However, it's a known fact that the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
No, it's not. Like all forms of traditional heat-utilizing cooking, you heat up the food at some place, which heats the rest of it.
Frying, baking, boiling, steaming, etc, all work like this. Microwaving, instead of heating the surface of the food, heats all of the water molecules within the food. This is exactly the same as if you had a knob and could change the temperature of the water without changing the rest of the food in any way. Any notion of "nutritional" changes are highly suspect. There's just no reason to believe microwaves, for example, could significantly change the vitamin or mineral content of the food.
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. That means, roughly, that they don't knock atoms into pieces, and thus don't break atomic bonds. They just heat up matter, especially water, since water absorbs microwaves so well.
Some label this pseudoscience.
That's because it is. There's no valid scientific observation, and no logical scientific model, to suggest that microwave radiation directly affects the nutrition in food.
Just because microwave ovens seem more magical than a frying pan does not excuse them from the rigors of science or the laws of reality.
The richness of the story, the depth of background, the amazing live interactions and the masterful puzzles all played a role in making this a must-play game.
Great, I can hardly wait to play.
The Alternate Reality Gaming Network has an examination of the ARG H3ist, which recently completed its run.
D'oh!
Timeliness people, c'mon! I really don't much desire to read about how fun some game was that it's impossible for me to play, but I would have liked very much to have heard about it before/as it started.
There are some situations in which sponsored closed software wins every time
Perhaps, but this isn't one of them.
and one of those is hardware drivers
Nope. It's primarily entertainment and specialized software really has the upper hand when it comes to closed source against open source.
Proof in this specific case:
What we have now: nvidia closed source drivers, which means all updates, bug fixes, compatibility fixes, enhancements, etc, must come from nvidia.
What it would be like if nvidia opened the source: exactly like it is now, plus anyone can fix a bug, add features, enhance compatibility, etc.
Closed source does not "win" in this case. It's just better than the related open source projects that have to reverse engineer the hardware.
I don't really care how much slashdot fanboys rant about NVidia, the people who actually use high-end video cards in Linux know the truth - NVidia is and has always been oders of magnitude above the rest.
Calling people "fanboys" and asserting that you "know the truth" without providing actual, you know, evidence or supporting argument (you almost put forth an anecdote, but not quite), is worth about the same as the "fanboy"-type posts you refer to.
They can keep the drivers closed till hell freezes over for all I care - they work, they work great, they have more frequent stable updates with bugfixes and new features than any FLOSS drivers I know of.
Rubbish. It's quite obvious that open source nvidia drivers would be superior.
That's the thing. Most people rooting did not choose their side rationally.
I don't mean their chosen side is correct or correctly thought out, but that they chose it via reason, and not just because they heard someone else say it, or because it has a cuter mascot, or whatever.
The idea that people can't root for their convictions (the person I was replying to's notion) is absurd.
Or rather, not even 'most people rooting' but it seems like 'most of the people rooting the loudest and most often' Certainly there is nothing wrong with rooting for a side that is rationally chosen, but rooting because "MS SUCKS" or because "BUSH IS A NAZER/KERRER IS A FLIPPITERFLOPPITER" is certainly myopic.
If someone shouts "MS sucks!", they aren't being eloquent, but if they have reached their conclusion rationally, you can't necessarily call it myopic.
Even if they chose their side for superficial, or otherwise irrational, reasons, that doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they are being foolish. Even so, they should be allowed to want their "side" to win (although they deserve criticism for other reasons).
You can't rationally argue with the irrational person (first, you've got to get them to attempt to reason), which is the point I think you are somewhat promoting. That wasn't what the poster I was replying to was decrying.
Stating that something is not a big deal is by no stretch of the imagination telling someone not to complain about the aforementioned something.
That depends on the context. Your post was in the context of people making a fuss.
You weren't telling people they had no right to complain, you were telling them there's nothing to complain about.
It is not for Me to decide if they are morally correct or not
It *is* for you to decide whether *you* think it's morally correct or not.
You do think it's morally correct for MS to do what they did (do you not?). When people brought up the issue, you posited that there's nothing wrong with it (in other words, there's no grounds for them to complain).
It's clearly not in the Linux people's best interest (at least, in their opinion) for MS to cut support on the product.
So we tie it all together, and we have your opinion being:
1. MS is right to do what they did: yes 2. People have grounds for complaint: no 3. It's not in their best interest, it's in MS's best interest: yes
That's what my initial post is saying. Now, I didn't say you were directly saying those things, but that you were putting forth a view that is founded on those ideas.
I can fully believe you didn't mean to promote that view, and that you, in general, hold the view that the exact *opposite* is the way things should be, but what you've said about this specific incident is predicated on the view I illustrate above. If I've deduced wrong, I invite you to show me where I've assumed or reasoned incorrectly.
"You portray a view that corporations are absolutely morally correct in serving their own best interests, but people are not--in fact, that people should support corporate interests above their own!" and "portraying a view that people should not complain about this." are not the same thing.
The second is an example of the first. Don't pretend they are contradictory, unrelated, or otherwise not similarly pertinent to the discussion.
However, you replied and told ME what I was portraying.
Yes, and you have yet to explain how I'm wrong.
Furthermore, I didn't say you should or shouldn't complain about it.
Yes, you did. That's what the subject "so what", and the question, "What is the problem?", are all about.
And you continue still, with: "I simply stated that CompanyA buying productAV from CompanyZ and customizing it to support *their* interest is not a big deal."
*That's* telling people not to complain.
Now, maybe that's not what you meant but it's certainly what you're saying, and consistently at that. If you meant something else, you've also had ample opportunity to clarify, but you clearly haven't. Do feel free to start now, though. I don't want to mischaracterize your point, which is something you've provided me no reason to believe I've done.
You are so absolutely correct! How DARE microsoft buy an antivirus product from a company? I mean good grief, I paid this company good money to protect my Linux and Unix servers. How dare microsoft force that company to give up their product?
Oh no you don't. I didn't say MS can't do what they did, I was answering your "so what" post.
You are saying people can't be upset that MS does something they don't like.
Don't tell me that i portray something just because you perceive my ideas in a certain way.
You are *clearly* and *undeniably* portraying a view that people should not complain about this.
Point out the flaw in my perception, if it's wrong. Just saying, "don't go by what you perceive to be true" is retarded. What else, exactly, am I supposed to go on?
If many major department stores and government buildings had someone at the door asking, "is your name Frank," and then refusing entry to anyone who said "no" and then most newspapers reported that Frank is the most popular name in the country after asking department stores and government agencies who would be at fault?
How many sites actually require spoofing, really? Not many, but those that do might be critical for you. It's stupid for Opera to default to spoofing. It only makes the problem worse.
Better is to make it a menu option, where if the site doesn't render well, you just select the option to mimic IE for that site. Best of both worlds.
"Today is Wednesday" is a pretty weak headline. "Traffic will be average today" is again as weak headline. "Computers at major banks did not fail today, similar to much of last week"- it's just not interesting news.
And the headline isn't, "Microsoft doesn't do anything much today". It is "Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux".
That's quite newsworthy.
And I'd beg to differ- while yes it does fit the definition, news that is expected isn't really news by my books.
Again, news for nerds, check, stuff that matters, check. Maybe you're reading the wrong site?
All I'm saying is that the way the headline was written, it first off discusses Microsoft "cutting A/V support for unix/linux" when they didn't supply it in the first place. They purchased a company, and moved their efforts to their benefit. Yippie. Lets not mislead slashdot readers.
Hrm. Did MS not cut AV support for Unix/Linux? Headlines need to be terse. The body clears up any false assumptions you may have had when reading the headline.
But in the end:
News: check for nerds: check stuff: check that matters: check
I would gladly switch to IE without hesitation if Microsoft were to make a browser that does the job better, just as I once dropped Netscape Navigator for IE 5.
Virtually *everyone* would switch to Windows+IE if it was truly better (in the ways important to them) than the alternatives. But almost *no* MS offering is actually the best available.
Fuck all of you! Groups you are "rooting against" doing poorly, or even groups you are "rooting for" doing well, does nothing to make you a better person, nor does it actually make the world a better place.
Are you sure? For every time MS loses an IE customer to Firefox, just that many fewer people will get hit with malware, that many fewer shady organizations will make money on spyware, and MS might, just maybe, be forced into making IE better.
So yes, it most certainly *can* and *does* make the world a better place, and *can* and *does* make you a better person.
Get some goddamn perspective and stop being so myopic about your little meaningless dogma!
Yeah, most people are dogmatic and stupid, so you're right there. But rooting for a rationally chosen side not "myopic".
You sound just like a little kid arguing with the neighbor kid over who's faster, Superman or The Flash.
And then you post that neither is faster, but you use Superman to deliver your mail since he's faster right now, yet would gladly call on the Flash if he could speed up a bit.
In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY (since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
Let's see, "News for Nerds", this affects nerds: check
"Stuff that matters", antivirus software support discontinued for a relevant OS: check
People seem to think "news" means "the unexpected". In that case the fact that somebody died in Iraq today isn't "news", that Deep Impact will hit a comet soon isn't "news" (and when it happens, it won't be news either, unless it does something unexpected).
The weather isn't usually news, sports scores aren't usually news. Stock reports aren't usually news, etc, etc, etc...
In other words, you're operating under a flawed definition of the word "news".
They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers. That makes plenty of business sense.
Since *I'm* not Microsoft, I don't care *at all* about what makes business sense for them. I do, however, care very much about what fits my desires and goals.
You portray a view that corporations are absolutely morally correct in serving their own best interests, but people are not--in fact, that people should support corporate interests above their own!
Anyway, IBM never had the penetration of the consumer market that MS has and is spending billions attempting to expand (xbox anyone?), so I don't think you can draw too many parallels. They're simply different companies with different markets. I can tell you that MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon.
Duh. It was a joke (the +4 Funny (at the time) ought to have clued you in), and not meant to be taken seriously.
Wow. "MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon." Just, wow.
(the real irony will come in two years when MS drops all consumer software, and delves solely into the mouse and keyboard business--boy, will I look dumb then!)
I wasn't addressing MS's "point" at all. I was comparing MS with IBM re: Open Source, in the context of the post I was replying to.
They point had the same goal of marketing.
No, they have different goals (IBM vs MS) wrt Open Source. IBM actually embraces it as a model, MS does not.
Here are three reasons MS open sourced that one program:
1. They can say, "we have open source projects" (when their customers ask), even though it doesn't mean what it implies. 2. They can continue with, "we haven't found open source all that useful a model, really". 3. The installer will be used and improved.
Microsoft's one thing probably got more press and thus was more successful.
I'm absolutely certain that if you were to take a poll, more people would associate IBM with Open Source than MS, hands down.
Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source?
"Like", when applied to a corporation, is a metaphor. Define it with that in mind.
They embrace open source because it helps them.
They're doing it for marketing
Not really. Yes, they take advantage of the marketing opportunities Open Source provides, but it's more than that. IBM has only so much capital to invest in future business. By embracing Open Source, they add to their offerings with minimal cost, so they can offer their customers just as much as before, plus what Open Source has to offer.
Seems to have Linus fooled.
Yeah, right.
Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.
One thing, an installer. Maybe they're up to two now, I'm not sure. IBM's support of Open Source compared to MS's is like comparing a Saturn V with an amateur model rocket.
Actually, it's much worse than that for MS. Bill Gates calling Open Source advocates "Communists" more than negates the miniscule props they get for their one Open Source project. Add to that MS's demands that government not be able to use Open Source software (WTF?!)...
In other words, MS is in absolutely no way a friend of Open Source software, and in *no way* is a friend of anyone who believes in Open Source/Free Software.
...which is, of course, central to the point at hand.
No, it isn't, because the point at hand is Linux needing to adapt or die.
If OS X can run atop a minimal Linux install, installing OS X becomes, essentially, as easy as installing Linux.
You raise some legitimate points otherwise, but they don't change the fact that x86 OS X will compete directly with Linux x86, unless Apple solidly locks the OS to the hardware, which I doubt they'll manage to accomplish.
or that OSX will be compatible with most computers out there
It already is, via PearPC. The only problem with PearPC is no hardware acceleration, and PPC->x86 translation.
x86 OS X removes the need for PPC->x86 translation.
Even if Apple locks the OS with DRM, DVDJon will have it cracked within a week. Yeah, you won't be able to just pop in the disk and install, but since we're talking Linux users here, they can handle a small boot image to load OS X with--it'll be easier than the "swap the disc" hacks for game consoles.
For the millionth time: Apple will not sell OS X separately,
Ironically, Apple has sold Tiger, separately, over two million times.
They have you beat by an easy mil.
and OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware! How hard is this for people to understand?!?!?!?!?
OS X runs on non-Apple, Intel hardware, right now. When the x86 version becomes available, PearPC will be just that much faster. The only way Apple can stop it is to use rock-solid DRM, and as there has never been a rock-solid DRM scheme to date, the odds are good that you'll be able to run Mac OS X on any Intel PC by loading it from a miniscule Linux install.
Of course, your average PC user won't go through the hassle of installing a small Linux system to run OS X, but your average Linux user will, which is the subject of this current topic.
Now you're either misconstruing my point or you didn't read the article.
Or you didn't write what you think you did.
My point is that if you got a high res image from the photographer and that photographer didn't want you to make prints, then the photographer was stupid.
You said, "If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves."
Doesn't match what you're saying now. I trust you meant what you're saying now all along, but it's certainly *not* what you said originally.
Slashdot Mirror
However, it's a known fact that the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
No, it's not. Like all forms of traditional heat-utilizing cooking, you heat up the food at some place, which heats the rest of it.
Frying, baking, boiling, steaming, etc, all work like this. Microwaving, instead of heating the surface of the food, heats all of the water molecules within the food. This is exactly the same as if you had a knob and could change the temperature of the water without changing the rest of the food in any way. Any notion of "nutritional" changes are highly suspect. There's just no reason to believe microwaves, for example, could significantly change the vitamin or mineral content of the food.
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. That means, roughly, that they don't knock atoms into pieces, and thus don't break atomic bonds. They just heat up matter, especially water, since water absorbs microwaves so well.
Some label this pseudoscience.
That's because it is. There's no valid scientific observation, and no logical scientific model, to suggest that microwave radiation directly affects the nutrition in food.
Just because microwave ovens seem more magical than a frying pan does not excuse them from the rigors of science or the laws of reality.
The richness of the story, the depth of background, the amazing live interactions and the masterful puzzles all played a role in making this a must-play game.
Great, I can hardly wait to play.
The Alternate Reality Gaming Network has an examination of the ARG H3ist, which recently completed its run.
D'oh!
Timeliness people, c'mon! I really don't much desire to read about how fun some game was that it's impossible for me to play, but I would have liked very much to have heard about it before/as it started.
There are some situations in which sponsored closed software wins every time
Perhaps, but this isn't one of them.
and one of those is hardware drivers
Nope. It's primarily entertainment and specialized software really has the upper hand when it comes to closed source against open source.
Proof in this specific case:
What we have now: nvidia closed source drivers, which means all updates, bug fixes, compatibility fixes, enhancements, etc, must come from nvidia.
What it would be like if nvidia opened the source: exactly like it is now, plus anyone can fix a bug, add features, enhance compatibility, etc.
Closed source does not "win" in this case. It's just better than the related open source projects that have to reverse engineer the hardware.
I don't really care how much slashdot fanboys rant about NVidia, the people who actually use high-end video cards in Linux know the truth - NVidia is and has always been oders of magnitude above the rest.
Calling people "fanboys" and asserting that you "know the truth" without providing actual, you know, evidence or supporting argument (you almost put forth an anecdote, but not quite), is worth about the same as the "fanboy"-type posts you refer to.
They can keep the drivers closed till hell freezes over for all I care - they work, they work great, they have more frequent stable updates with bugfixes and new features than any FLOSS drivers I know of.
Rubbish. It's quite obvious that open source nvidia drivers would be superior.
That's the thing. Most people rooting did not choose their side rationally.
I don't mean their chosen side is correct or correctly thought out, but that they chose it via reason, and not just because they heard someone else say it, or because it has a cuter mascot, or whatever.
The idea that people can't root for their convictions (the person I was replying to's notion) is absurd.
Or rather, not even 'most people rooting' but it seems like 'most of the people rooting the loudest and most often' Certainly there is nothing wrong with rooting for a side that is rationally chosen, but rooting because "MS SUCKS" or because "BUSH IS A NAZER/KERRER IS A FLIPPITERFLOPPITER" is certainly myopic.
If someone shouts "MS sucks!", they aren't being eloquent, but if they have reached their conclusion rationally, you can't necessarily call it myopic.
Even if they chose their side for superficial, or otherwise irrational, reasons, that doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they are being foolish. Even so, they should be allowed to want their "side" to win (although they deserve criticism for other reasons).
You can't rationally argue with the irrational person (first, you've got to get them to attempt to reason), which is the point I think you are somewhat promoting. That wasn't what the poster I was replying to was decrying.
Stating that something is not a big deal is by no stretch of the imagination telling someone not to complain about the aforementioned something.
That depends on the context. Your post was in the context of people making a fuss.
You weren't telling people they had no right to complain, you were telling them there's nothing to complain about.
It is not for Me to decide if they are morally correct or not
It *is* for you to decide whether *you* think it's morally correct or not.
You do think it's morally correct for MS to do what they did (do you not?). When people brought up the issue, you posited that there's nothing wrong with it (in other words, there's no grounds for them to complain).
It's clearly not in the Linux people's best interest (at least, in their opinion) for MS to cut support on the product.
So we tie it all together, and we have your opinion being:
1. MS is right to do what they did: yes
2. People have grounds for complaint: no
3. It's not in their best interest, it's in MS's best interest: yes
That's what my initial post is saying. Now, I didn't say you were directly saying those things, but that you were putting forth a view that is founded on those ideas.
I can fully believe you didn't mean to promote that view, and that you, in general, hold the view that the exact *opposite* is the way things should be, but what you've said about this specific incident is predicated on the view I illustrate above. If I've deduced wrong, I invite you to show me where I've assumed or reasoned incorrectly.
"You portray a view that corporations are absolutely morally correct in serving their own best interests, but people are not--in fact, that people should support corporate interests above their own!"
and
"portraying a view that people should not complain about this."
are not the same thing.
The second is an example of the first. Don't pretend they are contradictory, unrelated, or otherwise not similarly pertinent to the discussion.
However, you replied and told ME what I was portraying.
Yes, and you have yet to explain how I'm wrong.
Furthermore, I didn't say you should or shouldn't complain about it.
Yes, you did. That's what the subject "so what", and the question, "What is the problem?", are all about.
And you continue still, with: "I simply stated that CompanyA buying productAV from CompanyZ and customizing it to support *their* interest is not a big deal."
*That's* telling people not to complain.
Now, maybe that's not what you meant but it's certainly what you're saying, and consistently at that. If you meant something else, you've also had ample opportunity to clarify, but you clearly haven't. Do feel free to start now, though. I don't want to mischaracterize your point, which is something you've provided me no reason to believe I've done.
You are so absolutely correct! How DARE
microsoft buy an antivirus product from a company? I mean good grief, I paid
this company good money to protect my Linux and Unix servers. How dare microsoft
force that company to give up their product?
Oh no you don't. I didn't say MS can't do what they did, I was answering your "so what" post.
You are saying people can't be upset that MS does something they don't like.
Don't tell me that i portray something just because you perceive my ideas in a certain way.
You are *clearly* and *undeniably* portraying a view that people should not complain about this.
Point out the flaw in my perception, if it's wrong. Just saying, "don't go by what you perceive to be true" is retarded. What else, exactly, am I supposed to go on?
If many major department stores and government buildings had someone at the door asking, "is your name Frank," and then refusing entry to anyone who said "no" and then most newspapers reported that Frank is the most popular name in the country after asking department stores and government agencies who would be at fault?
How many sites actually require spoofing, really? Not many, but those that do might be critical for you. It's stupid for Opera to default to spoofing. It only makes the problem worse.
Better is to make it a menu option, where if the site doesn't render well, you just select the option to mimic IE for that site. Best of both worlds.
"Today is Wednesday" is a pretty weak headline. "Traffic will be average today" is again as weak headline. "Computers at major banks did not fail today, similar to much of last week"- it's just not interesting news.
And the headline isn't, "Microsoft doesn't do anything much today". It is "Microsoft Cuts Anti-Virus Support For Unix / Linux".
That's quite newsworthy.
And I'd beg to differ- while yes it does fit the definition, news that is expected isn't really news by my books.
Again, news for nerds, check, stuff that matters, check. Maybe you're reading the wrong site?
All I'm saying is that the way the headline was written, it first off discusses Microsoft "cutting A/V support for unix/linux" when they didn't supply it in the first place. They purchased a company, and moved their efforts to their benefit. Yippie. Lets not mislead slashdot readers.
Hrm. Did MS not cut AV support for Unix/Linux? Headlines need to be terse. The body clears up any false assumptions you may have had when reading the headline.
But in the end:
News: check
for nerds: check
stuff: check
that matters: check
Check, and mate.
I would gladly switch to IE without hesitation if Microsoft were to make a browser that does the job better, just as I once dropped Netscape Navigator for IE 5.
Virtually *everyone* would switch to Windows+IE if it was truly better (in the ways important to them) than the alternatives. But almost *no* MS offering is actually the best available.
Fuck all of you! Groups you are "rooting against" doing poorly, or even groups you are "rooting for" doing well, does nothing to make you a better person, nor does it actually make the world a better place.
Are you sure? For every time MS loses an IE customer to Firefox, just that many fewer people will get hit with malware, that many fewer shady organizations will make money on spyware, and MS might, just maybe, be forced into making IE better.
So yes, it most certainly *can* and *does* make the world a better place, and *can* and *does* make you a better person.
Get some goddamn perspective and stop being so myopic about your little meaningless dogma!
Yeah, most people are dogmatic and stupid, so you're right there. But rooting for a rationally chosen side not "myopic".
You sound just like a little kid arguing with the neighbor kid over who's faster, Superman or The Flash.
And then you post that neither is faster, but you use Superman to deliver your mail since he's faster right now, yet would gladly call on the Flash if he could speed up a bit.
In any case, why is this news? Microsoft decides not to put THEIR MONEY (since they purchased it) into their competitors products... duh!
Let's see, "News for Nerds", this affects nerds: check
"Stuff that matters", antivirus software support discontinued for a relevant OS: check
People seem to think "news" means "the unexpected". In that case the fact that somebody died in Iraq today isn't "news", that Deep Impact will hit a comet soon isn't "news" (and when it happens, it won't be news either, unless it does something unexpected).
The weather isn't usually news, sports scores aren't usually news. Stock reports aren't usually news, etc, etc, etc...
In other words, you're operating under a flawed definition of the word "news".
They don't sale or support Unix or Linux. What is the problem? They need to focus on their customers. That makes plenty of business sense.
Since *I'm* not Microsoft, I don't care *at all* about what makes business sense for them. I do, however, care very much about what fits my desires and goals.
You portray a view that corporations are absolutely morally correct in serving their own best interests, but people are not--in fact, that people should support corporate interests above their own!
That's, "so what".
Remember, Microsoft made its first millions selling mice.
Let's see... MS sold DOS to IBM--no mouse. MS sold apps for the Mac--already had a mouse.
It wasn't until Windows that there was a market for an MS mouse. I'm pretty sure MS will have already made more than a few million by then.
Although I'd like the symmetry--MS's dark reign bookended with it being merely a mouse company.
Anyway, IBM never had the penetration of the consumer market that MS has and is spending billions attempting to expand (xbox anyone?), so I don't think you can draw too many parallels. They're simply different companies with different markets. I can tell you that MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon.
Duh. It was a joke (the +4 Funny (at the time) ought to have clued you in), and not meant to be taken seriously.
Wow. "MS is not likely to become a logitech reseller anytime soon." Just, wow.
(the real irony will come in two years when MS drops all consumer software, and delves solely into the mouse and keyboard business--boy, will I look dumb then!)
True, but you're missing the point:
I wasn't addressing MS's "point" at all. I was comparing MS with IBM re: Open Source, in the context of the post I was replying to.
They point had the same goal of marketing.
No, they have different goals (IBM vs MS) wrt Open Source. IBM actually embraces it as a model, MS does not.
Here are three reasons MS open sourced that one program:
1. They can say, "we have open source projects" (when their customers ask), even though it doesn't mean what it implies.
2. They can continue with, "we haven't found open source all that useful a model, really".
3. The installer will be used and improved.
Microsoft's one thing probably got more press and thus was more successful.
I'm absolutely certain that if you were to take a poll, more people would associate IBM with Open Source than MS, hands down.
Define "like open source". Do you think IBM or Sun "likes" about open source?
"Like", when applied to a corporation, is a metaphor. Define it with that in mind.
They embrace open source because it helps them.
They're doing it for marketing
Not really. Yes, they take advantage of the marketing opportunities Open Source provides, but it's more than that. IBM has only so much capital to invest in future business. By embracing Open Source, they add to their offerings with minimal cost, so they can offer their customers just as much as before, plus what Open Source has to offer.
Seems to have Linus fooled.
Yeah, right.
Also, lest we forget Microsoft has open source'd code too.
One thing, an installer. Maybe they're up to two now, I'm not sure. IBM's support of Open Source compared to MS's is like comparing a Saturn V with an amateur model rocket.
Actually, it's much worse than that for MS. Bill Gates calling Open Source advocates "Communists" more than negates the miniscule props they get for their one Open Source project. Add to that MS's demands that government not be able to use Open Source software (WTF?!)...
In other words, MS is in absolutely no way a friend of Open Source software, and in *no way* is a friend of anyone who believes in Open Source/Free Software.
Easy - take a long hard look at IBM.
Exactly. When IBM's consumer software market dried up, they simply moved more focus onto their hardware.
MS will do the same, and when their consumer software market dries up, they'll focus on selling mice and keyboards for Linux and Mac PCs.
...which is, of course, central to the point at hand.
No, it isn't, because the point at hand is Linux needing to adapt or die.
If OS X can run atop a minimal Linux install, installing OS X becomes, essentially, as easy as installing Linux.
You raise some legitimate points otherwise, but they don't change the fact that x86 OS X will compete directly with Linux x86, unless Apple solidly locks the OS to the hardware, which I doubt they'll manage to accomplish.
Nowdays, Linux is very easy to use and very powerful. There really is, no excuse not to use it.
Linux is powerful, but it's *not* very easy to use. It's about on par with Windows 9X in that aspect.
Once you use OS X for any reasonable length of time, you see clearly the shortcomings of Linux as a desktop OS. The difference is staggering.
or that OSX will be compatible with most computers out there
It already is, via PearPC. The only problem with PearPC is no hardware acceleration, and PPC->x86 translation.
x86 OS X removes the need for PPC->x86 translation.
Even if Apple locks the OS with DRM, DVDJon will have it cracked within a week. Yeah, you won't be able to just pop in the disk and install, but since we're talking Linux users here, they can handle a small boot image to load OS X with--it'll be easier than the "swap the disc" hacks for game consoles.
For the millionth time: Apple will not sell OS X separately,
Ironically, Apple has sold Tiger, separately, over two million times.
They have you beat by an easy mil.
and OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware! How hard is this for people to understand?!?!?!?!?
OS X runs on non-Apple, Intel hardware, right now. When the x86 version becomes available, PearPC will be just that much faster. The only way Apple can stop it is to use rock-solid DRM, and as there has never been a rock-solid DRM scheme to date, the odds are good that you'll be able to run Mac OS X on any Intel PC by loading it from a miniscule Linux install.
Of course, your average PC user won't go through the hassle of installing a small Linux system to run OS X, but your average Linux user will, which is the subject of this current topic.
It seems just a cut-down version (text only) of Solaris, so where's the improvement?
/. crowd, this sort of makes Open Solaris real.
It's a milestone.
After months (years?) of "show us the code" from the
And Darwin.
Battle of *nix(es) is on!!
This time, it's all open (amazing!).
This time, everyone's a winner.
between solaris and linux ?
One sucks, and the other doesn't.
Or it might be the other way around.
Now you're either misconstruing my point or you didn't read the article.
Or you didn't write what you think you did.
My point is that if you got a high res image from the photographer and that photographer didn't want you to make prints, then the photographer was stupid.
You said, "If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves."
Doesn't match what you're saying now. I trust you meant what you're saying now all along, but it's certainly *not* what you said originally.