it's been well documented that MS went back on their word to build a.Net based OS that started fresh.
And this is different from OS X... how? Apple has no intention of abandoning Carbon, its old, hairy Win32 equivalent. And Cocoa itself is just a slightly cleaned up NeXTStep. So, it's not like Apple has these magical, shiny, new APIs either.
Um, what repos do I need to enable to get ZFS or DTrace functionality?
The standard Ubuntu ones: there are multiple kernel tracing facilities and multiple enterprise file systems in there. ZFS and DTrace are just variations.
That's not from the article, it's from Sun's marketing blurb. Those capabilities fall into two categories: those that Linux already supports at least as well, and those that are irrelevant.
Open Solaris comes with the same GNU utilities I commonly use in CentOS and Debian in the/usr/sfw directory.
Well, then they should just delete their own crappy utilities and also replace their kernel, and they are all set.
To many this is a plus to have a large company that has been around for a long time behind a product they use.
That depends on the track record of that company, and Sun's is that when Sun workstations were actually popular, people would replace Sun's utilities, compilers, and window system with the GNU and MIT versions.
Both Apple and Microsoft underwent quite parallel evolutions. Microsoft and Apple started off with cumbersome, buggy, non-OO toolboxes that evolved into Win32 and Carbon. Both Microsoft and Apple had to start over and come up with OO solutions,.NET and Cocoa respectively. Both of them are derivatives of other people's earlier designs, namely Java and NeXTStep/Smalltalk, respectively.
So, which is better? Fortunately, I don't have to make a choice. But if I did, I'd prefer.NET..NET is a reasonable, modern platform, with runtime safety, a correct type system, and libraries and APIs designed in this century. Cocoa and Objective-C are designs from the 1980's and include C as a subset. They don't have runtime safety, reflection doesn't work reliably, they retain pointer types, and memory management isn't fully automatic either, and those are only some of its problems. And much as I loathe Visual Studio, XCode drives me up the wall even more. The notion that Macintosh is some kick-ass developer platform is... well, how does that saying about repeating a lie often enough go?
Apple has been moving in the right direction with Objective-C 2.0, but they still have ways to go if they want to modernize their platform. I think they should just move to Smalltalk as the primary programming language and IDE and bury Objective-C as the "C/Smalltalk interface language". If they do, their platform might actually become interesting to me. Until then, if I have to program a commercial platform and have a choice,.NET looks a whole lot better to me.
I suspect that the TOS allow it (or would quickly get a clause to that effect). Then the ball is in your court.
If you want to disappear without your family being able to find you, just get yourself a new cell phone. It seems kind of stupid to keep running around with the old one anyway.
I see nothing compelling in there. Solaris is an unpopular kernel with few drivers, a bunch of second-rate command line utilities, and Sun software engineering behind it. Now, tell me again: why do I want that?
I love my Eee PC. It's great for note taking and web browsing. But it's not good for programming and would probably be a frustrating first computer.
If your goal is to get your brother interested in programming, don't make him use a tiny monitor and keyboard, get him a low-end desktop PC with a real keyboard and acceptable screen. If you're on a budget, you can pick up a used monitor for almost nothing and spend everything on the box.
Have you looked at PalmOS or Windows Mobile? They suck as operating systems. PalmOS isn't even multitasking. Windows Mobile has numerous restrictions relative to desktop Windows. Furthermore, no, they don't offer "every type of application". Many applications for those systems are designed for tiny screens and don't scale up. Also, having two different kinds of apps on the mobile and desktop system is a major headache. If that kind of stripped down OS and application appeals to you, get a keyboard for your phone.
Fortunately, it's not an either/or choice: Linux actually scales really nicely from mobile to desktop devices.
It's going to affect system administration, admin tools, maintenance, and all the server dependent desktop application. Third party apps are less likely to be affected, but even they may trip over incompatibilities. So, if you're going to use BSD instead of OS X, count on 1-2 more sys admins and support staff per work group.
The point is that OS X isn't just BSD with a pretty GUI, it's a different OS with different semantics and different tools that happens to offer some BSD backwards compatibility and use some BSD tools.
That's basically extrapolating from the TCP checksum. But if the raw error rate is so high that you get a TCP error rate of 10^-5, then there is something else wrong with the link.
That Microsoft site is even more disorganized than the Windows control panel or the.NET documentation.
I think nobody is going to dig through that mess to help them make a decision. The only people who are going to bother with that are Microsoft fanboys trying to justify their OS with "data".
I disagree almost entirely with your version of that statement. You're basically saying fraud is fine as long as the consumer discovers it eventually and accepts the products of the fraudulent retailer.
I'm not saying that it's fine, I'm saying that it's not a trademark violation.
Scenario: You look online for an iPod, as DigiMedia Inc. has the best offer you travel out of town to get one. You get there and they only sell ePod (their own knock off) and they tell you that at the counter just before you enter your pin number to buy it. That's OK too?
I have no idea whether it's "OK" under UK law, but it is not a trademark violation. If it were, there wouldn't have to be separate rules covering bait-and-switch.
It's fraud and it could easily be used to destroy one of any companies largest assets: goodwill.
Yes: it destroys the "goodwill" of the company misleading the customer, not the company whose trademark is being used as bait in the bait-and-switch.
The person who is injured in the bait-and-switch is the customer, not the trademark holder, because the customer expended his time and energy driving to a store location and not getting what he wanted. Therefore, the consumer, not the trademark holder, has standing to complain.
But bait-and-switch rules don't apply to these kinds of web searches anyway, since there is no offer to sell a specific product in the search results; the search results are merely related to the query.
That all sounds real dandy, but battery life is the achilles heel: these bugs and critters are only going to last a few minutes. Real insects last longer because they have much more energy-efficient locomotion and control, they have efficient fuel cells, and they replenish their energy supplies constantly by feeding.
Well that's what Tesco etc. are sabre-rattling over - that a sponsored link on a trademark constitutes sufficiently misleading "labelling"
Yes, they are. And I hope they're going to be torn apart in court. Their trademark is on a service (physical supermarket and on-line shopping), not on an ad.
Maybe they have some claim under unfair business practices (seems like a stretch), but not under trademark laws.
If you happen to be a Coca Cola rep and they see you're in the habit of serving Pepsi to customers ordering Coke, the landlord could be in trouble, however interchangeable he thinks the products might be.
But that's not what's happening: people who click on the ad go to a web site that is clearly not for the trademark they searched for. Therefore, they are, in effect, being asked whether something else is OK before they make a purchasing decision and there is no confusion.
This statement greatly implies that you've never been tazered; it also slightly implies that you've never been kicked or punched.
This isn't about how it feels, it's about mortality and morbidity. Those are far worse if a 220 pound police officer kicks and punches me than if I get hit with a taser.
But if a potential customer is looking for my brand and is being directed by Google at one of my competitors, and money is changing hands for this to happen - well I call that passing off.
You can call it whatever you want to, but that doesn't make it so. If I'm not labeling my product with your trademark, I'm not passing off my product as your trademark.
Supermarkets and electronics stores do this all the time: they advertise brand name products to get people into the store and then try to sell them store brands (or vice versa).
My gripe is with my competitors who are paying for this to happen
And my gripe is with companies that try to restrict the information I get about alternatives to their products.
Trademark law should be interpreted very narrowly. People like you are trying to use it in order to restrict awareness of alternatives.
If you need a server OS, you don't need eye candy on it. OS X is built on a BSD core, therefore just use BSD for your server.
Please don't keep repeating that myth. OS X is built on a Mach core, with some bits and pieces of BSD hacked into it. And OS X has serious incompatibilities to BSD. If you're trying to use a BSD server with OS X clients, you have your work cut out for you.
I'm sorry, but you're dreaming. A restriction that I can't put your trademark on my storefront would be meaningless for most goods, since I could simply offer your product at twice the price of mine and order it for anybody foolish enough to insist on buying it from me.
Trademarks are there to identify goods and services, nothing more. As long as the consumer isn't confused about what he is buying (i.e., when money changes hands), the intent of trademark law is satisfied.
Bait and switch sales tactics may be annoying, but they are not violation of trademark law as long as the customer knows what he is paying for when the deal finally happens.
Slashdot Mirror
it's been well documented that MS went back on their word to build a .Net based OS that started fresh.
And this is different from OS X... how? Apple has no intention of abandoning Carbon, its old, hairy Win32 equivalent. And Cocoa itself is just a slightly cleaned up NeXTStep. So, it's not like Apple has these magical, shiny, new APIs either.
Um, what repos do I need to enable to get ZFS or DTrace functionality?
The standard Ubuntu ones: there are multiple kernel tracing facilities and multiple enterprise file systems in there. ZFS and DTrace are just variations.
From the article:
/usr/sfw directory.
That's not from the article, it's from Sun's marketing blurb. Those capabilities fall into two categories: those that Linux already supports at least as well, and those that are irrelevant.
Open Solaris comes with the same GNU utilities I commonly use in CentOS and Debian in the
Well, then they should just delete their own crappy utilities and also replace their kernel, and they are all set.
To many this is a plus to have a large company that has been around for a long time behind a product they use.
That depends on the track record of that company, and Sun's is that when Sun workstations were actually popular, people would replace Sun's utilities, compilers, and window system with the GNU and MIT versions.
Both Apple and Microsoft underwent quite parallel evolutions. Microsoft and Apple started off with cumbersome, buggy, non-OO toolboxes that evolved into Win32 and Carbon. Both Microsoft and Apple had to start over and come up with OO solutions, .NET and Cocoa respectively. Both of them are derivatives of other people's earlier designs, namely Java and NeXTStep/Smalltalk, respectively.
.NET. .NET is a reasonable, modern platform, with runtime safety, a correct type system, and libraries and APIs designed in this century. Cocoa and Objective-C are designs from the 1980's and include C as a subset. They don't have runtime safety, reflection doesn't work reliably, they retain pointer types, and memory management isn't fully automatic either, and those are only some of its problems. And much as I loathe Visual Studio, XCode drives me up the wall even more. The notion that Macintosh is some kick-ass developer platform is... well, how does that saying about repeating a lie often enough go?
.NET looks a whole lot better to me.
So, which is better? Fortunately, I don't have to make a choice. But if I did, I'd prefer
Apple has been moving in the right direction with Objective-C 2.0, but they still have ways to go if they want to modernize their platform. I think they should just move to Smalltalk as the primary programming language and IDE and bury Objective-C as the "C/Smalltalk interface language". If they do, their platform might actually become interesting to me. Until then, if I have to program a commercial platform and have a choice,
This is a patent I approve of: the more companies have to pay for it, the less it will get used.
I suspect that the TOS allow it (or would quickly get a clause to that effect). Then the ball is in your court.
If you want to disappear without your family being able to find you, just get yourself a new cell phone. It seems kind of stupid to keep running around with the old one anyway.
I see nothing compelling in there. Solaris is an unpopular kernel with few drivers, a bunch of second-rate command line utilities, and Sun software engineering behind it. Now, tell me again: why do I want that?
Show me dtrace or zfs on ubuntu.
Ubuntu ships with extensive tracing facilities, volume management, RAID, and journaled file systems.
DTrace and ZFS just happen to be monolithic implementations of such facilities, which I consider worse.
goodies of Solaris: ZFS, DTrace, SMF, and Xen on a LiveCD that was designed for Linux users
In short, a small subset of the functionality I get with Ubuntu, and much less hardware compatibility.
I love my Eee PC. It's great for note taking and web browsing. But it's not good for programming and would probably be a frustrating first computer.
If your goal is to get your brother interested in programming, don't make him use a tiny monitor and keyboard, get him a low-end desktop PC with a real keyboard and acceptable screen. If you're on a budget, you can pick up a used monitor for almost nothing and spend everything on the box.
Have you looked at PalmOS or Windows Mobile? They suck as operating systems. PalmOS isn't even multitasking. Windows Mobile has numerous restrictions relative to desktop Windows. Furthermore, no, they don't offer "every type of application". Many applications for those systems are designed for tiny screens and don't scale up. Also, having two different kinds of apps on the mobile and desktop system is a major headache. If that kind of stripped down OS and application appeals to you, get a keyboard for your phone.
Fortunately, it's not an either/or choice: Linux actually scales really nicely from mobile to desktop devices.
It's going to affect system administration, admin tools, maintenance, and all the server dependent desktop application. Third party apps are less likely to be affected, but even they may trip over incompatibilities. So, if you're going to use BSD instead of OS X, count on 1-2 more sys admins and support staff per work group.
The point is that OS X isn't just BSD with a pretty GUI, it's a different OS with different semantics and different tools that happens to offer some BSD backwards compatibility and use some BSD tools.
And the user eats all costs of business interruption while the disputed content stays down for a minimum of two weeks (10 business days).
That's the law. It may be a bad law, but it's from our elected representatives. Google is just complying with the law.
That's basically extrapolating from the TCP checksum. But if the raw error rate is so high that you get a TCP error rate of 10^-5, then there is something else wrong with the link.
If the scenario is that you're trying to find out what is inside a building before you determine if it needs to be raided, why is that a problem?
It works fine for that. It just doesn't work for many of the other scenarios the summary and article imply.
That Microsoft site is even more disorganized than the Windows control panel or the .NET documentation.
I think nobody is going to dig through that mess to help them make a decision. The only people who are going to bother with that are Microsoft fanboys trying to justify their OS with "data".
I disagree almost entirely with your version of that statement. You're basically saying fraud is fine as long as the consumer discovers it eventually and accepts the products of the fraudulent retailer.
I'm not saying that it's fine, I'm saying that it's not a trademark violation.
Scenario: You look online for an iPod, as DigiMedia Inc. has the best offer you travel out of town to get one. You get there and they only sell ePod (their own knock off) and they tell you that at the counter just before you enter your pin number to buy it. That's OK too?
I have no idea whether it's "OK" under UK law, but it is not a trademark violation. If it were, there wouldn't have to be separate rules covering bait-and-switch.
It's fraud and it could easily be used to destroy one of any companies largest assets: goodwill.
Yes: it destroys the "goodwill" of the company misleading the customer, not the company whose trademark is being used as bait in the bait-and-switch.
The person who is injured in the bait-and-switch is the customer, not the trademark holder, because the customer expended his time and energy driving to a store location and not getting what he wanted. Therefore, the consumer, not the trademark holder, has standing to complain.
But bait-and-switch rules don't apply to these kinds of web searches anyway, since there is no offer to sell a specific product in the search results; the search results are merely related to the query.
That all sounds real dandy, but battery life is the achilles heel: these bugs and critters are only going to last a few minutes. Real insects last longer because they have much more energy-efficient locomotion and control, they have efficient fuel cells, and they replenish their energy supplies constantly by feeding.
Well that's what Tesco etc. are sabre-rattling over - that a sponsored link on a trademark constitutes sufficiently misleading "labelling"
Yes, they are. And I hope they're going to be torn apart in court. Their trademark is on a service (physical supermarket and on-line shopping), not on an ad.
Maybe they have some claim under unfair business practices (seems like a stretch), but not under trademark laws.
If you happen to be a Coca Cola rep and they see you're in the habit of serving Pepsi to customers ordering Coke, the landlord could be in trouble, however interchangeable he thinks the products might be.
But that's not what's happening: people who click on the ad go to a web site that is clearly not for the trademark they searched for. Therefore, they are, in effect, being asked whether something else is OK before they make a purchasing decision and there is no confusion.
This statement greatly implies that you've never been tazered; it also slightly implies that you've never been kicked or punched.
This isn't about how it feels, it's about mortality and morbidity. Those are far worse if a 220 pound police officer kicks and punches me than if I get hit with a taser.
No, it should be treated just like a handgun.
Why? Although there are occasional exceptions, handguns are primarily lethal weapons, while tasers are not.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be accountability for the use of tasers, but they are not handguns and shouldn't be treated "just like them".
But if a potential customer is looking for my brand and is being directed by Google at one of my competitors, and money is changing hands for this to happen - well I call that passing off.
You can call it whatever you want to, but that doesn't make it so. If I'm not labeling my product with your trademark, I'm not passing off my product as your trademark.
Supermarkets and electronics stores do this all the time: they advertise brand name products to get people into the store and then try to sell them store brands (or vice versa).
My gripe is with my competitors who are paying for this to happen
And my gripe is with companies that try to restrict the information I get about alternatives to their products.
Trademark law should be interpreted very narrowly. People like you are trying to use it in order to restrict awareness of alternatives.
If you need a server OS, you don't need eye candy on it. OS X is built on a BSD core, therefore just use BSD for your server.
Please don't keep repeating that myth. OS X is built on a Mach core, with some bits and pieces of BSD hacked into it. And OS X has serious incompatibilities to BSD. If you're trying to use a BSD server with OS X clients, you have your work cut out for you.
I'm sorry, but you're dreaming. A restriction that I can't put your trademark on my storefront would be meaningless for most goods, since I could simply offer your product at twice the price of mine and order it for anybody foolish enough to insist on buying it from me.
Trademarks are there to identify goods and services, nothing more. As long as the consumer isn't confused about what he is buying (i.e., when money changes hands), the intent of trademark law is satisfied.
Bait and switch sales tactics may be annoying, but they are not violation of trademark law as long as the customer knows what he is paying for when the deal finally happens.
Hey Mr. anonymous, what about reading what I wrote?
Yes, GC has lots of features, but they are bundled in a way that makes them useless to me and most other people.
I know because I have a GC account and I'm not using it.