Not usre what you mean by "never does anything the same way twice..."
I don't need an office suite. Still, I figure all this business of trying to imitate Office (i.e., OpenOffice) will be as successful as trying to replace steak with soyburgers.
Boot time for XP is faster than Linux on my hardware. But, both are fast enough.
Don't play computer games. They bore me and you get nothing when you win.
Installing is never difficults for me. I uninstall be deleting the partition. Uninstalling individual packages is easy, if the install routine played by the rules. You can't say that for Linux.
This is not surprising. Getting a conventional POTS line in many countries is difficult: If there isn't an existing line where you want the phone, you'll be expected to pay the cost of putting one in; the infrastructure may be old, decrepit and, hence, unreliable; you may face a choice between waiting forever to get your phone or paying expensive bribes.
Conditions like that drive cellphone sales; VOIP is just one more alterantive.
Microsoft Press books usually target a nan-professional audience, but they do publish a few obviously intended for professionals. Can't recall titles right now, but they're all hardbound, about 3 inches thick, and priced somewhere around $100.00.
Most of these botched Microsoft projects were efforts to extend the PC as an entertainment device.
Well, the PC isn't an entertainment device, and trying to make it one is as sensible as trying to turn your TV into a computer just because there are chips inside.
If Microsoft wants to make toys, they should buy a toy company. Otherwise, they should stick to real software.
>> You prefer a sterile dead end spectacular stunt over an exploration program that yields actual results.
Just the opposite. Our space exploration program collapsed after Apollo. The reason NASA managed Apollo was to get people to the Moon. The reason NASA manages the Shuttle is to keep NASA in business.
>> What will determine of we can live in a place or not? Science.
Of course, we'll need all the scienctific skills we can muster to explore space. But the reason we go to space is not to do research or to "do science". We will need to do those things, but we will do them because they are necessary to support the primary goal of human space travel. At some pint in time, my descendants will live off-Earth, and their reasons will have as little to do with science as the reasons that motivated my ancestors to leave Europe and migrate to North America.
>> What lived in that valley were monkeys... Wrong. Not monkeys, people.It's been confirmed via DNA research that all humans alive today are descended from people who lived in Africa.
Both Linux and the broader open and free software communities are rooted in developers' desire for free and accessible Unix platforms. Does the success of Linux mean that consumers can look forward to only two operating system choices dominating the market -- what Microsoft offers and what Linux/open source offers -- or do you expect to see open source prompt the development of other non-Unix-derived players in the OS market?
You're absolutely correct, of course, but I suspect the remark was deliberately left in.
It is clear that Slashdot no longer cares about the quality of the discussions it provokes. Presumably, it does care about the number of page views and ad impressions. Tossing the daily Microsoft bone to its audience is the Slashdot equivalent of some talk radio troll annoucing "Today, we're gonna talk about why your taxes are too high". Pointless dribble that exists only to elicit more pointless dribble. The entire point is to boost ad revenue.
There's no point in arguing your interpretations of Keenedy's motives. Frankly, I'm less interested in a president's motives than his actions.
I will say that you seem to be making the very common mistake that going into space is about science. It is not. In fact, the term "going into space" is inappropriate. The Earth exists in space. Space is all that there is, period. Space is our home, and, we are already there.
The issue facing humanity is whether we will explore more of our home, orchoooise to remain locked in ignorance and shot-sightedness in our own little pebble.
We face the same decision that our ancestors in AFrica fced 70,000 years ago. Some, I'm sure, felt there was no reason for humans to leave their little African valley. At the very least, no one should go exploring until their lives in the valley had made perfect. Others, I hope, believed that humans belong wherever they can go, and that our strenghts and our potential can only be fulfilled by following our destiny as explorers.
The argument applies to human space exploration. Those who oppose it, or argue from the premise that it is rooted in science, are "Little Earthers" who resemble modern-day villagers who see no reason to leave their village. Certainly, space opposition coming from environmental activists ("Clean up the Earth first; we'll just trash another planet anyway...") appear to be ashamed to be human in general. If they believe people have no rightful place on Earth, no wonder they oppose space exploration.
So, what are you doing when you aren't working? Are you sure that you aren't just futzing around in order to avoid getting down to business?
When I was in college, a friend and I used to pull all-nighters to study for exams. A third friend, Dave, usually joined us, but insisted on staying in his own room. Invariably, Dave would wander over around 5:00 a.m. and we'd give him some money to go uptown to a bakery that opened at dawn to buy breakfast. After our coffee and croissants, all three of us would walk to campus and take our exams. My friend and I usually did well, and Dave usually did poorly. He'd whine, "But I stayed up all night, too!"
Well, turns out that Dave spent all night wastng his time. He'd spend so much time "getting ready to study" that he never studied. In other words, a classic case of lack of discipline and avoidance.
Sounds like you aren't this far down the road, but your employer needs to take some responsibility to provide you with a display that you can actually read.
If your employer balks, and if you're in the States, wave the Americans With Disabilities Act at them. IANAL, but I think it is clear that you cannot be placed in a position of not being able to perform your work duties satisfactorily simply because your employer wants to buy a particular brand of monitor.
Kennedy's success was in setting a goal for NASA in terms of a destination: put people on the Moon. That's the kind of leadership and the kind of policy we need.
By definition, space exploration is about humans exploring space. We can't do that if we don't set our goals in terms of destinations. Otherwise, like the shuttle and ISS, we'll just go in circles.
Plans exist to orbit a replacement telescope, but I don't recall if that project is actually funded.
In point of fact, however, this illustrates the fundamental unsoundness of U.S. space policy since the premature close of the Apollo project during the Nixon administraton. The shuttle was justified as a way to get to the space statoin amd the space station was justified as a place for the shuttle to go.
The failure of every administration since Nixon's to provide leadership and a coherent space policy is the reason we are in this mess. The White House should be making space policy and assigning goals to NASA. No one has one that since Kennedy, and it shows.
Can't recommend titles of any specific texts. Go fr a rummagein the nearest Border's or B&N. Then check online.
Microsoft does publish large, thick texts on their network platforms. I remember them as being much better than most 3rd-party books.
Also, if you can get your hands on the books used in an MCSE course, you'll at least have something. My boss sent me to an MCSE course a long time ago. I remember the notebooks as being long on "click here" and short on "here's what the code does after you click", but you will get an overview of Microsoft's network model.
>>...the risk of a SCO lawsuit would appear to be about the same for anyone that currently uses Linux...
You argued earlier that the risk was least for current Limux users, implying that the risk increases for new buyers.
But, listen...the only risk that I'm talking about is the financial risk of being forced to fend off a SCO suit. As long as SCO makes noises about taking legal action against corporations for using Linux, the threat of a suit remains. And that's a risk for any company thinking about Linux.
>> If GPL is not enforceable, then I don't see how EULAs will fare any better.
The courts won't negate the EULA. The enforcability of the GPL may come into question because, unlike a EULA on a shrink-wrapped pacakge or embedded in an install routine, users of most GPL software can claim that they didn't read the license. (How many GPL programs stop during the install routine, and continue only when the user indicates agreement with the license?)
Come to think of it, there's nothing to prohibit the GPL being treated packaged as a EULA.
In any case, the EULA (or the GPL) isn't necessary to protect the copyright holder's rights.
I agree that the threat against companies currently using Linux is least likely to materialize. I do believe, however, that a potential threat exists if a company makes new investments in Linux. The bigger the company and the bigger the investment, the bigger the threat.
A threat like that poses a risk because, at a minimum, it adds the cost of dealing with the threat to the cost of buying Linux. If SCO, in fact, brings suit, then the company must bear the additional risk and cost of fighting that suit. Even if the company defeats SCO, it has cost them money and time that they'd otherwise retain if they had not bought Linux.
So, there's the potential financial risk that will exist until SCO changes its behavior.
It will be interesting to see what happens re: enforcing the GPL. I think there is a strong possibility that courts will view it as similar to shrink-wrapped EULA's, in that the "contract" is consumated as a by-product of acquiring and installing the software. The assumption that the software user read, understood and agreed to the license cannot be proven.
>> You want them to believe that supporting Linux would be a risk.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never expressed any opinion about Linux. One more time: SCO seems willing to sue companies that deploy Linux. That means a company buying Linux needs to consider that risk.
Sheez, if SCO was threatening to sue companies that deploy Windows, then that would also pose a risk.
If SCO was threatening to sue companies that bought cars from GM, then that would pose a risk to companies buying cars from GM.
And, yeah, Windows carries a lot of risk of a different nature. But that doesn't stop SCO from making noises about suing over Linux.
>>... this risk is not any worse than the risk they face every day (when they use Windows...
At least you agree it is a risk. That's all I've been saying.
Whether or not Wndows is bad, good or indifferent is besides the point in this case. The point is simply that a lot of people believe SCO may sue companies deploying Linux. SCO is certainly encouraging that impression. That imposes a risk on anyone business that deploys Linux: the risk that SCO may sue them.
I'm stunned that so many people can't figure that out, or consider that fact ("Buy Linux = Potential SCO Suit") to be a criticism of Linux.
I don't have any motives here. I dont care what people do vis-a-vis SCO, Linux or Microsoft. I don't have an ideological stake in any of this. (In fact, the notion that Linux and open source warrent someone "believing" in them is inane. It's just a softwere development model.)
You can't run a successful business on testosterone. If you wanna tell your CEO to buy Linux and to ignore SCO's threats, fine, do that. Remember, if SCO does sue your compnay, the CEO won't think you're brave. He'll think you're wrong (and, maybe, fired).
I'm not talking about "information". I'm talking about a physical object, like a book. If I author a book, the only rights you have to possess, copy or otherwise use that book are the rights I give to you.
You appear to stating that the person who creates something has no more right to it than anyone else on the planet. I find that both appalling and ludicrous.
There's a lot of nonsense spouted about "information" that can't be owned or restrained, but that's not the point. You can't go to a bookstore and buy "information". You buy books at bookstores. And books and information are not the same thing.
Your arguments boil down to an assertion of conditions your believe ought to prevail.
Geez, all I'm saying is that, so long as SCO is deliberately creating the impression that they are prepared to sue any company deploying Linux, then a company that deploys Linux will incur the risk of being sued by SCO. Managers who "believe" in Linux (as some sort of social movement)are, I assert, acting irresponsibly if they deploy Linux solely in respopnse to that personal belief.
Even the usual/. dweeb ought to be able to understand that. It's tantamount to figuring out that you run the risk of getting wet if you stand outside in the rain.
Sure, it looks like extortion, but that doesn't affect the risk involved, does it?
Why do so many people on Slashdot seem to think that stomping their feet and getting excited because they've discovered that the bad guys act badly will actually change anyone's behavior?
Slashdot Mirror
Not my experience.
XP recognizes my hardware.
Not usre what you mean by "never does anything the same way twice..."
I don't need an office suite. Still, I figure all this business of trying to imitate Office (i.e., OpenOffice) will be as successful as trying to replace steak with soyburgers.
Boot time for XP is faster than Linux on my hardware. But, both are fast enough.
Don't play computer games. They bore me and you get nothing when you win.
Installing is never difficults for me. I uninstall be deleting the partition. Uninstalling individual packages is easy, if the install routine played by the rules. You can't say that for Linux.
>> Your data is much more important than how your computer works, and it's being stored in purposefully obscure data formats.
True, but that's primarily due to Office. I'm an ASCII fanatic, but no one forces users to buy Office.
This is not surprising. Getting a conventional POTS line in many countries is difficult: If there isn't an existing line where you want the phone, you'll be expected to pay the cost of putting one in; the infrastructure may be old, decrepit and, hence, unreliable; you may face a choice between waiting forever to get your phone or paying expensive bribes.
Conditions like that drive cellphone sales; VOIP is just one more alterantive.
Microsoft Press books usually target a nan-professional audience, but they do publish a few obviously intended for professionals. Can't recall titles right now, but they're all hardbound, about 3 inches thick, and priced somewhere around $100.00.
>> ....your point that .NET is the shining savior of man.
:)
Ummm...don't believe I said that.
Maybe it was a huge blunder for UC not to make people pay for that TCP/IP stack.
California taxpayers might have gotten a little relief.
Most of these botched Microsoft projects were efforts to extend the PC as an entertainment device.
Well, the PC isn't an entertainment device, and trying to make it one is as sensible as trying to turn your TV into a computer just because there are chips inside.
If Microsoft wants to make toys, they should buy a toy company. Otherwise, they should stick to real software.
And, so should Linux.
>> You prefer a sterile dead end spectacular stunt over an exploration program that yields actual results.
Just the opposite. Our space exploration program collapsed after Apollo. The reason NASA managed Apollo was to get people to the Moon. The reason NASA manages the Shuttle is to keep NASA in business.
>> What will determine of we can live in a place or not? Science.
Of course, we'll need all the scienctific skills we can muster to explore space. But the reason we go to space is not to do research or to "do science". We will need to do those things, but we will do them because they are necessary to support the primary goal of human space travel. At some pint in time, my descendants will live off-Earth, and their reasons will have as little to do with science as the reasons that motivated my ancestors to leave Europe and migrate to North America.
>> What lived in that valley were monkeys...
Wrong. Not monkeys, people.It's been confirmed via DNA research that all humans alive today are descended from people who lived in Africa.
Both Linux and the broader open and free software communities are rooted in developers' desire for free and accessible Unix platforms. Does the success of Linux mean that consumers can look forward to only two operating system choices dominating the market -- what Microsoft offers and what Linux/open source offers -- or do you expect to see open source prompt the development of other non-Unix-derived players in the OS market?
You're absolutely correct, of course, but I suspect the remark was deliberately left in.
It is clear that Slashdot no longer cares about the quality of the discussions it provokes. Presumably, it does care about the number of page views and ad impressions. Tossing the daily Microsoft bone to its audience is the Slashdot equivalent of some talk radio troll annoucing "Today, we're gonna talk about why your taxes are too high". Pointless dribble that exists only to elicit more pointless dribble. The entire point is to boost ad revenue.
>> As always, if you think something doesn't suck then prove it.
.NET has looked retarded...
..and, therefore, anything and everything associated with Microsoft is beneath contempt, by definition.
Says who? You?
>> Everything I've seen of
Oh, there's the proof.
>> I don't like most things Microsoft...
Have you ever considered the possiblity that you might, sometimes, be wrong?
There's no point in arguing your interpretations of Keenedy's motives. Frankly, I'm less interested in a president's motives than his actions.
I will say that you seem to be making the very common mistake that going into space is about science. It is not. In fact, the term "going into space" is inappropriate. The Earth exists in space. Space is all that there is, period. Space is our home, and, we are already there.
The issue facing humanity is whether we will explore more of our home, orchoooise to remain locked in ignorance and shot-sightedness in our own little pebble.
We face the same decision that our ancestors in AFrica fced 70,000 years ago. Some, I'm sure, felt there was no reason for humans to leave their little African valley. At the very least, no one should go exploring until their lives in the valley had made perfect. Others, I hope, believed that humans belong wherever they can go, and that our strenghts and our potential can only be fulfilled by following our destiny as explorers.
The argument applies to human space exploration. Those who oppose it, or argue from the premise that it is rooted in science, are "Little Earthers" who resemble modern-day villagers who see no reason to leave their village. Certainly, space opposition coming from environmental activists ("Clean up the Earth first; we'll just trash another planet anyway...") appear to be ashamed to be human in general. If they believe people have no rightful place on Earth, no wonder they oppose space exploration.
So, what are you doing when you aren't working? Are you sure that you aren't just futzing around in order to avoid getting down to business?
When I was in college, a friend and I used to pull all-nighters to study for exams. A third friend, Dave, usually joined us, but insisted on staying in his own room. Invariably, Dave would wander over around 5:00 a.m. and we'd give him some money to go uptown to a bakery that opened at dawn to buy breakfast. After our coffee and croissants, all three of us would walk to campus and take our exams. My friend and I usually did well, and Dave usually did poorly. He'd whine, "But I stayed up all night, too!"
Well, turns out that Dave spent all night wastng his time. He'd spend so much time "getting ready to study" that he never studied. In other words, a classic case of lack of discipline and avoidance.
Sounds like you aren't this far down the road, but your employer needs to take some responsibility to provide you with a display that you can actually read.
If your employer balks, and if you're in the States, wave the Americans With Disabilities Act at them. IANAL, but I think it is clear that you cannot be placed in a position of not being able to perform your work duties satisfactorily simply because your employer wants to buy a particular brand of monitor.
Kennedy's success was in setting a goal for NASA in terms of a destination: put people on the Moon. That's the kind of leadership and the kind of policy we need.
By definition, space exploration is about humans exploring space. We can't do that if we don't set our goals in terms of destinations. Otherwise, like the shuttle and ISS, we'll just go in circles.
Plans exist to orbit a replacement telescope, but I don't recall if that project is actually funded.
In point of fact, however, this illustrates the fundamental unsoundness of U.S. space policy since the premature close of the Apollo project during the Nixon administraton. The shuttle was justified as a way to get to the space statoin amd the space station was justified as a place for the shuttle to go.
The failure of every administration since Nixon's to provide leadership and a coherent space policy is the reason we are in this mess. The White House should be making space policy and assigning goals to NASA. No one has one that since Kennedy, and it shows.
Can't recommend titles of any specific texts. Go fr a rummagein the nearest Border's or B&N. Then check online.
Microsoft does publish large, thick texts on their network platforms. I remember them as being much better than most 3rd-party books.
Also, if you can get your hands on the books used in an MCSE course, you'll at least have something. My boss sent me to an MCSE course a long time ago. I remember the notebooks as being long on "click here" and short on "here's what the code does after you click", but you will get an overview of Microsoft's network model.
>> ...the risk of a SCO lawsuit would appear to be about the same for anyone that currently uses Linux...
You argued earlier that the risk was least for current Limux users, implying that the risk increases for new buyers.
But, listen...the only risk that I'm talking about is the financial risk of being forced to fend off a SCO suit. As long as SCO makes noises about taking legal action against corporations for using Linux, the threat of a suit remains. And that's a risk for any company thinking about Linux.
>> If GPL is not enforceable, then I don't see how EULAs will fare any better.
The courts won't negate the EULA. The enforcability of the GPL may come into question because, unlike a EULA on a shrink-wrapped pacakge or embedded in an install routine, users of most GPL software can claim that they didn't read the license. (How many GPL programs stop during the install routine, and continue only when the user indicates agreement with the license?)
Come to think of it, there's nothing to prohibit the GPL being treated packaged as a EULA.
In any case, the EULA (or the GPL) isn't necessary to protect the copyright holder's rights.
I agree that the threat against companies currently using Linux is least likely to materialize. I do believe, however, that a potential threat exists if a company makes new investments in Linux. The bigger the company and the bigger the investment, the bigger the threat.
A threat like that poses a risk because, at a minimum, it adds the cost of dealing with the threat to the cost of buying Linux. If SCO, in fact, brings suit, then the company must bear the additional risk and cost of fighting that suit. Even if the company defeats SCO, it has cost them money and time that they'd otherwise retain if they had not bought Linux.
So, there's the potential financial risk that will exist until SCO changes its behavior.
It will be interesting to see what happens re: enforcing the GPL. I think there is a strong possibility that courts will view it as similar to shrink-wrapped EULA's, in that the "contract" is consumated as a by-product of acquiring and installing the software. The assumption that the software user read, understood and agreed to the license cannot be proven.
>> You want them to believe that supporting Linux would be a risk.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never expressed any opinion about Linux. One more time: SCO seems willing to sue companies that deploy Linux. That means a company buying Linux needs to consider that risk.
Sheez, if SCO was threatening to sue companies that deploy Windows, then that would also pose a risk.
If SCO was threatening to sue companies that bought cars from GM, then that would pose a risk to companies buying cars from GM.
And, yeah, Windows carries a lot of risk of a different nature. But that doesn't stop SCO from making noises about suing over Linux.
This is all very, very simple. Don't you get it?
>> ... this risk is not any worse than the risk they face every day (when they use Windows...
At least you agree it is a risk. That's all I've been saying.
Whether or not Wndows is bad, good or indifferent is besides the point in this case. The point is simply that a lot of people believe SCO may sue companies deploying Linux. SCO is certainly encouraging that impression. That imposes a risk on anyone business that deploys Linux: the risk that SCO may sue them.
I'm stunned that so many people can't figure that out, or consider that fact ("Buy Linux = Potential SCO Suit") to be a criticism of Linux.
I don't have any motives here. I dont care what people do vis-a-vis SCO, Linux or Microsoft. I don't have an ideological stake in any of this. (In fact, the notion that Linux and open source warrent someone "believing" in them is inane. It's just a softwere development model.)
You can't run a successful business on testosterone. If you wanna tell your CEO to buy Linux and to ignore SCO's threats, fine, do that. Remember, if SCO does sue your compnay, the CEO won't think you're brave. He'll think you're wrong (and, maybe, fired).
I'm not talking about "information". I'm talking about a physical object, like a book. If I author a book, the only rights you have to possess, copy or otherwise use that book are the rights I give to you.
You appear to stating that the person who creates something has no more right to it than anyone else on the planet. I find that both appalling and ludicrous.
There's a lot of nonsense spouted about "information" that can't be owned or restrained, but that's not the point. You can't go to a bookstore and buy "information". You buy books at bookstores. And books and information are not the same thing.
Your arguments boil down to an assertion of conditions your believe ought to prevail.
What are you trying to say? That someone was threatening to sue companies who deployed Microsoft?
Geez, all I'm saying is that, so long as SCO is deliberately creating the impression that they are prepared to sue any company deploying Linux, then a company that deploys Linux will incur the risk of being sued by SCO. Managers who "believe" in Linux (as some sort of social movement)are, I assert, acting irresponsibly if they deploy Linux solely in respopnse to that personal belief.
/. dweeb ought to be able to understand that. It's tantamount to figuring out that you run the risk of getting wet if you stand outside in the rain.
Even the usual
Sure, it looks like extortion, but that doesn't affect the risk involved, does it?
Why do so many people on Slashdot seem to think that stomping their feet and getting excited because they've discovered that the bad guys act badly will actually change anyone's behavior?