Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer has said it's unrealistic to think that Microsoft could come up with multiple Windows versions that work equally well.
Who says they have to work equally well? Especially considering the wide variety of needs that people have. What works well for one person, doesn't necessarily work well for another. This would just give people a much needed choice in what is installed on their system. If everyone used a stripped down version of their OS that does only the things they absolutely need (and can be added to at a later time if so desired) then the internet as a whole would be much healthier.
Gates is on Microsoft's witness list, as is Ballmer. The states expect to see Gates alone, and his testimony could be pivotal.
Gates' evasive, videotaped deposition in the last trial was a disaster. If he testifies this time, he will face Sullivan's withering interrogation.
"Brendan Sullivan is an absolute marvel. The issue is whether he will be able to crack Gates and show some of the less-believable aspects," Lande said.
Anyone know if this will be available to the public? What I wouldn't give to see Gates or Ballmer crack while on the stand.
Ever heard of using the right tool for the job? Maybe different people have different preferences as to what they would like others to be able to do with their code. Personally, I like using a modified BSD-style license for most of my programs. Still, I can certainly envision times when using the GPL would be much more desirable.
Tabs are a nice idea, but they're still quite immature in Mozilla. For instance, they don't close in the correct order, so they're no substitute for real tabs or MDI, as found in Galeon or Opera.
Not only this.. but have you tried opening more tabs than is able to fit on the screen? Doing so causes the browser to have an incorrect concept of the right edge so your toolbar buttons and tabs go off the end. This also causes a massive slowdown. I have not yet tested 0.9.9 for this, nor have I checked bugzilla. If.9 still has this problem you can bet I will.
Other than that, I absolutely love the tabbed browsing. I can barely get by without it anymore.
and video-game consoles consistently work as advertised, as do Aegis missile cruisers, cellular telephones and digital watches.
I can't really comment on the Aegis missile cruisers, but man, where has this guy been? He must not actually own any video games or a cell phone. When you get down to it, is there really a difference between your PS2 and your PC (aside from a bit less complexity)?
Re:I've written my representatives
on
SSSCA Editorials
·
· Score: 1
(I blame Vermont for this mess. If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords had stayed with the people who put him in the Senate, we wouldn't have an idiot like Hollings in a position to introduce such a crappy piece of legislation as the SSSCA.)
Maybe so... but then again... If not him, there's always some other monkey willing to jump through hoops to further its career.
Don't just sit there! Write to your senators to voice out your opinions!(write with plain letter, of course)
This has been discussed almost to death, but you shouldn't limit yourself to just snail mail. Especially considering recent events, they may actually prefer email (not to mention it saves trees!). If you bother to write up or put together a well thought out letter, send it to them every way that you can. Each senator may have their own preference as to how they like to receive such things so why not be thorough and make sure they really get it? Just be careful not to send _too_ many copies, thus becoming an annoyance, or they might dismiss them all.:-)
While I'm sure that he did not approve of the way in which the bomb was used, everything I have read seems to show that he stood behind his (and the other physicists involved) decision to help the US get the bomb first. He was well aware of the ramifications of things before he had any part in it (which, IIRC, consisted mostly of writing a letter to the president urging him to faster development of the bomb). As was previously stated, he was always a strong supporter of pacifism and peace, yet he still felt the need to help the lesser of two evils in this situation.
P.S. If anyone is interested in reading speeches, articles, essays, etc. all written by Einstein himself, I highly recommend picking up a copy of "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein. It is definitely one of my favorite books I own.
How is that different from the current situation? Like it or not > 50% (I know, not all) of Muslims evidently already hate us.
As far as I am aware, true Muslims are not violent aggressors and supporters of war. Their religion preaches peace and kindness unless under direct attack thus requiring them to defend themselves. Any Muslim who would carry out an attack on innocent civilians is totally misguided. Even if "they" do hate "us", that doesn't mean there is any threat. The people you need to worry about are the fanatics that twist things to suit their own desires, and I would not call such people true Muslims.
b. Try to make them stop killing us.
I don't mean to pick on you at all, but such statements only seem to me to perpetuate the "us vs. them" mentality. You say this as if all Muslims are terrorists trying to overthrow our government and kill innocent people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not miss the "I know, not all" but your statements just seem to be dripping with the previously mentioned mentality, whether intentional or not.
For the record, I am not Muslim nor do I belong to any particular religion (though I heavily favor Buddhism these days).
You seem to forget how evil the Nazis actually were. Don't get me wrong, I am very strongly against a lot of the things that the US government (and others) are doing, but I am definitely glad that some of the world's brightest scientists at the time went to great lengths to ensure that we had the bomb first. These physicists knew what they were creating, yet still made the decision to make it. They did so on the moral grounds that if the Nazis had done it first, even more terrible events were likely to have taken place. Even Albert Einstein (always a very strong supporter of peace and a genuine pacifist) had a part in this. He also had great ideas on what should be done after the war to move towards world peace, but unfortunately his ideas were largely ignored. Now I fear we will still see a world government, but through force rather than cooperation, just as he predicted. That's assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.
From what I have witnessed, it does appear that Windows 2000 is far superior to the 9x series. So I don't blame you for wanting a machine fast enough to use it if you're required to run Windows anyway. I just try to avoid MS products at all costs. Over the years I have developed a solid distrust and dislike of MS, and let me assure you it does not stem from elitism. They have been a thorn in my side since the days of Windows 3.1 (yes, for some strange reason I liked MS-DOS back then *shudder*). I have spent many stressful hours wrestling with their poorly made products and am just tired. I have since discovered a cornucopia of other operating systems that more or less suit my needs (where are the games?!) and am now quite happy. It is true that they require you to learn a bit more about the system and be willing to tinker with things but in the end I have something that is rock solid and doesn't have problems unless I create them. I'll stop here before this turns into an even longer rant about Microsoft, since/. certainly doesn't need anymore of that. To sum things up, my life has just been a lot easier (regarding computers, anyway) since I stopped using their products and I have no plans of going back.
I do find it a little bit sad that Microsoft has to obsolete old hardware so quickly. I mean, aside from the stability of Windows 2000 (amazing considering the amount of code) what have they really added to its value? If you ask me, the OS should have been getting smaller and more efficient, not the other way around. Complexity just brings about more problems. So what is it they have added that really needs all this power? In case you are wondering, this is not a troll, I am genuinely curious.
Quality DOES matter.
on
Low-end Laptops?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What kind of drives were these? I'm sitting here right now with a Dell laptop that must be at least 5 years old and is still running strong with the original hard drive (IBM). It has changed owners a couple of times, has run a multitude of different operating systems, and was even a server that was up 24/7 for over a year. All with the original hardware. The hard drives in my desktop are also IBM and I have never had any problems whatsoever.
I am not claiming that IBM has never made a faulty product, but this brings me to my main point. If you want reliability, stay away from the cutting-edge. I have found that if you always buy slightly behind the times (and research things a bit first, of course) that you can more often than not end up with quality products that will continue to work and be useful for years to come. Not to mention this approach is much cheaper, both in the short term and the long term.
I also find it a bit unsettling that, in general, people consider computers that are only 3 years old to only be useful as routers, firewalls, etc. Especially taking into account some of the wonderful operating systems available that run beautifully on older, slower hardware. I have no doubt that this laptop would completely buckle under the weight of trying to run Windows 2000 or XP (or even applications like Mozilla), but are such things really necessary? Sure we have prettier GUIs, but has our ability to actually do work really improved that much? I am definitely not the norm, but I am perfectly happy and productive at a command-line interface with nothing but the tools that have been around for decades now. I'm well aware that everyone has their own needs, and that some people do indeed require very powerful systems. Still, I can't help but feel that there are a great number of people merely getting caught up in the glitter and glamour of new products. It just seems that an increasingly large part of the population is forgetting just how powerful this "old" hardware/software really is.
I sincerely wish the best of luck to anyone seeking out old hardware/software. If only there were more like you out there. Just try to be wary of sacrificing quality (in new and old products alike) where sacrificing something like speed may suffice.
P.S. My "old" laptop still runs a GUI just fine, it's just not my preference.:-)
Come on... This is a Pentium II we're talking about here! That could do a hell of a lot more than just be a router. I still use a lowly P166 for all sorts of work. You're right though... You summed up my initial response perfectly with "!!!!!". This guy must be insane throwing that out. I'm sure there are thousands of/.ers out there that would love to take it off his hands and even pay for shipping (myself included). The sad thing is that this happens all the time. The last company I worked for would rather throw out all their old Pentium machines than sell them to employees (for a reasonable price, of course). *sigh*
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Does this even matter? Does this mean that we are allowed to sue trolls here on/.? I definitely don't know the facts, but I will say this much... If you can get sued for a statement you make in an online discussion forum, true or not, we're all in for a lot of trouble.
It's rather cartoony and comical but does anyone else see the future state of the world being a lot like that new Rockstar game State of Emergency? Not the greatest game in the world (I wish I could still return my copy), but it seems to be hitting home in all too many areas.
Happiness is shopping at the corporation. Don't you want to be happy too?
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Seems to me that there are plenty of web browsers, burner applications, ftp clients, and archivers available completely free of charge. Last time I checked, you could even use WinZip free of charge and the only difference I've ever noticed was that it says something along the lines of "Unregistered" at the top. Big deal. You're definitely right that this would have a large impact on the consumer, but would this impact necessarily be bad?
I guess I'm deserving of a public flogging of some kind for not knowing this, or looking it up before my post, but tarkin is actually the video related Ogg project.
*bangs head on desk*
Still, supporting the entire Ogg project is definitely a Good Thing (tm).
... and contribute to work on vorbis/tarkin instead...
The "Vorbis" part of "Ogg Vorbis" actually refers specifically to audio. I can't comment on tarkin as I'm not familiar with it. You do bring up an excellent point though... Support the Ogg project!:-)
First and foremost, she must be between the age of 18 and 25 and be strikingly beautiful. It is also absolutely imperative that she understand the benefits of having beer on top at the office. This is key. How can one expect to code anything without their trusty pitcher of Guinness by their side?
Oh, and I guess it's nice when they listen to you too...
Listen, everyone: Times are changing. Linux has gotten big and complicated, and is no longer automatically secure. Long gone are the Slackware days where you'd download a minimal kernel/utilities package and then compile only the apps you need, by yourself, and understand everything. Complex software has security problems, and the linux community has done little but use the "lots of eyeballs" method to counter that. Microsoft software is also quite complex, and they have fewer eyeballs (I hope, though I am not sure), but they have publicly recognized the problem and are at least pretending to try to fix it. Microsoft also has a bunch of research into technologies for producing machine-checked code so that they don't even need lots of eyeballs.
You are absolutely right, complex software is, by nature, less secure. The thing you seem to forget is that Microsoft operating systems are still far more complex than anything else I know of. The quantity of code is amazing. The fact that such complex and massive software even works at all is truly a feat of human engineering (the same is true for things like Mozilla). IIRC, Windows 2000 was estimated to have something like 40-60 million lines of code.
"The size of Windows 2000 is absolutely amazing, and it will have even more security bugs than Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 combined." -- Bruce Schneier
Due to the size and complexity of current MS software, there is absolutely no way they are going to secure what they already have. Regardless of how much effort they say they are putting into it. You cannot hack true security into software after it has been nearly completed. It MUST be designed into the software from the very beginning. How many people think that MS is going to completely rewrite Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer has said it's unrealistic to think that Microsoft could come up with multiple Windows versions that work equally well.
Who says they have to work equally well? Especially considering the wide variety of needs that people have. What works well for one person, doesn't necessarily work well for another. This would just give people a much needed choice in what is installed on their system. If everyone used a stripped down version of their OS that does only the things they absolutely need (and can be added to at a later time if so desired) then the internet as a whole would be much healthier.
Gates is on Microsoft's witness list, as is Ballmer. The states expect to see Gates alone, and his testimony could be pivotal.
Gates' evasive, videotaped deposition in the last trial was a disaster. If he testifies this time, he will face Sullivan's withering interrogation.
"Brendan Sullivan is an absolute marvel. The issue is whether he will be able to crack Gates and show some of the less-believable aspects," Lande said.
Anyone know if this will be available to the public? What I wouldn't give to see Gates or Ballmer crack while on the stand.
I LOVE THIS COMPANY! YEAH!
IMHO GPL is always the better license.
Ever heard of using the right tool for the job? Maybe different people have different preferences as to what they would like others to be able to do with their code. Personally, I like using a modified BSD-style license for most of my programs. Still, I can certainly envision times when using the GPL would be much more desirable.
A lot of time is being chewed up with stability, performance and bug fix work
:-)
Rejoice!
Tabs are a nice idea, but they're still quite immature in Mozilla. For instance, they don't close in the correct order, so they're no substitute for real tabs or MDI, as found in Galeon or Opera.
.9 still has this problem you can bet I will.
Not only this.. but have you tried opening more tabs than is able to fit on the screen? Doing so causes the browser to have an incorrect concept of the right edge so your toolbar buttons and tabs go off the end. This also causes a massive slowdown. I have not yet tested 0.9.9 for this, nor have I checked bugzilla. If
Other than that, I absolutely love the tabbed browsing. I can barely get by without it anymore.
and video-game consoles consistently work as advertised, as do Aegis missile cruisers, cellular telephones and digital watches.
I can't really comment on the Aegis missile cruisers, but man, where has this guy been? He must not actually own any video games or a cell phone. When you get down to it, is there really a difference between your PS2 and your PC (aside from a bit less complexity)?
(I blame Vermont for this mess. If Jumpin' Jim Jeffords had stayed with the people who put him in the Senate, we wouldn't have an idiot like Hollings in a position to introduce such a crappy piece of legislation as the SSSCA.)
Maybe so... but then again... If not him, there's always some other monkey willing to jump through hoops to further its career.
Unfortunatly the American idea of freedom has been transformed, and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.
Some of you out there (that haven't already found it) may find this to be an interesting read.
Don't just sit there! Write to your senators to voice out your opinions!(write with plain letter, of course)
:-)
This has been discussed almost to death, but you shouldn't limit yourself to just snail mail. Especially considering recent events, they may actually prefer email (not to mention it saves trees!). If you bother to write up or put together a well thought out letter, send it to them every way that you can. Each senator may have their own preference as to how they like to receive such things so why not be thorough and make sure they really get it? Just be careful not to send _too_ many copies, thus becoming an annoyance, or they might dismiss them all.
While I'm sure that he did not approve of the way in which the bomb was used, everything I have read seems to show that he stood behind his (and the other physicists involved) decision to help the US get the bomb first. He was well aware of the ramifications of things before he had any part in it (which, IIRC, consisted mostly of writing a letter to the president urging him to faster development of the bomb). As was previously stated, he was always a strong supporter of pacifism and peace, yet he still felt the need to help the lesser of two evils in this situation.
P.S. If anyone is interested in reading speeches, articles, essays, etc. all written by Einstein himself, I highly recommend picking up a copy of "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein. It is definitely one of my favorite books I own.
How is that different from the current situation? Like it or not > 50% (I know, not all) of Muslims evidently already hate us.
As far as I am aware, true Muslims are not violent aggressors and supporters of war. Their religion preaches peace and kindness unless under direct attack thus requiring them to defend themselves. Any Muslim who would carry out an attack on innocent civilians is totally misguided. Even if "they" do hate "us", that doesn't mean there is any threat. The people you need to worry about are the fanatics that twist things to suit their own desires, and I would not call such people true Muslims.
b. Try to make them stop killing us.
I don't mean to pick on you at all, but such statements only seem to me to perpetuate the "us vs. them" mentality. You say this as if all Muslims are terrorists trying to overthrow our government and kill innocent people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not miss the "I know, not all" but your statements just seem to be dripping with the previously mentioned mentality, whether intentional or not.
For the record, I am not Muslim nor do I belong to any particular religion (though I heavily favor Buddhism these days).
You seem to forget how evil the Nazis actually were. Don't get me wrong, I am very strongly against a lot of the things that the US government (and others) are doing, but I am definitely glad that some of the world's brightest scientists at the time went to great lengths to ensure that we had the bomb first. These physicists knew what they were creating, yet still made the decision to make it. They did so on the moral grounds that if the Nazis had done it first, even more terrible events were likely to have taken place. Even Albert Einstein (always a very strong supporter of peace and a genuine pacifist) had a part in this. He also had great ideas on what should be done after the war to move towards world peace, but unfortunately his ideas were largely ignored. Now I fear we will still see a world government, but through force rather than cooperation, just as he predicted. That's assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.
likely not even kill half of the world population.
Now that you put it that way, I guess it really isn't all that bad... Nukes for everyone!
From what I have witnessed, it does appear that Windows 2000 is far superior to the 9x series. So I don't blame you for wanting a machine fast enough to use it if you're required to run Windows anyway. I just try to avoid MS products at all costs. Over the years I have developed a solid distrust and dislike of MS, and let me assure you it does not stem from elitism. They have been a thorn in my side since the days of Windows 3.1 (yes, for some strange reason I liked MS-DOS back then *shudder*). I have spent many stressful hours wrestling with their poorly made products and am just tired. I have since discovered a cornucopia of other operating systems that more or less suit my needs (where are the games?!) and am now quite happy. It is true that they require you to learn a bit more about the system and be willing to tinker with things but in the end I have something that is rock solid and doesn't have problems unless I create them. I'll stop here before this turns into an even longer rant about Microsoft, since /. certainly doesn't need anymore of that. To sum things up, my life has just been a lot easier (regarding computers, anyway) since I stopped using their products and I have no plans of going back.
I do find it a little bit sad that Microsoft has to obsolete old hardware so quickly. I mean, aside from the stability of Windows 2000 (amazing considering the amount of code) what have they really added to its value? If you ask me, the OS should have been getting smaller and more efficient, not the other way around. Complexity just brings about more problems. So what is it they have added that really needs all this power? In case you are wondering, this is not a troll, I am genuinely curious.
What kind of drives were these? I'm sitting here right now with a Dell laptop that must be at least 5 years old and is still running strong with the original hard drive (IBM). It has changed owners a couple of times, has run a multitude of different operating systems, and was even a server that was up 24/7 for over a year. All with the original hardware. The hard drives in my desktop are also IBM and I have never had any problems whatsoever.
:-)
I am not claiming that IBM has never made a faulty product, but this brings me to my main point. If you want reliability, stay away from the cutting-edge. I have found that if you always buy slightly behind the times (and research things a bit first, of course) that you can more often than not end up with quality products that will continue to work and be useful for years to come. Not to mention this approach is much cheaper, both in the short term and the long term.
I also find it a bit unsettling that, in general, people consider computers that are only 3 years old to only be useful as routers, firewalls, etc. Especially taking into account some of the wonderful operating systems available that run beautifully on older, slower hardware. I have no doubt that this laptop would completely buckle under the weight of trying to run Windows 2000 or XP (or even applications like Mozilla), but are such things really necessary? Sure we have prettier GUIs, but has our ability to actually do work really improved that much? I am definitely not the norm, but I am perfectly happy and productive at a command-line interface with nothing but the tools that have been around for decades now. I'm well aware that everyone has their own needs, and that some people do indeed require very powerful systems. Still, I can't help but feel that there are a great number of people merely getting caught up in the glitter and glamour of new products. It just seems that an increasingly large part of the population is forgetting just how powerful this "old" hardware/software really is.
I sincerely wish the best of luck to anyone seeking out old hardware/software. If only there were more like you out there. Just try to be wary of sacrificing quality (in new and old products alike) where sacrificing something like speed may suffice.
P.S. My "old" laptop still runs a GUI just fine, it's just not my preference.
Come on... This is a Pentium II we're talking about here! That could do a hell of a lot more than just be a router. I still use a lowly P166 for all sorts of work. You're right though... You summed up my initial response perfectly with "!!!!!". This guy must be insane throwing that out. I'm sure there are thousands of /.ers out there that would love to take it off his hands and even pay for shipping (myself included). The sad thing is that this happens all the time. The last company I worked for would rather throw out all their old Pentium machines than sell them to employees (for a reasonable price, of course). *sigh*
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
/.? I definitely don't know the facts, but I will say this much... If you can get sued for a statement you make in an online discussion forum, true or not, we're all in for a lot of trouble.
Does this even matter? Does this mean that we are allowed to sue trolls here on
It's rather cartoony and comical but does anyone else see the future state of the world being a lot like that new Rockstar game State of Emergency? Not the greatest game in the world (I wish I could still return my copy), but it seems to be hitting home in all too many areas.
Happiness is shopping at the corporation. Don't you want to be happy too?
4. They can't arrange a change of clothes or a shower for a prisoner in four days.
;-)
Some prisoners don't deserve such things.
However, consider the impact on the consumer if these add-ons were removed from the OS? Now, on top of the OS license cost, the user must purchase a CD burner ($50), a browser($30), an archiver($30 for Winzip), an FTP client($40 CuteFTP c4.2), etc etc etc.
Seems to me that there are plenty of web browsers, burner applications, ftp clients, and archivers available completely free of charge. Last time I checked, you could even use WinZip free of charge and the only difference I've ever noticed was that it says something along the lines of "Unregistered" at the top. Big deal. You're definitely right that this would have a large impact on the consumer, but would this impact necessarily be bad?
I guess I'm deserving of a public flogging of some kind for not knowing this, or looking it up before my post, but tarkin is actually the video related Ogg project.
*bangs head on desk*
Still, supporting the entire Ogg project is definitely a Good Thing (tm).
Cheers.
... and contribute to work on vorbis/tarkin instead ...
:-)
The "Vorbis" part of "Ogg Vorbis" actually refers specifically to audio. I can't comment on tarkin as I'm not familiar with it. You do bring up an excellent point though... Support the Ogg project!
First and foremost, she must be between the age of 18 and 25 and be strikingly beautiful. It is also absolutely imperative that she understand the benefits of having beer on top at the office. This is key. How can one expect to code anything without their trusty pitcher of Guinness by their side?
Oh, and I guess it's nice when they listen to you too...
Listen, everyone: Times are changing. Linux has gotten big and complicated, and is no longer automatically secure. Long gone are the Slackware days where you'd download a minimal kernel/utilities package and then compile only the apps you need, by yourself, and understand everything. Complex software has security problems, and the linux community has done little but use the "lots of eyeballs" method to counter that. Microsoft software is also quite complex, and they have fewer eyeballs (I hope, though I am not sure), but they have publicly recognized the problem and are at least pretending to try to fix it. Microsoft also has a bunch of research into technologies for producing machine-checked code so that they don't even need lots of eyeballs.
You are absolutely right, complex software is, by nature, less secure. The thing you seem to forget is that Microsoft operating systems are still far more complex than anything else I know of. The quantity of code is amazing. The fact that such complex and massive software even works at all is truly a feat of human engineering (the same is true for things like Mozilla). IIRC, Windows 2000 was estimated to have something like 40-60 million lines of code.
"The size of Windows 2000 is absolutely amazing, and it will have even more security bugs than Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 combined." -- Bruce Schneier
Due to the size and complexity of current MS software, there is absolutely no way they are going to secure what they already have. Regardless of how much effort they say they are putting into it. You cannot hack true security into software after it has been nearly completed. It MUST be designed into the software from the very beginning. How many people think that MS is going to completely rewrite Windows?