Because keeping me from running a mail server has not done a damn thing to the spammers.
I'll believe in an anti-spam tech when it comes in the Debian repository and I can once again run a mail server. Until then, I'm afraid the spammers will be the first to sign up for any counter measure.
Did you just kinda miss that part [recommending buy the new office... and the whole upgrade train wreck] or are you in FUD mode right now?
No, I did not miss the part where he thinks the new Office is better than the old Office, I just wanted to know how low the man's standards are. After cursing the changes for weeks, he thinks it's better. It's not really better, he just got used to it and put his blinders back on. That, just like you, is a fanboy in action.
Normal people want a tool that works and free software has it for them. M$'s new line up does not. M$ knows it because they do not have blinders on.
In my own tests, I was cursing the program for weeks because I couldnt find familiar functions and commands, even though Microsoft provides lots of help and guidance.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to spend those weeks learning something like Open Office on GNU/Linux? After spending six years on XP, anyone in a hurry to get better software is going to find it in the free world before they fork over the cash for a Vista Heavy Metal Super Computer.
Vista is not selling as well as XP did and may go the way of the Zune. M$ has stuffed it's channels and is doing all the usual PR blitz but they can't change reality. When you say:
It [Vista] works perfectly.
you are flying in the face of reviews and personal experience. Despite the low expectations most M$ users have, I have yet to meet anyone who says that Vista just works. Most have stories like this.
Impossible and contradictory tasks, answers depend on who you ask, infighting, these are the hallmarks of a company in trouble. Vista took too long to develop, does not work and is not selling. Office is being escaped by real standards based productivity apps which can no longer be fought off. Those are their flagships and their money makers. GPL 3 prevents them form stealing free software, so they will soon have to compete honestly. Not only won't they be able to grow as promissed, their revenues will collapse.
This is good because M$ is an enemy of free software and has made trouble for everyone else far too long.
I think for Linux installs they don't get revenue from Symantec's trial of the worst security suite in the world, WildTangent, Office trials, Quicken trials, video game trials, some poker, etc.
So, you don't think Earthlink and friends want to advertise on free software desktops? People with real services will pay that expense, so free software should not cost more than Windoze. If it does, Dell is dropping the ball and missing a chance to make money.
If Dell can make a machine for less than I can, I might consider it even if the Windoze version is cheaper. If not, I'm going to build the machine myself for less with hardware known to work with free drivers. If the Dell machine is cheaper, and I know it works with free drivers, I will buy the Dell. The service they can provide is assurance. If they don't provide that, they don't have anything.
Could someone please explain to the uninformed why does teaching about what happened in the 20th century bother some religious people, in this case holocaust and muslims?
People who think Palestine got the shaft by the British Empire and then the US don't like the story the US and UK tell about it. The Holocaust, to them, is used as a justification for Israel. They don't share the Judeo-Christian belief that Israel was given to the Jews by God, they see it as a crusade compounded by nineteenth century bigotry and twenty first century technology. They are outraged that current suffering would be ignored, to make room for a lesson about "never again."
I'd hazard a bet that the majority of the leaks, especially the ones the article talks about, are fifty-cent web applications running on a LAMP stack on an ultracheap web host somewhere.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that LAMP, though free and cheap is obviously better than IIS. The same thing can be applied to retail software. In the free software world, you are never alone. Instead of slapping together a second rate web app yourself, you can install a good one that does not have this five year old problem. Nasty problems that never get corrected are a mostly a non free software problem.
Secretary? M$ has always been a whore, dishonest, drugged and only interested in your money.
Wife finds out.
Wife finds out and crafts GPL 3, which transfers all the benefits of husband's infidelity without any drawbacks. She get's all the O time from every M$ whore without contracting the VD M$ is famous for. M$ has become her bitch, little more than a disposable sex toy. There are as many coppies as she likes and no one but Pimp Daddy Bill Gates has lost.
The great thing about the Linux market is there's plenty of choice. Why choose Novell now?
Because you can. GPL 3.0 has taken the worst thorns out of the Novel M$ pact. A portion of the money might go to M$, but that's much less that an all M$ "solution" would bring and that's the market Suse is supposed to serve. If you work for a big dumb company, Novel might be right for you. If you de-M$ed yourself five years ago, you don't need them.
GPL 3.0 has left Novell no choice but to behave. Sooner or later, even M$ will be forced to co-operate and join the free software party.
No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else.
So, is that why there's already a nominal fee radio stations must pay composers? It seems this right of yours has already been circumvented and is about to be circumvented yet again. It's difficult to understand because it makes no sense.
That link is total FUD. Any artist (or copyright owner) can still enter into direct contract with any broadcaster, with a royalty fee of zero (if they like) and then SoundExchange cannot, and will not, collect royalty fees for that music.
That's not the letter of the law and it's not how it's working. If you have a link to contradict the artist I've linked to, I'd like to see it.
Good luck finding such a thing, because it would destroy SoundExchange. There are many artists already signed up with Creative Commons and they will undercut SoundExchange unless the practice is forbidden. SoundExchange is designed to eliminate free internet radio and the Creative Commons. They claim to represent artists, but artists are clamoring to get away.
No free alternatives are allowed. It is obvious that people would flock away from these fees if they could, so they won't be given the chance. This will be enforced the same way the current ban on terrestrial broadcast is enforced. Because internet broadcasts are not carried over a limited publicly owned spectrum, there is no technical justification for this system, it's purely anti-competitive - designed to perpetuate the RIAA member companies into the future when they would naturally die off.
Sound Exchange will also forbid free and lower cost competition, regardless of artist and publisher intention. They will collect their little fees from everyone, in violation of Creative Commons terms. Those who want their royalties will have to join them, which makes it look like they have the artist's endorsement. Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees. In other words, the RIAA monopoly on music distribution will be extended into the future against the will of artists and the public. There is no technical justification for this, it's pure corruption.
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open.
If the purpose was to create Open/Free conflict, they have failed miserably. The M$/Novel deal and M$ saber rattling about patents has done a great job of justifying every sentiment in the first drafts. Community input has clarified the wording and that helps too. The author might have gotten a better reception if he had managed to finish this FUD attack a few weeks ago. As things stand, they have a far more unified free software community. The backfire from all of this is an order of magnitude worse than the SCO case.
M$'s intentions have been laid bare and all of their talk about "building bridges" and "interoperability" and so on and so forth is empty and meaningless. They want to charge money for other people's work and would claim ownership through bogus patents. Is there anyone outside of Fortune who will listen to them now?
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
No, but I do expect public companies to tell the truth. M$ is a disgrace.
What's worse is that someone at Harvard would agree to publish such bullshit. Harvard Business School just lost a large chunk of their reputation, if the summary is not itself a lie. No, looking at the paper this guy from Keystone Strategy Inc really has sold his and Harvard's reputation.
Is to stop enabling scripting by default in software that has no real need of scripting. Hasn't even Microsoft learnt this by now?
OO's default is to not run macros. The user get's a warning and has to say "yes" to the thing. This is the best that can be done and still be "compatible" with M$ Office.
A much better solution is to simply use free software, where all of the functionality is provided by best of class applications rather than back of the envelope macro functions. There are programs to do just about everything now.
If you need to make scripts, Gnumeric is a good example. It can use perl scripts but they are not something that goes with the sheet itself. Debian and other distributions provide the best of them for histograms and other analysis. Users can write and distribute more, if they must, but it's not something that is going to spring out of email and eat your system. Neither will the OO scripts, but default.
Yes, GPL3 will keep them from doing what the did with Novell and the whole cross licensing juggling show they put on to make money off it, and subsequently lock Novell into playing along with them.
That is a very good thing, M$ can't act like they own all free software. It was never a legitimate option because software patents are never legitimate. If you care at all about author intent, you will be happy M$ has been stopped.
[this is] not conducive to the acceptance of more OSS integrated with non-OSS.
If anything, this highlights the inferiority of non free software and should encourage migration. There was never a good reason to "integrate" non free software besides the false convenience of vendor lock-in. These days there's not even a technical reason because free software is almost always better than non and there's software in every category. If M$ actually had something, they would not feel the need to "steal" free software. Vista is the best they can do in five years, so it really is over.
M$ is going to do down like SCO did, in a blaze of bullshit and failing sales. The louder they scream, the closer the end is. They will not be missed.
Slashdot Mirror
You think the article is useful when it says Office is not good, but you think he's delusional or lying when he says it's good.
Yes, I think people who curse something for weeks and then say they love it are delusioned and mind fucked.
Let me ask you this: Do you think people who read your posts are retarded?
Yes, dadazo, I think you are retarded.
Because keeping me from running a mail server has not done a damn thing to the spammers.
I'll believe in an anti-spam tech when it comes in the Debian repository and I can once again run a mail server. Until then, I'm afraid the spammers will be the first to sign up for any counter measure.
Did you just kinda miss that part [recommending buy the new office ... and the whole upgrade train wreck] or are you in FUD mode right now?
No, I did not miss the part where he thinks the new Office is better than the old Office, I just wanted to know how low the man's standards are. After cursing the changes for weeks, he thinks it's better. It's not really better, he just got used to it and put his blinders back on. That, just like you, is a fanboy in action.
Normal people want a tool that works and free software has it for them. M$'s new line up does not. M$ knows it because they do not have blinders on.
Office 2007 is actually crushing everything else. It is making people excited about an office suite again (which is pretty amazing, actually).
Yes, cursing is an expression of excitement. Witness Fanboy Mossberg's reaction and judge for yourself:
In my own tests, I was cursing the program for weeks because I couldnt find familiar functions and commands, even though Microsoft provides lots of help and guidance.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to spend those weeks learning something like Open Office on GNU/Linux? After spending six years on XP, anyone in a hurry to get better software is going to find it in the free world before they fork over the cash for a Vista Heavy Metal Super Computer.
Vista is not selling as well as XP did and may go the way of the Zune. M$ has stuffed it's channels and is doing all the usual PR blitz but they can't change reality. When you say:
It [Vista] works perfectly.
you are flying in the face of reviews and personal experience. Despite the low expectations most M$ users have, I have yet to meet anyone who says that Vista just works. Most have stories like this.
Impossible and contradictory tasks, answers depend on who you ask, infighting, these are the hallmarks of a company in trouble. Vista took too long to develop, does not work and is not selling. Office is being escaped by real standards based productivity apps which can no longer be fought off. Those are their flagships and their money makers. GPL 3 prevents them form stealing free software, so they will soon have to compete honestly. Not only won't they be able to grow as promissed, their revenues will collapse.
This is good because M$ is an enemy of free software and has made trouble for everyone else far too long.
not to flame about gimp - but it's no photoshop. It's great and all, but (at the moment) it's not even close.
Gimp is more than adequate for home users and the vast majority of office use. The rest of the market is so tiny, Dell might not notice it.
I think for Linux installs they don't get revenue from Symantec's trial of the worst security suite in the world, WildTangent, Office trials, Quicken trials, video game trials, some poker, etc.
So, you don't think Earthlink and friends want to advertise on free software desktops? People with real services will pay that expense, so free software should not cost more than Windoze. If it does, Dell is dropping the ball and missing a chance to make money.
If Dell can make a machine for less than I can, I might consider it even if the Windoze version is cheaper. If not, I'm going to build the machine myself for less with hardware known to work with free drivers. If the Dell machine is cheaper, and I know it works with free drivers, I will buy the Dell. The service they can provide is assurance. If they don't provide that, they don't have anything.
Could someone please explain to the uninformed why does teaching about what happened in the 20th century bother some religious people, in this case holocaust and muslims?
People who think Palestine got the shaft by the British Empire and then the US don't like the story the US and UK tell about it. The Holocaust, to them, is used as a justification for Israel. They don't share the Judeo-Christian belief that Israel was given to the Jews by God, they see it as a crusade compounded by nineteenth century bigotry and twenty first century technology. They are outraged that current suffering would be ignored, to make room for a lesson about "never again."
I'd hazard a bet that the majority of the leaks, especially the ones the article talks about, are fifty-cent web applications running on a LAMP stack on an ultracheap web host somewhere.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that LAMP, though free and cheap is obviously better than IIS. The same thing can be applied to retail software. In the free software world, you are never alone. Instead of slapping together a second rate web app yourself, you can install a good one that does not have this five year old problem. Nasty problems that never get corrected are a mostly a non free software problem.
Husband sleeps with his secretary.
Secretary? M$ has always been a whore, dishonest, drugged and only interested in your money.
Wife finds out.
Wife finds out and crafts GPL 3, which transfers all the benefits of husband's infidelity without any drawbacks. She get's all the O time from every M$ whore without contracting the VD M$ is famous for. M$ has become her bitch, little more than a disposable sex toy. There are as many coppies as she likes and no one but Pimp Daddy Bill Gates has lost.
The great thing about the Linux market is there's plenty of choice. Why choose Novell now?
Because you can. GPL 3.0 has taken the worst thorns out of the Novel M$ pact. A portion of the money might go to M$, but that's much less that an all M$ "solution" would bring and that's the market Suse is supposed to serve. If you work for a big dumb company, Novel might be right for you. If you de-M$ed yourself five years ago, you don't need them.
GPL 3.0 has left Novell no choice but to behave. Sooner or later, even M$ will be forced to co-operate and join the free software party.
No one can forbid direct licensing deals--the right to engage in these kinds of agreements cannot be circumvented by Congress or anyone else.
So, is that why there's already a nominal fee radio stations must pay composers? It seems this right of yours has already been circumvented and is about to be circumvented yet again. It's difficult to understand because it makes no sense.
I would like you to take a look at the very first comment to your journal.
I did, it's wrong.
That link is total FUD. Any artist (or copyright owner) can still enter into direct contract with any broadcaster, with a royalty fee of zero (if they like) and then SoundExchange cannot, and will not, collect royalty fees for that music.
That's not the letter of the law and it's not how it's working. If you have a link to contradict the artist I've linked to, I'd like to see it.
Good luck finding such a thing, because it would destroy SoundExchange. There are many artists already signed up with Creative Commons and they will undercut SoundExchange unless the practice is forbidden. SoundExchange is designed to eliminate free internet radio and the Creative Commons. They claim to represent artists, but artists are clamoring to get away.
No free alternatives are allowed. It is obvious that people would flock away from these fees if they could, so they won't be given the chance. This will be enforced the same way the current ban on terrestrial broadcast is enforced. Because internet broadcasts are not carried over a limited publicly owned spectrum, there is no technical justification for this system, it's purely anti-competitive - designed to perpetuate the RIAA member companies into the future when they would naturally die off.
Sound Exchange will also forbid free and lower cost competition, regardless of artist and publisher intention. They will collect their little fees from everyone, in violation of Creative Commons terms. Those who want their royalties will have to join them, which makes it look like they have the artist's endorsement. Then they will have to trust Sound Exchange to give them what was really collected, less fees. In other words, the RIAA monopoly on music distribution will be extended into the future against the will of artists and the public. There is no technical justification for this, it's pure corruption.
And this is different from "M$" Office in what way?
The M$ default is to run it, and the user is root, and M$ Office costs about $400, and I can go on with this if you like.
The article complained that people are not buying in New Orleans. I suppose that's because they have a free wireless network that works OK.
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open.
If the purpose was to create Open/Free conflict, they have failed miserably. The M$/Novel deal and M$ saber rattling about patents has done a great job of justifying every sentiment in the first drafts. Community input has clarified the wording and that helps too. The author might have gotten a better reception if he had managed to finish this FUD attack a few weeks ago. As things stand, they have a far more unified free software community. The backfire from all of this is an order of magnitude worse than the SCO case.
M$'s intentions have been laid bare and all of their talk about "building bridges" and "interoperability" and so on and so forth is empty and meaningless. They want to charge money for other people's work and would claim ownership through bogus patents. Is there anyone outside of Fortune who will listen to them now?
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
No, but I do expect public companies to tell the truth. M$ is a disgrace.
What's worse is that someone at Harvard would agree to publish such bullshit. Harvard Business School just lost a large chunk of their reputation, if the summary is not itself a lie. No, looking at the paper this guy from Keystone Strategy Inc really has sold his and Harvard's reputation.
Isn't this the exact same 'security feature' that you've been saying is so shit about Vista?
No.
You found 215 of Ballmer's 238 patents. Now, I'm afraid you will be executed by a chair flying squad.
Good thing OO's default behavior is to display a warning that won't run the macro when you push "OK".
Is to stop enabling scripting by default in software that has no real need of scripting. Hasn't even Microsoft learnt this by now?
OO's default is to not run macros. The user get's a warning and has to say "yes" to the thing. This is the best that can be done and still be "compatible" with M$ Office.
A much better solution is to simply use free software, where all of the functionality is provided by best of class applications rather than back of the envelope macro functions. There are programs to do just about everything now.
If you need to make scripts, Gnumeric is a good example. It can use perl scripts but they are not something that goes with the sheet itself. Debian and other distributions provide the best of them for histograms and other analysis. Users can write and distribute more, if they must, but it's not something that is going to spring out of email and eat your system. Neither will the OO scripts, but default.
Yes, GPL3 will keep them from doing what the did with Novell and the whole cross licensing juggling show they put on to make money off it, and subsequently lock Novell into playing along with them.
That is a very good thing, M$ can't act like they own all free software. It was never a legitimate option because software patents are never legitimate. If you care at all about author intent, you will be happy M$ has been stopped.
[this is] not conducive to the acceptance of more OSS integrated with non-OSS.
If anything, this highlights the inferiority of non free software and should encourage migration. There was never a good reason to "integrate" non free software besides the false convenience of vendor lock-in. These days there's not even a technical reason because free software is almost always better than non and there's software in every category. If M$ actually had something, they would not feel the need to "steal" free software. Vista is the best they can do in five years, so it really is over.
M$ is going to do down like SCO did, in a blaze of bullshit and failing sales. The louder they scream, the closer the end is. They will not be missed.