Don't read things that aren't there. I am not talking about commercial support, drives, or whatever. I simply said that I can do what I want to do on a computer on Linux or Windows. I like Linux, so I use it. If I was forced to use Windows, I'd still be able to do the same things. A year from now, I might want to do some other things, and, perhaps, I couldn't make that statement.
>> What if you don't have money to buy Windows and Office? And what if you don't want to be subjected to EULA?
Then you're driven by ideology, Meanwhile, if you can't do your job without Office, Linux won't help you. (For the really clueless, that's a comment on the MS market monopoly, not on the virtues of Linux.)
Your right, but that's an ideological motive. If you can't find a job or keep your job because you refuse to use Office, or can't keep your business afloat because you don't use Office, how much solace (and cash) can you expect to take away from fighting the good fight with Linux?
DLL-Hell equates to library-hell. Or, dependency-hell.
I'm running SuSE 8.2 these days. I've been compiling and install my own software for years, but if I want to install some code that needs a library version SuSE doesn't make available, I risk breaking any number of installed SuSE pacakges and seriously mucking up me next update. This kind of problem is endemic with every Linux packaging scheme. Going the configure/make/make install route has the same problems, too.
I've never compiled runddl, because I've never has a reason to do that. Why would I want to, anyway?
AS for standards, I'm all for open standards. But they are often honored in the breach. If you stay entirely within teh Microsoft world, you will have fewer options, but you'll also have fewer problems.
You know...I don't doubt that Linux worked out fine for your brother, but it is just a tad difficult to believe that he didn't notice Windows was gone.
Guess he didn't try to install any new Windows software, too.
Not bashing Linux, LIke I said, I use it. I know there are tools available only on one or the other platform. But, for the things I do (not what I could but don't want to do) Linux offers me no more capabilities than Windows.
Your right, of course, but that is my point. I'm using Linux right now, but if I needed a job I'd drop it immediately and install XP and Office. Apart from an ideological fervor to do missionary work for Linux and against Microsoft, I can't think of a reason why anyone who needs to exchange word processing and spreadsheet files would willingly opt to use something besides Office.
If you have a compelling reason -- like money -- to exchange spreadhseets and word processing files, why not just use Windows and Office rather than dealing with the hassle of using something else.
OpenOffice and all the rest are great, but if the choice is using Linux or earning a hassle-free living, why would someone choose to fight the currents?
Odds are you'll be pummeled for that post, but -- as I sit at my Linux box -- it occurs to me that I can't think of one desktop-oriented thing I do in Linux that I can't do in Windows or OSX.
It is easy to find fault with Microsoft and Windows. Most of it is deserved. But, Linux has faults, too. One big problem is part and parcel of its evelopment modeL: Because there's no single entity setting and enforcing standards, the highly touted benefits of "choice" often become a crapshoot of conflicting libraries, packaging schemes, and software compiled by God-Knows-Who in God-Know-Where.
AS I've argued elsewhere, being finite requires being bounded. The state of being bounded creates boundaries. Something must exist on both sides of the boundary, or else the object in question is not finite.
It's simple: Something that is finite is bounded. Something that is infinite is unbounded. If something is finite and bounded, by definition, then, it must be contained with a larger "something". That larger something may or may not be finite.
The existence of finite-ness does not imply the existence of infinite-ness, but I think it certainly requires the existence of "something" in which that finite-ness is manifested.
An assertion that the universe is finite requires the universe to be bounded by something else. Paradoxically, if the universe is everything, that "something else" clearly is also part of the universe.
The inability to observe something has no bearing on its existence.
The notion of "finiteness" implies the idea of "something" in which a finite entity exists. If something is finite, it has a beginning and an end. Boundaries, in other words. An entity can't have boundaries -- be finite -- unless it exists within something else. The nature of the finite entity you inhabit may prevent you from knowing that it is, in fact, finite, However, that ignorance doesn't change the reality.
Same issue, ant or astronaut. Both are unaware of the boundary and can't map it, but that doesn't negate the boundary's existence.
Clearly, we -- not the ant -- are aware that the soccer ball does not comprise the universe, and we know where the ball ends and the rest of the universe begins.
Now, if we were to change positions with that ant, the ant would become know that the ball was not the universe. And, our placement inside the ball -- where we are now unable to sense or map the ball's boundary -- does not alter the reality that the universe is bigger than the ball.
Clearly, then, the boundary is out of the ant's reach, but it's still there.
An ant crawling around the inside of a soccer ball can't get to the other side -- the boundary -- but that fact doesn't eliminate the reality that the boundary exists and that the universe continues beyond that bounday.
Like you suggest, go as low tech as possible. No computers.
Ideally, you'd keep everything in your head and then just verbalize in front of your students. Failing that, find a typewriter and a mimeograph machine. (Do they still make mimeographs? Dunno, but there's always the office copier).
>>...the question what's on the other side is clearly meaningless.
Why?
Seems to me it is contradictory to assert that the universe comprises everything, and then to also assert that the universe is finite. If it is finite, then something exists beyond its boundaries, even if that "something" is non-space, non-time, non-whatever.
But, then, the Solaris kernel is not a distributed program to be run over networks.
As long as a language is "faster" than the network, it'll be fast enough for that kind of use. E.g., there's no particular reason to write a browser in assembly because it spends almost all of its time waiting for the netowrk to do something.
It's their network. They get to make the rules. They get to enforce the rules.
If some kid doesn't like that, seems to me he can use another network (like, just maybe, a local ISP) or hire a lawyer and sue the school.
Or, just move out of the dorm.
Condos and apartments also have rules. Why should students be expected to be treated differently.
And please don't whine at me about all those poor, poor students who can't afford to move out of a dorm or even pay a local ISP. Shoulda read those rules before moving in.
Ditto for the "but they need the Internet to further their education" whine. These guys aren't using p2p to download Plato.
Copyright is not a government-mandated monopoly. A copyright holder can do anything he wants with his work, including giving everyone in the world the right to make and distribute as many copies as they want. Copyright protects an author's rights in his work, but it certainly doesn't constrain how an authro transfers those rights to others. The fact that very few do that is a commentary on people's need to earn a lving, not a proof that copyright equals monopoly.
In other words, Linux could be conventionally copywritten and still be just as open as it is now.
And, modern copyright law came into existence as a response to predatory publishers who were copying and selling books without compensating the authors in any fashion or, in fact, acquiring the author's consent.
And, finally, I didn't call Linux a monopoly. (Try reading it again.) I questioned the hypocrisy of supporting open software and then cheering what appears to be one state's decision to offer a monopoly to Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't read things that aren't there. I am not talking about commercial support, drives, or whatever. I simply said that I can do what I want to do on a computer on Linux or Windows. I like Linux, so I use it. If I was forced to use Windows, I'd still be able to do the same things. A year from now, I might want to do some other things, and, perhaps, I couldn't make that statement.
>> What if you don't have money to buy Windows and Office? And what if you don't want to be subjected to EULA?
Then you're driven by ideology, Meanwhile, if you can't do your job without Office, Linux won't help you. (For the really clueless, that's a comment on the MS market monopoly, not on the virtues of Linux.)
Your right, but that's an ideological motive. If you can't find a job or keep your job because you refuse to use Office, or can't keep your business afloat because you don't use Office, how much solace (and cash) can you expect to take away from fighting the good fight with Linux?
DLL-Hell equates to library-hell. Or, dependency-hell.
I'm running SuSE 8.2 these days. I've been compiling and install my own software for years, but if I want to install some code that needs a library version SuSE doesn't make available, I risk breaking any number of installed SuSE pacakges and seriously mucking up me next update. This kind of problem is endemic with every Linux packaging scheme. Going the configure/make/make install route has the same problems, too.
I've never compiled runddl, because I've never has a reason to do that. Why would I want to, anyway?
AS for standards, I'm all for open standards. But they are often honored in the breach. If you stay entirely within teh Microsoft world, you will have fewer options, but you'll also have fewer problems.
You know...I don't doubt that Linux worked out fine for your brother, but it is just a tad difficult to believe that he didn't notice Windows was gone.
Guess he didn't try to install any new Windows software, too.
Not bashing Linux, LIke I said, I use it. I know there are tools available only on one or the other platform. But, for the things I do (not what I could but don't want to do) Linux offers me no more capabilities than Windows.
Your right, of course, but that is my point. I'm using Linux right now, but if I needed a job I'd drop it immediately and install XP and Office. Apart from an ideological fervor to do missionary work for Linux and against Microsoft, I can't think of a reason why anyone who needs to exchange word processing and spreadsheet files would willingly opt to use something besides Office.
Thanks you for that erroneous bit of fluff.
The question stands: If you need to exchange Word and Excel files, why not used Windows and Office?
Well. there is that, but I don't have a reason to mail .doc resumes to a recruiter.
If you have a compelling reason -- like money -- to exchange spreadhseets and word processing files, why not just use Windows and Office rather than dealing with the hassle of using something else.
OpenOffice and all the rest are great, but if the choice is using Linux or earning a hassle-free living, why would someone choose to fight the currents?
Odds are you'll be pummeled for that post, but -- as I sit at my Linux box -- it occurs to me that I can't think of one desktop-oriented thing I do in Linux that I can't do in Windows or OSX.
It is easy to find fault with Microsoft and Windows. Most of it is deserved. But, Linux has faults, too. One big problem is part and parcel of its evelopment modeL: Because there's no single entity setting and enforcing standards, the highly touted benefits of "choice" often become a crapshoot of conflicting libraries, packaging schemes, and software compiled by God-Knows-Who in God-Know-Where.
Betcha they don't.
...is the part of their suit that alleges that users who installed this software violated the DMCA by removing certain files.
Does anyone know if this software explictly warns the user that, once installed, it is against the law to delete it?
Excuse me, now, I have to go rip a tag off my mattress.
AS I've argued elsewhere, being finite requires being bounded. The state of being bounded creates boundaries. Something must exist on both sides of the boundary, or else the object in question is not finite.
It's simple: Something that is finite is bounded. Something that is infinite is unbounded. If something is finite and bounded, by definition, then, it must be contained with a larger "something". That larger something may or may not be finite.
The existence of finite-ness does not imply the existence of infinite-ness, but I think it certainly requires the existence of "something" in which that finite-ness is manifested.
An assertion that the universe is finite requires the universe to be bounded by something else. Paradoxically, if the universe is everything, that "something else" clearly is also part of the universe.
The inability to observe something has no bearing on its existence.
The notion of "finiteness" implies the idea of "something" in which a finite entity exists. If something is finite, it has a beginning and an end. Boundaries, in other words. An entity can't have boundaries -- be finite -- unless it exists within something else. The nature of the finite entity you inhabit may prevent you from knowing that it is, in fact, finite, However, that ignorance doesn't change the reality.
Same issue, ant or astronaut. Both are unaware of the boundary and can't map it, but that doesn't negate the boundary's existence.
Clearly, we -- not the ant -- are aware that the soccer ball does not comprise the universe, and we know where the ball ends and the rest of the universe begins.
Now, if we were to change positions with that ant, the ant would become know that the ball was not the universe. And, our placement inside the ball -- where we are now unable to sense or map the ball's boundary -- does not alter the reality that the universe is bigger than the ball.
Clearly, then, the boundary is out of the ant's reach, but it's still there.
An ant crawling around the inside of a soccer ball can't get to the other side -- the boundary -- but that fact doesn't eliminate the reality that the boundary exists and that the universe continues beyond that bounday.
Like you suggest, go as low tech as possible. No computers.
Ideally, you'd keep everything in your head and then just verbalize in front of your students. Failing that, find a typewriter and a mimeograph machine. (Do they still make mimeographs? Dunno, but there's always the office copier).
>> ...the question what's on the other side is clearly meaningless.
Why?
Seems to me it is contradictory to assert that the universe comprises everything, and then to also assert that the universe is finite. If it is finite, then something exists beyond its boundaries, even if that "something" is non-space, non-time, non-whatever.
...what's on the other side? Why isn't that part of the Universe?
Boy, I'm glad I don't live in your home.
The kids might love it, tho, as soon as their hands got big enough to enter emac's ctrl-alt-spacebar-meta-thumb_up_nose commands.
But, then, the Solaris kernel is not a distributed program to be run over networks.
As long as a language is "faster" than the network, it'll be fast enough for that kind of use. E.g., there's no particular reason to write a browser in assembly because it spends almost all of its time waiting for the netowrk to do something.
It's their network. They get to make the rules. They get to enforce the rules.
If some kid doesn't like that, seems to me he can use another network (like, just maybe, a local ISP) or hire a lawyer and sue the school.
Or, just move out of the dorm.
Condos and apartments also have rules. Why should students be expected to be treated differently.
And please don't whine at me about all those poor, poor students who can't afford to move out of a dorm or even pay a local ISP. Shoulda read those rules before moving in.
Ditto for the "but they need the Internet to further their education" whine. These guys aren't using p2p to download Plato.
You are wrong:
Copyright is not a government-mandated monopoly. A copyright holder can do anything he wants with his work, including giving everyone in the world the right to make and distribute as many copies as they want. Copyright protects an author's rights in his work, but it certainly doesn't constrain how an authro transfers those rights to others. The fact that very few do that is a commentary on people's need to earn a lving, not a proof that copyright equals monopoly.
In other words, Linux could be conventionally copywritten and still be just as open as it is now.
And, modern copyright law came into existence as a response to predatory publishers who were copying and selling books without compensating the authors in any fashion or, in fact, acquiring the author's consent.
And, finally, I didn't call Linux a monopoly. (Try reading it again.) I questioned the hypocrisy of supporting open software and then cheering what appears to be one state's decision to offer a monopoly to Linux.