If I were Caldera this article would bother me greatly. After all, he bases the article on an old version of OpenLinux, and then recommends people to use Redhat or stick with Windows.
Great point. I wish I would have thought about that. Doesn't that amount to basically something like libel and slander? I mean, seriously, what would Microsoft do if tommorrow/. posted an evaluation of NT 3.51 and said, "It really sux, I'm glad I have Linux to fall back on." Or a journalist in a Chevy magazine test driving an 89 Ford and saying that it was lacking many of the features that the Chevy's had as defaults. Perhaps Caldera is in a position to get a few lawyers involved?
I don't mind people saying that computers isn't the easy field to get into. But at least if you are writing about it, you should have some understanding about what you are writing about. There should be some ethics in journalism. This was just too pitiful. Wow, I think I'm going to write an article for the local newspapers Music section this weekend. Never mind that I don't understand the first thing about good music...
But what's so great about KDE? Redhat endorses Gnome and Suse endorses KDE. I'm not that enthused with Suse.
*That* I'm sure I don't know:) KDE was there first. It is also more mature. I frequently switch between Gnome and KDE, Gnome has a few bugs with the version I'm using, KDE has more mature applications. Actually, I need to upgrade everything here:)
Linux install sucks. Everybody knows that. Why is this news?
Because a CNN journalist, installing a age old version of Caldera OpenLinux finally figured this out. He's so smart!
I think that Windows 3.1 was a pain to install also. Big deal. Well, after he recuperates maybe he'll try the latest version.
Of course, these people don't realize that people *don't* install their own OS. I don't drop a clean PC on my grannies counter and give here the CD and tell her, "Pop it in, there's nothing to it!" In fact, I even have to help my friends who are relativily computer literate to install Windows the *second* and *third* times and even after that.
No, consumers *always* buy a computer with the OS preloaded. How long well it take for people to realize that? If this guy wanted to do a real comparison between the ease of use of a Linux and Windows desktop, he should have gone to buypogo.com or thelinuxstore.com, and ordered a PC.
What he did was to "evaluate" the ease of comptuer illiterate's in getting into a computer field. Hopefully no one was too surprised at his answer, it's too difficult. It's supposed to be. Learning something new takes time. Believe me, I'm not going to go out this Saturday with a new transmission and a "Replacing Your Tranmission for Dummies" book, and hope to instantly become a mechanic. Niether can I expect to become a medical specialist by just reading "1,2,3 easy step to doing a heart tranplant". People should get over the idea that they can become a computer expert by just sitting done with a copy of Linux, or an MSCE Exam Cram and spending one afternoon on it. It just won't happen.
But this guy I think was looking at it from a consumer point of view. And I'll therefore ask, do you know one consumer who has installed Windows 9X unassisted? How about Linux? Consumers shouldn't be expected to install their own OS, and that's that. Bill Gates knows it, who don't these journalists get the clue?
I hope someone can explain this to me, but there seems to be a lot of dislike/hatred for Gnome.
There seems to be a lot of dislike/hatred for Red Hat too. I think I know why, but really why? You *don't* need to buy Red Hat. So if you don't like what they do, that's your preference. But it's only that, a preference, there's no reason to hate RH.
Why does there seem to be a lot of dislike/hatred for Gnome? Hard to tell. Some people don't like Gnome because they feel that it "compete's" with KDE. That KDE won't be successful because it's battling with Gnome.
I disagree. I think Gnome helps to improve KDE. It forces KDE to always keep ahead. So to all those Gnome developers who cause *my* Desktop Environment to be improved, I offer a *big* thank you.
I simply don't want to see any more splits due to semantic differences. Otherwise I'll just refer to the free software movement as the copylefted software movement and/really/ confuse the media.;) It is all about choice.. It just seems silly when people who make the same choice also choose to split into two different camps, thus becoming a mostly symbiotic yet mildly parasitic being to one another.
I agree. It's pointless for people to split up over what should be the same same goal. However, I think that we should agree to disagree, in a manner of speaking. We're not quite perfect but we should accept the other side as "one of us". And they should do the same.
I enjoyed the exchange, however, though I refuse to use the GPL with regards to highly stylized games (generic ones are cool, though). Other than, yeah, the GPL is damn nifty. Hee hee..
I enjoyed the exchange too. Although I only work on GPL'd code, I'll always understand why people choose the BSD for some things, and accept that.
In closing, I shall quote Stallman one last time: "Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community."
Great Quote! Our battle is not about unrestricted "free" software, it is about software that can never be made proprietary. It is about saying "no". Not the way proprietary saftware says "no", though.
Actually I agree with you and RMS completely. Everyone should use the GPL, Kaffe is an example why. But everyone won't. Some people just don't want to say no.:) But by doing so, they are hurting themselves, but the only people who benefit from not saying no, are those who don't want to give up the source. They don't want return what they've done for the good of the community.
Free software, open source, good software, copyleft, they're all fine by me. Everyone should use the GPL. But I have no problems if others choose to use a different license, especially if it's more "free". That's their choice. We should accept diversity, not cut down people who don't agree with us on particulars.
BSD- or X-style licenses are simply one step away from being public domain.
Yep
If the GPL were "free" in the way BSD fanatics think of the term, no one would give a damn about "free software"
Yep
Because if you don't have the sledgehammer ready in case someone tries to take that free software and make it proprietary, someone is going to do just that. Every time. That's why *BSD isn't nearly as popular. The GPL is certainly less restrictive than most any other license. The BSD license is pretty much pointless. It might as well not even be a license.
Right, the GPL restricts your rights to guarantee the rights of others. This, IMHO is the best way software can be "free". And you are right, this restriction as to what others can do with *your* code is the reason it is so popular. But I think that "Open Source" is more discriptive of the idea of the GPL then "free" does. The GPL ensures that the code will always be open source. "Free" implies the ability to do anything you want with it. The BSD allows this.
There are benefits to each. Don't forget that. We need them both. But they *do* serve different purposes.
We _UNDERSTAND_ already - STOP FLOGGING THE HORSE!
Someones always got to do their part to point out that both licenses aren't mutually exclusive. The BSD and GPL license' are both 'good'. But they both fit different areas.
Of course, the rest of the story probably involves things like the GPL. Apple and other large companies who derive a huge bottom line from software licenses, I think, will continue to shy away from truly free licenses for some time. I think that is truly a shame for the forces of free software.
Actually, the GPL is not a truly free license. A truely free license lets you do anything you want with the source code. You can keep it free, make it non-free, not use it, use it, let others use freely it, or restrict it. The GPL is restrictive, just like a closed source license is. However, while a closed source license prevents you from doing whatever you want with the code, the GPL prevents you from restricting others from doing what they want with the code. They are both restrictive, but they restrict different usage. One is good, the other bad.
I certainly agree with restricting peoples ability to turn my code into non-free code. And a lot of companies that release free software like the GPL too. It prevents others from taking their code and closing it and competing against them. However, companies like Apple who want more "control" over their software like the BSD license because it is truely free. The code that they are sharing won't cripple they product if others "steal" it. And they don't need to give up code they don't want too.
No flames here. But the BSD is truely free. I just like the GPL better:)
This is definitely a chink in Microsoft's armor. One less reason to stay with Windows.
Yes. In fact many developers who like RAD tools and are afraid to get their feet wet in real programming have stuck with Windows for just this reason. There was no "easy" development tools for Linux. But now there is.
In a year, we should be seeing a lot of development going on in Linux. Helped, of course, by the fact that the code will be cross platform compilable. That's important too. Not just the tools on Linux, but the ability to compile the code you developed for Windows on Linux. "When Kylix is released, virtually overnight there will be hundreds of thousands of applications available on the Linux platform, and many will be ports from Windows,"
I'd assume it was instead of username/password, but is that really a good solution for an environment where the card could easily be stolen/lost by another kid? Children can be pretty nasty and I'd hate to use something so easily stolen for authentication.
No, you are wrong. Using cards for authentication is much safer then using username/passwd. Why? What happens when I find your passwd? Do you know I know your passwd? No, you don't, so you can't do anything about it. What happens when you lose your card, or I steal it? Aha! It's gone, you don't have it, it's not there. So you go to the office, have you old card voided out and are issued another card.
Having a physical object is much more secure, then relying on something that's not "real".
There's no point in both the KDE and GNOME camps kicking the same old can.
Yes there is. And the point is innovation. Microsoft has loadly proclaimed the superiority of having only one choice. But is that the best? Does Microsoft really innovate, or do they just care about changing the software enough to keep people forking over the dough.
Competing against yourself is a very good idea. Many companies do this, especially when there isn't other competition. It's like running. You may run fast by yourself. But you'll run faster if someone is chasing you with a knife.
It could be said, "Yes, but we will always be trying to keep ahead of Microsoft, won't that cause enough innovation?" I'd have to disagree. Sure, right now maybe Microsoft is ahead, but it won't always be. But in the future, if KDE is the standard platform, they won't be able to stagnate because there'll be Gnome right behind them forcing them to keep ahead. Likewise, Gnome will be forced to keep innovating to try to get ahead of KDE.
The best thing Microsoft could have done a few years ago was split Windows up into 2 different divisions. Each division would have been responsible for developing and marketing their OS independently. They would have had real innovation, and also would have self-restrained themselves from being able to violate anti-trust laws.
Let's learn from Microsoft and realize that having both Gnome and KDE are a good thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we only need one desktop environment.
When will there be a version of KOffice based on another toolkit than Qt?
You need to check out the Gnome Workshop. KOffice is nice, but there's nothing from with having multiple applications that do the same thing in different ways. It causes innovation.
A compiler company (Greenhills?) sued for restraint of trade because most vendors were giving away a Pascal compiler with their UNIX release.
Wait a minute! A *compiler* company sued because vendors bundled software with the hardware that the company sold? As in the compiler company couldn't sell their compilers because the OS had compilers pre-installed, and you didn't need another one? And they Won?
Something comes to mind... Netscape. IE. Microsoft. Netscape. Windows. Netscape. Bundled. Trial. Precedent. Netscape. And the *accusation* that Netscape couldn't sell their browser because *they* failed as a company? It's all clear now.
I suppose this is great for advanced users of linux/unix/etc, but who is it geared to? Most people who can use this already have linux, so is it just a distro testing site, or what?
When I first checked this out it was my feeling that this was intended for corporations who are evaluating possibilities to port their software to a different platform.
Say they've got an awesome app on Unixware. But they heard that a 64bit platform will greatly enhance performance? How do they know how hard it will be to port the app, and then whether there'll be any benefit? They'd have to buy the hardware and tools, and everything just for a chance to evaluate what the platform will do for them. A lot of people are obviously turned away by the inherent risks. This takes that risk away by providing the tools for free, and even providing "contracts" to get your app ported.
I don't think their intent was for 50,000/.'ers to get a free account to "mess" around in:-) I surely doubt this was for newbies either, hopefully if they are experienced enough to have software to run on it, they've passwd the newbie stage.
Home schooling is an option almost everywhere. Parents do not have to let their children be treated as chattel.
.. and end up unable to socialize with other people their own age..
Are you implying that you only get to spend time with other kids your own age inside the realm of school? What a lousy life you must live. I should hope that everyone, even if they go to public school, have the opportunity to socialize with other kids their age outside the realms of school. The thought of not seeing a person your age between the time school quits, and the time school resumes is nerve-wracking. No wonder kids have problems these days.
Well, if that's the case for public school students I am eternally grateful I was home-schooled and had real opportunities to socialize with kids my age.
But while competition has pushed companies to bring out new services and lower prices, it also has created consumer confusion.
I hate it when someone talks about choice creating customer confusion. Why does everyone say that? Show me one example where choice brings customer confusion? Is the customer confused when they have 4 dozen different types of cereal to choose from? Are they confused when they have a choice of 40 resteraunts to eat at?
Choice is *always* good. Choice creates innovation. It creates cheaper prices. It creates diversity in product. Customers are greatly benefitted by choice.
Customers won't be "confused" because each solution is good enough. The are benefits to using either one. So they'll be hyped both and then buy the one that looks the best to them. No problems...
He even said that he has heard of people being fined for running linux.
ohhh, scarey! LOL. Doesn't Microsoft have a stake in MediaOne?
Click on this link... http://192.168.100.1/cfgdefaults.htm
I take it the cable modem is assigned 192.168.1.100 by default?
Anyways, I guess the point here is no matter which option you choose you need to make sure that they are there to make your internet experience successful. Not to just grab your money and run.
Recently, USWEST decided to change all it's DSL customer accounts to a new PPP-DSL based connection. This means you would have to enter a username and password in your router (aka dsl-modem). There are certain disadvantages to this new services.
It's not true, is it? Tell me it's not true. They introduced a new DSL plan that was "like" dial-up. But their regular plans are still available, aren't they?
Okay, I'm running to their site to check it out...
Not only has the service gone to the crapper for the 4 years I've been with Mindspring, their policies suck now too. Like their policy to block ALL port 25 traffic to all servers other than smtp.mindspring.com which means you can't send mail thru ANY server other than Mindspring's.
It's to prevent spam. Ah, that wonderful catch-22. You can complain about spam but the only way to *deal* with it is to prevent everyone from running their own smtp server.
And now, even if the ISP doesn't block the smtp port, it really doesn't matter because large e-mail services, bigfoot.com, juno.com, and others are using MAPS the Mail Abuse Prevention System. So mail is blocked from dynamic IP's anyways:-(
Freedom with spam, or no spam with no freedom? I think I'll take the spam.
They still advertise "unrestricted" net access but that's pretty damn restrictive if you ask me.
I think "unrestricted" refers to web filters and newsgroups. Not ports.
You need a small local ISP. One that is able to know you on a first name basis, and that understands *your* needs as a customer.
Otherwise, when you want to let friends telnet into your box, or ftp stuff, or whatever, what'll you do when it's blocked? A local ISP can be accomodating.
Of course, with a local ISP it's harder to just up and change ISP's because you feel some sort of loyalty for being (one of) their longest customers. Oh well, as long is they are responsive, it's better then a national ISP.
In other words they are saying that "The price depends on what else you might use" which is anti-competative. Simply saying "The price depends on the number of units of our product" isn't. Really it's should be none of Microsoft's business what other operating systems an OEM may be offering pre-loaded.
Bingo!
That's what Microsoft is being charged with. And that's why they are guilty. The hardest part will not be to get a guilty verdict, which I think is pretty much settled, but to "cripple" Microsoft enough so they can no longer say that.
That's the difficult part. Because a guilty verdict means nothing if Microsoft is able to continue acting as they have before. A little $1 billion dollar fine means nothing to Microsoft.
They have enough PR strength to "change" the outcome of the trial on the eyes of consumers. And Jesse Berst will do his part to convince everyone that a guilty verdict really isn't what it seems to be.
Microsoft went into this trial not caring if they lost. I think they realized that it really didn't make any difference whether they lost because they knew the government couldn't do enough to "hurt" them and the could make the consumer think that the government was just a "big bad bully".
Let's say it costs $45 to incorporate your own "company,"
Is that all there is to legally incorporate? And near I've been procrastinating because I thought it required a business with records and tons of paperwork.
But that doesn't mean Microsoft will disappear. Look at AT&T and all the Baby Bells -- they're still alive & kicking, they're just not making as much money as they used to. That's probably what will happen to MS as well. So, the Linux/OSS community will still have a common enemy to fight; that enemy just won't have as many teeth as before.
Ah, yes, if Microsoft was broken up, the baby MS' would still be strong. They just won't be able to use anti-competitive practices to keep their products being used. They'd have to be ethical. And an ethical company is not any "enemy". I think that if MS was broken up, the Baby Bills would just be a normal competitor, not an enemy.
Linux and Windows side by side. Is that to good of a dream to imagine? I'd love to be able to take Linux and Windows as well as other OS's and compare them side by side and use whatever is technically the best for the job I need it for. Right now, Microsoft products I don't compare. Because I refuse to use products by a company that is unethical. That's not to say that Windows *would* be better then Linux. But at least I'd give it consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Great point. I wish I would have thought about that. Doesn't that amount to basically something like libel and slander? I mean, seriously, what would Microsoft do if tommorrow /. posted an evaluation of NT 3.51 and said, "It really sux, I'm glad I have Linux to fall back on." Or a journalist in a Chevy magazine test driving an 89 Ford and saying that it was lacking many of the features that the Chevy's had as defaults. Perhaps Caldera is in a position to get a few lawyers involved?
I don't mind people saying that computers isn't the easy field to get into. But at least if you are writing about it, you should have some understanding about what you are writing about. There should be some ethics in journalism. This was just too pitiful. Wow, I think I'm going to write an article for the local newspapers Music section this weekend. Never mind that I don't understand the first thing about good music...
-Brent--
*That* I'm sure I don't know :) KDE was there first. It is also more mature. I frequently switch between Gnome and KDE, Gnome has a few bugs with the version I'm using, KDE has more mature applications. Actually, I need to upgrade everything here :)
-Brent--
Because a CNN journalist, installing a age old version of Caldera OpenLinux finally figured this out. He's so smart!
I think that Windows 3.1 was a pain to install also. Big deal. Well, after he recuperates maybe he'll try the latest version.
Of course, these people don't realize that people *don't* install their own OS. I don't drop a clean PC on my grannies counter and give here the CD and tell her, "Pop it in, there's nothing to it!" In fact, I even have to help my friends who are relativily computer literate to install Windows the *second* and *third* times and even after that.
No, consumers *always* buy a computer with the OS preloaded. How long well it take for people to realize that? If this guy wanted to do a real comparison between the ease of use of a Linux and Windows desktop, he should have gone to buypogo.com or thelinuxstore.com, and ordered a PC.
What he did was to "evaluate" the ease of comptuer illiterate's in getting into a computer field. Hopefully no one was too surprised at his answer, it's too difficult. It's supposed to be. Learning something new takes time. Believe me, I'm not going to go out this Saturday with a new transmission and a "Replacing Your Tranmission for Dummies" book, and hope to instantly become a mechanic. Niether can I expect to become a medical specialist by just reading "1,2,3 easy step to doing a heart tranplant". People should get over the idea that they can become a computer expert by just sitting done with a copy of Linux, or an MSCE Exam Cram and spending one afternoon on it. It just won't happen.
But this guy I think was looking at it from a consumer point of view. And I'll therefore ask, do you know one consumer who has installed Windows 9X unassisted? How about Linux? Consumers shouldn't be expected to install their own OS, and that's that. Bill Gates knows it, who don't these journalists get the clue?
-Brent--
There seems to be a lot of dislike/hatred for Red Hat too. I think I know why, but really why? You *don't* need to buy Red Hat. So if you don't like what they do, that's your preference. But it's only that, a preference, there's no reason to hate RH.
Why does there seem to be a lot of dislike/hatred for Gnome? Hard to tell. Some people don't like Gnome because they feel that it "compete's" with KDE. That KDE won't be successful because it's battling with Gnome.
I disagree. I think Gnome helps to improve KDE. It forces KDE to always keep ahead. So to all those Gnome developers who cause *my* Desktop Environment to be improved, I offer a *big* thank you.
-Brent--
I agree. It's pointless for people to split up over what should be the same same goal. However, I think that we should agree to disagree, in a manner of speaking. We're not quite perfect but we should accept the other side as "one of us". And they should do the same.
I enjoyed the exchange, however, though I refuse to use the GPL with regards to highly stylized games (generic ones are cool, though). Other than, yeah, the GPL is damn nifty. Hee hee..I enjoyed the exchange too. Although I only work on GPL'd code, I'll always understand why people choose the BSD for some things, and accept that.
Bye now...
-Brent--
Great Quote! Our battle is not about unrestricted "free" software, it is about software that can never be made proprietary. It is about saying "no". Not the way proprietary saftware says "no", though.
Actually I agree with you and RMS completely. Everyone should use the GPL, Kaffe is an example why. But everyone won't. Some people just don't want to say no. :) But by doing so, they are hurting themselves, but the only people who benefit from not saying no, are those who don't want to give up the source. They don't want return what they've done for the good of the community.
Free software, open source, good software, copyleft, they're all fine by me. Everyone should use the GPL. But I have no problems if others choose to use a different license, especially if it's more "free". That's their choice. We should accept diversity, not cut down people who don't agree with us on particulars.
-Brent--
Yep
If the GPL were "free" in the way BSD fanatics think of the term, no one would give a damn about "free software"Yep
Because if you don't have the sledgehammer ready in case someone tries to take that free software and make it proprietary, someone is going to do just that. Every time. That's why *BSD isn't nearly as popular. The GPL is certainly less restrictive than most any other license. The BSD license is pretty much pointless. It might as well not even be a license.Right, the GPL restricts your rights to guarantee the rights of others. This, IMHO is the best way software can be "free". And you are right, this restriction as to what others can do with *your* code is the reason it is so popular. But I think that "Open Source" is more discriptive of the idea of the GPL then "free" does. The GPL ensures that the code will always be open source. "Free" implies the ability to do anything you want with it. The BSD allows this.
There are benefits to each. Don't forget that. We need them both. But they *do* serve different purposes.
-Brent--
Someones always got to do their part to point out that both licenses aren't mutually exclusive. The BSD and GPL license' are both 'good'. But they both fit different areas.
--
Actually, the GPL is not a truly free license. A truely free license lets you do anything you want with the source code. You can keep it free, make it non-free, not use it, use it, let others use freely it, or restrict it. The GPL is restrictive, just like a closed source license is. However, while a closed source license prevents you from doing whatever you want with the code, the GPL prevents you from restricting others from doing what they want with the code. They are both restrictive, but they restrict different usage. One is good, the other bad.
I certainly agree with restricting peoples ability to turn my code into non-free code. And a lot of companies that release free software like the GPL too. It prevents others from taking their code and closing it and competing against them. However, companies like Apple who want more "control" over their software like the BSD license because it is truely free. The code that they are sharing won't cripple they product if others "steal" it. And they don't need to give up code they don't want too.
No flames here. But the BSD is truely free. I just like the GPL better :)
-Brent--
Yes. In fact many developers who like RAD tools and are afraid to get their feet wet in real programming have stuck with Windows for just this reason. There was no "easy" development tools for Linux. But now there is.
In a year, we should be seeing a lot of development going on in Linux. Helped, of course, by the fact that the code will be cross platform compilable. That's important too. Not just the tools on Linux, but the ability to compile the code you developed for Windows on Linux. "When Kylix is released, virtually overnight there will be hundreds of thousands of applications available on the Linux platform, and many will be ports from Windows,"
I can't wait for the preview...
-Brent--
No, you are wrong. Using cards for authentication is much safer then using username/passwd. Why? What happens when I find your passwd? Do you know I know your passwd? No, you don't, so you can't do anything about it. What happens when you lose your card, or I steal it? Aha! It's gone, you don't have it, it's not there. So you go to the office, have you old card voided out and are issued another card.
Having a physical object is much more secure, then relying on something that's not "real".
-Brent--
Yes there is. And the point is innovation. Microsoft has loadly proclaimed the superiority of having only one choice. But is that the best? Does Microsoft really innovate, or do they just care about changing the software enough to keep people forking over the dough.
Competing against yourself is a very good idea. Many companies do this, especially when there isn't other competition. It's like running. You may run fast by yourself. But you'll run faster if someone is chasing you with a knife.
It could be said, "Yes, but we will always be trying to keep ahead of Microsoft, won't that cause enough innovation?" I'd have to disagree. Sure, right now maybe Microsoft is ahead, but it won't always be. But in the future, if KDE is the standard platform, they won't be able to stagnate because there'll be Gnome right behind them forcing them to keep ahead. Likewise, Gnome will be forced to keep innovating to try to get ahead of KDE.
The best thing Microsoft could have done a few years ago was split Windows up into 2 different divisions. Each division would have been responsible for developing and marketing their OS independently. They would have had real innovation, and also would have self-restrained themselves from being able to violate anti-trust laws.
Let's learn from Microsoft and realize that having both Gnome and KDE are a good thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we only need one desktop environment.
--
You need to check out the Gnome Workshop. KOffice is nice, but there's nothing from with having multiple applications that do the same thing in different ways. It causes innovation.
-Brent--
Wait a minute! A *compiler* company sued because vendors bundled software with the hardware that the company sold? As in the compiler company couldn't sell their compilers because the OS had compilers pre-installed, and you didn't need another one? And they Won?
Something comes to mind... Netscape. IE. Microsoft. Netscape. Windows. Netscape. Bundled. Trial. Precedent. Netscape. And the *accusation* that Netscape couldn't sell their browser because *they* failed as a company? It's all clear now.
-Brent--
When I first checked this out it was my feeling that this was intended for corporations who are evaluating possibilities to port their software to a different platform.
Say they've got an awesome app on Unixware. But they heard that a 64bit platform will greatly enhance performance? How do they know how hard it will be to port the app, and then whether there'll be any benefit? They'd have to buy the hardware and tools, and everything just for a chance to evaluate what the platform will do for them. A lot of people are obviously turned away by the inherent risks. This takes that risk away by providing the tools for free, and even providing "contracts" to get your app ported.
I don't think their intent was for 50,000 /.'ers to get a free account to "mess" around in :-) I surely doubt this was for newbies either, hopefully if they are experienced enough to have software to run on it, they've passwd the newbie stage.
-Brent--
Are you implying that you only get to spend time with other kids your own age inside the realm of school? What a lousy life you must live. I should hope that everyone, even if they go to public school, have the opportunity to socialize with other kids their age outside the realms of school. The thought of not seeing a person your age between the time school quits, and the time school resumes is nerve-wracking. No wonder kids have problems these days.
Well, if that's the case for public school students I am eternally grateful I was home-schooled and had real opportunities to socialize with kids my age.
-Brent--
Well, in that case you don't need much. Just find some ISP that has nodes everywhere you'll be and has good rates.
-Brent--
I hate it when someone talks about choice creating customer confusion. Why does everyone say that? Show me one example where choice brings customer confusion? Is the customer confused when they have 4 dozen different types of cereal to choose from? Are they confused when they have a choice of 40 resteraunts to eat at?
Choice is *always* good. Choice creates innovation. It creates cheaper prices. It creates diversity in product. Customers are greatly benefitted by choice.
Customers won't be "confused" because each solution is good enough. The are benefits to using either one. So they'll be hyped both and then buy the one that looks the best to them. No problems...
-Brent--
ohhh, scarey! LOL. Doesn't Microsoft have a stake in MediaOne?
Click on this linkI take it the cable modem is assigned 192.168.1.100 by default?
Anyways, I guess the point here is no matter which option you choose you need to make sure that they are there to make your internet experience successful. Not to just grab your money and run.
-Brent--
It's not true, is it? Tell me it's not true. They introduced a new DSL plan that was "like" dial-up. But their regular plans are still available, aren't they?
Okay, I'm running to their site to check it out...
-Brent--
It's to prevent spam. Ah, that wonderful catch-22. You can complain about spam but the only way to *deal* with it is to prevent everyone from running their own smtp server.
And now, even if the ISP doesn't block the smtp port, it really doesn't matter because large e-mail services, bigfoot.com, juno.com, and others are using MAPS the Mail Abuse Prevention System. So mail is blocked from dynamic IP's anyways :-(
Freedom with spam, or no spam with no freedom? I think I'll take the spam.
They still advertise "unrestricted" net access but that's pretty damn restrictive if you ask me.I think "unrestricted" refers to web filters and newsgroups. Not ports.
-Brent -Brent--
You need a small local ISP. One that is able to know you on a first name basis, and that understands *your* needs as a customer.
Otherwise, when you want to let friends telnet into your box, or ftp stuff, or whatever, what'll you do when it's blocked? A local ISP can be accomodating.
Of course, with a local ISP it's harder to just up and change ISP's because you feel some sort of loyalty for being (one of) their longest customers. Oh well, as long is they are responsive, it's better then a national ISP.
-Brent--
Bingo!
That's what Microsoft is being charged with. And that's why they are guilty. The hardest part will not be to get a guilty verdict, which I think is pretty much settled, but to "cripple" Microsoft enough so they can no longer say that.
That's the difficult part. Because a guilty verdict means nothing if Microsoft is able to continue acting as they have before. A little $1 billion dollar fine means nothing to Microsoft.
They have enough PR strength to "change" the outcome of the trial on the eyes of consumers. And Jesse Berst will do his part to convince everyone that a guilty verdict really isn't what it seems to be.
Microsoft went into this trial not caring if they lost. I think they realized that it really didn't make any difference whether they lost because they knew the government couldn't do enough to "hurt" them and the could make the consumer think that the government was just a "big bad bully".
-Brent--
Is that all there is to legally incorporate? And near I've been procrastinating because I thought it required a business with records and tons of paperwork.
my, my...
-Brent--
Ah, yes, if Microsoft was broken up, the baby MS' would still be strong. They just won't be able to use anti-competitive practices to keep their products being used. They'd have to be ethical. And an ethical company is not any "enemy". I think that if MS was broken up, the Baby Bills would just be a normal competitor, not an enemy.
Linux and Windows side by side. Is that to good of a dream to imagine? I'd love to be able to take Linux and Windows as well as other OS's and compare them side by side and use whatever is technically the best for the job I need it for. Right now, Microsoft products I don't compare. Because I refuse to use products by a company that is unethical. That's not to say that Windows *would* be better then Linux. But at least I'd give it consideration.
-Brent--