Ok, enjoy being "driven" by a corporation that has no interest in the well being of any particular customer. Hopefully sensible people are driving their own business on their own terms.
Their home / small business customer base is already rapidly switching to iOS and Android. That's part of what's driving their urgency. Their belief is that in 2013 Android and iOS aren't mature enough yet for the more demanding 2/3rds to switch completely. That might not be true in 2017 so better to force the switch in Windows 8 now then fight that battle against Android in 2017.
Right, so customers with any brains better start looking for non-Microsoft future rather than be "driven" by a company without a drive.
Yes, and it still gets exactly the same level of support from its makers as it got 5 years ago. I don't see a problem.
XP is about a few minutes old
And people buying it now are getting about a year of support from Microsoft. Not exactly a stellar accomplishment in supporting their products by Microsoft, is it?
That is the age of Windows XP design. But since Microsoft doesn't sell Windows XP design, but just copies and licenses to use it - design age is immaterial from a support perspective. My car is 2 year old, this model was released 5 years ago. That doesn't mean my car is 5 year old, mine is just 2 year old. From support perspective, 2 years is what matters, though if the design has some inconvenient feature that wasn't fixable 5 years old technology, one might not find fault with the car manufacturer that much. But if battery starts giving issues, they can't say it is a 5 year old car and hence no support for you.
Similarly, from the last date a license of Windows XP could have been purchased (I hear for corporates that date is still not past, but I am not sure), or another license purchased and downgraded to XP - is the age of Windows XP that matters from a support perspective. Such support duration, of the last customer, is not really long in case of Windows XP at all.
I see you happily avoided my counter that, going by your facile argument, everything on the Internet - including that Oracle documentation - constitutes advertising
What is there to avoid about it? Of course it is advertisement. When I told you your post amounts to advertisement being an act of making something generally known, it is to be understood that Oracle documentation is much much more generally known so much more of an advertisement. You are just too thick to get that.
I have worked in Oracle, been involved in documentation efforts and publishing it to customers, and it is unthinkable to ever take back features that are promised in documentation. Didn't happen in my tenure, but it was understood that if it happened it would be an enormous blunder on the part of involved employees as well as Oracle as a whole. Oracle would arguably be taken to courts, by much more capable litigants than Sony's idiot customers, and be in a heap of trouble.
Still, it has been proven beyond doubt that one doesn't need to buy the product to see the information. Knowing which, fully well, you argued otherwise.
Any sane, rational, honest PERSON, would understand that a manual (i.e. help or support document) posted on the Internet that you have to LOOK FOR, is not something that can be considered an advertisement.
The judge in the public interest litigation agreed that Sony "advertised" about OtherOS, though the litigation had other faults so it was thrown out and there can be only one litigation of this category for the event.
Definition of advertisement is your own (though false), but at least it has been established that one needn't have bought the product to see the information. So you are wrong.
It fails the third definition as well: it says, "the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public". The manual does NOT make this fact generally known, and it does not call to the attention of the general public, only that of somebody who reads the manual (print or online) to learn how to use their PS3.. So nope, still NOT an advertisement.
Running a public server about all the products of a company, putting information about a product there IS making it generally known. How is it not?
What an idiotic strawman. Let me make an idiotic assertion to match yours: Can you prove they didn't?
You know they didn't. Anyway, I didn't and I still found the information, so your assertion that it is necessary to buy the product to see this information is clearly false however much you try to deny it.
I see crap ads from the 80s there
Posting "I see crap ads from the 80s there" is making it generally known that an AC thinks that crap ads from the 80s have been posted on YouTube. I can't find on YouTube that an AC is making generally known that he/she thinks that crap ads from the 80s have been posted on YouTube. Try again.
or indeed, ANY PLACE ON THE WEB
Any honest debater would have to agree that archive.org is a place on the web. Not you, though.
Ok, I knew Layne's law of debate will need to be applied before long. Though dictionary.com agrees with this being an advertisement, especially according to the third definition, second is also somewhat applicable if web is considered digitization of print. If you are stuck on partial application of first definition, you just need to read up.
That is just a section from the Manual/User's Guide, which you see AFTER you buy the PS3.
Yes, I am sure archive.org bought PS3 to be able to archive this.
IF there really were an advertisement, I would assume it WOULD be on YouTube
Right, exactly like all other web advertisement is on YouTube.
Computers are great at being boring. Run a bot that browses facebook, searches for photos with random keywords on google image search,uploads them and share on facebook, comments randomly and "like"s randomly. Give it a few false facebook accounts to play with.
And srpm is integrated into redhat standard repositories. I don't see any technical differences mentioned in either of your posts, just buzzwords. Traceability might be useful though, thanks, but not directly relevant here.
Continuous build is not a requirement for most distros, toolset is not being discussed.
How is that different from source RPMs available for rpm based distros? It gives comprehensive build information for the RPMs for various architectures.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, enjoy being "driven" by a corporation that has no interest in the well being of any particular customer. Hopefully sensible people are driving their own business on their own terms.
Their home / small business customer base is already rapidly switching to iOS and Android. That's part of what's driving their urgency. Their belief is that in 2013 Android and iOS aren't mature enough yet for the more demanding 2/3rds to switch completely. That might not be true in 2017 so better to force the switch in Windows 8 now then fight that battle against Android in 2017.
Right, so customers with any brains better start looking for non-Microsoft future rather than be "driven" by a company without a drive.
Assuming they aren't leaving all of Windows behind
That is where you go wrong.
Or, if said customers have any brains, switch to OSX / iOS / Android / other forms of Linux.
So FreeDOS is a new OS?
Yes, and it still gets exactly the same level of support from its makers as it got 5 years ago. I don't see a problem.
XP is about a few minutes old
And people buying it now are getting about a year of support from Microsoft. Not exactly a stellar accomplishment in supporting their products by Microsoft, is it?
That is the age of Windows XP design. But since Microsoft doesn't sell Windows XP design, but just copies and licenses to use it - design age is immaterial from a support perspective. My car is 2 year old, this model was released 5 years ago. That doesn't mean my car is 5 year old, mine is just 2 year old. From support perspective, 2 years is what matters, though if the design has some inconvenient feature that wasn't fixable 5 years old technology, one might not find fault with the car manufacturer that much. But if battery starts giving issues, they can't say it is a 5 year old car and hence no support for you.
Similarly, from the last date a license of Windows XP could have been purchased (I hear for corporates that date is still not past, but I am not sure), or another license purchased and downgraded to XP - is the age of Windows XP that matters from a support perspective. Such support duration, of the last customer, is not really long in case of Windows XP at all.
Categories. Lack of.
I see you happily avoided my counter that, going by your facile argument, everything on the Internet - including that Oracle documentation - constitutes advertising
What is there to avoid about it? Of course it is advertisement. When I told you your post amounts to advertisement being an act of making something generally known, it is to be understood that Oracle documentation is much much more generally known so much more of an advertisement. You are just too thick to get that.
I have worked in Oracle, been involved in documentation efforts and publishing it to customers, and it is unthinkable to ever take back features that are promised in documentation. Didn't happen in my tenure, but it was understood that if it happened it would be an enormous blunder on the part of involved employees as well as Oracle as a whole. Oracle would arguably be taken to courts, by much more capable litigants than Sony's idiot customers, and be in a heap of trouble.
Still, it has been proven beyond doubt that one doesn't need to buy the product to see the information. Knowing which, fully well, you argued otherwise.
Any sane, rational, honest PERSON, would understand that a manual (i.e. help or support document) posted on the Internet that you have to LOOK FOR, is not something that can be considered an advertisement.
The judge in the public interest litigation agreed that Sony "advertised" about OtherOS, though the litigation had other faults so it was thrown out and there can be only one litigation of this category for the event.
Definition of advertisement is your own (though false), but at least it has been established that one needn't have bought the product to see the information. So you are wrong.
It fails the third definition as well: it says, "the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public". The manual does NOT make this fact generally known, and it does not call to the attention of the general public, only that of somebody who reads the manual (print or online) to learn how to use their PS3.. So nope, still NOT an advertisement.
Running a public server about all the products of a company, putting information about a product there IS making it generally known. How is it not?
What an idiotic strawman. Let me make an idiotic assertion to match yours: Can you prove they didn't?
You know they didn't. Anyway, I didn't and I still found the information, so your assertion that it is necessary to buy the product to see this information is clearly false however much you try to deny it.
I see crap ads from the 80s there
Posting "I see crap ads from the 80s there" is making it generally known that an AC thinks that crap ads from the 80s have been posted on YouTube. I can't find on YouTube that an AC is making generally known that he/she thinks that crap ads from the 80s have been posted on YouTube. Try again.
or indeed, ANY PLACE ON THE WEB
Any honest debater would have to agree that archive.org is a place on the web. Not you, though.
Is there a provision for marking luggage as delicate? If yes, does it work?
thanks
Or you could learn what an advertisement means and save all the insertions of your foot into your own mouth.
Layne's law of debate, here we come. Ok, like the AC, you need to read up on the definition of advertisement, upto the third one.
Nope, that is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT
Ok, I knew Layne's law of debate will need to be applied before long. Though dictionary.com agrees with this being an advertisement, especially according to the third definition, second is also somewhat applicable if web is considered digitization of print. If you are stuck on partial application of first definition, you just need to read up.
That is just a section from the Manual/User's Guide, which you see AFTER you buy the PS3.
Yes, I am sure archive.org bought PS3 to be able to archive this.
IF there really were an advertisement, I would assume it WOULD be on YouTube
Right, exactly like all other web advertisement is on YouTube.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100124155951/http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
Here you go.
Here you go.
Appear as normal and as boring as possible
Computers are great at being boring. Run a bot that browses facebook, searches for photos with random keywords on google image search,uploads them and share on facebook, comments randomly and "like"s randomly. Give it a few false facebook accounts to play with.
Even if he is saying that, it is not incorrect. For the first time in history, my signature is part of the post.
And it's comparable to being razed to ground, how?
And a remote acquaintance committed suicide and suffered immensely before kicking the bucket. Your point?
Did. It's neither non-Intel, nor does it have thunderbolt. Maybe it is different for your region.
I see "Intel Core i5-3230M Processor (3M Cache, up to 3.20 GHz) on Mother Board" as description.
And srpm is integrated into redhat standard repositories. I don't see any technical differences mentioned in either of your posts, just buzzwords. Traceability might be useful though, thanks, but not directly relevant here.
Continuous build is not a requirement for most distros, toolset is not being discussed.
How is that different from source RPMs available for rpm based distros? It gives comprehensive build information for the RPMs for various architectures.