Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken:)
What speciality apps are you talking about? I think you may be overestimating their scope. The vast majority of computer user needs are covered by items on my list. What remains in the speciality app arena tends not to matter, unless you are talking about gadget sync apps (phones, mp3 players, etc. . ) While it is true that you need to be fairly limited when choose OS X compatible gadgets, you aren't soley restricted to Apple products. Even the Windows Mobile stuff can sync well.
When dealing with my parents, its much easier to tell them to turn to the chapter on CD burning, which has page-by-page pictures of how to use K3B, rather than to tell them to use the online Windows XP/Vista help.
Of course, the SuSE manuals are also included in searchable form, in the SuSE help utility, and in the KDE manual utility, as well as extensively revised man pages.
My point is that you get both with SuSE, and the manuals are nice to have, especially with older people, because they are used to things in book form.
Also, there reason there are 4 is because of the subjects: 1. Install Manual. This one, obviously, should be in paper form. What happens if the install borks? Repair instructions are included, rather than the XP use the automated repair utility and pray. Of course, SuSE also includes an automated repair utility. 2. Admin Manual. This is for system maintenance. Tells you how to run setup automated updates and the like. Explains each process in detail, in easy to understand verbage. 3. Usage Manual. This documents all the software that comes with SuSE, including OpenOffice, Gimp, K3B, various photo utilities, etc. 4. Quick startup guide. This one is akin to the XP 8 page leaflet, but is more along the lines of 20-30 pages, and it covers correct shutdown procedure (don't just pull the plug, go to shutdown), where to go for the internet, where to go for online help, and how to contact SuSE support if you need telephone assistance.
Otherwise, I assume this is just an MS attempt to cut down the (minimal) costs they spend on the useless mini-manual and DVD in an envelope packaging.
You buy SuSE, you get 4 manuals that describe, in detail, every function of the system, from installing to CD burning to firewall configuration to scanning/printing.
You buy Windows? You get a 12 page manual that decsribed the on button, and how to use a Mouse. Enjoy!
I didn't want to make it mean, but here's a list of the software I used on a regular basis on my Mac.
1. Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio, Live Type. I'll lump these together because they are all part of the same suite. 2. MS Office. 3. NeoOffice. 4. Pages 5. Keynote. 6. MySQL 7. Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, GoLive. I'll lump these together as well. 8. FireFox 9. iCal. 10. ACT, via Codeweavers Office. 11. iPhoto 12. Apple Mail 13. Fink, and a huge selection of command line Unix-y utilities that I'm accustomed to from Linux. I'll lump these together, which is quite charitable, as this is a VAST collection of software. 14. The Macromedia Suite. See above in terms of lumping together.
In short, I'd argue that when it comes to general purpose office work, graphics design, print work, anything related to marketing, database work, and web type stuff (AJAX, Java, or whatever is the hot flavor of the moment) Windows only has a subset of the software avaliable for the Mac, because the biggest Windows suites have been ported to OS X (Adobe, Macromedia, Office), while much of the super-high-quality Apple stuff is not avaliable for Windows.
Beyond that, Cygwin is a horrible environment, while OS X's Unix-y roots, although barebone, are quite thorough. A lot of these commandline utilities are quite advanced, as well, and between Automator and Bash OS X's capabilities are vastly beyond Vistas.
Where does OS X lack? Windows specific engineering software (a niche market), Gaming (a really big niche market), and Win32/64 programming (easier to program for Windows on Windows than OS X).
Beyond that, one can use Parallel's new coherence mode, which is a rootless form of full-OS virtualization, but running a complete copy of Windows in OS X is a big kludge, as far as I'm concerned, and not really not necessary for my office.
Unix users don't really worry about these things. As an admin, I occasionally poke around to make sure everything is okay (verify checksums once in a while), but invariably, everything is fine.
I ran a virus scan for fun, once. (ClamAV).
Once you setup a Unix-y network, you just leave it, and things tend to keep working until the machines rust. I'm including Apple in this category, but we've got plenty of Linux machines around, too.
It's not so much a mother still makes the bed for me, as it is a I enjoy city-provided water and natural gas supply. I don't like lugging propane cyclinders, I hate chopping wood, and I wouldn't stand for no-running-water.
Why should you spend ANY of your computing time. If you're going to waste your time, at least waste it on Slashdot, not Norton Anti-virus.
I'm glad that you can be welcomed to the world of the-rest-of-us, with Operating System features we've had since 2005 or so.
Now, I can only hope that Microsoft got this security "issue" fixed, so that you PC users will stop spamming me with sexually explicit crap and drug sales, and maybe my shared cable modem speeds will go up, with the worms circulating the internet being fixed in Vista.
Hopefully, in time, I can welcome you all to the world of computing with minimal/no time spent on security and maintenance. Either way, I'm glad the world is catching up.
So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT? Yes We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right? No. Multiple platforms with compatible or close to compatible ABIs are vastly superior. Especially if the ABIs follow standards bodies, enabling you to implement backwards, forwards, and cross-compatibility. Think commodity.
One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now). Nope. x86 blows. Even Intel and AMD know that. But the market momentum has built to such an extent that even the primary x86 supplier cannot change it. This could have changed in a world without Microsoft; Itanium, Power, or any of the other next-gen architectures may have had an opportunity. Apple went Intel because they were the only company buying PowerPC laptop chips, and as such, they could not be produced at the right price point.
Make no mistake; x86 is nobodies choice but Microsoft; even Intel was sledgehammered by Microsoft's refusual to embrace Itanium.
So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one. You're starting from a misconception. You don't need one major OS; you need published standards, so that software for X can be made to run on Y. We have multiple browsers, and in a world with ISO standard document formats, we'll have multiple office suites. Look at e-mail; SMTP/POP/IMAP work across a multitude of clients. Look at Linux; software can work across may different varieties of kernels, with minor modifications here and there. POSIX software isn't build once, install everywhere; but portability is an entirely different beast than going from WindowsAnything else. And, I might add that if we had a company that was dedicated to standards as the market leader in operating systems we might have better, and more inclusive standards.
I would not be shocked to see an LSB that maintained binary compatibility across multiple distributions, and I would not be shocked to see Unixes that implemented an LSB compatible environment.
This is a much better way to mention OS requirements. Think "LSB 4.0", or "POSIX Plus 2.2" required, rather than "98SE", or "Vista required". Standards, standards, standards. Standards are the keystone of commerce. I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.
You're misinformed. First of all, you need to be considering the desktop, not the kernel. What matters is user experience, not hardware under the hood. In that sense, you've really got 2 choices. Gnome, and KDE. There are a couple different customizations of each. I like the SuSE version and Ubuntu version, because they are easy to use. Linspire, although no the most secure thing under the sun, is a KDE distribution that is drop dead easy to work with. Easy software installs, the whole nine yards. Vastly simplier than Windows.
Either way, both Gnome and KDE, and Linuxes in general, have a great deal of work to do in terms of application availability, but this is neither a technical concern or an interface concern. This is a market concern, and a direct result of Microsoft monopoly practices, not the nature of computing in general. Personally, I find KDE much easier to work with than Windows, and 5 years of testing now with my entire family setup on SuSE has borne this out. Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad). I agree that Apple has a bad attitude. That being said, Apple really provides a superior experience. I do hope that one day Apple develops an OS licensing model that allows it to continue to
The point is that the December Report was found to potentially have missed substantive complaints. Comes v Microsoft, in January, opened the door to those complaints being analyzed by the Plaintiffs. We won't know what they are until the plaintiffs have officially filed, if they choose to do so, but the Judge in Comes v Microsoft believed they were substantial enough to merit consideration.
Don't ever understimate a fine. A fine is like brute force; if a fine (brute force) isn't working, your clearly not using enough of it!
At a certain level, even Microsoft will pay attention to a fine. Fine them $10-20 billion, and although it won't break their piggy bank, it will make a substantial difference.
Fine them $10-20 billion, and dump it into government research on open source operating system development through our national labs? That might even work.
Do you even remember why the original senatance was overturned?
The appeals court ruled that Judge Jackson had an appearance of bias, because of his media statements. In the media, Judge Jackson made a series of statements, that I, personally, loved. Here's a quote for you:
"Following the trial's conclusion last June, Jackson's statements began appearing in news stories and books about the case. His views on Microsoft executives and the metaphors he used to describe the case troubled the appeals judges.
Among the examples, in the Jan. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"
Also in that book, Auletta writes that Jackson likened Microsoft's "proclamation of innocence to those of four members of the Newton Street Crew convicting in a racketeering, drug-dealing and murder trial he had presided over five years before."
Such sentiments drew the wrath of the appeals judges Tuesday.
"There are lots of things we think and feel about" the parties during a proceeding, said Chief Judge Harry Edwards. "The system would be a sham if all the judges were doing this."
The problem was the he got TOO angry. He basically "flipped out" legally, and Microsoft started to play nice, at least during appeals. If he had just kept his mouth shut, the judgment would have stood. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253250.html
The appeals court overturned, "Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds, that he gave off-the-record, but nevertheless disclosed, interviews to the news media during the case, and that Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Mic rosoft#Appeal
In that sense, you might say that Microsoft's defense against contempt of court was shooting the moon. And it seemed to have worked out, in the short term. Here's what Jackson had to say, "Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false.... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."
Keep in mind that the appeals court did maintain Judge Jackson's findings of fact; that Microsoft did seek to misuse it's monopoly power to drastically damage the market for computer software.
Whether or not MS needs time to change doesn't change the illegality of their actions.
The only "legal" allowance for extra time isn't a delay in enforcement actions, it's that the penalties imposed are not the corporate death penalty, or revocation of MS's corporate license/charter. Any extra "time" needed incurs additional fees/penalities, and that is Microsoft's sole remedy.
I hated AT&T wireless. I've had poor experiences with Cingular. Now, they're rebranding as AT&T Wireless.
This is a brand that was hemorrhaging 10% of it's customer base A MONTH until the Cingular merger. There's a ton of badwill there.
Not to mention the lack of 3G capabilities. I've gotten used to Sprint's EVDO, and it rocks. I use T-mobile for my voice, and Sprint for Data, and there really isn't room in my lineup for an iPhone.
Any serious data user needs 3G; either WCDMA, UMTS, or EVDO. EDGE just sucks, and I speak as a daily long-distance commuter with GBs of data transmitted over both EDGE and 3G. Any data device using EDGE isn't a serious data device.
Even so, I'd purchase an iPhone as a PDA/Phone/iPod replacement (without a data) plan, especially cause I imagine the OS X syncing capabilities to be excellent. Except for Cingular; I won't touch those motherfuckers with a 10 foot pole. More expensive, far greater # of dropped calls, terribly customer service. Go with Sprint, and get a nextgen network, or go with T-mobile, and get cheaper prices, better service, and vastly better customer service.
Your Slashdot handle seems to reflect the quality of your posts.
Please go do some research on the performance of X. It's very, very fast; faster than everything else out there except for some proprietary X servers.
Furthermore, its modular nature makes it far more extensible than OS X's Aqua, or even Vista's WGF (renamed DX10).
X is substantially better than OS X or Direct X. It's faster, it's lighter, it's more extensible, and it's more portable. It's got a far greater number of features, and when you encompass the full "ecosystem" of X software (including stuff like Compiz) it out "blings" OS X/Direct X. There's a reason that pro video editing works great on X system.
And what the hell do scanners have to do with a windowing system? That's the realm of raster graphics, not something to be handled in the windowing system.
Show me a network transparent windowing system with 1/4 of the performance of X, and I'll show you a liar.
X11 does things that other GUIs can only dream of. While X11 development languished for quite some time, the freedesktop movement is dragging it kicking and screaming into the future.
What, pray tell, is it that you don't like about X?
That its fast, lightweight, extensible, network transparent, and desktop agnostic?
That it can be compiled to work on anything from an iPaq to a home desktop to a server to a mainframe?
That it is a venerable, tried and true solution from gaming platforms to 25+ multi-monitor displays?
This is changing now that the major cable companies will give you HD service for little/no money.
I love HD. I find that people that bitch about HD generally are being stubborn.
It really is different. It really does look vastly better. Watch a PBS show or Discovery show in 1080i/p, and you'll see the difference too, as long as the set is setup correctly.
The second "bug" is a remote execution flaw in VLC, without privilege escalation. It's platform independent, for that matter. VLC is buggy; and the only "neat" thing about a VLC flaw on OS X would be if it gave you root, but it doesn't.
It's a publicity stunt, and if the remaining bugs are as pointless as this VLC one.... well, it's idiotic.
While I agree with you morally, I'm not sure that's the right answer.
I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but keep in mind that Microsoft has beaten opponents "better than they are" over and over and over again, mainly through judicious application of bribes, FUD, and monopoly market power.
I hope you're right in point #2. But I'm not at all certain, and this wouldn't be the first time Microsoft beat out someone with a superior reputation, superior product, and superior starting position.
Slashdot Mirror
As it stands, that's all irrelevant.
World of Warcraft IS the bulk of the MMORPG market. World of Warcraft has an active OS X user base. The OS X client uses OpenGL, exclusively.
World of Warcraft will never require DirectX 10 exclusively; it will always have an OpenGL client.
Ergo, the bulk of the MMORPG market will not require DirectX 10.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken :)
What speciality apps are you talking about? I think you may be overestimating their scope. The vast majority of computer user needs are covered by items on my list. What remains in the speciality app arena tends not to matter, unless you are talking about gadget sync apps (phones, mp3 players, etc. . ) While it is true that you need to be fairly limited when choose OS X compatible gadgets, you aren't soley restricted to Apple products. Even the Windows Mobile stuff can sync well.
It's not an API.
c /application_en/application_en.pdf
It's an instruction book.
When dealing with my parents, its much easier to tell them to turn to the chapter on CD burning, which has page-by-page pictures of how to use K3B, rather than to tell them to use the online Windows XP/Vista help.
Of course, the SuSE manuals are also included in searchable form, in the SuSE help utility, and in the KDE manual utility, as well as extensively revised man pages.
My point is that you get both with SuSE, and the manuals are nice to have, especially with older people, because they are used to things in book form.
Also, there reason there are 4 is because of the subjects:
1. Install Manual. This one, obviously, should be in paper form. What happens if the install borks? Repair instructions are included, rather than the XP use the automated repair utility and pray. Of course, SuSE also includes an automated repair utility.
2. Admin Manual. This is for system maintenance. Tells you how to run setup automated updates and the like. Explains each process in detail, in easy to understand verbage.
3. Usage Manual. This documents all the software that comes with SuSE, including OpenOffice, Gimp, K3B, various photo utilities, etc.
4. Quick startup guide. This one is akin to the XP 8 page leaflet, but is more along the lines of 20-30 pages, and it covers correct shutdown procedure (don't just pull the plug, go to shutdown), where to go for the internet, where to go for online help, and how to contact SuSE support if you need telephone assistance.
Here's a sample: http://www.novell.com/documentation/suse101/pdfdo
Take a look. It really is different.
Otherwise, I assume this is just an MS attempt to cut down the (minimal) costs they spend on the useless mini-manual and DVD in an envelope packaging.
You buy SuSE, you get 4 manuals that describe, in detail, every function of the system, from installing to CD burning to firewall configuration to scanning/printing.
You buy Windows? You get a 12 page manual that decsribed the on button, and how to use a Mouse. Enjoy!
I didn't want to make it mean, but here's a list of the software I used on a regular basis on my Mac.
1. Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio, Live Type. I'll lump these together because they are all part of the same suite.
2. MS Office.
3. NeoOffice.
4. Pages
5. Keynote.
6. MySQL
7. Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, GoLive. I'll lump these together as well.
8. FireFox
9. iCal.
10. ACT, via Codeweavers Office.
11. iPhoto
12. Apple Mail
13. Fink, and a huge selection of command line Unix-y utilities that I'm accustomed to from Linux. I'll lump these together, which is quite charitable, as this is a VAST collection of software.
14. The Macromedia Suite. See above in terms of lumping together.
In short, I'd argue that when it comes to general purpose office work, graphics design, print work, anything related to marketing, database work, and web type stuff (AJAX, Java, or whatever is the hot flavor of the moment) Windows only has a subset of the software avaliable for the Mac, because the biggest Windows suites have been ported to OS X (Adobe, Macromedia, Office), while much of the super-high-quality Apple stuff is not avaliable for Windows.
Beyond that, Cygwin is a horrible environment, while OS X's Unix-y roots, although barebone, are quite thorough. A lot of these commandline utilities are quite advanced, as well, and between Automator and Bash OS X's capabilities are vastly beyond Vistas.
Where does OS X lack? Windows specific engineering software (a niche market), Gaming (a really big niche market), and Win32/64 programming (easier to program for Windows on Windows than OS X).
Beyond that, one can use Parallel's new coherence mode, which is a rootless form of full-OS virtualization, but running a complete copy of Windows in OS X is a big kludge, as far as I'm concerned, and not really not necessary for my office.
Uhh...
Unix users don't really worry about these things. As an admin, I occasionally poke around to make sure everything is okay (verify checksums once in a while), but invariably, everything is fine.
I ran a virus scan for fun, once. (ClamAV).
Once you setup a Unix-y network, you just leave it, and things tend to keep working until the machines rust. I'm including Apple in this category, but we've got plenty of Linux machines around, too.
It's not so much a mother still makes the bed for me, as it is a I enjoy city-provided water and natural gas supply. I don't like lugging propane cyclinders, I hate chopping wood, and I wouldn't stand for no-running-water.
Why should you spend ANY of your computing time. If you're going to waste your time, at least waste it on Slashdot, not Norton Anti-virus.
I'm glad that you can be welcomed to the world of the-rest-of-us, with Operating System features we've had since 2005 or so.
Now, I can only hope that Microsoft got this security "issue" fixed, so that you PC users will stop spamming me with sexually explicit crap and drug sales, and maybe my shared cable modem speeds will go up, with the worms circulating the internet being fixed in Vista.
Hopefully, in time, I can welcome you all to the world of computing with minimal/no time spent on security and maintenance. Either way, I'm glad the world is catching up.
It's not that it disagrees so much as it predates.
Please refer to the dates in question. I believe you can figure it out.
The article says, "New evidence coming out! May be damning!"
The joint report says, "So far, no new evidence has come out. All existing complaints may be dismissed as trivial."
There is no dissonance. Please learn to logic.
So, Microsoft is very evil. Ok. I've wondered though, if it weren't for Microsoft, would the world be a better place for IT?
Yes
We all agree one major platform is better than many wildly different platforms right?
No. Multiple platforms with compatible or close to compatible ABIs are vastly superior. Especially if the ABIs follow standards bodies, enabling you to implement backwards, forwards, and cross-compatibility. Think commodity.
One processor architecture (x86) is better than four completely different, and one computer platform (PC) is better than many (even Apple understood that.. and effectively sells shiny PC-s loaded with OSX right now).
Nope. x86 blows. Even Intel and AMD know that. But the market momentum has built to such an extent that even the primary x86 supplier cannot change it. This could have changed in a world without Microsoft; Itanium, Power, or any of the other next-gen architectures may have had an opportunity. Apple went Intel because they were the only company buying PowerPC laptop chips, and as such, they could not be produced at the right price point.
Make no mistake; x86 is nobodies choice but Microsoft; even Intel was sledgehammered by Microsoft's refusual to embrace Itanium.
So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.
You're starting from a misconception. You don't need one major OS; you need published standards, so that software for X can be made to run on Y. We have multiple browsers, and in a world with ISO standard document formats, we'll have multiple office suites. Look at e-mail; SMTP/POP/IMAP work across a multitude of clients. Look at Linux; software can work across may different varieties of kernels, with minor modifications here and there. POSIX software isn't build once, install everywhere; but portability is an entirely different beast than going from WindowsAnything else. And, I might add that if we had a company that was dedicated to standards as the market leader in operating systems we might have better, and more inclusive standards.
I would not be shocked to see an LSB that maintained binary compatibility across multiple distributions, and I would not be shocked to see Unixes that implemented an LSB compatible environment.
This is a much better way to mention OS requirements. Think "LSB 4.0", or "POSIX Plus 2.2" required, rather than "98SE", or "Vista required". Standards, standards, standards. Standards are the keystone of commerce.
I hope it won't be *nix if-I-can-do-it-so-can-my-grandma, or especially Linux its-only-kernel-but-pick-one-of-the-500-distros.
You're misinformed. First of all, you need to be considering the desktop, not the kernel. What matters is user experience, not hardware under the hood. In that sense, you've really got 2 choices. Gnome, and KDE. There are a couple different customizations of each. I like the SuSE version and Ubuntu version, because they are easy to use. Linspire, although no the most secure thing under the sun, is a KDE distribution that is drop dead easy to work with. Easy software installs, the whole nine yards. Vastly simplier than Windows.
Either way, both Gnome and KDE, and Linuxes in general, have a great deal of work to do in terms of application availability, but this is neither a technical concern or an interface concern. This is a market concern, and a direct result of Microsoft monopoly practices, not the nature of computing in general. Personally, I find KDE much easier to work with than Windows, and 5 years of testing now with my entire family setup on SuSE has borne this out.
Given Apple's attitude to keeps things locked and proprietary (and dumbed down), I hope it won't be OSX either (can you imagine being FORCED to buy Apple hardware? No competition for OSX hardware? bad.. bad).
I agree that Apple has a bad attitude. That being said, Apple really provides a superior experience. I do hope that one day Apple develops an OS licensing model that allows it to continue to
Bzzzt!
Wrong!
You're reading the wrong document.
The point is that the December Report was found to potentially have missed substantive complaints. Comes v Microsoft, in January, opened the door to those complaints being analyzed by the Plaintiffs. We won't know what they are until the plaintiffs have officially filed, if they choose to do so, but the Judge in Comes v Microsoft believed they were substantial enough to merit consideration.
Huh?
Don't ever understimate a fine. A fine is like brute force; if a fine (brute force) isn't working, your clearly not using enough of it!
At a certain level, even Microsoft will pay attention to a fine. Fine them $10-20 billion, and although it won't break their piggy bank, it will make a substantial difference.
Fine them $10-20 billion, and dump it into government research on open source operating system development through our national labs? That might even work.
Are you kidding?
c rosoft#Appeal
... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."
Do you even remember why the original senatance was overturned?
The appeals court ruled that Judge Jackson had an appearance of bias, because of his media statements. In the media, Judge Jackson made a series of statements, that I, personally, loved. Here's a quote for you:
"Following the trial's conclusion last June, Jackson's statements began appearing in news stories and books about the case. His views on Microsoft executives and the metaphors he used to describe the case troubled the appeals judges.
Among the examples, in the Jan. 8 issue of The New Yorker, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"
Also in that book, Auletta writes that Jackson likened Microsoft's "proclamation of innocence to those of four members of the Newton Street Crew convicting in a racketeering, drug-dealing and murder trial he had presided over five years before."
Such sentiments drew the wrath of the appeals judges Tuesday.
"There are lots of things we think and feel about" the parties during a proceeding, said Chief Judge Harry Edwards. "The system would be a sham if all the judges were doing this."
The problem was the he got TOO angry. He basically "flipped out" legally, and Microsoft started to play nice, at least during appeals. If he had just kept his mouth shut, the judgment would have stood. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253250.html
The appeals court overturned, "Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds, that he gave off-the-record, but nevertheless disclosed, interviews to the news media during the case, and that Judge Jackson having opinions about the defendant was improper. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Mi
In that sense, you might say that Microsoft's defense against contempt of court was shooting the moon. And it seemed to have worked out, in the short term. Here's what Jackson had to say, "Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false.
Keep in mind that the appeals court did maintain Judge Jackson's findings of fact; that Microsoft did seek to misuse it's monopoly power to drastically damage the market for computer software.
Irrelevant.
Whether or not MS needs time to change doesn't change the illegality of their actions.
The only "legal" allowance for extra time isn't a delay in enforcement actions, it's that the penalties imposed are not the corporate death penalty, or revocation of MS's corporate license/charter. Any extra "time" needed incurs additional fees/penalities, and that is Microsoft's sole remedy.
Except for Cingular.
I hated AT&T wireless. I've had poor experiences with Cingular. Now, they're rebranding as AT&T Wireless.
This is a brand that was hemorrhaging 10% of it's customer base A MONTH until the Cingular merger. There's a ton of badwill there.
Not to mention the lack of 3G capabilities. I've gotten used to Sprint's EVDO, and it rocks. I use T-mobile for my voice, and Sprint for Data, and there really isn't room in my lineup for an iPhone.
Any serious data user needs 3G; either WCDMA, UMTS, or EVDO. EDGE just sucks, and I speak as a daily long-distance commuter with GBs of data transmitted over both EDGE and 3G. Any data device using EDGE isn't a serious data device.
Even so, I'd purchase an iPhone as a PDA/Phone/iPod replacement (without a data) plan, especially cause I imagine the OS X syncing capabilities to be excellent. Except for Cingular; I won't touch those motherfuckers with a 10 foot pole. More expensive, far greater # of dropped calls, terribly customer service. Go with Sprint, and get a nextgen network, or go with T-mobile, and get cheaper prices, better service, and vastly better customer service.
Your Slashdot handle seems to reflect the quality of your posts.
Please go do some research on the performance of X. It's very, very fast; faster than everything else out there except for some proprietary X servers.
Furthermore, its modular nature makes it far more extensible than OS X's Aqua, or even Vista's WGF (renamed DX10).
X is substantially better than OS X or Direct X. It's faster, it's lighter, it's more extensible, and it's more portable. It's got a far greater number of features, and when you encompass the full "ecosystem" of X software (including stuff like Compiz) it out "blings" OS X/Direct X. There's a reason that pro video editing works great on X system.
And what the hell do scanners have to do with a windowing system? That's the realm of raster graphics, not something to be handled in the windowing system.
Show me a network transparent windowing system with 1/4 of the performance of X, and I'll show you a liar.
NX fixes the problem 100%. You should try it.
NX vastly outperforms VNC, and IMHO, is better than Citrix.
Grab the FreeNX packages, and give it a whirl. It's really easy to install, and the client supports NX, MS Remote Desktop, and VNC.
NX improves the responsiveness of all three.
Aroo???
X11 does things that other GUIs can only dream of. While X11 development languished for quite some time, the freedesktop movement is dragging it kicking and screaming into the future.
What, pray tell, is it that you don't like about X?
That its fast, lightweight, extensible, network transparent, and desktop agnostic?
That it can be compiled to work on anything from an iPaq to a home desktop to a server to a mainframe?
That it is a venerable, tried and true solution from gaming platforms to 25+ multi-monitor displays?
What's wrong with X?
I'm not sure that is relevant.
Both Gnome and KDE are huge. AFAIK, OpenSuSE uses quite a few MORE patches for both KDE and Gnome than ~100.
Is this site a lie?
http://undocumented.ntinternals.net/
Citrix works fine on Linux & OS X. Microsoft decided not to let Linux & OS X users have access to it. Not that it bothers me....
This is changing now that the major cable companies will give you HD service for little/no money.
I love HD. I find that people that bitch about HD generally are being stubborn.
It really is different. It really does look vastly better. Watch a PBS show or Discovery show in 1080i/p, and you'll see the difference too, as long as the set is setup correctly.
It's because they are full of shit.
The second "bug" is a remote execution flaw in VLC, without privilege escalation. It's platform independent, for that matter. VLC is buggy; and the only "neat" thing about a VLC flaw on OS X would be if it gave you root, but it doesn't.
It's a publicity stunt, and if the remaining bugs are as pointless as this VLC one.... well, it's idiotic.
While I agree with you morally, I'm not sure that's the right answer.
I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but keep in mind that Microsoft has beaten opponents "better than they are" over and over and over again, mainly through judicious application of bribes, FUD, and monopoly market power.
I hope you're right in point #2. But I'm not at all certain, and this wouldn't be the first time Microsoft beat out someone with a superior reputation, superior product, and superior starting position.
Turn it into a fish tank! :)
i sh-Tank
http://www.wikihow.com/Convert-an-Old-TV-Into-a-F
Why not use a virtual machine?
VMware or even QEmu