So can I, mozilla is offered on both unix and windows.
Ha ha ha. If I need to point out that Mozilla isn't half as standards-compliant as IE5. I guess you've never really had to write any markup, which doesn't make you a bad person, but it does make you unqualified to say that Mozilla is "better."
BTW, I'm writing this on a Solaris box with IE5 installed. Mozilla/NS6 is also installed, but I can tell you from daily experience that IE is the fastest, smallest (in terms of memory footprint), and most standards-compliant available for UNIX. A pity that you can only use a Cheap Software clone of the real deal... but now I'm starting to flame, and that's not cool.
Wow. I guess you really are set then. You have 1/20th of the OS so you really must have everything you'll ever need. I guess you'll never need any of the other common utils, like gs, xpdf, or anything else.
This is exactly the kind of poor attitude that I'm complaining about. 1/20th of the OS? Please. Linux doesn't come with a distributed component architecture or any number of built-in features that Windows programmers have access to on 90% of desktops today. Windows and Linux are different. I mean, really, 1/20 of the OS? You're out of the zone of fact and in the realm of wishful opinion. This is exactly the kind of crap that made me realize that Linux has just as many mindless drones as Windows.
BTW, I don't need xpdf or gs because there are plenty of alternatives and Windows land.
When I install Slackware+KDE I get 100% of the applications windows comes with, plus a bunch of extras.
Once again, this is BS. Sorry, I thought this was a serious reply, but...
Okay, nice troll, you've wasted five minutes of my time. Now go back to watching Pokemon.
WARNING: I'm in a punchy mood tonight, and the following rant is long and boring. It's so rare that I see someone admitting to loving Windows on this site, so I'm going to just let the rants fly. Continue at own risk.
Before I say anything, let me say that I agree with your posts completely. I'm neither an MS bigot nor a UNIX/Linux bigot... although I'm leaning towards the former, because the Linux monkeys are starting (as a whole) to become more annoying than the MS ones.:-) I've only been into UNIX for a few years and absolutely adore it, but have been moving back towards MS because Win2k impresses the hell out of me. (My proof? I pad full price for both Win2k Pro and Server out of my own pocket, and am proud to say that.) (Windows XP, OTOH, I'm not too excited about. Mainly because of WPA -- I build my own boxes, and having to call MS to reactive the license that I already paid for every time that I rebuild my box is insane. But I digress...)
I've learned a valuable lesson: despite that the Linux zealots say otherwise, you shouldn't be ashamed for loving the GUI and ease-of-use of Windows. UNIX is a great development environment, but I grew up using Microsoft products, since MS-DOS, and I'm not going to pretend that GNOME and Linux offer greater productivity just because some rabid script kiddie thinks otherwise. For me, Windows is a better development environment than Linux, and it's also a better general-use OS too -- I can surf the WWW with the best browser available, I can play any game I want, and install any PC hardware/software and be guaranteed of compatability. And anyone who tells you that Windows is unstable hasn't used NT -- probably can't afford it, writing free software and all.;-) And hey, guess what -- I have a UNIX command line on my NT box. The best of both worlds.
Okay, now to respond to your post. First off, you are spot-on about IIS on clean NT installs. It isn't even an option on NT4 Workstation, and on Win2k, while it is possible to install it as a networking option, it isn't mentioned during the install. (Consequently, many people aren't aware that it's possible. A friend of mine who works in our operatins dept, who is extremely knowledgable and has been running Win2k since the beta, had no idea until a few months ago.)
There is one scenario that is troublesome, though... I've been told that if you upgrade a Win98 box running PWS, IIS is installed auto-magically. Upgraders may not sound like huge market segment, but read on...
My ex-girlfriend is at a major university, a school that is such an MS lapdog that it isn't even funny. To make a long story short[er], Win2k Pro is available to any student to wants it. And when Win2k was first released, many of these morons thought, "Hey, 2000 is bigger than 98, it must be better!" and upgraded their 98 boxes without knowing that Win2k is a real NOS... consequently, this uni now has thousands of Win2k boxes being "administrated" by these clueless people, even more clueless than the average IIS admins (see rant below). And since many of these people I mention are CS or IT majors (frightening, eh? the industry will implode in a few years), they had PWS running.
That, sir, is a nightmare.:-)
If you're still reading, here's my IIS admin rant. I've been trying to move my websites from Solaris to Win2k for over a year. I've tried four webhosts in that time, and have found all to be extremely lacking. My theory is that, because NT is [superficially] easier to admin than UNIX, a greated percentage of NT admins are clueless fucktards who shouldn't be allowed within 25 miles of a networked computer.:-) I could tell you all sorts of wonderful stories about these folks, but I'll simply mention one: FrontServe. Check out this page on FrontServe's website. If he's advertising Windows webhosting, why the fuck are there pictures of Sun boxes behind the Frontpage logo?:-D LOL... that should give you an idea of the kind of professional service I got.
One more rant, and then you're off the hook. (Sorry, as I said, it's so rare that I get a sympathetic ear re: MS...) I mentioned a lot of these people at uni thinking,
if (2000 > 98) // must be better!
install(os);
This is yet another reason that I hate the name, "Windows 2000." They were calling it NT5 almost up until the release, and I don't understand why they changed. And then ME came out! What sense does that make, going from NT to 2000 and 98 to ME? It's two letters to a year and a year to two letters. I imagine it's confusing as hell to the average consumer. And then the Win2k propaganda says, "Built on NT Technology." WTF? Built on New Technology Technology? Anyway, I still call it NT5 as an act of rebellion, but it just confuses people, so maybe I should stop.:-)
Wow, what a rant. If you wish to reply, email the_messenger@evilemail.com, so you don't kill your karma the way I have with offtopic, pro-MS posts.:-)
Bullshit -- if they merely the pyschological impact, they could've just knocked the Statue of Liberty into the water. The WTC was selected because its dense population ensured maximum casualties.
I'm sorry, but I'm just feeling so goddamned silly. This whole event is just such a shock, and just so fucked-up on such a grand scale. I mean, this is like Oklahoma City times a billion. I live in DC. I have friends in New York. The whole situation is FUBAR out the ass. And if posting offensive crap on/. helps me vent, well fuck you and your mom.
And think about what my post says. It's the truth, isn't it? That's what I've been thinking about... the bodies, buried in a grave of office building debris... the people screaming as jet fuel boiling away their flesh... the lucky few who were turned into human puree in the.5 second that it took for the fireball to eviscerate the building... the souls who lept from the roof, and are now only so much gooey paste on the streets... the firefighters and police officers who ran in to help, and then though "Oh, shit..." as the builind collapses beneath them... the people who were on the streets shopping, or kissing, or reading as firey death in the form of 747 parts rains down from above. Just think about all of the gore. Think about the gallons of blood and charred bones that lie beneath the World Trade Center.
It's fucking disturbing, isn't it?
Well it's reality. And it should help you realize the enormity of the tragedy. Like how I was vaguely pro-choice until I read about exactly how a abortion is actually performed. People need to think about the carnage. And wake up.
And the media circus! The endless loop of footage and bullshit analysis from the "news" agencies. The countless "terrorism experts" who look as if they're stifling grins, who are thrilled at the attentino they're getting. Bitchy little reporters covered un dust, trying to fix their hair as they recite absolutely pointless monologues. It makes the situation all the more FUBAR.
...just stick a siphen in the middle of the WTC rubble! I'll bet there's just piles and piles of ripe, juicy organs spewing their red, life-giving gold into the charred metal and crumbling concrete. And chances are that the blood is heated, too! Gee, I hope that Count Dracula doesn't find out! A tee hee hee!
It's not the suicide that's cowardly. It's the killing-thousands-of-unarmed-and-unaware-civilans. Maybe that fuckhead retard OBL doesn't know this, but the WTC isn't a gov't building like the Pentagon, and thus isn't a valid target for politically motivated attacks. And even in the case of the Petagon, I'll bet that there were more casualties on the aircraft than in the building.
The kamikaze were attacking armed, uniformed US soliders on the battlefield. These OBL scum attacked civilians in a large city. So, they are cowards.
I'm going to do my part to help, by drinking coffee and masturbating. Oh, and shopping for computer hardware.
By the way, if they need blood so badly, why not just throw a hose in the middle of the WTC rubble and start sucking? Ha ha ha. Haven't Americans given enough blood today already? Ha ha.
Congrats to the terrorists for a job well done. Whenever the US tries to execute a terrorist attack, they fuck up royally... just look at Vietnam. MBAs will celebrate OBL for his top-notch management capability.
Honestly... if you come to Slashdot for real news, you need help.
My review of news sources: CNN's site seems to have the latest info, if you can reach it. NYT has more info on WTC (duh), and WP has more news on the Pentagon (duh again). Times of London has an excellent synopsis.
I agree. While these women have been out "empowering" themselves by doing the same jobs as men, only not as well, domestic civilization has been crumbling. I say to these girls, stop trying to program; there's no hope for your success. Instead, study the algorithm for making me a hot dinner, and troubleshoot the washing machine. Come back to the kitchen; a place for every woman, and every woman in her place.
It's the same with women drivers. What, they weren't satisfied driving the vacuum cleaner?
Exactly -- all of the work was done at Bell Labs, Berkley CSRG, and a handful of other organizations -- ten to fifteen years before Linux existed. The design had been implemented countless times in many distributions -- BSD/SunOS/etc, AIX/HP-UX/SCO/etc, the lists go on an on. That's why I don't find Linus' authorship very impressive. The only thing innovative about Linux is its licensing, and RMS is responsible for both the GPL and much of the software that makes an open-source community possible: GLIB, GCC, EMACS, etc. That's why I feel that calling the OS "GNU/Linux" is necessary.
Re:Why link to NY times when you have Yahoo?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
That's especially relevant, because Yahoo! has a big "Powered by Compaq" button at the bottom of the front page. I guess they haven't received the new "Powered by HP" button via interoffice email yet... they should just steal Amazon's...
Well, it's good for IBM and Dell, both of which produce x86 servers which far outshine anything I've come into contact with from either Compaq or HP.:-)
I guess it's good for Gateway, too, although I could care less.
HP also has a line of popular RISC workstations and servers, but I doubt that this merger will affect that product line at all -- remember, Compaq dumped Alpha, and is now just as castrated as Dell in the Real Computer market.
I believe that HP's visualization boxes are becoming popular as [relatively] inexpensive replacements for IRIX machines. I'm not a graphics professional, but I think that HP-UX is better supported in the SFX world than either AIX or Solaris. And, of course, HP's PA-RISC machines run GNU/Linux quite well, although perhaps not as well as HP-UX... I say, if you have $30,000 to spend on UNIX-based visualization but want to run Linux, cluster some x86 kit (mmmmm... dual-Athlons, DDR and Quadros), and spend the rest of the money on a new car.:-)
Re:Implications for alpha?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
Alpha is one of Intel's offerings. And thus, sadly, it has no future.
Pardon my excitement, but
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Holy fucking shit this is big news. It would have been bigger news if Alpha was still viable, but... wow. Two of the top five desktop PC/x86 server manufacturers are now one. Both have (or once had) established positions in the RISC market, both sell UNIX, and both support GNU/Linux.
The most immediate impact I predict is in PC sales. I've always had the impression that Compaq did much better in this market than HP, and ignoring the fact that all Compaq PCs now are HP PCs;-), there's now one less choice for Joe Average Consumer. I haven't been to a non-online computer reseller in years, but IIRC places like CompUSA had very few brands -- Compaq, HP, Toshiba, and maybe some Macs. Dell and IBM only sell direct, right?
I only hope that HP is nicer to Compaq than Compaq was to DEC.:-0
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Mendudo's working on a new album? Sweet!
BTW, I'm writing this on a Solaris box with IE5 installed. Mozilla/NS6 is also installed, but I can tell you from daily experience that IE is the fastest, smallest (in terms of memory footprint), and most standards-compliant available for UNIX. A pity that you can only use a Cheap Software clone of the real deal... but now I'm starting to flame, and that's not cool.
This is exactly the kind of poor attitude that I'm complaining about. 1/20th of the OS? Please. Linux doesn't come with a distributed component architecture or any number of built-in features that Windows programmers have access to on 90% of desktops today. Windows and Linux are different. I mean, really, 1/20 of the OS? You're out of the zone of fact and in the realm of wishful opinion. This is exactly the kind of crap that made me realize that Linux has just as many mindless drones as Windows.BTW, I don't need xpdf or gs because there are plenty of alternatives and Windows land.
Once again, this is BS. Sorry, I thought this was a serious reply, but...Okay, nice troll, you've wasted five minutes of my time. Now go back to watching Pokemon.
Hey, you can get 386s for free, and of course outside the US all MS software is also free.
WARNING: I'm in a punchy mood tonight, and the following rant is long and boring. It's so rare that I see someone admitting to loving Windows on this site, so I'm going to just let the rants fly. Continue at own risk.
Before I say anything, let me say that I agree with your posts completely. I'm neither an MS bigot nor a UNIX/Linux bigot... although I'm leaning towards the former, because the Linux monkeys are starting (as a whole) to become more annoying than the MS ones. :-) I've only been into UNIX for a few years and absolutely adore it, but have been moving back towards MS because Win2k impresses the hell out of me. (My proof? I pad full price for both Win2k Pro and Server out of my own pocket, and am proud to say that.) (Windows XP, OTOH, I'm not too excited about. Mainly because of WPA -- I build my own boxes, and having to call MS to reactive the license that I already paid for every time that I rebuild my box is insane. But I digress...)
I've learned a valuable lesson: despite that the Linux zealots say otherwise, you shouldn't be ashamed for loving the GUI and ease-of-use of Windows. UNIX is a great development environment, but I grew up using Microsoft products, since MS-DOS, and I'm not going to pretend that GNOME and Linux offer greater productivity just because some rabid script kiddie thinks otherwise. For me, Windows is a better development environment than Linux, and it's also a better general-use OS too -- I can surf the WWW with the best browser available, I can play any game I want, and install any PC hardware/software and be guaranteed of compatability. And anyone who tells you that Windows is unstable hasn't used NT -- probably can't afford it, writing free software and all. ;-) And hey, guess what -- I have a UNIX command line on my NT box. The best of both worlds.
Okay, now to respond to your post. First off, you are spot-on about IIS on clean NT installs. It isn't even an option on NT4 Workstation, and on Win2k, while it is possible to install it as a networking option, it isn't mentioned during the install. (Consequently, many people aren't aware that it's possible. A friend of mine who works in our operatins dept, who is extremely knowledgable and has been running Win2k since the beta, had no idea until a few months ago.)
There is one scenario that is troublesome, though... I've been told that if you upgrade a Win98 box running PWS, IIS is installed auto-magically. Upgraders may not sound like huge market segment, but read on...
My ex-girlfriend is at a major university, a school that is such an MS lapdog that it isn't even funny. To make a long story short[er], Win2k Pro is available to any student to wants it. And when Win2k was first released, many of these morons thought, "Hey, 2000 is bigger than 98, it must be better!" and upgraded their 98 boxes without knowing that Win2k is a real NOS... consequently, this uni now has thousands of Win2k boxes being "administrated" by these clueless people, even more clueless than the average IIS admins (see rant below). And since many of these people I mention are CS or IT majors (frightening, eh? the industry will implode in a few years), they had PWS running.
That, sir, is a nightmare. :-)
If you're still reading, here's my IIS admin rant. I've been trying to move my websites from Solaris to Win2k for over a year. I've tried four webhosts in that time, and have found all to be extremely lacking. My theory is that, because NT is [superficially] easier to admin than UNIX, a greated percentage of NT admins are clueless fucktards who shouldn't be allowed within 25 miles of a networked computer. :-) I could tell you all sorts of wonderful stories about these folks, but I'll simply mention one: FrontServe. Check out this page on FrontServe's website. If he's advertising Windows webhosting, why the fuck are there pictures of Sun boxes behind the Frontpage logo? :-D LOL... that should give you an idea of the kind of professional service I got.
One more rant, and then you're off the hook. (Sorry, as I said, it's so rare that I get a sympathetic ear re: MS...) I mentioned a lot of these people at uni thinking,
This is yet another reason that I hate the name, "Windows 2000." They were calling it NT5 almost up until the release, and I don't understand why they changed. And then ME came out! What sense does that make, going from NT to 2000 and 98 to ME? It's two letters to a year and a year to two letters. I imagine it's confusing as hell to the average consumer. And then the Win2k propaganda says, "Built on NT Technology." WTF? Built on New Technology Technology? Anyway, I still call it NT5 as an act of rebellion, but it just confuses people, so maybe I should stop.Wow, what a rant. If you wish to reply, email the_messenger@evilemail.com, so you don't kill your karma the way I have with offtopic, pro-MS posts. :-)
Bullshit -- if they merely the pyschological impact, they could've just knocked the Statue of Liberty into the water. The WTC was selected because its dense population ensured maximum casualties.
And think about what my post says. It's the truth, isn't it? That's what I've been thinking about... the bodies, buried in a grave of office building debris... the people screaming as jet fuel boiling away their flesh... the lucky few who were turned into human puree in the .5 second that it took for the fireball to eviscerate the building... the souls who lept from the roof, and are now only so much gooey paste on the streets... the firefighters and police officers who ran in to help, and then though "Oh, shit..." as the builind collapses beneath them... the people who were on the streets shopping, or kissing, or reading as firey death in the form of 747 parts rains down from above. Just think about all of the gore. Think about the gallons of blood and charred bones that lie beneath the World Trade Center.
It's fucking disturbing, isn't it?
Well it's reality. And it should help you realize the enormity of the tragedy. Like how I was vaguely pro-choice until I read about exactly how a abortion is actually performed. People need to think about the carnage. And wake up.
And the media circus! The endless loop of footage and bullshit analysis from the "news" agencies. The countless "terrorism experts" who look as if they're stifling grins, who are thrilled at the attentino they're getting. Bitchy little reporters covered un dust, trying to fix their hair as they recite absolutely pointless monologues. It makes the situation all the more FUBAR.
Hey, I found your friend. Hope you've got a lot of tape...
...just stick a siphen in the middle of the WTC rubble! I'll bet there's just piles and piles of ripe, juicy organs spewing their red, life-giving gold into the charred metal and crumbling concrete. And chances are that the blood is heated, too! Gee, I hope that Count Dracula doesn't find out! A tee hee hee!
The kamikaze were attacking armed, uniformed US soliders on the battlefield. These OBL scum attacked civilians in a large city. So, they are cowards.
By the way, if they need blood so badly, why not just throw a hose in the middle of the WTC rubble and start sucking? Ha ha ha. Haven't Americans given enough blood today already? Ha ha.
Congrats to the terrorists for a job well done. Whenever the US tries to execute a terrorist attack, they fuck up royally... just look at Vietnam. MBAs will celebrate OBL for his top-notch management capability.
My review of news sources: CNN's site seems to have the latest info, if you can reach it. NYT has more info on WTC (duh), and WP has more news on the Pentagon (duh again). Times of London has an excellent synopsis.
Okay, that first sentence is classic. Congrats, Taco; for once I'm complimenting instead of bashing you. LOL...
And here is some text which allows my post to bypass the Lameness^H^H^H^H Filter.
Um... okay.
Cartman, Episode 104: "He's doing something to his ass. He's not kicking his ass, but he's definitely doing something to his ass."
It's the same with women drivers. What, they weren't satisfied driving the vacuum cleaner?
stop hassling the booth babes and fix our goddamned website. 'Kay, Rob? ;-)
All I can say is, that's a pretty fucking hardcore patch. Even my keyboard is anti-aliased now.
Or, if you're really hardcore, DAEHTIHS.
Exactly -- all of the work was done at Bell Labs, Berkley CSRG, and a handful of other organizations -- ten to fifteen years before Linux existed. The design had been implemented countless times in many distributions -- BSD/SunOS/etc, AIX/HP-UX/SCO/etc, the lists go on an on. That's why I don't find Linus' authorship very impressive. The only thing innovative about Linux is its licensing, and RMS is responsible for both the GPL and much of the software that makes an open-source community possible: GLIB, GCC, EMACS, etc. That's why I feel that calling the OS "GNU/Linux" is necessary.
That's especially relevant, because Yahoo! has a big "Powered by Compaq" button at the bottom of the front page. I guess they haven't received the new "Powered by HP" button via interoffice email yet... they should just steal Amazon's...
I guess it's good for Gateway, too, although I could care less.
HP also has a line of popular RISC workstations and servers, but I doubt that this merger will affect that product line at all -- remember, Compaq dumped Alpha, and is now just as castrated as Dell in the Real Computer market.
I believe that HP's visualization boxes are becoming popular as [relatively] inexpensive replacements for IRIX machines. I'm not a graphics professional, but I think that HP-UX is better supported in the SFX world than either AIX or Solaris. And, of course, HP's PA-RISC machines run GNU/Linux quite well, although perhaps not as well as HP-UX... I say, if you have $30,000 to spend on UNIX-based visualization but want to run Linux, cluster some x86 kit (mmmmm... dual-Athlons, DDR and Quadros), and spend the rest of the money on a new car. :-)
Alpha is one of Intel's offerings. And thus, sadly, it has no future.
The most immediate impact I predict is in PC sales. I've always had the impression that Compaq did much better in this market than HP, and ignoring the fact that all Compaq PCs now are HP PCs ;-), there's now one less choice for Joe Average Consumer. I haven't been to a non-online computer reseller in years, but IIRC places like CompUSA had very few brands -- Compaq, HP, Toshiba, and maybe some Macs. Dell and IBM only sell direct, right?
I only hope that HP is nicer to Compaq than Compaq was to DEC. :-0
Since when does OSDN have any money? :-)