OK, I've wondered long enough, and now I'm going to ask: can't people just mouse over the link to verify its contents before clicking? I've been fooled into clicking that link exactly once, and never again.
I refuse to spell out any links - the goat sex-weary will just have to avoid my posts:)
Electronic toll boxes in Illinois are specifically banned from using toll payment times to track down speeders. Otherwise no one would use them, and it was apparently more important to ease congestion by cutting down on tollway backups than it was to catch speeders.
These money grubbing motherfuckers are ransoming our future in very obvious
and specific ways.
Oh come on, that's a little melodramatic, don't you think? I did just fine in school with zero multimedia presentations, and in the past kids have done fine in school without even electricity or running water. If those kids future is so closely tied to the availability of cheap multimedia authoring tools, then we've already got much bigger problems.
How many entry level jobs say "KOffice Experience
Required"?
...
I don't see a lot of Apple ][e's around today to remind me of my HS education.
And yet, when you got out of HS, somehow you survived having been trained on Apples when the business world wasn't using them. Do you really think it's that much harder for kids today, who are more technically savvy than you or I in HS?
School is supposed to teach concepts, not what menu in Word to use to get the right fancy font. Students can write essays, do math homework, and research papers on any platform. If you can prepare a presentation in StarOffice, you can do it in PowerPoint, and vice versa. Office suite compatibility in schools is the worst reason to stick with Microsoft. And heck, Microsoft software is so easy to use, those kids shouldn't have any problems making the slight adjustment when they reach the world of business, should they?:)
Sure, there's some educational software that only runs on Windows, and in those cases the applications provide a good reason to keep some Windows machines around. But general-purpose productivity applications, which are probably what the kids will use most of the time, are not sufficient reason to remain tied to Microsoft.
BTW if Linux doesn't have DLL problems why do I have to download different packages for different versions of
Redhat or other distributions? What's with this you must have blah_blah_x_x.so. What's with glibc and libc?
DLL hell is if one app's installer blew away blah_blah_x_x.so and replaced it with blah_blah_x_y.so, and then another app didn't work right. It's true that you have to have multiple lib versions at a time, although if you stick with your distribution's install they usually minimize this. But stuff doesn't break just because you installed other stuff.
Um no. That is system file protection. Fusion lets applications have "personal" dlls etc. Windows has always allowed multiple DLLs. Ever
heard of GetVersion() and GetVersionEx()?
I still say it's nuts to allow the system to be broken, and then blindly repair it every time. That's papering over the problem, not fixing it.
I dunno, maybe it's windows developers who cause the DLL problems? All I know is that older apps' DLLs regularly getzapped by newer apps' install procedures, and this doesn't seem to happen on Linux. It seems like Microsoft could innovate their way out of this one, or use their acclaimed developer resource MSDN to get their developers to do so.
was waiting for someone like you. You give me the opportunity to make my point. Thank you for that.
No problem, I aim to please:) I learn a lot from getting flamed out of my chair, and then here you go and actually take me much more seriously than I probably deserve.
With an open mind you realize that vi and Emacs don't come even close to a fully integrated development environment.
Hmmm. You're right, I think my quibble is more with the concept of an IDE than with a particular implementation of it. Although my experience with developing on Windows has been that it's tough to break out of the IDE when you want to. Maybe that's the case with open source IDEs too, I wouldn't know.
You (and I) may not like it but the main reason why they are what they are on the desktop market is because
they offer what the vast majority of users want.
It's more like they destroy all competition, but it's true that in the end the vast majority of users think they want what they're getting. It's sort of the Stockholm Syndrome, writ large.
What I mean to say by that is that Miguel has a point..NET is probably the most important technology/invention for the years to come. Just like
Unix kicked Multix's ass back in the days,.NET will be the next development environment for the years to come. (open mind everyone)
I've got the open mind, and I can see.NET being the biggest development environment change for Windows developers, since they effectively have no choice anyway. I don't see how having an open mind helps me believe that something will become such a watershed just because Microsoft and Miguel tell me so, though.
That's the kind of situation we could find
ourselves in if major tools like.NET are not available for Linux.
I think the jury's still out on whether this will end up being a useful tool. I think it would definitely be a tragedy if the Microsoft version of it becomes the de facto standard on Linux, so in that regard it's great to hear that there will be options.
Now that does not come from some AC waiting for a good troll. This guy wrote a whole lot of code. I think I can safely say that he knows what
he is talking about when it comes to developing software. (Open mind again).
OK, how exactly is accepting an appeal to authority having an open mind? Not that I dispute his qualifications in the least, but that doesn't qualify him as infallible. I guess if.NET's so great, we'll all end up using it, and I'll eat my words (won't be the first time). But I reserve the right to be skeptical until I actually see the tool do what Microsoft says it will do, and until I see it work in a manner that doesn't tie development more closely to Microsoft. It doesn't sound like Miguel is keeping this in mind very well. An open mind doesn't mean banish all skepticism.
Just like Unix was not targetted as a single platform. You have it right here, in front of you. If you can see further than your nose, it's obvious that
this is why.NET will (wether you like it or not) take over. He even says It's a programmer's dream come true. He's right, at least admit it.
I think the proof is in the pudding. I hope it's a dream come true, I just don't necessarily have the faith that Miguel does. On the other hand, maybe he's confident because he's already got a great implementation of Mono that's prepared to spring full-grown from his forehead. If that's the case then kudos to him for providing another tool among many.
But just playing up how great.NET is, without touching on any of the down sides, is not going to make it easy for the Linux developers out in the trenches to avoid being Microsoftized in the meantime. I think Miguel is playing with fire, and I think we'll be hearing his quotes from this article long after no one's even heard of the Halloween memo. Because if Mono doesn't happen, he's handed Microsoft some very powerful FUD (and it's even true, which is worse) that's going to frame the debate on Microsoft's terms and make it very difficult to point out any shortcomings with.NET. Any technical argument against.NET with my boss will end with "But Mr. Gnome said it was great, and you're always pushing his stuff aren't you? You techies are just never satisfied."
In fact, if anything, your post is on the verge of a flamebait,...
Fair enough, in retrospect.
Have you developed large software in Linux and using recent Visual Studio?
Yes, and (fairly large) yes. And I still don't see what the big deal is. Learning curve is a relative thing - having been used to vi, I found the notepad editor to be incredibly difficult to use. All of the interface information I need on Linux is available via man, apropos, and zillions of source code examples on the 'net. My main impression of the VS documentation is that it explained how to do the easy stuff very well, but explanations of difficult stuff were inaccurate or missing. There seems to be about one way to do things in the VS mindset, and heaven help you if you picked an alternative approach 'cause it ain't documented anywhere.
I think I'll bow to your impressive OO explanation, and admit that maybe I did misunderstand Miguel's point (I'm not sure how I could have jumped from his words to your meaning, but oh well). I'll also point out, though, that the interface issues you bring up aren't a problem if you have the source code for everything. Linking to binary-only proprietary code is a problem that's already been solved. It may not always be the solution that you like or can use, but it's there - just use the source. That's the real reason that this hasn't been an issue on Linux.
I'll give Microsoft credit for pushing SOAP so that there's a way to provide (essentially, since it's XML) source-level interfaces across the ABI and machine barriers, but it remains to be seen if they'll really use XML, or just embed chunks of Microsoft object/byte code in an XML wrapper. I haven't seen them implement a real open standard yet, so you'll have to understand why I'm not holding my breath. You remember, these are the folks who have, on the record, admitted to trying to fool developers into locking themselves into Microsoft extensions. Does the tiger change his stripes?
And take that 'must consider only one view, must stick to one view' way of writing "eloquent" speeches and high school essays and
stick it up where the sun don't shine.
Thanks, I think, but really I was never this inspired in HS:) IIRC I never said there was only one view, I said that Miguel went too far towards only covering one side of the issue. I specifically said that there were good things about.NET, but I didn't hear Miguel admit to any of the bad things. There's more than one way to look at things - there are also people who are well paid to present the Microsoft way, and so it hurts to see a hacker that I respect doing it for them.
Because the world is gray and while Miguel may not subscribe to your views, labeling a developer
that contributes so fucking much to the Linux community as a puppet of the Microsoft marketing machine is purely ignorant and
ungrateful.
Like I said, I use Gnome, I like it, and I'm certainly not putting my code up against Miguel's (hint: I lose, big time). But he's a public figure, like it or not, and so any jackass on the street (like me) is entitled to an opinion on said public figure's utterances. And IMHO he's shooting his movement in the foot, or at least loading the gun.
In fact, as an aspiring software engineer, it hurts me that you dare use words "rational software engineer" with such an
ignorant, non-software engineer viewpoint, as any rational, experienced software engineer that practices object oriented programming
will tell you that anything that promotes reuse, avoids having to write a ton of extra code and avoids the above-described real DLL hell, is
going to look at this free, open-source initiative (Mono) and say "Thank god, I was waiting for this." You do not nearly realize the kind of
freedom and the kind of time savings that Mono will yield in medium and large software projects, something that was previously avaialble
only on the Windows platform and for a shitload o' money (Windows + all the dev tools).
As a practicing software engineer, I wish you luck. I hope things turn out the way that you and Miguel see it - that truly would be a great world to work in. I don't see that coming to pass, at least as things are going now, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I don't have any problem with the stated goals of Mono (other than the usual gripe that it would be nice to not always let Microsoft define the battlefield), I just think Miguel could present a better argument by saying how great Mono is, rather than spending all his time saying how great.NET is and then saying "oh yeah, and Mono will be like.NET but better". But what the heck, I'm not an internationally famous free software luminary, so it's probably the case that you should believe him rather than me.
But I prefer installing Visual Studio which adds to your
system, then installing the unix programming packages that try to take over your system:p.
It's really a different mindset - unix programming packages are supposed to be part of the system - it's only those nutty commercial distributors who quit providing compilers with their systems. Programming tools are an integral part of a Unix system, if they're an add-on that seems to take over, it's the distributor's fault.
What scares the shit out of me, is how some people even use automake to build Java applications...
AAAAAHHHHHHH...
ROTFL - agreed.
Really, are you sure you can write Windows code that will run on 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and CE without some sort of compatibility layer? I bet there are still some caveats that have to be handled in an automake-like fashion. Or more likely, apps from one version won't necessarily be portable to those others. There are more flavors of Unix altogether than there are of Windows, so it's true that automake is more of a Unix necessity. It would be interesting to see how incompatibilities between various versions of Windows would have been handled had Microsoft been broken up.
And I dont blaim Miguel, it shouldnt take an
enlightment monk to figure out what is easier and what is harder, and the natural progression of things is to get easier not remain hard.
Fair enough; but I think picking the IDE as the magic bullet is the wrong place to put the emphasis. IDEs have allowed more code to be written than ever before; they've also allowed more bad code to be written than ever before. The problem with software is in the brain, not in the tools.
When pressed for additional details on what makes.NET better, de Icaza replied: "The tools are
better integrated. You have a debugger, a project manager. It's an IDE with documentation
integrated into the system.
Wow, it's a wonder those KDE guys can accomplish anything with their stone-knives-and-bearskins tools like "vi" and "man". Now we know why there's so much sucky code in the world - lack of IDEs to think for us.
Microsoft basically solved the DLL problem, and that's something that the open source
community is not solving. Even though we have the tools to do so, no one is taking the next step to
do things right. There's still breakage that's happening in libraries that are shipping with traditional
Linux libraries.
Has this Miguel guy ever actually used Linux? (yes, I'm aware he's the Gnome god, it's a rhetorical question.) Linux has almost none of the DLL problems of Windows; you may have extra versions of old libraries, but if that's what your apps want it's not a bad thing. Microsoft, on the other hand, just recently gave us the technological advance of keeping track of the libraries needed and replacing them on you if you zapped them during another software install. Yes, that's right, just paper over that DLL Hell and keep on going.
I like Gnome, and I use it every day, but I feel like Miguel has really let down the side here. It's one thing to discuss that.NET has some advantages over current systems, but it's another thing to be basically a Microsoft cheerleader - shouting out the good bits, papering over the iffy bits, and not injecting any of the caution that any rational software engineer not in a coma over the past few years should have when faced with a new initiative from the Microsoft marketing machine. Miguel, you had a great chance to present a level and reasoned overview of the whole thing from the free side of the software world, and you ended up just giving Ballmer and Mundie some great sound bites. With open source "leaders" like this, who needs enemies?
Mod away, I feel better for having had my say. Grrrr, I haven't been this ticked off since the last time Ransom Love said anything:)
The middleman aspect is bad, it's true. I'd almost prefer to see a co-op of sites (as described by Scott Kurtz in a recent rant) that work together to provide the subscriber one billing contact for a collection of high-quality content. You still have a middleman, but at least they wouldn't be out to make a profit. Think credit union as opposed to bank, for example.
The RIAA without a profit motive could remain truly focused on getting the artists the money they deserve, without needlessly hyping just one or two obscenely popular acts.
It will never come to pass, but that's what I'd pay for, anyway.
Here's why: everything in italic type, like this, was written by the original submitter. Everything in normal type was written by a/. editor. For this story, there was no editorial comment.
/.'s editing has some problems, but you can't lay this one at their doorstep:)
From my reading it's only a subscription if you wish to avoid the banner ads. Personally, I don't find banner ads annoying enough to pay to avoid them, since I've developed the fine art of ignoring or scrolling down slightly to block them. But it would be a good thing to have the option.
OTOH, there is good content out there that I would pay for. I'm not sure if user-contributed discussion sites will ever be able to transition to full pay-per-view since the whole worth of the site is the user comments - asking users to pay in order to contribute to an online resource is basically the dumb idea that Napster's currently having.
What we need is not smaller payments (micropayments) but bigger (or "chunkier") content. If I could pay $10-15/month to a central authority and know that I would have free reign to reload/. all day, a metered number of posts at k5, and get my daily online comics as required, I'd jump at the chance to support my favorite sites. But I don't want to follow the recording industry system and subsidize sites that I can't stand with my $10. My contribution has to go to the sites I actually want to support, and the user has to be able to specify that they want to be able to read some sites in an unlimited manner, read others in a limited manner (I only need so many Google searches per week, but I do need them), and specify that others will only be hit once per day, etc.
Well, and forcing the surrender of the Empire of Japan. That wasn't really a deterrent, unless maybe you mean in the sense of deterring them from continuing the war.
A non-correctable (transient) memory error doesn't necessarily take your system down, though. Unless you mean it's a stuck bit (a permanent problem), but every couple months seems pretty frequent for something like that to happen.
I'm not sure exactly where or when the compatibility ends; since I'm not planning on upgrading past my (now ancient) copy of Win '95, I haven't really tried to keep track. It's nice to hear that XP will preserve backwards compatibility, but I imagine new software written for XP (especially games) won't run on '95 any more. Thus my interest in a console.
It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft did break backwards compatibility too at some point, possibly as an excuse to force people onto.NET. But I don't
Sure, with GnuCash you get the sources, but you'll have to learn the code, asks if your planned addition is not
going to conflict with the guy from China who is announced that he's adding this feature, but he is not free right
now as he got other things to do, and on top of that - it's not sure that your addition would be welcome by the
project leader..
Those are reasonable concerns to have about an open source project, and I've had those problems with other projects in the past. I would like to point out that in my experience the gnucash folks have been very good about accepting user submissions, even as far as providing some hand-holding towards getting it into shape as far as coding standards, etc. So those concerns may not be as applicable to this particular project.
The install is definitely a bitch, though, if you're trying to stay on the bleeding edge of development. For most people, it's probably worth it to wait and pay RH, SuSe, or Debian to package it.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: backups.
Don't people pay for MSN?
OK, I've wondered long enough, and now I'm going to ask: can't people just mouse over the link to verify its contents before clicking? I've been fooled into clicking that link exactly once, and never again.
I refuse to spell out any links - the goat sex-weary will just have to avoid my posts :)
Electronic toll boxes in Illinois are specifically banned from using toll payment times to track down speeders. Otherwise no one would use them, and it was apparently more important to ease congestion by cutting down on tollway backups than it was to catch speeders.
MS-DOS?
Oh come on, that's a little melodramatic, don't you think? I did just fine in school with zero multimedia presentations, and in the past kids have done fine in school without even electricity or running water. If those kids future is so closely tied to the availability of cheap multimedia authoring tools, then we've already got much bigger problems.
And yet, when you got out of HS, somehow you survived having been trained on Apples when the business world wasn't using them. Do you really think it's that much harder for kids today, who are more technically savvy than you or I in HS?
School is supposed to teach concepts, not what menu in Word to use to get the right fancy font. Students can write essays, do math homework, and research papers on any platform. If you can prepare a presentation in StarOffice, you can do it in PowerPoint, and vice versa. Office suite compatibility in schools is the worst reason to stick with Microsoft. And heck, Microsoft software is so easy to use, those kids shouldn't have any problems making the slight adjustment when they reach the world of business, should they? :)
Sure, there's some educational software that only runs on Windows, and in those cases the applications provide a good reason to keep some Windows machines around. But general-purpose productivity applications, which are probably what the kids will use most of the time, are not sufficient reason to remain tied to Microsoft.
I guess you wash those down with some OpenCOLA :)
So for /. editors, the paperclip will say "You do not seem to use the apostrophe, should I show it in the future?" :)l
DLL hell is if one app's installer blew away blah_blah_x_x.so and replaced it with blah_blah_x_y.so, and then another app didn't work right. It's true that you have to have multiple lib versions at a time, although if you stick with your distribution's install they usually minimize this. But stuff doesn't break just because you installed other stuff.
I still say it's nuts to allow the system to be broken, and then blindly repair it every time. That's papering over the problem, not fixing it.
I dunno, maybe it's windows developers who cause the DLL problems? All I know is that older apps' DLLs regularly getzapped by newer apps' install procedures, and this doesn't seem to happen on Linux. It seems like Microsoft could innovate their way out of this one, or use their acclaimed developer resource MSDN to get their developers to do so.
No problem, I aim to please :) I learn a lot from getting flamed out of my chair, and then here you go and actually take me much more seriously than I probably deserve.
Hmmm. You're right, I think my quibble is more with the concept of an IDE than with a particular implementation of it. Although my experience with developing on Windows has been that it's tough to break out of the IDE when you want to. Maybe that's the case with open source IDEs too, I wouldn't know.
It's more like they destroy all competition, but it's true that in the end the vast majority of users think they want what they're getting. It's sort of the Stockholm Syndrome, writ large.
I've got the open mind, and I can see .NET being the biggest development environment change for Windows developers, since they effectively have no choice anyway. I don't see how having an open mind helps me believe that something will become such a watershed just because Microsoft and Miguel tell me so, though.
I think the jury's still out on whether this will end up being a useful tool. I think it would definitely be a tragedy if the Microsoft version of it becomes the de facto standard on Linux, so in that regard it's great to hear that there will be options.
OK, how exactly is accepting an appeal to authority having an open mind? Not that I dispute his qualifications in the least, but that doesn't qualify him as infallible. I guess if .NET's so great, we'll all end up using it, and I'll eat my words (won't be the first time). But I reserve the right to be skeptical until I actually see the tool do what Microsoft says it will do, and until I see it work in a manner that doesn't tie development more closely to Microsoft. It doesn't sound like Miguel is keeping this in mind very well. An open mind doesn't mean banish all skepticism.
I think the proof is in the pudding. I hope it's a dream come true, I just don't necessarily have the faith that Miguel does. On the other hand, maybe he's confident because he's already got a great implementation of Mono that's prepared to spring full-grown from his forehead. If that's the case then kudos to him for providing another tool among many.
But just playing up how great .NET is, without touching on any of the down sides, is not going to make it easy for the Linux developers out in the trenches to avoid being Microsoftized in the meantime. I think Miguel is playing with fire, and I think we'll be hearing his quotes from this article long after no one's even heard of the Halloween memo. Because if Mono doesn't happen, he's handed Microsoft some very powerful FUD (and it's even true, which is worse) that's going to frame the debate on Microsoft's terms and make it very difficult to point out any shortcomings with .NET. Any technical argument against .NET with my boss will end with "But Mr. Gnome said it was great, and you're always pushing his stuff aren't you? You techies are just never satisfied."
Fair enough, in retrospect.
Yes, and (fairly large) yes. And I still don't see what the big deal is. Learning curve is a relative thing - having been used to vi, I found the notepad editor to be incredibly difficult to use. All of the interface information I need on Linux is available via man, apropos, and zillions of source code examples on the 'net. My main impression of the VS documentation is that it explained how to do the easy stuff very well, but explanations of difficult stuff were inaccurate or missing. There seems to be about one way to do things in the VS mindset, and heaven help you if you picked an alternative approach 'cause it ain't documented anywhere.
I think I'll bow to your impressive OO explanation, and admit that maybe I did misunderstand Miguel's point (I'm not sure how I could have jumped from his words to your meaning, but oh well). I'll also point out, though, that the interface issues you bring up aren't a problem if you have the source code for everything. Linking to binary-only proprietary code is a problem that's already been solved. It may not always be the solution that you like or can use, but it's there - just use the source. That's the real reason that this hasn't been an issue on Linux.
I'll give Microsoft credit for pushing SOAP so that there's a way to provide (essentially, since it's XML) source-level interfaces across the ABI and machine barriers, but it remains to be seen if they'll really use XML, or just embed chunks of Microsoft object/byte code in an XML wrapper. I haven't seen them implement a real open standard yet, so you'll have to understand why I'm not holding my breath. You remember, these are the folks who have, on the record, admitted to trying to fool developers into locking themselves into Microsoft extensions. Does the tiger change his stripes?
Thanks, I think, but really I was never this inspired in HS :) IIRC I never said there was only one view, I said that Miguel went too far towards only covering one side of the issue. I specifically said that there were good things about .NET, but I didn't hear Miguel admit to any of the bad things. There's more than one way to look at things - there are also people who are well paid to present the Microsoft way, and so it hurts to see a hacker that I respect doing it for them.
Like I said, I use Gnome, I like it, and I'm certainly not putting my code up against Miguel's (hint: I lose, big time). But he's a public figure, like it or not, and so any jackass on the street (like me) is entitled to an opinion on said public figure's utterances. And IMHO he's shooting his movement in the foot, or at least loading the gun.
As a practicing software engineer, I wish you luck. I hope things turn out the way that you and Miguel see it - that truly would be a great world to work in. I don't see that coming to pass, at least as things are going now, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I don't have any problem with the stated goals of Mono (other than the usual gripe that it would be nice to not always let Microsoft define the battlefield), I just think Miguel could present a better argument by saying how great Mono is, rather than spending all his time saying how great .NET is and then saying "oh yeah, and Mono will be like .NET but better". But what the heck, I'm not an internationally famous free software luminary, so it's probably the case that you should believe him rather than me.
It's really a different mindset - unix programming packages are supposed to be part of the system - it's only those nutty commercial distributors who quit providing compilers with their systems. Programming tools are an integral part of a Unix system, if they're an add-on that seems to take over, it's the distributor's fault.
ROTFL - agreed.
Really, are you sure you can write Windows code that will run on 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and CE without some sort of compatibility layer? I bet there are still some caveats that have to be handled in an automake-like fashion. Or more likely, apps from one version won't necessarily be portable to those others. There are more flavors of Unix altogether than there are of Windows, so it's true that automake is more of a Unix necessity. It would be interesting to see how incompatibilities between various versions of Windows would have been handled had Microsoft been broken up.
Fair enough; but I think picking the IDE as the magic bullet is the wrong place to put the emphasis. IDEs have allowed more code to be written than ever before; they've also allowed more bad code to be written than ever before. The problem with software is in the brain, not in the tools.
God, what a troll...
Wow, it's a wonder those KDE guys can accomplish anything with their stone-knives-and-bearskins tools like "vi" and "man". Now we know why there's so much sucky code in the world - lack of IDEs to think for us.
Has this Miguel guy ever actually used Linux? (yes, I'm aware he's the Gnome god, it's a rhetorical question.) Linux has almost none of the DLL problems of Windows; you may have extra versions of old libraries, but if that's what your apps want it's not a bad thing. Microsoft, on the other hand, just recently gave us the technological advance of keeping track of the libraries needed and replacing them on you if you zapped them during another software install. Yes, that's right, just paper over that DLL Hell and keep on going.
I like Gnome, and I use it every day, but I feel like Miguel has really let down the side here. It's one thing to discuss that .NET has some advantages over current systems, but it's another thing to be basically a Microsoft cheerleader - shouting out the good bits, papering over the iffy bits, and not injecting any of the caution that any rational software engineer not in a coma over the past few years should have when faced with a new initiative from the Microsoft marketing machine. Miguel, you had a great chance to present a level and reasoned overview of the whole thing from the free side of the software world, and you ended up just giving Ballmer and Mundie some great sound bites. With open source "leaders" like this, who needs enemies?
Mod away, I feel better for having had my say. Grrrr, I haven't been this ticked off since the last time Ransom Love said anything :)
The middleman aspect is bad, it's true. I'd almost prefer to see a co-op of sites (as described by Scott Kurtz in a recent rant) that work together to provide the subscriber one billing contact for a collection of high-quality content. You still have a middleman, but at least they wouldn't be out to make a profit. Think credit union as opposed to bank, for example.
The RIAA without a profit motive could remain truly focused on getting the artists the money they deserve, without needlessly hyping just one or two obscenely popular acts.
It will never come to pass, but that's what I'd pay for, anyway.
Here's why: everything in italic type, like this, was written by the original submitter. Everything in normal type was written by a /. editor. For this story, there was no editorial comment.
/.'s editing has some problems, but you can't lay this one at their doorstep :)
From my reading it's only a subscription if you wish to avoid the banner ads. Personally, I don't find banner ads annoying enough to pay to avoid them, since I've developed the fine art of ignoring or scrolling down slightly to block them. But it would be a good thing to have the option.
OTOH, there is good content out there that I would pay for. I'm not sure if user-contributed discussion sites will ever be able to transition to full pay-per-view since the whole worth of the site is the user comments - asking users to pay in order to contribute to an online resource is basically the dumb idea that Napster's currently having.
What we need is not smaller payments (micropayments) but bigger (or "chunkier") content. If I could pay $10-15/month to a central authority and know that I would have free reign to reload /. all day, a metered number of posts at k5, and get my daily online comics as required, I'd jump at the chance to support my favorite sites. But I don't want to follow the recording industry system and subsidize sites that I can't stand with my $10. My contribution has to go to the sites I actually want to support, and the user has to be able to specify that they want to be able to read some sites in an unlimited manner, read others in a limited manner (I only need so many Google searches per week, but I do need them), and specify that others will only be hit once per day, etc.
[drawl] Guns don't kill people, the government does :)
Well, and forcing the surrender of the Empire of Japan. That wasn't really a deterrent, unless maybe you mean in the sense of deterring them from continuing the war.
A non-correctable (transient) memory error doesn't necessarily take your system down, though. Unless you mean it's a stuck bit (a permanent problem), but every couple months seems pretty frequent for something like that to happen.
Well, at least this story has a silver lining :)
This really sounds like it was mistranslated severely at some point. I expected the next phrase to be "You have no chance to survive make your time".
You can use Netscape to access mail on an Exchange server; you just have to get the IT guys to turn on IMAP access.
I'm not sure exactly where or when the compatibility ends; since I'm not planning on upgrading past my (now ancient) copy of Win '95, I haven't really tried to keep track. It's nice to hear that XP will preserve backwards compatibility, but I imagine new software written for XP (especially games) won't run on '95 any more. Thus my interest in a console.
It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft did break backwards compatibility too at some point, possibly as an excuse to force people onto .NET. But I don't
Those are reasonable concerns to have about an open source project, and I've had those problems with other projects in the past. I would like to point out that in my experience the gnucash folks have been very good about accepting user submissions, even as far as providing some hand-holding towards getting it into shape as far as coding standards, etc. So those concerns may not be as applicable to this particular project.
The install is definitely a bitch, though, if you're trying to stay on the bleeding edge of development. For most people, it's probably worth it to wait and pay RH, SuSe, or Debian to package it.