Given how many problems I had with.doc in the past (different versions of Word and/or different printer drivers means different output and possibly corruption) going to OpenOffice doesn't make things any worse. (Once OpenOffice was the only possibility to open a.doc file that would crash MS Office...)
OpenOffice is great because they don't want to force you to upgrade all the time by breaking the format.
Why is it always that the Windows diehards always say that you have to go with one and only one platform (and of course that platform must be Windows)?
That's nonsense. Not putting all your eggs into one basket is a very smart thing to do.
What if Microsoft raises license costs for corporate users (again)?
What if some worm knocks out half of the IIS servers (again)?
What if (god forbid) you need some non-x86 platform, maybe something like a mainframe?
What do you do then?
That's the beauty of Unix. (Yes I consider Linux also as a Unix) If RedHat raises the support costs too much, I can go to SuSE. If my database grows out of the cheap x86, I can get a mainframe. If I need full and prompt support for every hardware and software part I can go to Sun. (No, Dell doesn't seriously support software) If Mandrake doesn't release patches timely, I can go to debian.
Using multiple vendors or at least being able to choose from multiple vendors and switch to another in a short time is a very smart thing to do.
I'd say it's more like asking an airplane pilot if two cows look the same.
You hit the nail on the head.
If you want to know wether two cows have the same parents (= similar code) you tell me if a geneticist or an airplane pilot will be able to provide a satisfying answer.
I can only live with a Mac if there is KDE/Linux installed on it.
(Waiting for the ad-hom attacks against me for disputing the godlikeness of MacOSX. Yes I've tried it. Yes it's nice and animated and good looking in the first 20 minutes. No, I didn't like it. Anything with only one desktop is a joke.)
Considering even Microsoft isn't supporting Windows 98 in its latest Office suite, I don't think Mozilla developers should worry about it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Win98 is still used by a lot of people. If you can offer a product that relieves them from upgrading to Win2K, they will love it.
Actually, I found out that the best argument in favour of OpenOffice is the fact that it runs on all Windows versions and will do so for the forseeable future.
If Mozilla can become a problem-free product (installs on everything, can connect to everything) it will be great for their marketshare.
What you guys have to understand is that changes in the codebase don't matter to users.
The user interface, the general philosophy behind the product and the available features matter.
And all those change a lot with Mozilla Firebird and it should be called 2.0 to make that clear.
Re:Unfortunately
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think you are confused.
As somebody who has witnessed the horrors of ever-changing SMB dialects (that computer can't see that other computer for some strange reason, everything changes after service-pack and update) and the mysterious incompatibilities between Word versions (sometimes even within the same version depending on installed printer drivers etc.) I have learned something about Windows users:
Most will suck it down like anything else.
Thankfully, Europe is waking up and starting to implement big Linux-based installations and Microsoft's "designed for incompatibility" strategy will actually start to hurt them in Europe.
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Don't you get it?
The reason why Windows will never be truely compatible to Unix is that Microsoft doesn't want it to be compatible.
It starts with simple details like using a backslash as directory delimiter (what idiot did come up with that? The backslash is a masking character, using it as directory delimiter too is just plain dumb.) and goes on to more complicated stuff like the registry.
Actually SCO would have to file a seperate lawsuit because this lawsuit is about trade secrets.
I'm sure that you know very well that trade secrets can't and therefore don't have to be put back into secrecy after they have been published. The only consequence is that the leaker (which would be IBM) would have to compensate the owner of the loss.
So Linux doesn't even have to be changed, they can continue to use the no-longer secret trade secrets anyway. The absolute worst-case of this suit is IBM being fined.
So please, "sumbry", put your lies and FUD elsewhere.
Wrong. No matter how much you would love Linux to be screwed, only the person who messed up and maybe the organization he works for is. If there really is infringing code (which is doubtful) and if for some special reason the GPL doesn't apply to SCO, it has to be rewritten, that's all.
Riiiiight. Now I want to see the fall of Linux, especially since it (along with Solaris, BSD, etc) have been paying my bills for longer than you've probably been walking.
Yes, you do.
You distribute false and wrong doomsday messages "Linux is screwed" while knowing very, very well that's not the case.
Fact is, Linux is not screwed, even if there is some infringing code in it, which is very unlikely anyway.
Again: Linux is not screwed, your LIES won't change that.
If you love Linux so much, why do you lie and spread FUD about it?
So what do you "avise" me to do?
Wet my pants?
Stop using Linux? (Yeah, you would really like that, would be good for your MSFT-stock, right?)
Start crying?
I would seriously avise the Linux camp not to take this threat lightly
So what do you "avise" me to do?
Wet my pants?
Stop using Linux? (Yeah, you would really like that, would be good for your MSFT-stock, right?)
Start crying?
There is no evidence, there isn't even the sligtest hint of evidence and SCO voided anything by releasing Linux under the GPL themselves anyway.
If you really think that anybody should start being aFraid, Uncertain and Doubtful, you are either pretty dumb or part of the FUD machinery yourself.
If SCO can prove that one person messed up, Linux is screwed.
Wrong. No matter how much you would love Linux to be screwed, only the person who messed up and maybe the organization he works for is. If there really is infringing code (which is doubtful) and if for some special reason the GPL doesn't apply to SCO, it has to be rewritten, that's all.
What about 4) the 5 year old PS2 design is vastly superior to the 20 year old x86 design with extra graphics chips on top and they can wipe the floor with the XBox by just rising the clockrate and still make money on the hardware?
Actually, CPU-speed is no primary concern. For most people - normal people, not nerds wanking over benchmarks - the PS2 is already good enough for anything that can be shown on TV-resolution.
I'd rather have a nice silent PSX @ conservative 500MHz (about twice as fast as the PS2) than a loud, running hot XBox monster.
1) Sony uses an innovative design. The 128Bit-64Bit multi-core emotion engine is something new and optimized for gaming and 3D. XBox' design on the other hand is just a x86 plus graphics chip. This design is a lot more efficient and streamlined than XBox' brute-force-high-clockrates design.
2) Sony's PSX will be usable as a computer, XBox will never be. Why do you think the XBox' USB connectors are incompatible on purpose? Because a) XBox is sold below cost and MS doesn't want people to use it for anything other than gaming and b) Dell, HP, etc. would be pissed if MS would start to take over their market.
Sony's PSX will be a great success. It will be cheap enough and can do everything Joe-Average wants to do (Games, web-browsing, EMail, possibly wordprocessing).
You must leave in some parallel universe because in most of the threads here, the main point is that Microsoft's latest actions and concessions are a sign of weakness, not evilness.
If I might add an opinion, it's also a sign of stupidity (which is - again something completely different to evilness). Selectively giving products away (to NPOs, home users working at companies with software assurance, large public organizations threatening to go for Linux, etc.) while charging over 500% markup for others will only make those miserable bastards feeling even more miserable about having to pay for MS products.
There are already a lot of people pissed off and Microsoft erecting a 2-class society with some paying and others getting it for free will make matters only worse, not better.
Soon, people will say "only idiots pay for MS software".
Wrong. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper every year.
Why? Because all the expensive thick fibre cables have been already laid out and being paid for. Now you only have to maintain them which is neglectible compared to the cost putting them into the soil.
The only expensive part about the bandwidth is the so called "last mile" or the connection to individual homes. - And the user already pais for that bandwidth.
If they do too much of giving away software (and this seems too much for me), give too many discounts to cities, large organizations and companies - people will start asking the question:
Slashdot Mirror
OpenOffice is great because they don't want to force you to upgrade all the time by breaking the format.
Come on, we both know that's wrong.
We have webmin and literally dozens of other graphical config tools for Apache.
That's nonsense. Not putting all your eggs into one basket is a very smart thing to do.
What if Microsoft raises license costs for corporate users (again)?
What if some worm knocks out half of the IIS servers (again)?
What if (god forbid) you need some non-x86 platform, maybe something like a mainframe?
What do you do then?
That's the beauty of Unix. (Yes I consider Linux also as a Unix) If RedHat raises the support costs too much, I can go to SuSE. If my database grows out of the cheap x86, I can get a mainframe. If I need full and prompt support for every hardware and software part I can go to Sun. (No, Dell doesn't seriously support software) If Mandrake doesn't release patches timely, I can go to debian.
Using multiple vendors or at least being able to choose from multiple vendors and switch to another in a short time is a very smart thing to do.
You hit the nail on the head.
If you want to know wether two cows have the same parents (= similar code) you tell me if a geneticist or an airplane pilot will be able to provide a satisfying answer.
Translation: By end of June, I've sold all my SCOX shares with 300% profit.
I doublt it.
Why is it that the Microsoft bootlickers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advocates have such problems with fairness?
If you compare browsers, you either have to compare them out-of-the-box or tweaked.
But only a Microsoftie would think it's fair to compare a tweaked-to-the-limit IE to an out-of-the-box Mozilla.
(Waiting for the ad-hom attacks against me for disputing the godlikeness of MacOSX. Yes I've tried it. Yes it's nice and animated and good looking in the first 20 minutes. No, I didn't like it. Anything with only one desktop is a joke.)
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Win98 is still used by a lot of people. If you can offer a product that relieves them from upgrading to Win2K, they will love it.
Actually, I found out that the best argument in favour of OpenOffice is the fact that it runs on all Windows versions and will do so for the forseeable future.
If Mozilla can become a problem-free product (installs on everything, can connect to everything) it will be great for their marketshare.
Sure it is. I have shown it to several computer illiterate end-users and they loved it (especially tabs).
The user interface, the general philosophy behind the product and the available features matter.
And all those change a lot with Mozilla Firebird and it should be called 2.0 to make that clear.
As somebody who has witnessed the horrors of ever-changing SMB dialects (that computer can't see that other computer for some strange reason, everything changes after service-pack and update) and the mysterious incompatibilities between Word versions (sometimes even within the same version depending on installed printer drivers etc.) I have learned something about Windows users:
Most will suck it down like anything else.
Thankfully, Europe is waking up and starting to implement big Linux-based installations and Microsoft's "designed for incompatibility" strategy will actually start to hurt them in Europe.
The reason why Windows will never be truely compatible to Unix is that Microsoft doesn't want it to be compatible.
It starts with simple details like using a backslash as directory delimiter (what idiot did come up with that? The backslash is a masking character, using it as directory delimiter too is just plain dumb.) and goes on to more complicated stuff like the registry.
Really?
I'm sure that you know very well that trade secrets can't and therefore don't have to be put back into secrecy after they have been published. The only consequence is that the leaker (which would be IBM) would have to compensate the owner of the loss.
So Linux doesn't even have to be changed, they can continue to use the no-longer secret trade secrets anyway. The absolute worst-case of this suit is IBM being fined.
So please, "sumbry", put your lies and FUD elsewhere.
How is "Linux is screwed!" and "don't take that lightly!" valid advice?
That's FUD, nothing else.
Riiiiight. Now I want to see the fall of Linux, especially since it (along with Solaris, BSD, etc) have been paying my bills for longer than you've probably been walking.
Yes, you do.
You distribute false and wrong doomsday messages "Linux is screwed" while knowing very, very well that's not the case.
Fact is, Linux is not screwed, even if there is some infringing code in it, which is very unlikely anyway.
Again: Linux is not screwed, your LIES won't change that.
If you love Linux so much, why do you lie and spread FUD about it?
You didn't answer the questions:
So what do you "avise" me to do?
Wet my pants?
Stop using Linux? (Yeah, you would really like that, would be good for your MSFT-stock, right?)
Start crying?
So what do you "avise" me to do?
Wet my pants?
Stop using Linux? (Yeah, you would really like that, would be good for your MSFT-stock, right?)
Start crying?
There is no evidence, there isn't even the sligtest hint of evidence and SCO voided anything by releasing Linux under the GPL themselves anyway.
If you really think that anybody should start being aFraid, Uncertain and Doubtful, you are either pretty dumb or part of the FUD machinery yourself.
If SCO can prove that one person messed up, Linux is screwed.
Wrong. No matter how much you would love Linux to be screwed, only the person who messed up and maybe the organization he works for is. If there really is infringing code (which is doubtful) and if for some special reason the GPL doesn't apply to SCO, it has to be rewritten, that's all.
To sum up, yes I will take that threat lightly.
Actually, CPU-speed is no primary concern. For most people - normal people, not nerds wanking over benchmarks - the PS2 is already good enough for anything that can be shown on TV-resolution.
I'd rather have a nice silent PSX @ conservative 500MHz (about twice as fast as the PS2) than a loud, running hot XBox monster.
1) Sony uses an innovative design. The 128Bit-64Bit multi-core emotion engine is something new and optimized for gaming and 3D. XBox' design on the other hand is just a x86 plus graphics chip. This design is a lot more efficient and streamlined than XBox' brute-force-high-clockrates design.
2) Sony's PSX will be usable as a computer, XBox will never be. Why do you think the XBox' USB connectors are incompatible on purpose? Because a) XBox is sold below cost and MS doesn't want people to use it for anything other than gaming and b) Dell, HP, etc. would be pissed if MS would start to take over their market.
Sony's PSX will be a great success. It will be cheap enough and can do everything Joe-Average wants to do (Games, web-browsing, EMail, possibly wordprocessing).
If I might add an opinion, it's also a sign of stupidity (which is - again something completely different to evilness). Selectively giving products away (to NPOs, home users working at companies with software assurance, large public organizations threatening to go for Linux, etc.) while charging over 500% markup for others will only make those miserable bastards feeling even more miserable about having to pay for MS products.
There are already a lot of people pissed off and Microsoft erecting a 2-class society with some paying and others getting it for free will make matters only worse, not better.
Soon, people will say "only idiots pay for MS software".
Thanks, that just made my day. (wipes tear from eye)
Why? Because all the expensive thick fibre cables have been already laid out and being paid for. Now you only have to maintain them which is neglectible compared to the cost putting them into the soil.
The only expensive part about the bandwidth is the so called "last mile" or the connection to individual homes. - And the user already pais for that bandwidth.
Why am I so dumb that I actually pay for Windows?