Free software is not used by "ALL possible users", it's used by interested users. The size of the user-base varies greatly from project to project. And no, speaking from experience, I can assure you that not all bugs are found w/in 4 months. Subtle timing or edge-case bugs can lurk for years before leaping out to destroy someone's critical data. (And this is true with both proprietary and libre software.)
One thing this study didn't seem to look at though, was the size of the user-base of the projects studied (of course, this is a hard thing to measure, but interesting). I think it would be useful to see what sorts of correlations (if any) there are between QA practices of a project, size of the user-base (popularity), and the overall quality of a project. Can a large user-base help make up for poor QA practices, or is a project with better QA more likely to attract users due to its higher reliability? Do users even care about quality and reliability, or do they just say they do? Interesting questions for which I don't have answers.
Open Source... Quality Assurance... I didn't know you could use those 4 words together in a sentence...
Given what passes for QA in many companies, I don't think it's unreasonable for open-source developers to claim that many of their practices qualify as QA, even if an academic might disagree.:)
In my many years of experience, I have to say that regression testing is not as common in proprietary software development as it should be (and frequently not as common as claimed). Furthermore, while I don't want to say that regression testing is less important for Libre Software, I will say that I think it's probably more important for proprietary software, where the programmers are writing for a paycheck, rather than for pride, and are frequently under intense deadline pressure (which in turn, frequently leads to testing/QA of all types being skimped).
As for no release dates, anyone who doesn't recognise that as an advantage of Libre Software simply lacks any clue about the process. Sure, there are downsides, but nothing's perfect. Free, reliable, on-time, pick any two.:)
Europe.:) Well, primarily some regions of Spain and a couple of German cities, so far. But when (note, I don't say "if") those deployments prove successful and effective, more will follow.
2. Are you still a harmful monopoly?
Umm, no way. Linux. Its killing us!
Of course, in your scenario (no desktop penetration), this would be a bald-faced lie, since their monoply was judged to be on the desktop, so Linux owning 99% of the server market wouldn't change that at all. And of course, it's still really too early to call Linux a real competitor on the desktop, even with what's going on in Europe, so it really would still be a bald-faced lie if they try to claim that today. Not that they're above bald-faced lying, of course.
MS didn't get where it is by playing fair or by telling the truth. This article is no exception.
Now there you hit the nail square on the head. This is clearly an attempt at spin by MS, and they deserve to be called on it. OTOH, that doesn't mean they're not right. What other competition do they face? Apple? Hah! Apple's the fancy luxury model, and will never compete in the cheap commodity markets where MS is so entrenched. Popular with rich geeks and yuppies? Sure. Essential for certain niche markets? No question. Deployed in the thousands across corporate/government desktops? Dream on!
But while I quibble with a lot of your details, I still agree with your conclusion that this announcement needs to be viewed in light of MS's normal methods of playing the game.
Oh, but by the way, your response, while an interesting post on it's own, was not a valid response to "[when will] Microsoft figure out that it's not Linux that's the threat, it's open source." The answer to that is, they already have! They didn't just say that Linux was the #2 threat, they said Linux and other non-commercial software.
The FSF has been hoping for such a case for years. The problem is finding a sucker who'll be willing to take the other side. So far, no one has volunteered. (Note, it'll have to be a legitimate case, because a judge is likely to throw out any case that's an obvious setup.) If you know anyone dumb enough to violate the GPL and take it to court, please let the FSF know.
Insofar as there is a "bittorrent community" (seems a little bit like saying the "ftp community" to me), this should be a good thing for it. This should help make it obvious that BT is not a very good choice for distributing "WareZ" (whether software, music or video), as it's too easy to find these sites and shut them down. Which in turn means that all the people using BT for legit purposes won't have to worry about being slandered by association with these types any more.
And geeze, does everything have to be a "community" these days? BT is more like FTP than it is like much of anything else. Why does it need a "community"? Can't it just be a tool that people use for various purposes?
It's free software, and therefore, it comes with my system (Debian) while XV doesn't. I can use it for my commercial website, or sell someone a system using it (a commercial transaction) without worrying about license fees. And it's been updated more recently than 1988!:)
Oh, and it has that API and a library that third-party apps use directly, so having XV on my system would involve a lot of redundancy, while having ImageMagick just means a small app that uses the already-installed library.
Depends on when he did this "seminal work on the steady-state theory". I'm in my 40s, and I remember when it was still considered acceptable to have some reasonable doubt about the big bang. If he's in his 70s, and did this work, say, 50 years ago, it's possible that the work was considered completely solid at the time. And the word "seminal" does imply that it was a while back.
I'm reminded of Stephen J. Gould's defense of the Bishop of Usher (the one who determined that the universe was created in 4004BC). Looking at that date based on what we know now, it's easy to assume that he was a religious fanatic, but if you look at what was known at the time he did the work, it turns out that he actually did some pretty solid scientific research to come up with that date. The fact that he was working from a set of bad assumptions was not really his fault.
So, back to Gold, if he's still a proponent of the steady-state, then he can probably be dismissed as a quack, but the fact that he once worked on the theory doesn't really say anything one way or the other.
They do not have a trademark on Mickey Mouse, that's the point.
Yes they do. In fact, that's the only way they can protect themselves from "evil Mickey pr0n". The copyright on Steamboat Willy (and other Mickey works) does not prevent anyone from using those characters in all-new works. It only prevents people from copying/modifying those copyrighted materials.
And no, the trademark probably doesn't date back to 1928, but it doesn't have to. Trademarks don't have the strict requirements that copyrights and patents have.
Now, the situation if Steamboat Willy ever fell into the public domain would be rather interesting. People could make derivative works (including Pr0n) based on those images only, but would have to be careful not to push so far that the work would no longer be considered a derived work, because then it (probably, IANAL) be subject to trademark violation suits. An interesting reversal on the usual situation with copyright violations.
I'm sure I'll get modded down as a troll for this, but my god!! I was wondering what could be more pathetic than someone hanging out waiting for a new computer store to open. Then, there it was: someone who would sit there clicking refresh in his browser in order to follow the "adventures" of the person hanging out waiting for the computer store to open....
Good plan. Publish the report in a format for which there are precious few good viewers available on Linux.
Heck, there's even fewer good PDF viewers for Windows! There are plenty enough good PDF viewers for Linux (even including acrobat, which is pretty much the only one available for Win). If this were an MSWord file, you might have had a valid argument, since there's only a couple of viewers for that format in Linux, and none of them are all that great, but PDF is an open, well-supported standard, and it works fine. Everywhere.
What's wrong with good old HTML?
Not as well suited for printing. PDF is really just an enhanced form of postscript. And is easier for Windows folks to view than postscript. But from a Linux user's perspective, its almost hard to tell the difference between ps and pdf.
I realize I'm probably feeding the troll here, but there do seem to be a fair number of people still who don't realize that PDF is as well supported on Linux as it is anywhere, and it's for these people that I post.
Re:A Linux Newbie's Perspective
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've been using Wintel for over 15 years and have just recently installed Red Hat 9 on an older K6-2 550.
Keep in mind that you're evaluating a primarily server-oriented distro there. If you want to see how well a linux desktop can work, you really need to check out one of the desktop-oriented distros, like Knoppix, possibly Mandrake, or maybe even Lindows.
1. Linux is ready for *some* desktops only, namely ones where users won't be constantly tweaking and installing new software and hardware. You want a computer for grandma to browse the web, send email and view a few grandkid photos? Linux is great!
Even though I don't agree with everything you say, you deserve your insightful mods for this point alone. Linux is, and has been, ready for Gramma for quite some time, and I have the experience to prove it.
The average user wants to do everything grandma wants to do, but they also want to be able to install or upgrade software and hardware *easily*. In addition, they want a fully functional GUI, with no *necessity* of dropping to a CLI for everyday tasks.
Here, I think we're seeing your bias from having been exposed to a server-oriented distro. The more desktop-oriented distros have solved both of these problems to a much higher degree than RH has. Or needs to - the servers actually benefit from the CLI, as it makes mass, remote administration much easier in general.
They want to be able to go to a third party software/driver website, follow the 'click here for Linux version' hyperlink, download the file, then double-click to install it.
This one is still a valid point. On the other hand, as more corporate desktops and grandmas get Linux installed for them, the more "click here to install the Linux version" links we'll see. This one will be solved before too much longer.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments.
Here I really disagree with you. Spare me the "fact" claim about what is, honestly, just your opinion. The real issue here is not "strength-in-diversity" - that's just a fringe benefit for those of us who aren't average users. The real issue is the openness of things like file formats. When you use MSOFfice, you're dealing with a vendor who wants to shut out the competition (and this is true even with proprietary software vendors who don't have a monopoly). When you're dealing with FLOSS, you're dealing with people who want to maximize interoperability. Thus, Gnome and KDE get closer and closer, day by day, and it becomes less important all the time which (if either) you use.
Of course, we're not there yet, and time could prove you right, but I seriously tend to doubt that you are. This is a whole new ballgame, played by different rules, and assumptions based on the old rules are quite likely to be wrong.
Re:Comparing linux software to windows
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
For one thing, most people reading slashdot don't care, they already use linux.
No, most POSTERS on slashdot want people to THINK they run Linux (and a few even do). Most READERS of slashdot run Windows.
Everyone bitches when people compare the other way around
No, "everyone" doesn't, although (this being slashdot), someone bitches whenever ANYTHING is compared to ANYTHING else. But if you take the bitching on slashdot seriously, you've got deeper problems than just a need to feed your inner troll.:)
Anyway, I am a Linux user. In fact, until very recently, I was the maintainer of ORBit (the CORBA layer of Gnome) for the Debian project. And I wasn't aware that Gnumeric had gotten as far as it has, and I found the comparison interesting. (Even though I don't think I've used a spreadsheet since 1998.)
That's WarS (plural) of the Roses (a series of historical conflicts (mostly) between the Houses of Lancaster and York). The movie you're referring to is War (singular) of the Roses. Makes it a little easier to tell 'em apart.
It's great that Martin is finally getting some well-deserved recognition - I've been a fan for years, since his odd-but-compelling Fevre Dream, and the long-before-its-time Rock'n'Roll Horror novel, Armageddon Rag. On the other hand, it's a little bit too bad that he's getting some of that recognition for the wrong things - the influence of both real history and of fellow "realistic-fantasy" pioneers Guy Gavriel Kay and Kristen Kathrine Rusch on his work is all but ignored. Still and all, it's great to see something that's actually good be popular for a change.
My fears that [expletive deleted] Robert Jordan had killed the market for anything resembling good fantasy have thankfully proven to be groundless.:)
realistic - because it's based on history
on
A Game of Thrones
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not to take anything away from Martin's excellent work, but anyone who is familiar with the Wars of the Roses (1455 to 1487) will recognize the storyline immediately. If it seems more realistic than your average fantasy novel, that's because it's based on reality, unlike your average fantasy novel.:)
That said, it's still an excellent tale, well told.
And if you like this sort of thing, then I strongly recommend checking out the works of Guy Gavriel Kay, who is (afaik) the real pioneer of retelling obscure bits of history reset into realms of fantasy. My personal favorite is The Lions of Al-Rasan, based on the latter days of Moorish Spain. None of these have quite the scale of the Thrones series, being mostly standalone novels, but they're still pretty hefty novels, and all quite good. (Kay is also known for his work with Christopher Tolkien, editing the unpublished works of Chris' faither, J.R.R., and for his pure-fantasy Arthuriana-soaked trilogy, The Fionavar Tapestry.)
Why do most organizations think they need to standardize on products rather than protocols or document standards?
Several reasons, including ensuring that people don't bring trojans or virus-infected programs from home, and ensuring that licenses are in order when the BSA comes knocking.
Basically, it boils down to security, consistency and control. Some of the reasons are more legitimate than others, and some orgs may go beyond the bounds of reason, and/or make foolish decisions that lead to vendor lock-in, but that doesn't mean that company standards are always a bad thing. Just usually.:)
No, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that jurisdiction doesn't matter, I'm saying that jurisdiction is NO GUARANTEE of a free ride.
Apparently, you missed my point about Sklyarov and Elcomsoft too. If you engage in international trade, you may be subject to the laws of various different jurisdictions. Depends in part on how relations are between the relevent jurisdictions, which is hard to predict.
Added to which, you once again come up against jurisdictional issues when gathering evidence from these nations.
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean you're safe if you use a server in Romania. It may lower your risk, but it's no guarantee of safety. And if the connection between you and the Romanian server can easily be established, or doesn't need to be established (if, for example, you put your business contact info on your spam; wothout which there's not much point in spamming), then it may not lower your risk at all.
For years, the only spam filter I used was a very simple one: if the mail's not from a list I'm on, and not addressed to me, it's spam. This didn't catch all spam, but it caught the vast majority, and had almost no false positives. (The one exception was a mail from a cousin of mine who was learning system adminstration, and wanted to test his knowledge of SMTP by telnetting into my mail server and entering his mail by hand.)
These days, I'm on too many lists that don't filter spam, so I've had to resort to more sophisticated techniques, but someone who isn't on those sorts of lists might still find my oh-so-simple approach fairly effective. Not to disparage Bayesian filtering, but if you want something to compare against...
Those original PC keyboards were sturdy, but not unbreakable, as I have reason to know. I was one of the programmers working under contract on the original then-top-secret IBM-PC project, and I knocked one of the keyboards off a desktop, and managed to damage the internal electronics so badly that a whole row of keys no longer worked.
I suspect that I'm probably the first person in the world to break a PC keyboard. It's not much of a claim to fame, but it's better than nothing.:)
I personally think that the GPL should be proven in court.
Prof. Eben Moglen (FSF Counsel) agrees, and has been searching for someone stupid enough to take the other side for years. If you know someone that stupid, please contact the FSF immediately. (Note, it'll have to be a real case, as a fake "setup" to test the GPL will probably just be thrown out of court.)
In the mean time, I think the rest of us can take comfort from the fact that nobody has been willing to challenge the GPL; not even those who were strongly motivated.
A story in MIT's tech review spoke of a prolific spammer who used servers in Romania and China.
The location of the servers is (or should be) massively irrelevent. If I set up a kiddie porn website, I won't get very far with the excuse "I used a server in Romania" if I'm still located in the US.
Technology is still the best hope for killing spam.
I've been hearing that line for nearly two decades, and I've seen absolutely NO PROGRESS! I'm sorry, you had your chance, it's time to try some other approaches. A state law is, indeed, not much of a deterrent for a lot of people, but it can help set a precedent that will lead to a national law, which in turn can help set a precedent that will lead to international law.
Furthermore, spam depends on really thin margins. If you have to factor in the expense of moving (physically, see above) to Romania, then you may not find spamming such an attractive idea after all.
Anyway, questions of jurisdiction are not necessarily as simple as you'd like to think. See, for example, the cases of Sklyarov (sp?) and Elcomsoft. For something like this, the big question would be, is the controlling jurisdiction willing to cooperate with the jurisdiction where the offense took place?
No, no, Gentoo is what you're supposed to shout whenever Debian is being discussed. The classic Mandrake troll is: it's just a copy of redhat. Get it right!:)
Now me, I'm still pissed off at whatzizname (head of Mandrakesoft) for his insulting comments about grandmothers. But to be fair, he may not be familiar with the high quality grandmothers we have here in California. I mean, what do you have to be to be a grandmother? 36? Do you know how many totally hot 36-year-olds there are in California? Speaking as someone who happens to have a mad crush on a woman who happens to be a grandmother, I'm glad Knoppix exists so I don't feel obligated to recommend the product of someone who makes such sexist, ageist remarks.:p;)
(Yes, if Knoppix didn't exist, I would feel obligated to recommend Mandrake to my friends, even though I don't use it myself. And it's still a nice system, even if whatzizname is a complete jerk.)
Actually, I'd argue that the success of Win3.1 and later had more to do with leveraging their monopoly than anything else (even luck). It's easy to forget (now that the world has been converted to the religion of GUIs) just how successful MS-DOS was in its day. And their lack of success with earlier versions of Win (not to mention such memorable "innovations" as Bob) just shows that there's some things that are so bad that even a monopoly can't apply enough leverage to get them moving.:)
In the development arena, MS was always the company to beat. Borland made a suprisingly good showing for a little while, but Watcom's great press and excellent reviews never really turned into major sales. And MS's compilers got a lot of public sneers during Borland's heyday, but still got an awful lot of quiet, day-to-day use.
Anyway, I guess those are quibbles, because I don't really disagree with your main point: BG is clearly a very competent businessman, and it is dangerous to underestimate him. I just see more people (in ordinary life, not here on/.) who overestimate him than underestimate him, so I just had to interject my usual arguments.
Of all the stuff they've released in multiple markets over the past two decades,
All of it has been bought, borrowed, or stolen EXCEPT Bob and Clippy. Show us something else they've done that actually demonstrates anything resembling innovation, and maybe we'll stop poking fun at Bob and Clippy.
In other words, we're not poking fun at Bob and Clippy because they were mistakes (MS has made plenty of other mistakes, i.e. the autoexecution features in outlook). So, saying that "mistakes were made with Linux or OS X [too]" is missing the point completely.
Now, I'll grant you that there isn't a whole lot of innovation in Linux either. But the flip side of that is that Linux advocates don't go around bragging about their "commitment to innovation" either.
Slashdot Mirror
Free software is not used by "ALL possible users", it's used by interested users. The size of the user-base varies greatly from project to project. And no, speaking from experience, I can assure you that not all bugs are found w/in 4 months. Subtle timing or edge-case bugs can lurk for years before leaping out to destroy someone's critical data. (And this is true with both proprietary and libre software.)
One thing this study didn't seem to look at though, was the size of the user-base of the projects studied (of course, this is a hard thing to measure, but interesting). I think it would be useful to see what sorts of correlations (if any) there are between QA practices of a project, size of the user-base (popularity), and the overall quality of a project. Can a large user-base help make up for poor QA practices, or is a project with better QA more likely to attract users due to its higher reliability? Do users even care about quality and reliability, or do they just say they do? Interesting questions for which I don't have answers.
Open Source... Quality Assurance... I didn't know you could use those 4 words together in a sentence...
:)
Given what passes for QA in many companies, I don't think it's unreasonable for open-source developers to claim that many of their practices qualify as QA, even if an academic might disagree.
In my many years of experience, I have to say that regression testing is not as common in proprietary software development as it should be (and frequently not as common as claimed). Furthermore, while I don't want to say that regression testing is less important for Libre Software, I will say that I think it's probably more important for proprietary software, where the programmers are writing for a paycheck, rather than for pride, and are frequently under intense deadline pressure (which in turn, frequently leads to testing/QA of all types being skimped).
:)
As for no release dates, anyone who doesn't recognise that as an advantage of Libre Software simply lacks any clue about the process. Sure, there are downsides, but nothing's perfect. Free, reliable, on-time, pick any two.
Where exactly is the great Linux desktop rollout?
:) Well, primarily some regions of Spain and a couple of German cities, so far. But when (note, I don't say "if") those deployments prove successful and effective, more will follow.
Europe.
2. Are you still a harmful monopoly?
Umm, no way. Linux. Its killing us!
Of course, in your scenario (no desktop penetration), this would be a bald-faced lie, since their monoply was judged to be on the desktop, so Linux owning 99% of the server market wouldn't change that at all. And of course, it's still really too early to call Linux a real competitor on the desktop, even with what's going on in Europe, so it really would still be a bald-faced lie if they try to claim that today. Not that they're above bald-faced lying, of course.
MS didn't get where it is by playing fair or by telling the truth. This article is no exception.
Now there you hit the nail square on the head. This is clearly an attempt at spin by MS, and they deserve to be called on it. OTOH, that doesn't mean they're not right. What other competition do they face? Apple? Hah! Apple's the fancy luxury model, and will never compete in the cheap commodity markets where MS is so entrenched. Popular with rich geeks and yuppies? Sure. Essential for certain niche markets? No question. Deployed in the thousands across corporate/government desktops? Dream on!
But while I quibble with a lot of your details, I still agree with your conclusion that this announcement needs to be viewed in light of MS's normal methods of playing the game.
Oh, but by the way, your response, while an interesting post on it's own, was not a valid response to "[when will] Microsoft figure out that it's not Linux that's the threat, it's open source." The answer to that is, they already have! They didn't just say that Linux was the #2 threat, they said Linux and other non-commercial software.
The FSF has been hoping for such a case for years. The problem is finding a sucker who'll be willing to take the other side. So far, no one has volunteered. (Note, it'll have to be a legitimate case, because a judge is likely to throw out any case that's an obvious setup.) If you know anyone dumb enough to violate the GPL and take it to court, please let the FSF know.
Insofar as there is a "bittorrent community" (seems a little bit like saying the "ftp community" to me), this should be a good thing for it. This should help make it obvious that BT is not a very good choice for distributing "WareZ" (whether software, music or video), as it's too easy to find these sites and shut them down. Which in turn means that all the people using BT for legit purposes won't have to worry about being slandered by association with these types any more.
And geeze, does everything have to be a "community" these days? BT is more like FTP than it is like much of anything else. Why does it need a "community"? Can't it just be a tool that people use for various purposes?
It's free software, and therefore, it comes with my system (Debian) while XV doesn't. I can use it for my commercial website, or sell someone a system using it (a commercial transaction) without worrying about license fees. And it's been updated more recently than 1988! :)
Oh, and it has that API and a library that third-party apps use directly, so having XV on my system would involve a lot of redundancy, while having ImageMagick just means a small app that uses the already-installed library.
this alone calls into question Dr. Gold's ability
Depends on when he did this "seminal work on the steady-state theory". I'm in my 40s, and I remember when it was still considered acceptable to have some reasonable doubt about the big bang. If he's in his 70s, and did this work, say, 50 years ago, it's possible that the work was considered completely solid at the time. And the word "seminal" does imply that it was a while back.
I'm reminded of Stephen J. Gould's defense of the Bishop of Usher (the one who determined that the universe was created in 4004BC). Looking at that date based on what we know now, it's easy to assume that he was a religious fanatic, but if you look at what was known at the time he did the work, it turns out that he actually did some pretty solid scientific research to come up with that date. The fact that he was working from a set of bad assumptions was not really his fault.
So, back to Gold, if he's still a proponent of the steady-state, then he can probably be dismissed as a quack, but the fact that he once worked on the theory doesn't really say anything one way or the other.
I don't know how to tell you this - I hope it doesn't shatter your tiny little mind - but not everybody who likes Apple is completely insane. :p ;)
They do not have a trademark on Mickey Mouse, that's the point.
Yes they do. In fact, that's the only way they can protect themselves from "evil Mickey pr0n". The copyright on Steamboat Willy (and other Mickey works) does not prevent anyone from using those characters in all-new works. It only prevents people from copying/modifying those copyrighted materials.
And no, the trademark probably doesn't date back to 1928, but it doesn't have to. Trademarks don't have the strict requirements that copyrights and patents have.
Now, the situation if Steamboat Willy ever fell into the public domain would be rather interesting. People could make derivative works (including Pr0n) based on those images only, but would have to be careful not to push so far that the work would no longer be considered a derived work, because then it (probably, IANAL) be subject to trademark violation suits. An interesting reversal on the usual situation with copyright violations.
I'm sure I'll get modded down as a troll for this, but my god!! I was wondering what could be more pathetic than someone hanging out waiting for a new computer store to open. Then, there it was: someone who would sit there clicking refresh in his browser in order to follow the "adventures" of the person hanging out waiting for the computer store to open....
Good plan. Publish the report in a format for which there are precious few good viewers available on Linux.
Heck, there's even fewer good PDF viewers for Windows! There are plenty enough good PDF viewers for Linux (even including acrobat, which is pretty much the only one available for Win). If this were an MSWord file, you might have had a valid argument, since there's only a couple of viewers for that format in Linux, and none of them are all that great, but PDF is an open, well-supported standard, and it works fine. Everywhere.
What's wrong with good old HTML?
Not as well suited for printing. PDF is really just an enhanced form of postscript. And is easier for Windows folks to view than postscript. But from a Linux user's perspective, its almost hard to tell the difference between ps and pdf.
I realize I'm probably feeding the troll here, but there do seem to be a fair number of people still who don't realize that PDF is as well supported on Linux as it is anywhere, and it's for these people that I post.
I've been using Wintel for over 15 years and have just recently installed Red Hat 9 on an older K6-2 550.
Keep in mind that you're evaluating a primarily server-oriented distro there. If you want to see how well a linux desktop can work, you really need to check out one of the desktop-oriented distros, like Knoppix, possibly Mandrake, or maybe even Lindows.
1. Linux is ready for *some* desktops only, namely ones where users won't be constantly tweaking and installing new software and hardware. You want a computer for grandma to browse the web, send email and view a few grandkid photos? Linux is great!
Even though I don't agree with everything you say, you deserve your insightful mods for this point alone. Linux is, and has been, ready for Gramma for quite some time, and I have the experience to prove it.
The average user wants to do everything grandma wants to do, but they also want to be able to install or upgrade software and hardware *easily*. In addition, they want a fully functional GUI, with no *necessity* of dropping to a CLI for everyday tasks.
Here, I think we're seeing your bias from having been exposed to a server-oriented distro. The more desktop-oriented distros have solved both of these problems to a much higher degree than RH has. Or needs to - the servers actually benefit from the CLI, as it makes mass, remote administration much easier in general.
They want to be able to go to a third party software/driver website, follow the 'click here for Linux version' hyperlink, download the file, then double-click to install it.
This one is still a valid point. On the other hand, as more corporate desktops and grandmas get Linux installed for them, the more "click here to install the Linux version" links we'll see. This one will be solved before too much longer.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments.
Here I really disagree with you. Spare me the "fact" claim about what is, honestly, just your opinion. The real issue here is not "strength-in-diversity" - that's just a fringe benefit for those of us who aren't average users. The real issue is the openness of things like file formats. When you use MSOFfice, you're dealing with a vendor who wants to shut out the competition (and this is true even with proprietary software vendors who don't have a monopoly). When you're dealing with FLOSS, you're dealing with people who want to maximize interoperability. Thus, Gnome and KDE get closer and closer, day by day, and it becomes less important all the time which (if either) you use.
Of course, we're not there yet, and time could prove you right, but I seriously tend to doubt that you are. This is a whole new ballgame, played by different rules, and assumptions based on the old rules are quite likely to be wrong.
For one thing, most people reading slashdot don't care, they already use linux.
:)
No, most POSTERS on slashdot want people to THINK they run Linux (and a few even do). Most READERS of slashdot run Windows.
Everyone bitches when people compare the other way around
No, "everyone" doesn't, although (this being slashdot), someone bitches whenever ANYTHING is compared to ANYTHING else. But if you take the bitching on slashdot seriously, you've got deeper problems than just a need to feed your inner troll.
Anyway, I am a Linux user. In fact, until very recently, I was the maintainer of ORBit (the CORBA layer of Gnome) for the Debian project. And I wasn't aware that Gnumeric had gotten as far as it has, and I found the comparison interesting. (Even though I don't think I've used a spreadsheet since 1998.)
That's WarS (plural) of the Roses (a series of historical conflicts (mostly) between the Houses of Lancaster and York). The movie you're referring to is War (singular) of the Roses. Makes it a little easier to tell 'em apart.
:)
It's great that Martin is finally getting some well-deserved recognition - I've been a fan for years, since his odd-but-compelling Fevre Dream, and the long-before-its-time Rock'n'Roll Horror novel, Armageddon Rag. On the other hand, it's a little bit too bad that he's getting some of that recognition for the wrong things - the influence of both real history and of fellow "realistic-fantasy" pioneers Guy Gavriel Kay and Kristen Kathrine Rusch on his work is all but ignored. Still and all, it's great to see something that's actually good be popular for a change.
My fears that [expletive deleted] Robert Jordan had killed the market for anything resembling good fantasy have thankfully proven to be groundless.
Not to take anything away from Martin's excellent work, but anyone who is familiar with the Wars of the Roses (1455 to 1487) will recognize the storyline immediately. If it seems more realistic than your average fantasy novel, that's because it's based on reality, unlike your average fantasy novel. :)
That said, it's still an excellent tale, well told.
And if you like this sort of thing, then I strongly recommend checking out the works of Guy Gavriel Kay, who is (afaik) the real pioneer of retelling obscure bits of history reset into realms of fantasy. My personal favorite is The Lions of Al-Rasan, based on the latter days of Moorish Spain. None of these have quite the scale of the Thrones series, being mostly standalone novels, but they're still pretty hefty novels, and all quite good. (Kay is also known for his work with Christopher Tolkien, editing the unpublished works of Chris' faither, J.R.R., and for his pure-fantasy Arthuriana-soaked trilogy, The Fionavar Tapestry.)
Why do most organizations think they need to standardize on products rather than protocols or document standards?
:)
Several reasons, including ensuring that people don't bring trojans or virus-infected programs from home, and ensuring that licenses are in order when the BSA comes knocking.
Basically, it boils down to security, consistency and control. Some of the reasons are more legitimate than others, and some orgs may go beyond the bounds of reason, and/or make foolish decisions that lead to vendor lock-in, but that doesn't mean that company standards are always a bad thing. Just usually.
You are comparing apples and orages.
No, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that jurisdiction doesn't matter, I'm saying that jurisdiction is NO GUARANTEE of a free ride.
Apparently, you missed my point about Sklyarov and Elcomsoft too. If you engage in international trade, you may be subject to the laws of various different jurisdictions. Depends in part on how relations are between the relevent jurisdictions, which is hard to predict.
Added to which, you once again come up against jurisdictional issues when gathering evidence from these nations.
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean you're safe if you use a server in Romania. It may lower your risk, but it's no guarantee of safety. And if the connection between you and the Romanian server can easily be established, or doesn't need to be established (if, for example, you put your business contact info on your spam; wothout which there's not much point in spamming), then it may not lower your risk at all.
For years, the only spam filter I used was a very simple one: if the mail's not from a list I'm on, and not addressed to me, it's spam. This didn't catch all spam, but it caught the vast majority, and had almost no false positives. (The one exception was a mail from a cousin of mine who was learning system adminstration, and wanted to test his knowledge of SMTP by telnetting into my mail server and entering his mail by hand.)
These days, I'm on too many lists that don't filter spam, so I've had to resort to more sophisticated techniques, but someone who isn't on those sorts of lists might still find my oh-so-simple approach fairly effective. Not to disparage Bayesian filtering, but if you want something to compare against...
Those original PC keyboards were sturdy, but not unbreakable, as I have reason to know. I was one of the programmers working under contract on the original then-top-secret IBM-PC project, and I knocked one of the keyboards off a desktop, and managed to damage the internal electronics so badly that a whole row of keys no longer worked.
:)
I suspect that I'm probably the first person in the world to break a PC keyboard. It's not much of a claim to fame, but it's better than nothing.
I personally think that the GPL should be proven in court.
Prof. Eben Moglen (FSF Counsel) agrees, and has been searching for someone stupid enough to take the other side for years. If you know someone that stupid, please contact the FSF immediately. (Note, it'll have to be a real case, as a fake "setup" to test the GPL will probably just be thrown out of court.)
In the mean time, I think the rest of us can take comfort from the fact that nobody has been willing to challenge the GPL; not even those who were strongly motivated.
A story in MIT's tech review spoke of a prolific spammer who used servers in Romania and China.
The location of the servers is (or should be) massively irrelevent. If I set up a kiddie porn website, I won't get very far with the excuse "I used a server in Romania" if I'm still located in the US.
Technology is still the best hope for killing spam.
I've been hearing that line for nearly two decades, and I've seen absolutely NO PROGRESS! I'm sorry, you had your chance, it's time to try some other approaches. A state law is, indeed, not much of a deterrent for a lot of people, but it can help set a precedent that will lead to a national law, which in turn can help set a precedent that will lead to international law.
Furthermore, spam depends on really thin margins. If you have to factor in the expense of moving (physically, see above) to Romania, then you may not find spamming such an attractive idea after all.
Anyway, questions of jurisdiction are not necessarily as simple as you'd like to think. See, for example, the cases of Sklyarov (sp?) and Elcomsoft. For something like this, the big question would be, is the controlling jurisdiction willing to cooperate with the jurisdiction where the offense took place?
No, no, Gentoo is what you're supposed to shout whenever Debian is being discussed. The classic Mandrake troll is: it's just a copy of redhat. Get it right! :)
:p ;)
Now me, I'm still pissed off at whatzizname (head of Mandrakesoft) for his insulting comments about grandmothers. But to be fair, he may not be familiar with the high quality grandmothers we have here in California. I mean, what do you have to be to be a grandmother? 36? Do you know how many totally hot 36-year-olds there are in California? Speaking as someone who happens to have a mad crush on a woman who happens to be a grandmother, I'm glad Knoppix exists so I don't feel obligated to recommend the product of someone who makes such sexist, ageist remarks.
(Yes, if Knoppix didn't exist, I would feel obligated to recommend Mandrake to my friends, even though I don't use it myself. And it's still a nice system, even if whatzizname is a complete jerk.)
Actually, I'd argue that the success of Win3.1 and later had more to do with leveraging their monopoly than anything else (even luck). It's easy to forget (now that the world has been converted to the religion of GUIs) just how successful MS-DOS was in its day. And their lack of success with earlier versions of Win (not to mention such memorable "innovations" as Bob) just shows that there's some things that are so bad that even a monopoly can't apply enough leverage to get them moving. :)
/.) who overestimate him than underestimate him, so I just had to interject my usual arguments.
In the development arena, MS was always the company to beat. Borland made a suprisingly good showing for a little while, but Watcom's great press and excellent reviews never really turned into major sales. And MS's compilers got a lot of public sneers during Borland's heyday, but still got an awful lot of quiet, day-to-day use.
Anyway, I guess those are quibbles, because I don't really disagree with your main point: BG is clearly a very competent businessman, and it is dangerous to underestimate him. I just see more people (in ordinary life, not here on
cheers
Of all the stuff they've released in multiple markets over the past two decades,
All of it has been bought, borrowed, or stolen EXCEPT Bob and Clippy. Show us something else they've done that actually demonstrates anything resembling innovation, and maybe we'll stop poking fun at Bob and Clippy.
In other words, we're not poking fun at Bob and Clippy because they were mistakes (MS has made plenty of other mistakes, i.e. the autoexecution features in outlook). So, saying that "mistakes were made with Linux or OS X [too]" is missing the point completely.
Now, I'll grant you that there isn't a whole lot of innovation in Linux either. But the flip side of that is that Linux advocates don't go around bragging about their "commitment to innovation" either.