There is also the fact that their mainstream tools usually just work. Can you say the same of MS?
As much as I dislike Microsoft and most of their products, I'm going to have to say yes, their "mainstream tools" usually just work. They may or may not actually be better than competing products and services, but any honest person will have to admit that they do "usually just work."
Taking this original discussion further, I would propose that not only is Google irrationally deemed "good" by a lot of people, Microsoft is also irrationally deemed "bad," probably by those same people. I believe that Microsoft has largely earned their reputation as a "bad" monopoly which does some bad things, but most people have not directly been burned by Microsoft's "aggressive" business tactics, and (though we hate to admit it), their products do usually just work (flops like Vista are the exception).
Anyway, I'm with those who don't trust either MS or Google, or any other company. Being paranoid is one thing, but being realistic is another. Companies sometimes don't do what we might think is the "right thing," so up to the extent to which we can't avoid it, why trust them any more than we have to?
I think you're suggesting that Microsoft "gained" their monopoly fair and square. As if "apparently people liked [Windows]."
Unfortunately, that's not very apparent at all. Apple had a viable, easy-to-use operating system at the same time. It eventually became outdated, yet it had a lot going for it including some nice killer apps (desktop publishing for one). You can't simply shrug that off as 'people just liked Windows better' unless you know what you're talking about.
In actuality, Microsoft gained its monopoly using questionably dubious, but well documented, business tactics, and now they use that OS monopoly in yet more questionable and dubious ways. This is generally known and accepted, but maybe your "apparently people liked [Windows]" comment isn't so well supported.
Somehow I think BestBuy has a more direct way of mining the information they need. I can't see them going through all that just to deliver some firmware update.
Re:I also give the book a 9...I own it
on
Ubuntu Kung Fu
·
· Score: 1
I've rarely (or maybe never) found ubuntuforums.org very useful for anything. The really useful linux answers (found by Google) are usually on Gentoo or Fedora forums (mostly Gentoo). Usually when I follow a ubuntuforums link, my question is posed, but no answers. I think those who frequent that forum are generally less knowledgable than those on other forums...
Look at what happened in the 80s with IBM-compatibles (clones).
Or, more relevantly, look what happened in the 90s with Mac-compatibles (clones). Those who keep insisting Apple should try to compete directly with Microsoft on generic PC hardware simply do not understand how Apple's business plan works.
Mozilla will have Google's support as long as FF marketshare stays big and that google search textbox keeps bringing google several hits.
The question is, how long will FF marketshare stay high when Google puts its weight and brand behind Chrome? Two events will turn the tide quickly:
1. Chrome is native on the Big Three (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux).
2. Chrome supports plug-ins, extensions, add-ons, etc.
After that, Mozilla will be in a sad place, so hopefully they can figure out something clever to stay competitive before that happens. A lot of us are looking for a slimmed down and expandable browser, and FF has just become too bloated to meet that first criteria.
If Google felt that a browser with Chrome's security / capability needed to exist, then they should have opened a dialog with Mozilla to discuss how FireFox could be enhanced to that end. Google could have provided funding or coders to help make that possible.
Internet Explorer has lost ground, but that is primarily because there has been a single, well-defined alternative - Firefox
Well, no. Firefox has gained marketshare because of good marketing and being in the right place at the right time to fill in the gap when a lot of people started realizing how horrible IE was in terms of security. In reality, the codebase of Firefox is old and crufty. It would be no simple task to try to make Firefox be a multi-process program. I'm not fan of Google generally, but if they wanted to do a rewrite from the ground up using a good, small, standards-compliant renderer like webkit, I have no problem with that, and Mozilla better think about doing something similar if they want to continue to be competitive in the near future.
They say those "netbooks" are selling pretty well, but I have yet to actually see one in use in the public. Nowadays I mostly see Macbooks, Dells, HPs, and some Compaqs, all running Windows and Mac OS X... except for me and my thinkpad with Gentoo. Everything else like a Sony is more rare, but a netbook is like a mythic beast where I live.
FreeBSD was providing Java (with the plugin) for both i386 and amd64 for years now...
Well let's be honest. Linux is now the darling of the "open source" movement, irrelevant of technical or developer merit. It's similar to Opera VS Firefox. Opera usually has more new features while Firefox takes the credit later when it finally introduces those same features. Firefox is the darling of browers. No, it's not fair, but it's just the way it is.
I've never had an HP printer that didn't work swimmingly with Linux. From what I've heard from others, HP seems to be the best supported in their experiences as well.
Having the cash to buy Dell and being able to compete in the low-end PC market in a way that would increase Apple's value are two different things.
Yes, Apple could certainly purchase controlling stock into a company like Dell. That would certainly make them the "Microsoft" of consumer hardware, but let's just be thankful that's apparently not the direction they want to go in.
As an lds person, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider all related groups "Mormon" but you are right the mainstream Mormons have not done polygamy for a long time.
Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position that deserves some respect.
It's a valid position, but at the same time it's nonsensical. You don't need a license (i.e. GPL) to "ensure that what you love stays free," as this is already ensured in US (and similar) copyright law in combination with any free/open license.
What the GPL accomplishes is preventing others from releasing binaries of their copy of the licensed code without complying with the GPL. That in no way affects your copy of the code which will always be free regardless of which free license the code is under.
In essence, what you believe to be an advantage of the GPL is actually a feature of copyright law itself. The real reason to use the GPL is to be able to "stick it" to those who would use the code but cannot fully comply with the complete laundry list of provisions and restrictions provided by the GPL. This also is a valid viewpoint, but completely unrelated to keeping your code free. In contrast, BSD-licensed code has no such strings attached and is therefore released more in a spirit of "love" rather than "control."
OS X itself is not open, as OS X is just the GUI over Darwin, which is open. Darwin is based on BSD, so it has to be open...
The BSD license doesn't require derivative works to be released in source code form. Apple is providing Darwin freely, but they're not obligated. Furthermore, OS X is not just the "GUI over Darwin." Aqua is. OS X is much more than a GUI shell.
No offense, but I'm not sure how you managed "insightful" when it's so clear that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Perhaps by DNS space he means the fact that organizations who want to register their website under all the TLD's in order to protect their name will have yet another TLD. As the number of domains that point to the same IP address increases, so does the number of pointless DNS requests.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also the fact that their mainstream tools usually just work. Can you say the same of MS?
As much as I dislike Microsoft and most of their products, I'm going to have to say yes, their "mainstream tools" usually just work. They may or may not actually be better than competing products and services, but any honest person will have to admit that they do "usually just work."
Taking this original discussion further, I would propose that not only is Google irrationally deemed "good" by a lot of people, Microsoft is also irrationally deemed "bad," probably by those same people. I believe that Microsoft has largely earned their reputation as a "bad" monopoly which does some bad things, but most people have not directly been burned by Microsoft's "aggressive" business tactics, and (though we hate to admit it), their products do usually just work (flops like Vista are the exception).
Anyway, I'm with those who don't trust either MS or Google, or any other company. Being paranoid is one thing, but being realistic is another. Companies sometimes don't do what we might think is the "right thing," so up to the extent to which we can't avoid it, why trust them any more than we have to?
From your ID, I wouldn't have guessed you've been here 9 years, but you're always free to get your news and commentary elsewhere.
I think you're suggesting that Microsoft "gained" their monopoly fair and square. As if "apparently people liked [Windows]."
Unfortunately, that's not very apparent at all. Apple had a viable, easy-to-use operating system at the same time. It eventually became outdated, yet it had a lot going for it including some nice killer apps (desktop publishing for one). You can't simply shrug that off as 'people just liked Windows better' unless you know what you're talking about.
In actuality, Microsoft gained its monopoly using questionably dubious, but well documented, business tactics, and now they use that OS monopoly in yet more questionable and dubious ways. This is generally known and accepted, but maybe your "apparently people liked [Windows]" comment isn't so well supported.
Somehow I think BestBuy has a more direct way of mining the information they need. I can't see them going through all that just to deliver some firmware update.
... congressional action.
Oxymoron.
I've rarely (or maybe never) found ubuntuforums.org very useful for anything. The really useful linux answers (found by Google) are usually on Gentoo or Fedora forums (mostly Gentoo). Usually when I follow a ubuntuforums link, my question is posed, but no answers. I think those who frequent that forum are generally less knowledgable than those on other forums...
Look at what happened in the 80s with IBM-compatibles (clones).
Or, more relevantly, look what happened in the 90s with Mac-compatibles (clones). Those who keep insisting Apple should try to compete directly with Microsoft on generic PC hardware simply do not understand how Apple's business plan works.
Mozilla will have Google's support as long as FF marketshare stays big and that google search textbox keeps bringing google several hits.
The question is, how long will FF marketshare stay high when Google puts its weight and brand behind Chrome? Two events will turn the tide quickly:
1. Chrome is native on the Big Three (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux).
2. Chrome supports plug-ins, extensions, add-ons, etc.
After that, Mozilla will be in a sad place, so hopefully they can figure out something clever to stay competitive before that happens. A lot of us are looking for a slimmed down and expandable browser, and FF has just become too bloated to meet that first criteria.
If Google felt that a browser with Chrome's security / capability needed to exist, then they should have opened a dialog with Mozilla to discuss how FireFox could be enhanced to that end. Google could have provided funding or coders to help make that possible.
Internet Explorer has lost ground, but that is primarily because there has been a single, well-defined alternative - Firefox
Well, no. Firefox has gained marketshare because of good marketing and being in the right place at the right time to fill in the gap when a lot of people started realizing how horrible IE was in terms of security. In reality, the codebase of Firefox is old and crufty. It would be no simple task to try to make Firefox be a multi-process program. I'm not fan of Google generally, but if they wanted to do a rewrite from the ground up using a good, small, standards-compliant renderer like webkit, I have no problem with that, and Mozilla better think about doing something similar if they want to continue to be competitive in the near future.
They say those "netbooks" are selling pretty well, but I have yet to actually see one in use in the public. Nowadays I mostly see Macbooks, Dells, HPs, and some Compaqs, all running Windows and Mac OS X... except for me and my thinkpad with Gentoo. Everything else like a Sony is more rare, but a netbook is like a mythic beast where I live.
The innovations from Linux don't come from widespread appeal and revolutionary ideas;
they come from BSD.
/ducks
FreeBSD was providing Java (with the plugin) for both i386 and amd64 for years now...
Well let's be honest. Linux is now the darling of the "open source" movement, irrelevant of technical or developer merit. It's similar to Opera VS Firefox. Opera usually has more new features while Firefox takes the credit later when it finally introduces those same features. Firefox is the darling of browers. No, it's not fair, but it's just the way it is.
JitterBug. This phone also has an am/pm clock built in, so I hope that doesn't overwhelm you.
Seadragon, huh? Mozilla called and they want their naming scheme back.
Yeah, that's really great for the environment.
</sarcasm>
I've never had an HP printer that didn't work swimmingly with Linux. From what I've heard from others, HP seems to be the best supported in their experiences as well.
Nobody said WebKit should get all the praise...
Having the cash to buy Dell and being able to compete in the low-end PC market in a way that would increase Apple's value are two different things.
Yes, Apple could certainly purchase controlling stock into a company like Dell. That would certainly make them the "Microsoft" of consumer hardware, but let's just be thankful that's apparently not the direction they want to go in.
Microsoft isn't suffering from success, they're suffering from a profound lack of vision.
That may have been the wrong thing to say. Watch out for incoming chairs...
As an lds person, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider all related groups "Mormon" but you are right the mainstream Mormons have not done polygamy for a long time.
Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position that deserves some respect.
It's a valid position, but at the same time it's nonsensical. You don't need a license (i.e. GPL) to "ensure that what you love stays free," as this is already ensured in US (and similar) copyright law in combination with any free/open license.
What the GPL accomplishes is preventing others from releasing binaries of their copy of the licensed code without complying with the GPL. That in no way affects your copy of the code which will always be free regardless of which free license the code is under.
In essence, what you believe to be an advantage of the GPL is actually a feature of copyright law itself. The real reason to use the GPL is to be able to "stick it" to those who would use the code but cannot fully comply with the complete laundry list of provisions and restrictions provided by the GPL. This also is a valid viewpoint, but completely unrelated to keeping your code free. In contrast, BSD-licensed code has no such strings attached and is therefore released more in a spirit of "love" rather than "control."
OS X itself is not open, as OS X is just the GUI over Darwin, which is open. Darwin is based on BSD, so it has to be open...
The BSD license doesn't require derivative works to be released in source code form. Apple is providing Darwin freely, but they're not obligated. Furthermore, OS X is not just the "GUI over Darwin." Aqua is. OS X is much more than a GUI shell.
No offense, but I'm not sure how you managed "insightful" when it's so clear that you don't really know what you're talking about.
I will never go back to a browser without mouse gestures.
Interesting. I'm just the opposite. The first thing I install for a browser is Vimperator so I don't have to use the mouse.
Perhaps by DNS space he means the fact that organizations who want to register their website under all the TLD's in order to protect their name will have yet another TLD. As the number of domains that point to the same IP address increases, so does the number of pointless DNS requests.
... and you need to keep on trying over and over again for the right library.
Or just read the requirements of the software you're installing. Maybe that would be too easy?