Dropping support for Netscape is a business decision, not an act of apostasy. If the cost of supporting it is greater than the revenue it brings in, it's gone.
IE5 on Windows is, by far, the best browser I've used. Sure, it benefits because it is integrated with Windows. What's the problem??
Bingo! You win. MS certainly isn't putting money in Corel because they think the thing is a good investment.
Right now, this might help them a bit in the courts -- Monopolists? Nah. Look, we put money into Apple, then Corel.
If/when they buy voting shares, start watching for Office on Linux or MS Linux. Classif MS: Why develop what you can buy and tweak.
Re:Geeks who cut their teeth on it malign it?
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 2
People like Basic because -- for them -- thinking in Basic is easier than thinking in C, C++, Perl, etc. Get over it.
For some, it is the other way around. Get over it.
This is about computers, folks. Not the One True Faith. It is all bits in the end.
If you think the difference between Basic and, say, Perl is something that r-e-a-l-l-y matters to the future of the human race, then let me point you to a nearby monastery.
Lordy. lordy. MS is in the game for the money. The idea is to make a profit, not to make the world's best operating system. Given the choice between one more week of tweaks and a million dollar revenue loss, guess which they might pick? Which would you pick?
There's no excuse for Microsoft's business practices, but even if they were run by angels, they'd still be looking at the bottom line.
FWIW, Slackware is on this non-networked box right now, but W2K was on it before for several weeks, and I have to agree with those who remark on its stability. As a server OS, I dunno, but as a desktop OS -- on the right hardware -- it ain't at all bad.
Pretty sure I saw a Slackware for Dummies title just a few days ago at the local Borders.
There's also a "Debian GNU'Linux for Dummies" volume. I forked out the 20 bucks to see how they treated the install. Alas, no better than the last time I installed Debian.... which is to say, ugly.
So, using just what commercial compiler would fall into the non-bizarre category?
Isn't open source all about creating choices?
I take your point about dead vs live products, but why should any profit-making operation give away something that they can sell? (Old question, but I've yet to see anyone present a convincing answer that doesn't depend on corporate altruism.)
An attribute like "Network-transparent" means something only for the micro-tiny fraction of the population who know what it means and have a reason to care. Most folks will judge a GUI based on a subjective evaluation of esthetics, speed, a responsiveness.
Geez, buy the book and read it. Minix is a teaching tool. It isn't the precursor of BSD or an embedded OS -- as some clueless weinies have stated here. Nor is it a Quixotic jab at corporate America, as Linux's political cadres seem to think. Get over it.
Is there any evidence that software development is exempt from the economic paradigms proven by the last few centuries? What evidence is there to support the premise that a lone developer fueled by altruism will develop a better product than a team of developers fueled by cold cash? There's room in the world for both models. If it's important to you to give your labors away to serve the common good, great. If you'd like to take your chances in the marketplace, that's great, too.
So do I. And ditto on the "draconian" comment. Geez, the thing is only a shell. Why should anyone care what the next guy is using? I'm not ready to trade the closed world of Microsoft for the closed world of zealotry.
Not to knock the benefits of open source, but what real difference does it make to someone buying an new PC? (I'll argue that, by definition, a user who deliberately adds a new OS to an existing PC is not a typical user.) Linux and the free BSD's are important because they're based on a new development, if not economic, model. But that's largely irrelevant outside that community. People who are about to plunk down a chunk of change for an appliance have no reason to care about open source. They're buying a tool, not joining an ideological crusade.
Re:sad commentary on science
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Thinking of space exploration as just another branch of science does an injustice to human nature and is a recipe for thinking small. (Were the first humans to leave the comfort of the African forest on a mission to do science?) Moving into space is no more, or less, a scientific endeavor than was the drive to explore and colonize this particular planet. Good science will come of it, but human exploration of space will be driven by the same mixture of lofty and venal motives that drove our ancestors to leave their homes.
Nothing, nowhere, on any OS, is as good a tool as Lotus Magellan on DOS. Besides, the world is full, quite literally, of people who cannot afford computers. Ever wonder what it would cost these days to market a DOS box based on a 286 (did they top out at 20 mHz?), 1-meg RAM, plus a 540-meg or 1-gig HD and a 14-inch monitor?
Slashdot Mirror
Dropping support for Netscape is a business decision, not an act of apostasy. If the cost of supporting it is greater than the revenue it brings in, it's gone. IE5 on Windows is, by far, the best browser I've used. Sure, it benefits because it is integrated with Windows. What's the problem??
Bingo! You win. MS certainly isn't putting money in Corel because they think the thing is a good investment. Right now, this might help them a bit in the courts -- Monopolists? Nah. Look, we put money into Apple, then Corel. If/when they buy voting shares, start watching for Office on Linux or MS Linux. Classif MS: Why develop what you can buy and tweak.
People like Basic because -- for them -- thinking in Basic is easier than thinking in C, C++, Perl, etc. Get over it. For some, it is the other way around. Get over it. This is about computers, folks. Not the One True Faith. It is all bits in the end. If you think the difference between Basic and, say, Perl is something that r-e-a-l-l-y matters to the future of the human race, then let me point you to a nearby monastery.
Lordy. lordy. MS is in the game for the money. The idea is to make a profit, not to make the world's best operating system. Given the choice between one more week of tweaks and a million dollar revenue loss, guess which they might pick? Which would you pick? There's no excuse for Microsoft's business practices, but even if they were run by angels, they'd still be looking at the bottom line. FWIW, Slackware is on this non-networked box right now, but W2K was on it before for several weeks, and I have to agree with those who remark on its stability. As a server OS, I dunno, but as a desktop OS -- on the right hardware -- it ain't at all bad.
Pretty sure I saw a Slackware for Dummies title just a few days ago at the local Borders. There's also a "Debian GNU'Linux for Dummies" volume. I forked out the 20 bucks to see how they treated the install. Alas, no better than the last time I installed Debian.... which is to say, ugly.
So, using just what commercial compiler would fall into the non-bizarre category? Isn't open source all about creating choices? I take your point about dead vs live products, but why should any profit-making operation give away something that they can sell? (Old question, but I've yet to see anyone present a convincing answer that doesn't depend on corporate altruism.)
An attribute like "Network-transparent" means something only for the micro-tiny fraction of the population who know what it means and have a reason to care. Most folks will judge a GUI based on a subjective evaluation of esthetics, speed, a responsiveness.
Geez, buy the book and read it. Minix is a teaching tool. It isn't the precursor of BSD or an embedded OS -- as some clueless weinies have stated here. Nor is it a Quixotic jab at corporate America, as Linux's political cadres seem to think. Get over it.
Is there any evidence that software development is exempt from the economic paradigms proven by the last few centuries? What evidence is there to support the premise that a lone developer fueled by altruism will develop a better product than a team of developers fueled by cold cash? There's room in the world for both models. If it's important to you to give your labors away to serve the common good, great. If you'd like to take your chances in the marketplace, that's great, too.
So do I. And ditto on the "draconian" comment. Geez, the thing is only a shell. Why should anyone care what the next guy is using? I'm not ready to trade the closed world of Microsoft for the closed world of zealotry.
Not to knock the benefits of open source, but what real difference does it make to someone buying an new PC? (I'll argue that, by definition, a user who deliberately adds a new OS to an existing PC is not a typical user.) Linux and the free BSD's are important because they're based on a new development, if not economic, model. But that's largely irrelevant outside that community. People who are about to plunk down a chunk of change for an appliance have no reason to care about open source. They're buying a tool, not joining an ideological crusade.
Thinking of space exploration as just another branch of science does an injustice to human nature and is a recipe for thinking small. (Were the first humans to leave the comfort of the African forest on a mission to do science?) Moving into space is no more, or less, a scientific endeavor than was the drive to explore and colonize this particular planet. Good science will come of it, but human exploration of space will be driven by the same mixture of lofty and venal motives that drove our ancestors to leave their homes.
Nothing, nowhere, on any OS, is as good a tool as Lotus Magellan on DOS. Besides, the world is full, quite literally, of people who cannot afford computers. Ever wonder what it would cost these days to market a DOS box based on a 286 (did they top out at 20 mHz?), 1-meg RAM, plus a 540-meg or 1-gig HD and a 14-inch monitor?