A few years back, O'Reilly had a book called "Red Hat Linux" which came with detailed install instructions and a RH CD-ROM. I believe that they've actually gone back to this idea and released a larger book without the CD.
It's not exactly a merger, but I don't see any "SuSE Linux" books from ORA.
Face it, when it comes to desktop productivity, you are not using Linux because it's better. You are using it because it's not Microsoft. That's fine if that's a good enough reason for you. But at least be honest about the reason.
Okay: When it comes to desktop productivity, *I* use linux because *I* believe it's better. *I* can not do my job effectively without linux. *I* can not even read my mail effectively without linux. I don't care what other people use.
Personally, I choose whatever tool works the best. Unix for the server (Linux is not even the best version of Unix, by the way), Win2K for the desktop apps.
Agreed, there are better un*ces out there. I have chosen the best tool for my purposes (granted, when I started getting away from winblows (being a zealot again) a few years back, *BSD was *much* more difficult to install and configure, so I went the linux route). Other people can use what they want.
On the desktop, people use applications, not operating systems, to get work done.
Sure thing. On server-type systems, too.
Until Linux gets some applications that are clearly superior to the ones in Windows, it will never get any significant penetration.
To which apps do you refer? I personally can't work well in a Windoze environment, because a lot of what I do (remote admin of mail, news, web servers) simply can't be done well in Windoze.
My ''killer'' apps: TkRat, knews, xterm, ssh, and Nutscrape. A lot of these either aren't available in Windoze, or suck in Windoze, or require you to basically emulate a UNIX environment to get them to build. Why should I bother when linux gives me those things, for free, and open?
People need a really good reason to switch, and there just isn't one when it comes to Linux -- but there are a whole slew of negatives.
I could say the exact same thing about me switching from linux to Windoze.
I mean, what's the "killer app" in Linux for the desktop? There are no end-user apps that I can get that are better under Windows. With Win2K, Linux doesn't even have the stability advantage anymore.
What's the ''killer app'' in Windoze for the desktop? For you, it's probably MS Office, but I have no need for it. I'd bet that many sysadmin types also get along without it.
And don't even go there with the so-called ''stability'' advantage. Linux still has, and always will have, the security advantage: I feel better about an OS that doesn't hide its bugs. (Plus, linux is a lot cheaper....)
This is not to say that Linux won't see more penetration in the server arena. I personally like Unix better when it comes to server apps. But for the desktop, there simply isn't an overwhelming reason to switch.
Again, I could say the same for switching to Windoze from linux. And someone else (a moron) could say the same about liking Windoze better for server apps. Different strokes for different folks.
What Microsoft has done is truly interesting, and maybe a bit frightening: they have made a cute, vaguely helpful (but mostly interfering) figure a commonplace on the desktop.
I don't know if I would call Windows 95 ''cute''. But everything else you stated is 100% accurate.
This update limits certain functionality in Outlook to provide a higher level of security; it was not created to address a security vulnerability within Outlook.
So, basically, allowing any arbitrary VBS script to execute without prompting the user isn't a security vulnerability. What is it, a ''feature''?
Okay, then, providing a higher level of security *doesn't* address a security vulnerability. So, basically, this sentence says:
This update limits certain functionality in Outlook to provide a higher level of security even though Outlook does not have the security vulnerability that this update addresses; it was not created to address a security vulnerability within Outlook because Outlook doesn't have the security vulnerability that this update very specifically addresses..
In other words, Outlook is 100% secure, but this update makes Outlook more secure. I guess this is the new M$ math....
This is simply another example of M$ trying to run Linux out of the market by strongarming web sites to target their web pages to Windows/ IE. Such a blatant demonstration of their monopoly power is further evidence that they must be broken up! Only with a breakup will such powerful features be available to non-MS users.
And if they said "this lawnmower is sold on the basis that if something goes wrong, it's not our fault" and tried to use that as an excuse, people would react with either outrage or downright laughter.
Either that, or they wouldn't buy the product. People might use a product that didn't have a warranty if it were free (no cost) and came with freedom (to change it as the owner saw fit).
he NT shit is a necessity due to corps requiring it.
Why don't you just drop NT and those customers, so that you can concentrate on being a Linux- based web provider? The money you lose will repay itself in the headaches you'll get rid of when you trash NT. Plus, you'll be able to target customers who want Linux: "We don't run NT! We specialize in Linux!"
--Keith
Re:It's exactly what's needed for Linux acceptance
on
New Desktop for Linux
·
· Score: 1
upper management wants a 2 bit interface - Yes/No.
I'm not sure upper management can handle such a complex interface. Think of all the decisions to make!
One of the great things about open source is that programs can be whatever programmers want them to be. There isn't pressure to ''dumb down'' the interface, but the possibility still exists to do so. Linux (and the other open source systems like *BSD, HURD, etc.) will continue to evolve regardless of their ''market share'' against commercial OSes.
Besides, Linux is *already* accepted--by many hard-core programmers, many of whom probably don't really care if it's accepted by the world of end-users. Those users who already accept Linux/open source are probably enough to keep the movement going, regardless of how many crappy OSes come out of Redmond.
Does anyone have the original article that was posted at Computer Currents? I missed it, but I'd love to read it, just for laughs. I'm sure others would want to read it as well.
* I said "any way it pleases", but I would exclude a few clearly monopolistic practices: prohibiting computer manufacturers from including non-microsoft software (Word Perfect installed on a Windows machine, some computers sold with linux instead) as a condition of their licensing; and also tying of sales in a way that putting one product (e.g. windows) on a computer is more expense if you don't also put another product on the computer (e.g. IIS).
Didn't M$ do *exactly* these things? I am fairly certain they did the first, or something very similar, with the Netscape browser. I believe they also did the second, but I don't recall specifics there.
Now, I actually agree with most of what Kevin said, but I don't want to think that M$ has not abused its power. Their business practices *are* reprehensible, and they should be punished; I just don't see how breaking them up is going to help.
does anyone honestly belive something like Windows 2000 could have come out of an open source project? no way! there would be lots of loose ends where the work would not have been that much fun.
I think the Open Source community should be proud that it would never put out something like W2k.
The knife cuts both ways--projects like W2k are so huge and unmanageable that they turn out like crap every time. Open Source, in a way, helps control the size of projects: since nobody wants to have to manage something that big, and since nobody gets paid to do it, nobody does it, and a project of that size never gets started. Good!
I'm not going to say anything about the stupid idea that zero is not a number, as it's been done. However, here is the *real* reason why x/0 is undefined:
Division is generally defined in terms of multiplication; specifically, as the inverse operation to multiplication. So, if you take for granted that
4 * 5 = 20
then *by definition of division* we can say that
20 / 5 = 4
Now, consider the true multiplicative statement
4 * 0 = 0
By definition of division, we can say
0 / 0 = 4
Of course, this doesn't make sense, because we could have used any number in place of 4, which would mean that 0 / 0 can be any number. Mathematicians don't like that, so they say that 0/0 is undefined.
On the same tack, consider
5 / 0 = x
By definition, this would mean
x * 0 = 5
But, of course, any number times zero is zero, so there is no value of x which will make the above statement true. Thus, division by zero is undefined.
There is a ring (math term) term for what zero represents, but unfortunately I don't recall it immediately. Perhaps someone can post it?
You don't see people screaming about RedHat when the release a distro that contains and installs a buggy program by default.
You should read the alt.os.linux.* newsgroups. I personally stay far away from RedHat, as it contains too much software bloat for my tastes. Yes, Linux supporters are vocal against MS, but many of them can also be vocal against Linux.
As for ''bashing the new product'', I'd wager that the 2.4 linux kernel won't get as much abuse as W2k is on/. And you can also bet that if it does suck, it will get bashed.:-)
And I'm here to say that MS has done a good job. It's a huge OS, people.
Isn't that the problem? W2k is so large that it's now next to impossible to do good QA on it. I can't speak for BSD, but in Linux most pieces of software are relatively independent, so that QA only needs to be done on that particular piece of software.
Granted, it means that maintaining a Linux installation can be a little more complex. Good. Dumb people shouldn't be using Linux. (They probably shouldn't use W2k, either, but that's who MS is marketing.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not exactly a merger, but I don't see any "SuSE Linux" books from ORA.
--keith
Okay: When it comes to desktop productivity, *I* use linux because *I* believe it's better. *I* can not do my job effectively without linux. *I* can not even read my mail effectively without linux. I don't care what other people use.
Personally, I choose whatever tool works the best. Unix for the server (Linux is not even the best version of Unix, by the way), Win2K for the desktop apps.
Agreed, there are better un*ces out there. I have chosen the best tool for my purposes (granted, when I started getting away from winblows (being a zealot again) a few years back, *BSD was *much* more difficult to install and configure, so I went the linux route). Other people can use what they want.
--keith
Sure thing. On server-type systems, too.
Until Linux gets some applications that are clearly superior to the ones in Windows, it will never get any significant penetration.
To which apps do you refer? I personally can't work well in a Windoze environment, because a lot of what I do (remote admin of mail, news, web servers) simply can't be done well in Windoze.
My ''killer'' apps: TkRat, knews, xterm, ssh, and Nutscrape. A lot of these either aren't available in Windoze, or suck in Windoze, or require you to basically emulate a UNIX environment to get them to build. Why should I bother when linux gives me those things, for free, and open?
People need a really good reason to switch, and there just isn't one when it comes to Linux -- but there are a whole slew of negatives.
I could say the exact same thing about me switching from linux to Windoze.
I mean, what's the "killer app" in Linux for the desktop? There are no end-user apps that I can get that are better under Windows. With Win2K, Linux doesn't even have the stability advantage anymore.
What's the ''killer app'' in Windoze for the desktop? For you, it's probably MS Office, but I have no need for it. I'd bet that many sysadmin types also get along without it.
And don't even go there with the so-called ''stability'' advantage. Linux still has, and always will have, the security advantage: I feel better about an OS that doesn't hide its bugs. (Plus, linux is a lot cheaper....)
This is not to say that Linux won't see more penetration in the server arena. I personally like Unix better when it comes to server apps. But for the desktop, there simply isn't an overwhelming reason to switch.
Again, I could say the same for switching to Windoze from linux. And someone else (a moron) could say the same about liking Windoze better for server apps. Different strokes for different folks.
--keith
I don't know if I would call Windows 95 ''cute''. But everything else you stated is 100% accurate.
--keith
This update limits certain functionality in Outlook to provide a higher level of security; it was not created to address a security vulnerability within Outlook.
So, basically, allowing any arbitrary VBS script to execute without prompting the user isn't a security vulnerability. What is it, a ''feature''?
Okay, then, providing a higher level of security *doesn't* address a security vulnerability. So, basically, this sentence says:
This update limits certain functionality in Outlook to provide a higher level of security even though Outlook does not have the security vulnerability that this update addresses; it was not created to address a security vulnerability within Outlook because Outlook doesn't have the security vulnerability that this update very specifically addresses..
In other words, Outlook is 100% secure, but this update makes Outlook more secure. I guess this is the new M$ math....
--keith
You mean, "It's times like this that I wish I were a better writer"?
--keith
Either that, or they wouldn't buy the product. People might use a product that didn't have a warranty if it were free (no cost) and came with freedom (to change it as the owner saw fit).
Hmm.........
--keith
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
sub i_love_you {
if ($message =~ "I love you")
{
$message = "If you get a message that says '$message', DON'T OPEN IT!";
}
i_love_you();
}
$message="I love you!";
i_love_you();
Why don't you just drop NT and those customers, so that you can concentrate on being a Linux- based web provider? The money you lose will repay itself in the headaches you'll get rid of when you trash NT. Plus, you'll be able to target customers who want Linux: "We don't run NT! We specialize in Linux!"
--Keith
upper management wants a 2 bit interface - Yes/No.
I'm not sure upper management can handle such a complex interface. Think of all the decisions to make!
One of the great things about open source is that programs can be whatever programmers want them to be. There isn't pressure to ''dumb down'' the interface, but the possibility still exists to do so. Linux (and the other open source systems like *BSD, HURD, etc.) will continue to evolve regardless of their ''market share'' against commercial OSes.
Besides, Linux is *already* accepted--by many hard-core programmers, many of whom probably don't really care if it's accepted by the world of end-users. Those users who already accept Linux/open source are probably enough to keep the movement going, regardless of how many crappy OSes come out of Redmond.
Does anyone have the original article that was posted at Computer Currents? I missed it, but I'd love to read it, just for laughs. I'm sure others would want to read it as well.
Didn't M$ do *exactly* these things? I am fairly certain they did the first, or something very similar, with the Netscape browser. I believe they also did the second, but I don't recall specifics there.
Now, I actually agree with most of what Kevin said, but I don't want to think that M$ has not abused its power. Their business practices *are* reprehensible, and they should be punished; I just don't see how breaking them up is going to help.
I think the Open Source community should be proud that it would never put out something like W2k.
The knife cuts both ways--projects like W2k are so huge and unmanageable that they turn out like crap every time. Open Source, in a way, helps control the size of projects: since nobody wants to have to manage something that big, and since nobody gets paid to do it, nobody does it, and a project of that size never gets started. Good!
Division is generally defined in terms of multiplication; specifically, as the inverse operation to multiplication. So, if you take for granted that
4 * 5 = 20
then *by definition of division* we can say that
20 / 5 = 4
Now, consider the true multiplicative statement
4 * 0 = 0
By definition of division, we can say
0 / 0 = 4
Of course, this doesn't make sense, because we could have used any number in place of 4, which would mean that 0 / 0 can be any number. Mathematicians don't like that, so they say that 0/0 is undefined.
On the same tack, consider
5 / 0 = x
By definition, this would mean
x * 0 = 5
But, of course, any number times zero is zero, so there is no value of x which will make the above statement true. Thus, division by zero is undefined.
There is a ring (math term) term for what zero represents, but unfortunately I don't recall it immediately. Perhaps someone can post it?
You should read the alt.os.linux.* newsgroups. I personally stay far away from RedHat, as it contains too much software bloat for my tastes. Yes, Linux supporters are vocal against MS, but many of them can also be vocal against Linux.
As for ''bashing the new product'', I'd wager that the 2.4 linux kernel won't get as much abuse as W2k is on /. And you can also bet that if it does suck, it will get bashed. :-)
Isn't that the problem? W2k is so large that it's now next to impossible to do good QA on it. I can't speak for BSD, but in Linux most pieces of software are relatively independent, so that QA only needs to be done on that particular piece of software.
Granted, it means that maintaining a Linux installation can be a little more complex. Good. Dumb people shouldn't be using Linux. (They probably shouldn't use W2k, either, but that's who MS is marketing.)