux or any other operating system.
You're on Slashdot, and you sound like you haven't used Linux. Hmm. M$ employee? Maybe. However, Linux's hardware support keeps growing. (Gee, I just built a kernel today that supports everything on a Compaq Proliant - we have a new one to play with at work. The hardware support must not be too poor.) Until you've actually used Linux, don't try to make that straight-across comparison - you don't have the right perspective.
Isn't it a supposed super great thing about Linux that bugs get fixed instantly and perpetually? If that's the case then what's the problem with MS expediting bug fixes?
It's not a problem that they're EXPEDITING bug fixes. The problem is that they're planning for a rollout of bug fixes AFTER people will supposedly have bought many copies of their software. They must not care about their company's reputation much anymore, if they're willing to outright admit that they have bugs "but we're going to fix them... AFTER the product ships." Personally, I'd want to take the time to fix major bugs (and as many minor ones as is possible) BEFORE ship time.
I'll try to run the stack dump through ksymoops and see what it has to say. (I've been playing with getting Linux up on a new Proliant 3000 at work, so I'll mess with that tomorrow.)
I'm guessing you're Alan, and you just forgot to log in...
Has anyone else noticed that the 2.2.10-ac series kernels don't seem to like being built as SMP? I've tried 2.2.10-ac3, ac10 and ac11 on 2 different SMP systems (built as SMP) and it dies quickly (doesn't even finish the kernel-boot phase) with a NULL pointer dereference. Anyone else seen this?
Well, every atom in the known universe is nuclear in nature. Each one has a nucleus with electrons in perpetual orbit around it. Maybe for the clueless masses it strikes fear, but for me, it's just like, gee, ya don't say?
Well, there goes "cogito, ergo sum", I guess. If I don't exist, I guess that would explain a lot of things... and at least make the fucked-up-edness of this world a little easier to believe.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not to rain on your parade, but Microsoft's not exactly known for doing the Right Thing(TM) for the end user... in general they're much more interested in doing whatever will most benefit their pocketbooks and share prices. The day Microsoft does what's best for the end user is the day I fly south for the winter (and I do NOT mean in an airplane!).
Well, I doubt the LICQ guys are making money from their development (at least, probably not directly). From what I understand, M$'s messaging client has advertisements in it - so they're directly making money from advertisers by providing a messaging client and "borrowing" AOL's protocol.
I'm not advocating AOL's action. However, I can certainly see why they did it.
Well, that sounds about like standard M$ embrace/extend procedure. That sounds like just what they'd do... that's what they did with IE after all. (Of course, I think what they did with IE was even lousier... but that's another rant, I guess.)
;)
Guess this makes me a pundit too, huh? It's contagious!
Funny that they were worried about a standard so long ago, considering the fact that they really haven't done any serious work on making a client of "instant messaging". For a long time, it was just AOL's AIM, Mirabilis' ICQ, and more recently, Yahoo's instant messaging client. And then they start cloning AOL's protocol, then complain when AOL changes their protocol?
I'm not saying AOL randomly changing their protocols is a good thing... but considering how many times Microsoft has done the same with their own products, they should either put up or shut up.
If you were from a foreign domain that was obviously from a non-English-speaking country, I'd buy this excuse. I don't think that 'wvsc.edu' falls under that particular area, however.
:p
;)
Ethics is a major class in most colleges that I know of. I just find it quite amazing that someone who is (obviously) going to college wouldn't know that.
I'm not a "newbee" (newbie), but thanks for playing anyway.
I'm not that anally retentive. Or maybe I am. I've never bothered to check.
And I'm glad you love me so much as to reply to me. If I'm just a "newbee flamer" who isn't worth your time... I'm just so glad you care so much!
I wonder if running 'netstat -a | more' under Windows would show the opened/listen port.
Well, just so you all know, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic that follows some democratic tenets. People seem to confuse the two quite frequently.
You can't TELL me you don't know how to spell 'ethics'. If you are a college graduate... good grief, I fear the implications.
You've hit the nail squarely upon the head, my friend.
I said the same thing in a comment to another article regarding this same topic. The guy was basically stupid to do something like that - he had just barely enough experience for night flights (you are apparently required to log 40 hours minimum, he'd logged about 44), and the conditions were (as you said) very bad for flying anyway. It was a final, foolhardy act on his part.
No death is a funny matter, even if it's someone you don't particularly like. But I think the original point stands - if I was flying a plane out over the ocean, and did a nose-dive into the deep blue, I don't think anyone would be out looking that hard for me. Basically, some people are making more of this than there really was - the guy did something really dumb (flying late at night without enough experience in bad conditions). The consequences of that kind of thing frequently involves the person who screwed up not living to laugh about it. I fail to feel too heartbroken - he screwed up, and the consequences got him. Let's move on.
I know this isn't really the time, but it's as relevant as you get... With M$'s Direct3D API morphing slowly into something very OpenGL-ish (from what I understand, with every release of DirectX the D3D API looks more like OpenGL) there may be no NEED for Fahrenheit to even happen. Besides, I've heard no recent mutterings about it anywhere. In my (admittedly non-insider, totally unscientific, yadda yadda) opinion, I think Fahrenheit's just plain dead.
Well, of course, XFree86 isn't even under the BSD license. It's still under the X Consortium license, has been for a long time, and hopefully will stay that way, contrary to some past attempts by the (not-so-)Open Group.
Well, yes, XFree86 keeps all the .cf's for all the commercial UNIXen provided in the X Consortium's source distribution.
Ummm. I built it easily on a Debian potato box today. Just 'make World'. Or didn't you read the READMEs?
*hiding his face in shame* Ooops... I guess enabling the pre-alpha LVM support was a bad idea... 2.2.10-ac11 works fine now... :)
Umm. The Simpsons? I think the Simpsons are great, but I certainly don't think it's aimed at kids. I believe Matt Groening himself has said that it's not aimed at kids. Kids may ENJOY it, but that doesn't mean it's made for them.
Well, with most of the know-nothing public, it'll take a while for that to become an issue. We, the geeks, aren't their core revenue source (we're not as big a group) so if we figure it out, oh well, so they lose part of their potential audience. For all the rest though, it'd take long enough to sink in where all that hype would work on them for a nice, long while.
Well, they DID say the hardware support for the XF4 prerelease would be highly limited...
"Broken" fonts? You mean like PostScript and TrueType fonts? There are utilities available for making fonts.scale files for TrueType and PostScript fonts. 'ttmkfdir' for the TrueType side, and something else I can't remember for the PostScript side. (Search Freshmeat.)
You're using RC1, which __JUST__ shipped, and you're already giving your final opinion on it? Sounds like your company should heavily downplay your opinion on these things.
Well, it is a RELEASE CANDIDATE. That means Microsoft thinks that this code is probably about ready to SHIP. If this thing's supposed to be ready to go out the door, and it has nearly zero hardware support, I'd certainly have a hard time wanting to use it. (Not that I'd want to use NT/W2k anyway.)
Rest assured that in a couple of months when Windows 2000 ships there will be robust, high performance drivers for the top 99% or so of hardware.
Robust. High-performance. Gee, that sounds like *gasp* market-speak! Give it a rest, guy. We all know how robust the current generation of Windows drivers (not to mention the OS itself) is. (In other words, not at all.) And high-performance? Well, sure, in benchmarks. That's all that matters, right? RIGHT?
In any case I do find your assertion that it doesn't support much of "anything" interesting. Already I am fairly certain the hardware support of Windows 2000 dwarfs Linux or any other operating system.
You're on Slashdot, and you sound like you haven't used Linux. Hmm. M$ employee? Maybe. However, Linux's hardware support keeps growing. (Gee, I just built a kernel today that supports everything on a Compaq Proliant - we have a new one to play with at work. The hardware support must not be too poor.) Until you've actually used Linux, don't try to make that straight-across comparison - you don't have the right perspective.
Isn't it a supposed super great thing about Linux that bugs get fixed instantly and perpetually? If that's the case then what's the problem with MS expediting bug fixes?
It's not a problem that they're EXPEDITING bug fixes. The problem is that they're planning for a rollout of bug fixes AFTER people will supposedly have bought many copies of their software. They must not care about their company's reputation much anymore, if they're willing to outright admit that they have bugs "but we're going to fix them... AFTER the product ships." Personally, I'd want to take the time to fix major bugs (and as many minor ones as is possible) BEFORE ship time.
But then, I do care about my reputation.
I'll try to run the stack dump through ksymoops and see what it has to say. (I've been playing with getting Linux up on a new Proliant 3000 at work, so I'll mess with that tomorrow.)
I'm guessing you're Alan, and you just forgot to log in...
Has anyone else noticed that the 2.2.10-ac series kernels don't seem to like being built as SMP? I've tried 2.2.10-ac3, ac10 and ac11 on 2 different SMP systems (built as SMP) and it dies quickly (doesn't even finish the kernel-boot phase) with a NULL pointer dereference. Anyone else seen this?
Well, every atom in the known universe is nuclear in nature. Each one has a nucleus with electrons in perpetual orbit around it. Maybe for the clueless masses it strikes fear, but for me, it's just like, gee, ya don't say?
There is a nonzero chance that YOU do not exist.
:)
Well, there goes "cogito, ergo sum", I guess. If I don't exist, I guess that would explain a lot of things... and at least make the fucked-up-edness of this world a little easier to believe.