Pure and simple, the guy is a whiner. If he truely didn't know anything about computers when he started tech support, then just was he doing on the hell desk? Simple, being an id10t. He didn't belong there.
Computers are substantially more complex than driving a car. Admittadly, they're also substantally less dangerous if you misuse them, but we don't require a license to operate a computer. Instead, anyone with a few hundred dollars can get a computer and then begin ranting that those of us who spent years learning how to operate them are idiots and can't make them functional.
Bullshit. They're perfectly functional if you know how to use them. I'm not talking about elitism or "read the 400 page manual," but simple "what the password is" or "the CDROM is *NOT* a coffee cup holder."
I've heard several (sometimes good) jokes about tech support being dumb or obstructionist, but the fact is most tech support folks *HAVE* to know what they're doing and even more often than not, they have to follow obstructionist policies passed down from above. It's a matter of truth and ability.
Users have the ability to learn. I'll go out on a limb and say they don't *WANT* to learn. They want computers to be as easy to use as a pen and paper. It *WON'T* happen. These people expect to just sit in front a computer and use it with no other studying/learning, yet they wouldn't assemble something without following instructions.
Back up your statements with facts or go away. Just like Beasties, bitch and moan that Linux is being chosen and not giving any reason to go for something else.
In the case of the browser project for the blind to which you allude above, licensing problems (including the presence of the GPL on much of the code in Lynx) has caused our group to reimplement and re-test code needlessly. No good comes of this -- only harm which would have been avoidable were it not for the GPL. Brett, it's been said before, and I *WILL* continue to say it until you give up on this tirade of yours.
The GPL is a way for the Lynx programmers, in your words, "to be fairly compensated for their (orig. 'our') hard work." In the US, and probably most other countries, one form of exchange is to give up certain rights or to ask for someone to give up certain rights. This is the principle behind NDAs and, ironically enough, your code. You ask people to, amongst other things, give up the right to disassemble their code, in exchange for receiving a binary that hopefully does what they want it to do. With the GPL, all that's being asked is for you to give up your right to subsequently keep code private. In exchange, you receive a specific amount of code (namely, the GPLed software). Whether or not the code you get is enough to sway you towards using GPLed code is another matter. If you feel the value of the GPLed code isn't high enough, then you obviously feel that the value of the code is worth less than your time to reimplement it.
I don't spite, nor begrudge my colleagues, Brett. Rather, I say, use what works for you. You, on the other hand, *DO* begrudge any and all who use the GPL. You insist that all people coding open source software release it in a way *YOU* can take and make money on. I don't suppose you feel any desire to then funnel a fair amount back to the coders, do you? No. You'd rather that coders just give you stuff, to hell with their rights, time, etc.
By the way, nice attempt at making those who like the GPL out to be the bad guy. After all, it wasn't your choice not to GPL your software. To put it differently, "We'd be much closer to the finish line -- and those blind users would be much closer to having a good browser -- were it not for my desire to keep my code private and for attitudes such as the ones you (Brett) express above."
Brett, you're an idiot. (Why do I find myself repeating truths so dang often around you?) Brett, you've made several rather large and, potentially, unsettling claims. However, your only evidence is that you *THINK* something. Why should I accept *YOU* at face value when you won't accept RMS at face value? After all, you want to use other people's work for *YOUR* benefit, to hell with them.
Brett, you're an idiot. We all know you think the GPL is the most evil thing since communism (which is, itself, a load of B.S.), but your attempts at mincing words and being duplicitous ("would you Lynx authors please let me have your code, without any recompense to you, so that I can make lots of money writing software for blind folks") are *NOT* welcome here. Except that you've proven a distinct failure to grasp English during our "debates" (rather one sided, given your lack of reasonable discourse) on Infoworld, I'd continue pointing out how assanine your post is. Now GO AWAY! If *YOU* don't like the GPL, *YOU* *DON'T* *USE* *IT*. Sheesh.
Jackson's findings provide (right now) no punishment. What this says is that Microsoft can't appeal until Jackson determines what the punishment will be. Actually quite similar to criminal trials where a person is in jail until the appeal is heard.
Jackson demonstrated a very deep understanding of the PC industry and the true barriers to entry.
Furthermore, like I said before, if Linux is a threat to Microsoft, that's a red herring. Linux has several thousands, of not hundreds of thousands of *FREE*, *UNREIMBURSED* man-hours put into its development. Any competition from Linux is devoid of legal competitive value. Think about it. If it takes thousands upon thousands of hours by people working for free to develop a serious competitor, how much real competition is there?
Anti-trust law is not about protecting the consumer. Anti-trust law is about protecting competition in the belief that competition will be inherently beneficial to the consumer.
Also, for those of you who are of the impression that Linux, *BSD, MacOS, and BeOS are a competitor to Windows, consider this:
Linux and *BSD have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hours of uncompensated work put into them. They are freely available for download.
Microsoft has invested in Apple.
BeOS is not a competitor except possibly in high-end multimedia devices and media editing devices. This should be apparent by Be's continual advertising as such.
Jackson is in a position he can send the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Given the assanine actions the appelate court performed on the last 2 appeals, I expect that if MS appeals, Jackson will send the appeal straight on to the Supreme Court.
I'll let others lecture about the pancreas et. al. but suffice to say that our bodies are designed to eat high-fat, high-protein foods about as well as the average lion's body is designed to eat grain.
Please explain, then, why virtually everyone infected with the HIV virus develops AIDS. Those who don't either A) died from some other cause before AIDS developed or B) were some of the lucky few whose bodies can actually stop the HIV virus.
AIDS is not a virus. AIDS is the collection of symptoms and such that are the result of a viral infection reaching a certain point.
Oh, I wish I was a moderator today and hadn't yet commented in this thread.
Allow me to rewrite.
"If you just want to play with a UNIX or clone, FreeBSD will get you through your day, but if you are doing real work, Linux is it."
"Linux is a fast, small, and easy system. It presents a clean, consistent interface without bogging down the system with unused "features" and bloat as BSD code tends to."
"The package systems also make it a snap to install anything from Java to Apache to KDE without anything more than "rpm -Uvh" or "dpkg -a"." (ed. random guess on dpkg as I don't use Debian)
Shall I continue?
Netscape's founders and lead coders
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
only wrote the original Mosaic. IE was spawned from a later Mosaic release after the NS/Mosaic fork.
Don't believe me? Grab a.99 release of NS and Mosaic.
I buy from the group I use.
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
I demo the others and buy from what I consider the best.
First, AMD didn't steal their designs. They had a licensing deal with intel for all designs based around the original x86 core (this was all chips through and including the 486). The K5 is a 486 with some serious tweaking (which is why it paled next to a real Pentium but did very well against a 486. The K6 was NextGen's chip, rightfully used because (surprise) AMD bought NextGen.
Second, I owned a 486dx4-100 (AMD) and a K6-233. Neither have given me stability problems. Of course, C&C had a patch out already when I played it on the dx4, so that was probably fixed between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
nothin here.
What's the 3rd most stressful job (in terms of clinically depression, suicide, alchoholism or other chemical dependency, divorce rate, etc)?
The most stressful is air traffic controller.
The second most stressful is a doctor (specifically surgeon).
The third most stressful is running help desk.
I shit you not.
Pure and simple, the guy is a whiner. If he truely didn't know anything about computers when he started tech support, then just was he doing on the hell desk? Simple, being an id10t. He didn't belong there.
Computers are substantially more complex than driving a car. Admittadly, they're also substantally less dangerous if you misuse them, but we don't require a license to operate a computer. Instead, anyone with a few hundred dollars can get a computer and then begin ranting that those of us who spent years learning how to operate them are idiots and can't make them functional.
Bullshit. They're perfectly functional if you know how to use them. I'm not talking about elitism or "read the 400 page manual," but simple "what the password is" or "the CDROM is *NOT* a coffee cup holder."
I've heard several (sometimes good) jokes about tech support being dumb or obstructionist, but the fact is most tech support folks *HAVE* to know what they're doing and even more often than not, they have to follow obstructionist policies passed down from above. It's a matter of truth and ability.
Users have the ability to learn. I'll go out on a limb and say they don't *WANT* to learn. They want computers to be as easy to use as a pen and paper. It *WON'T* happen. These people expect to just sit in front a computer and use it with no other studying/learning, yet they wouldn't assemble something without following instructions.
Give me a break.
Oh, I forgot, you don't have one. Mea culpa.
Back up your statements with facts or go away. Just like Beasties, bitch and moan that Linux is being chosen and not giving any reason to go for something else.
Brett, it's been said before, and I *WILL* continue to say it until you give up on this tirade of yours.
The GPL is a way for the Lynx programmers, in your words, "to be fairly compensated for their (orig. 'our') hard work." In the US, and probably most other countries, one form of exchange is to give up certain rights or to ask for someone to give up certain rights. This is the principle behind NDAs and, ironically enough, your code. You ask people to, amongst other things, give up the right to disassemble their code, in exchange for receiving a binary that hopefully does what they want it to do. With the GPL, all that's being asked is for you to give up your right to subsequently keep code private. In exchange, you receive a specific amount of code (namely, the GPLed software). Whether or not the code you get is enough to sway you towards using GPLed code is another matter. If you feel the value of the GPLed code isn't high enough, then you obviously feel that the value of the code is worth less than your time to reimplement it.
I don't spite, nor begrudge my colleagues, Brett. Rather, I say, use what works for you. You, on the other hand, *DO* begrudge any and all who use the GPL. You insist that all people coding open source software release it in a way *YOU* can take and make money on. I don't suppose you feel any desire to then funnel a fair amount back to the coders, do you? No. You'd rather that coders just give you stuff, to hell with their rights, time, etc.
By the way, nice attempt at making those who like the GPL out to be the bad guy. After all, it wasn't your choice not to GPL your software. To put it differently, "We'd be much closer to the finish line -- and those blind users would be much closer to having a good browser -- were it not for my desire to keep my code private and for attitudes such as the ones you (Brett) express above."
Second, the notion of decimal math was *NOT* something the Hebrews were even close to conceiving.
Third, 3 is close to pi, especially for inexact measurements.
Sheesh, I'm an atheist and I'm defending the Bible. Woah.
Brett, you're an idiot. (Why do I find myself repeating truths so dang often around you?) Brett, you've made several rather large and, potentially, unsettling claims. However, your only evidence is that you *THINK* something. Why should I accept *YOU* at face value when you won't accept RMS at face value? After all, you want to use other people's work for *YOUR* benefit, to hell with them.
Brett, you're an idiot. We all know you think the GPL is the most evil thing since communism (which is, itself, a load of B.S.), but your attempts at mincing words and being duplicitous ("would you Lynx authors please let me have your code, without any recompense to you, so that I can make lots of money writing software for blind folks") are *NOT* welcome here. Except that you've proven a distinct failure to grasp English during our "debates" (rather one sided, given your lack of reasonable discourse) on Infoworld, I'd continue pointing out how assanine your post is. Now GO AWAY! If *YOU* don't like the GPL, *YOU* *DON'T* *USE* *IT*. Sheesh.
Only track bearings that have X amount of pressure being applied to them.
Jackson's findings provide (right now) no punishment. What this says is that Microsoft can't appeal until Jackson determines what the punishment will be. Actually quite similar to criminal trials where a person is in jail until the appeal is heard.
The catch is you've got to pay my postage.
You'll be out 9 cents on the deal.
What a witty response there.
Jackson demonstrated a very deep understanding of the PC industry and the true barriers to entry.
Furthermore, like I said before, if Linux is a threat to Microsoft, that's a red herring. Linux has several thousands, of not hundreds of thousands of *FREE*, *UNREIMBURSED* man-hours put into its development. Any competition from Linux is devoid of legal competitive value. Think about it. If it takes thousands upon thousands of hours by people working for free to develop a serious competitor, how much real competition is there?
Anti-trust law is not about protecting the consumer. Anti-trust law is about protecting competition in the belief that competition will be inherently beneficial to the consumer.
Also, for those of you who are of the impression that Linux, *BSD, MacOS, and BeOS are a competitor to Windows, consider this:
Linux and *BSD have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hours of uncompensated work put into them. They are freely available for download.
Microsoft has invested in Apple.
BeOS is not a competitor except possibly in high-end multimedia devices and media editing devices. This should be apparent by Be's continual advertising as such.
Jackson is in a position he can send the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Given the assanine actions the appelate court performed on the last 2 appeals, I expect that if MS appeals, Jackson will send the appeal straight on to the Supreme Court.
I'll let others lecture about the pancreas et. al. but suffice to say that our bodies are designed to eat high-fat, high-protein foods about as well as the average lion's body is designed to eat grain.
Please explain, then, why virtually everyone infected with the HIV virus develops AIDS. Those who don't either A) died from some other cause before AIDS developed or B) were some of the lucky few whose bodies can actually stop the HIV virus.
AIDS is not a virus. AIDS is the collection of symptoms and such that are the result of a viral infection reaching a certain point.
Oh, I wish I was a moderator today and hadn't yet commented in this thread.
Allow me to rewrite.
"If you just want to play with a UNIX or clone, FreeBSD will get you through your day, but if you are doing real work, Linux is it."
"Linux is a fast, small, and easy system. It presents a clean, consistent interface without bogging down the system with unused "features" and bloat as BSD code tends to."
"The package systems also make it a snap to install anything from Java to Apache to KDE without anything more than "rpm -Uvh" or "dpkg -a"." (ed. random guess on dpkg as I don't use Debian)
Shall I continue?
Don't believe me? Grab a .99 release of NS and Mosaic.
I demo the others and buy from what I consider the best.
First, AMD didn't steal their designs. They had a licensing deal with intel for all designs based around the original x86 core (this was all chips through and including the 486). The K5 is a 486 with some serious tweaking (which is why it paled next to a real Pentium but did very well against a 486. The K6 was NextGen's chip, rightfully used because (surprise) AMD bought NextGen.
Second, I owned a 486dx4-100 (AMD) and a K6-233. Neither have given me stability problems. Of course, C&C had a patch out already when I played it on the dx4, so that was probably fixed between the two.
In his scenerio (not unlikely), *EVERYTHING* is being done out of what is likely genuine concern and goodness. Yet, it's completely messed up.
There's a distinct lack of good punctuation marks available. Grr.
Don't you know all us Linux users are supposed to be irrational zealots who think we're the only "one true way", situations be damned.
Come on. Get with the program.
(Yes, that was sarcastic)
A combo of A and D. They wanted something clearly seperate and because MAC addresses use : as the seperator, they assumed it would be usable.
Not knowing everything else, but wouldn't a , be a good character?