If everyone stopped using Microsoft products and BUYING Microsoft products, Microsoft would disappear quickly and could bribe (sorry... Help) no officials and the officials would stop listening to them.
Maybe, if the FOS community could actually produce an office suite that was even slightly equal to MS Office that would happen. At present, the best word processor available is OO and that is barely equal to MS Word 97. The simple fact is that the open-source community has not and maybe never will, have a complete office suite that begins to compare to MS OFFICE.
Setting up and using the new OFFICE 10 is a breeze compared to anything the open-source community has to offer. You would have thought that after all these years MS haters would have produced a comprehensible solution; however, that is evidently not so.
These thieves are pirating legitimate software and thereby driving up the price of the material they are pilfering. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. If more of these filthy slim were prosecuted the world would be a better place.
note that it shows a: the antitrust links and b: why anyone can make a google search engine by their own choice
Really, why should google ever publish the "how we do our job"? that's not their job, and it's not microsoft, and it's not anyone's.
Really, then why are 'open source' supporters constantly on Microsoft's case for NOT publishing their "how we do it" documentation? Once again, the old proverb, " Be careful what you wish for" has come into play.
The European Commission of the European Union and the FTC are both useless bureaucratic agencies attempting to justify their existence. Neither has done anything to warrant their continued existence. Only die-hard control freaks, or Socialist/Fascist have any use for either. Both stifle freedom of expression and free enterprise.
> Open source has been playing catchup with Microsoft since day one.
It rather depends on how deeply you were looking at the system.
Very deeply.
> Every time Microsoft makes an improvement in its GUI, KDE, Gnome, etc try vainly to mimic it.
See my first point about how utterly bogus that idea is. A lot of
allegedly spiffy and new MacOS or Windows ideas are just VERY OLD
Unix things with a bit of repackaging.
If there were even remotely true, then why have KDE, Gnome, etc failed to produce a GUI comparable to the one in Win7 for starters?
> Usually with only mediocre results. The best word processor open source can produce, OpenOffice, > pales in comparison to a MS Office10.
Even this FUD is old and recycled. Lemmings have been repeating this little
nugget about competiting products since the 16-bit days.
That doesn't change the fact that OO is a poor knockoff of MS Office.
> In fact, it barely equals Office97 in functionality. Microsoft is the engine that drove the software industry....except when it's copying and putting out of business the companies it gets
all of it's ideas from like the companies that built the original office
productivity apps.
Actually, OO and other open source word processors are attempting to copy MS Word. By the way, I forgot that you socialist have such a disdain for the free market. MS Office rose to the top because it was the premier word processor on the market.
> Are you so naive as to believe that the average end user whats to spend hours trying to > configure hardware (mice, printers, etc) when they can just put a CD in the drive and > have it virtually configured by itself.
Why should they have to futz with any sort of external media?
When it is supported in Linux, it "just works".
1) You don't really believe that do you? 2) "When it is supported" is the key phase here. In all too many cases, hardware is either not supported, especially in the *BSDs or poorly supported.
Also, qute often that allegedly easy peasy "just download something" or "put in a CD" is actually a bit more complicated and much more error prone than the Lemming propaganda would leave you to believe.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Someone like HP might also decide that something relatively simple and standard and common for 15+ years might be something that you would never do and thus make it impossible to do at all with their WinDOS drivers. (gotta love that one)
Excuse me, but what drug are you are on? Open source has been playing catchup with Microsoft since day one. Every time Microsoft makes an improvement in its GUI, KDE, Gnome, etc try vainly to mimic it. Usually with only mediocre results. The best word processor open source can produce, OpenOffice, pales in comparison to a MS Office10. In fact, it barely equals Office97 in functionality. Microsoft is the engine that drove the software industry. Are you so naive as to believe that the average end user whats to spend hours trying to configure hardware (mice, printers, etc) when they can just put a CD in the drive and have it virtually configured by itself. Getting even a simple wireless setup working on a FreeBSD machine can be a new experience in pain, not to mention that FreeBSD does not even have functioning drivers for 'N' wireless devices. Why rush, its only been a few years since they were commonly available. And lets not even mentions the availability of drivers for other open source operating systems. I know, you will probably blame the vendors for these problems.The root problem is that the over whelming majority of open source users are socialist at heart. They want everything for nothing. Sorry, but in a realistic world, you get what you pay for.
I use open source software where appropriate and feasible. However, in terms of ease of use, availability of drivers (fully functional ones, not the ones so commonly offered for *.nix systems), I usually cater to a product designed to work on a Windows platform. Perhaps in ten years or so, and assuming that the open source community actually produces a fully functional office suite; i.e. word processor, spread sheet, and their associated programs rather than the pale offerings they presently provide complete with fully functioning drivers for new hardware I might reconsider my position. Until then, I find its usefulness in a business environment limited and more suitable as a 'hobbyist' tool.
If anyone here is a troll, it is you. I simply stated my own personal experience with FreeBSD. I never made any claims regarding non Windows systems and ACL support. My statement was 100% accurate.
It has poor support for virtually every modern chip on the market. I don't think they ever heard of the 'N' wireless protocol.
Re:No Drivers - No Java - No Good
on
FreeBSD 8.1 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Excuse me, but that troll you just pasted is over ten years old. I've perused my logs and found myself referencing said troll over two hundred times. Thank you.
FreeBSD is a nice 'hobby' OS; however, it it lacks drivers for virtually all modern devices. There are no drivers for all but a few 'N' protocol wireless cards, and even those drivers are not as fully functional as those available for Windows. They have never gotten Java updated to where it is usable in the latest versions of Firefox either. Its support for SATA drives is somewhat limited. In fact, the number of devices that are not supported by FreeBSD is far larger than the number supported. Amd64 support is still not up to snuff either. Supposedly, they have improved their ACL support. I will have to investigate to see if it is up to the levels of other *.nix systems.
The FreeBSD team appears more interested in bumping its version number every few months than it is in getting its OS fully functional in a modern world. It took years before they even got support for nVidia drivers in 64bit mode. Of all the non Windows operating systems available, I would put FreeBSD at the bottom of the list.
You know as soon as you see a group, then you read into it a bit more and you find out that a lot of the group is composed of competitors. so then it goes from being a group with a legitimate complaint to a group of cry babies who can't compete and are trying to get the government to help them because they are weak.
Isn't that exactly what Opera does? This whole thing is exactly what the EC has been doing with Microsoft for over a decade. I just love the way the hypocrites and Microsoft haters are coming out of their holes and crying.
Has it ever occurred to anyone why it is that Opera is supposedly superior to other browsers in virtually every category and yet, nobody uses it? Even an upstart like Chrome has a larger user share. Furthermore, how can anyone even compare IE9 with other currently available browers. IE9 has not even been released as a BETA or RC candidate. Comparing it in some useless "proof of concept" category is insane.
I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server. with 862 ports installed. On any given day, I receive notice of at least one or more updates available. Personally, I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available.
The owner of the PC, or the organization/person(s) responsible for that PC have every right to determine how it is used, maintained and what software is installed on it. Case closed. If you don't like it, get a different job.
See the difference? Being big is not illegal, but using your size to squash your competition *in other ways than making better products* may be illegal.
"Standards" are whatever is in vogue at the moment. There are no laws requiring and RFC be used, or any other standard per se. The open source community attempts to use this queasy "standard" in an attempt to stifle Microsoft so that other competing software developers can catch up. As an example, Open Office, try as they might, are more than 10 years behind the present version of MS Office. At best, OO is maybe equal to Office 97.
It makes sense alright. It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible. The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws? Please! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market? Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act? Absurd.
Really now. Well, led by Opera, web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE's dominance in the browsing department. According to your statement, Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API's for other OSs. You would probably disagree. Personally, I believe in a totally free market. Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products. They, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age.
Though free beer can enter into it if you know or are the right people.
We've had commercial software, with commercial support contracts to go along with them. I personally didn't get much sleep assurance from that. If something happens that requires a service call at 2:30 AM it doesn't matter if I'm fixing it myself or babysitting a vendor/contractor, I'm still up.
The question is, is your support link available at that hour, or are they a 9 to 5 organization. Worse yet, only e-mail support; which is obviously useless if the system with the problem is also your mail server.
It includes requests for more information on such things as where the data is going to be stored, why Google is 'generously' providing this service free of charge and without advertisements (i.e., how much privacy/rights do you have with your e-mails)
It always amazes me when people talk as if people are Google are casually browsing through your email, gossiping about your personal secrets.
Wow, I knew if I waited long enough I would actually find someone foolish enough to actually believe that propaganda of their's. Oh, by the way, the check is in the mail, the dog ate my homework and I'm from the federal government and I want to help.
Your contracted support organization. Typically Novell or Redhat.
You do have a support contract, don't you?
Which is why there is no such thing as "FREE" software. Furthermore, why limit yourself to Redhat? What about FreeBSD or their ilk? The FOSS community has a pathetic support system. Other than mail forums, which I do vigorously support, telephone or on-site support is virtually non existent.
And no, we have no support current support contract with any open-source supplier. Due to the extreme fragmentation of the FOSS market, it would prove financially irresponsible, even if it were feasible.
Google's implementation of IMAP/POP3 is not RFC compliant. By default, they do not support encryption. They routinely block attachments that do not not fit into their narrowly crafted acceptable files doctrine.
Once Google has possession of your correspondence, they are free to do with it as they see fit, irregardless of what they may have led you to believe.
Obviously, you have brought hook, line and sinker the Google manifesto. Enjoy it while you can. Personally, I wouldn't trust them with other people's e-mail; far less mine or employees of mine. We believe in security, which is why we run our own mail server.
Be a nice guy and let we Linux/BSD/etc users laugh at the cost of your OS, okay?
Yea, BSD is doing great. Just a few days ago, FreeBSD updated the JPG-8 port, and now 'kdebase', 'kdelibs', etc won't build without moving existing libraries around and other modifications. Then again, that is a normal occurrence on most *.nix based systems. Ease of use was never their intent.
Slashdot Mirror
If everyone stopped using Microsoft products and BUYING Microsoft products, Microsoft would disappear quickly and could bribe (sorry... Help) no officials and the officials would stop listening to them.
Maybe, if the FOS community could actually produce an office suite that was even slightly equal to MS Office that would happen. At present, the best word processor available is OO and that is barely equal to MS Word 97. The simple fact is that the open-source community has not and maybe never will, have a complete office suite that begins to compare to MS OFFICE.
Setting up and using the new OFFICE 10 is a breeze compared to anything the open-source community has to offer. You would have thought that after all these years MS haters would have produced a comprehensible solution; however, that is evidently not so.
These thieves are pirating legitimate software and thereby driving up the price of the material they are pilfering. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. If more of these filthy slim were prosecuted the world would be a better place.
sure do. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100904101642564
note that it shows a: the antitrust links and b: why anyone can make a google search engine by their own choice
Really, why should google ever publish the "how we do our job"? that's not their job, and it's not microsoft, and it's not anyone's.
Really, then why are 'open source' supporters constantly on Microsoft's case for NOT publishing their "how we do it" documentation? Once again, the old proverb, " Be careful what you wish for" has come into play.
The reason the article doesn't explain how Microsoft crash dumps work is because no one understands them.
This guy seems to be closest to understanding of anyone I've found:
http://www.wintellect.com/CS/blogs/jrobbins/archive/2009/05/11/pdb-files-what-every-developer-must-know.aspx
man xorg.conf(5)
VIDEOADAPTOR SECTION ...
Nobody wants to say how this works. Maybe nobody knows
The European Commission of the European Union and the FTC are both useless bureaucratic agencies attempting to justify their existence. Neither has done anything to warrant their continued existence. Only die-hard control freaks, or Socialist/Fascist have any use for either. Both stifle freedom of expression and free enterprise.
> Excuse me, but what drug are you are on?
Enlightenment. Perhaps you've heard of it.
> Open source has been playing catchup with Microsoft since day one.
It rather depends on how deeply you were looking at the system.
Very deeply.
> Every time Microsoft makes an improvement in its GUI, KDE, Gnome, etc try vainly to mimic it.
See my first point about how utterly bogus that idea is. A lot of
allegedly spiffy and new MacOS or Windows ideas are just VERY OLD
Unix things with a bit of repackaging.
If there were even remotely true, then why have KDE, Gnome, etc failed to produce a GUI comparable to the one in Win7 for starters?
> Usually with only mediocre results. The best word processor open source can produce, OpenOffice,
> pales in comparison to a MS Office10.
Even this FUD is old and recycled. Lemmings have been repeating this little
nugget about competiting products since the 16-bit days.
That doesn't change the fact that OO is a poor knockoff of MS Office.
> In fact, it barely equals Office97 in functionality. Microsoft is the engine that drove the software industry. ...except when it's copying and putting out of business the companies it gets
all of it's ideas from like the companies that built the original office
productivity apps.
Actually, OO and other open source word processors are attempting to copy MS Word. By the way, I forgot that you socialist have such a disdain for the free market. MS Office rose to the top because it was the premier word processor on the market.
> Are you so naive as to believe that the average end user whats to spend hours trying to
> configure hardware (mice, printers, etc) when they can just put a CD in the drive and
> have it virtually configured by itself.
Why should they have to futz with any sort of external media?
When it is supported in Linux, it "just works".
1) You don't really believe that do you?
2) "When it is supported" is the key phase here. In all too many cases, hardware is either not supported, especially in the *BSDs or poorly supported.
Also, qute often that allegedly easy peasy "just download something" or "put in a CD"
is actually a bit more complicated and much more error prone than the Lemming propaganda
would leave you to believe.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Someone like HP might also decide that something relatively simple and standard and
common for 15+ years might be something that you would never do and thus make it impossible
to do at all with their WinDOS drivers. (gotta love that one)
Sorry, you lost me there.
Excuse me, but what drug are you are on? Open source has been playing catchup with Microsoft since day one. Every time Microsoft makes an improvement in its GUI, KDE, Gnome, etc try vainly to mimic it. Usually with only mediocre results. The best word processor open source can produce, OpenOffice, pales in comparison to a MS Office10. In fact, it barely equals Office97 in functionality. Microsoft is the engine that drove the software industry. Are you so naive as to believe that the average end user whats to spend hours trying to configure hardware (mice, printers, etc) when they can just put a CD in the drive and have it virtually configured by itself. Getting even a simple wireless setup working on a FreeBSD machine can be a new experience in pain, not to mention that FreeBSD does not even have functioning drivers for 'N' wireless devices. Why rush, its only been a few years since they were commonly available. And lets not even mentions the availability of drivers for other open source operating systems. I know, you will probably blame the vendors for these problems.The root problem is that the over whelming majority of open source users are socialist at heart. They want everything for nothing. Sorry, but in a realistic world, you get what you pay for.
I use open source software where appropriate and feasible. However, in terms of ease of use, availability of drivers (fully functional ones, not the ones so commonly offered for *.nix systems), I usually cater to a product designed to work on a Windows platform. Perhaps in ten years or so, and assuming that the open source community actually produces a fully functional office suite; i.e. word processor, spread sheet, and their associated programs rather than the pale offerings they presently provide complete with fully functioning drivers for new hardware I might reconsider my position. Until then, I find its usefulness in a business environment limited and more suitable as a 'hobbyist' tool.
If anyone here is a troll, it is you. I simply stated my own personal experience with FreeBSD. I never made any claims regarding non Windows systems and ACL support. My statement was 100% accurate.
It has poor support for virtually every modern chip on the market. I don't think they ever heard of the 'N' wireless protocol.
Excuse me, but that troll you just pasted is over ten years old. I've perused my logs and found myself referencing said troll over two hundred times. Thank you.
What are you referring to?
FreeBSD is a nice 'hobby' OS; however, it it lacks drivers for virtually all modern devices. There are no drivers for all but a few 'N' protocol wireless cards, and even those drivers are not as fully functional as those available for Windows. They have never gotten Java updated to where it is usable in the latest versions of Firefox either. Its support for SATA drives is somewhat limited. In fact, the number of devices that are not supported by FreeBSD is far larger than the number supported. Amd64 support is still not up to snuff either. Supposedly, they have improved their ACL support. I will have to investigate to see if it is up to the levels of other *.nix systems.
The FreeBSD team appears more interested in bumping its version number every few months than it is in getting its OS fully functional in a modern world. It took years before they even got support for nVidia drivers in 64bit mode. Of all the non Windows operating systems available, I would put FreeBSD at the bottom of the list.
You know as soon as you see a group, then you read into it a bit more and you find out that a lot of the group is composed of competitors. so then it goes from being a group with a legitimate complaint to a group of cry babies who can't compete and are trying to get the government to help them because they are weak.
Isn't that exactly what Opera does? This whole thing is exactly what the EC has been doing with Microsoft for over a decade. I just love the way the hypocrites and Microsoft haters are coming out of their holes and crying.
Has it ever occurred to anyone why it is that Opera is supposedly superior to other browsers in virtually every category and yet, nobody uses it? Even an upstart like Chrome has a larger user share. Furthermore, how can anyone even compare IE9 with other currently available browers. IE9 has not even been released as a BETA or RC candidate. Comparing it in some useless "proof of concept" category is insane.
google doesn't force you to join or limit your options if you don't.
Give them time.
I run a FreeBSD-7.2 server. with 862 ports installed. On any given day, I receive notice of at least one or more updates available. Personally, I am relieved to see that someone is actually actively working on improving the software that is available.
The owner of the PC, or the organization/person(s) responsible for that PC have every right to determine how it is used, maintained and what software is installed on it. Case closed. If you don't like it, get a different job.
See the difference? Being big is not illegal, but using your size to squash your competition *in other ways than making better products* may be illegal.
"Standards" are whatever is in vogue at the moment. There are no laws requiring and RFC be used, or any other standard per se. The open source community attempts to use this queasy "standard" in an attempt to stifle Microsoft so that other competing software developers can catch up. As an example, Open Office, try as they might, are more than 10 years behind the present version of MS Office. At best, OO is maybe equal to Office 97.
It makes sense alright. It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible. The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws? Please! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market? Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act? Absurd.
Really now. Well, led by Opera, web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE's dominance in the browsing department. According to your statement, Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API's for other OSs. You would probably disagree. Personally, I believe in a totally free market. Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products. They, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age.
Free speech, not free beer.
Though free beer can enter into it if you know or are the right people.
We've had commercial software, with commercial support contracts to go along with them. I personally didn't get much sleep assurance from that. If something happens that requires a service call at 2:30 AM it doesn't matter if I'm fixing it myself or babysitting a vendor/contractor, I'm still up.
The question is, is your support link available at that hour, or are they a 9 to 5 organization. Worse yet, only e-mail support; which is obviously useless if the system with the problem is also your mail server.
Neither have I personally audited anything about my bank, Anonymous Coward. Yet I still trust it with all my money.
Well, how many people blindly trusted Bernie Madoff .
It includes requests for more information on such things as where the data is going to be stored, why Google is 'generously' providing this service free of charge and without advertisements (i.e., how much privacy/rights do you have with your e-mails)
Privacy concerns for Google apps in general are addressed here:
http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762
It always amazes me when people talk as if people are Google are casually browsing through your email, gossiping about your personal secrets.
Wow, I knew if I waited long enough I would actually find someone foolish enough to actually believe that propaganda of their's. Oh, by the way, the check is in the mail, the dog ate my homework and I'm from the federal government and I want to help.
Admit it, you work for Google don't you?
Your contracted support organization. Typically Novell or Redhat.
You do have a support contract, don't you?
Which is why there is no such thing as "FREE" software. Furthermore, why limit yourself to Redhat? What about FreeBSD or their ilk? The FOSS community has a pathetic support system. Other than mail forums, which I do vigorously support, telephone or on-site support is virtually non existent.
And no, we have no support current support contract with any open-source supplier. Due to the extreme fragmentation of the FOSS market, it would prove financially irresponsible, even if it were feasible.
Google's implementation of IMAP/POP3 is not RFC compliant. By default, they do not support encryption. They routinely block attachments that do not not fit into their narrowly crafted acceptable files doctrine.
Once Google has possession of your correspondence, they are free to do with it as they see fit, irregardless of what they may have led you to believe.
Obviously, you have brought hook, line and sinker the Google manifesto. Enjoy it while you can. Personally, I wouldn't trust them with other people's e-mail; far less mine or employees of mine. We believe in security, which is why we run our own mail server.
Be a nice guy and let we Linux/BSD/etc users laugh at the cost of your OS, okay?
Yea, BSD is doing great. Just a few days ago, FreeBSD updated the JPG-8 port, and now 'kdebase', 'kdelibs', etc won't build without moving existing libraries around and other modifications. Then again, that is a normal occurrence on most *.nix based systems. Ease of use was never their intent.
So, when an OSS breaks at 2:30am on a mission critical project, who do I call?