Really, I wasn't try to troll ya. I was just making an outlandish point in the interest of humor (I guess that is a troll, by some definitions).
100% agreed, moving out to the country is not the answer, for your exact reasons.
I just feel a little more strongly than most that the internet is slowly becoming an essential service, and that Canada has been behind most first world countries in national coverage. That probably brings me to think others are a little non-chalant towards the issue.
>What if he stapled "change of major" forms to your papers?
Sure... why not. Although a nice suggestion note, like, "I feel you might be better suited to taking auto repair" would be a nicer idea.
Re:well, redundancy is *expensive* (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21, @08:50AM EST (#230)
>>You are an idiot
>
>If a professor said that to me, I'd have his ass in the Dean's office pronto
What if he stapled "change of major" forms to your papers?...that way he could always pawn it off on the TA.
>It is best to be subtle when dealing with zealots.
- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit
- The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences.
Rural is a category. That fits the definition quite nicely.
>when a company chooses not to provide service where it's not cost effective, that isn't discrimination
It is when the phone company won't even bother to offer you a price for the service (this has happened to me in Canada way too many times).
>I just think people who act like they have some natural right to those subsidies are pricks.
I'm going to say that to the next prick in the city that bitches the government should do something about the nasty air in the city. They should simply move out into the country.
So what if the air smells like sulphur? If it won't kill you, it doesn't count!
>Besides every home is already wired with internet access points, they are called phone lines......people that want to drop the $200 bucks or so and pay the monthly fee are doing this
Ahahaha! You are one hell of a City Slicker. [I'm trying to be nice:-) ]
Living in the country, I can tell you, the phone lines go out monthly, I can't get a connection above 26.4k to last more than an hour, and I have begged and pleaded with bell _monthly_ to get off their asses and do something. Can't even get leased 56k centrex packet service. I'm lucky -- there's people in my situation that STILL have to live with party lines and no touch tone. If it weren't for laws, they wouldn't even have a telephone.
Getting a line repaired here takes no less than FIVE phone calls to Bell Repair (the last one I threatened their supervisor with the minimum TOS laws) and two weeks. I think I'd have a better shot at getting my phone repaired in some third world countries.
No cable TV. Cable co doesn't even know the city exists (it's not even on their maps, although it does make it onto all the regular city maps). A church in the way blocks all radio connections.
What's left? An entire 60 hours (maximum) medium speed (on a good day) internet with Bell Expressvu / DirecPC. Whoopty...
We need laws like these so that children living in rural areas are given a fighting chance to compete with children living in urban centers. While it might be OK to deny adults (like myself) the right to a decent life (since we can always move), it simply isn't right to deny children a fighting chance in a new hi-tech society.
$50 is only supposed to get you "basic" high-speed service. ie: 1 email address, 1 connection, 128k in, xyz MB out.
If you want "business" level service, you pay premiums on top of that. Sort of like telephone lines costing no more than about $25 a month, unless you want extra stuff (call waiting, caller id, etc...).
I know I can get low-speed POTS internet service for $10 a month, but if I want dedicated, then I pay a premium ($150 a month).
If a professor said that to me, I'd have his ass in the Dean's office pronto. Like, chill out.:-)
>The cable itself is far cheaper than the act of laying thousands of miles of it
I'd tend to agree, but what is the point of laying two cables side by side when anything strong enough to cut through one cable is likely going to cut through the the cable beside it?
There's a way to implement redundancy, and that means some separate paths. Two cables going through the same spot only helps if you are VERY lucky. Two cables 100's of miles apart is much different. And if you start to lay cables miles apart from each other, you start to double the cost of the work (if you ask me...).
That would explain why I can't find a decent SCSI adapter, external cable, or terminator for anything under $20, $40, $15 (respectively).
SCSI is really nice (IMHO) but I wish they had designed more cost-reduction into it. If they had, I think it would have been the winning bus for the PC.
For modern ATA-66 cables and SCSI cables, I would think so. These cables alternate DATA/Ground pins for sheilding/impedance purposes. When you separate these cables, you change the shielding and impedance properties of the cable.
To create a properly rounded ATA-66 or SCSI cable, you really need to separate it into pairs of Data / Ground, or else you change the properties of the cable. You'll likely get crosstalk and interference from the computer otherwise.
Oh, BTW: The 4 pairs (8 wires) in CAT 3/5 ethernet cable are there because in most standards you can use the other 4 wires for voice or another Ethernet connection. Also, the added redundancy means that if a wire turns out to be cut somewhere along the run, you are still OK (use a different pair).
Some ethernet standards actually use all 8 wires (like 100VG... that stuff's neat, doesn't use CDMA in the normal sense).
>He estimated that the chance of cancer was up to fifteen times more likely.
I'll bet at about (what was) $2.50 US a minute to call next-door you'll find people use these phones a few hundred times less than their land-based cousins (the phones, that is).
It's probably safer to use an Iridium phone than a real cell phone due to the amount of time any person (even rich) would dare spend with it on.
If you're desprate, try right clicking the links and opening them in a new window (or single middle click in X).
I've found that after selecting too much text, too many times, from netscape it won't let you click links anymore also. But otherwise, it works fine (as long as you open the links in new windows).
>put my home page up at www.porn-free.xxx with no pornographic content whatsoever and be filtered
Well, that would be _your_ choice. Don't want your non-porno site to be filtered? Don't put it in the.xxx domain.
That's like saying "If I put my Disney shop in the red light district people won't go there". No sh*t, sherlock.:-)
>Why would a porn company start hosting on.xxx where it would be automatically filtered?
So the local government doesn't arrest them for purposely defrauding young children into visiting their site. By making it obvious that your site serves porn (ie: xxx domain) you CYA. Not just that, but you are making it easy for people who WANT porn (and will pay for it...) to find you.
eg: Altavista (or where-ever) could have a choice to search by domain. Then you search for what you want in the.xxx domain.
>Filtering on something as trivial as that is just another step in the wrong direction.
Uhhh, trivial? You choose to be filtered by putting your site in the.xxx domain. Don't like that? Put it elsewhere, and take the risks, like (after a WIPO investigation) your IP going on a worldwide router blacklist, similar to MAPS RBL, for disobeying the "rules", not to mention legal fun.
It isn't much different than a newspaper. You can safely advertise your 900 number in the "Porno" section of the classifieds, but it won't be noticed unless someone is looking for it. You could, instead, take out a full page ad beside the comics. It'll be noticed alright. Then you'll be in hot (legal) water.
Just my 2 cents (ok, I think I'll quit using that line for a bit).
I checked out what I think is a-trend's website. www.atrend.com
The only motherboard they have a manual for that is Socket 7 and has both DIMM and SIMM slots is the ATC5300.
If this is the board you have, the manual says you can't mix 3.3v SDRAM and regular DRAM (in Chinaglish. I'd give $$$, just once, for a motherboard manual actually written in reasonable English.)
Some very old (4-5 years) SDRAM could handle 5 volts. Maybe you've got that?
But maybe they don't have all the manuals online. It wouldn't surprise me.:-)
Your problem was probably the mixture of SIMMS (72-pin) and DIMMS (168-pin).
SIMMS run at 5 volts. DIMMS usually run at 3.3 volts (unless you spent a lot of dough on them, they will be running at 3.3 volts). Running a DIMM at 5 volts will either cause it to burn out, or will cause it to be unstable.
Running a SIMM at 3.3 volts will certainly cause it to be unstable, but will not cause it to burn out.
Since I have never, ever, heard of even the most expensive motherboard supporting both SIMMS and DIMMS at the same time (unless they are all 5 volts... which is why some manuals say they can use both at the same time), I would say your board didn't support it.
So, you were either ruining your DIMMS, or not supplying enough voltage to the SIMMS. Since you say the DIMMS and SIMMS by themselves appear to still work, I'll assume the latter. You're pretty lucky actually...:-)
[I'm going to turn things around right now... It works both ways]
It's really because Windows is impossible to support. Redhat 7 is Redhat 7, plain and simple.
So you have Windows?
2/3.0/3.1/3.11/95 original/95A/95B/95 OSR2.5/98/98 SE/Win Me/NT 3.51/NT 4.0/Win2k?
Win16/Win32 built for 95/Win32 built for NT?
IE 3/4/5/5.5/6 beta?
x86/alpha?
Do you have xyz.dll in \windows\system?
Is it in your registry?
Do you have the latest service pack?
Don't forget the lack of proper Win 3.0 compatibility in Win 3.1 and after.
>Like it or not, most of the world uses (and will continue to use) Microsoft Windows.
[oh man am I offtopic]
I seem to remember someone saying similar things about 640k RAM, MS-DOS, and OS/2.
If you ask me, the gig is up for windows. All the people I used to be pushing Linux onto (hey, you gotta at least mention it to them) are now deciding to take a look at it on their own volition because [they say, although I do agree] "Microsoft software generally sucks". I'm not saying Linux will be the next big OS out there, but I am trying to say that Windows has hit saturation, and then some.
These people refuse to "upgrade" from W98 because W Me has been a disaster of an O/S. You get a bunch of sucky, unnecessary, bells and whistles hold the DOS for $70 and one big headache hoping your drivers for your older hardware hold together.
Windows Update has made it easy enough to update Win 98 security holes and bugs that this isn't a reason to upgrade anymore (like it was for many going from Win 95 to Win 98).
Of course, Bill G. doesn't worry about bugs, since these (by his definition) don't exist. See: http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
These same people don't want to go to W2k because they (like most others) don't have the requisite 256 MB RAM to get decent performance out of it [I hear it runs "ok" on 128 Mb though. But nothing spectacular.]. Not to mention that some hardware has no W2k drivers, and again, no Real DOS for "power users" (ie: Emergency Mode).
Microsoft has pushed users about for long enough, and I think the users are sending a clear message back by not upgrading past Win 98.
Like I've said before, Just my 2 cents. (I really don't want to see this become a flamewar... As a "computer monkey" [repair guy] my opinion just differs, that's all).
Netscape 6 takes me about 5-10 seconds to start. ie takes me about 10 seconds to start (that's what I figure it is adding to the time it takes for my computer to boot).
If Netscape was in my startup menu, and all I had to do to "load" it was to click on the minimized process in the taskbar, well it would be damn fast too.
>and looks nasty to boot
That's why it's skinnable. I think ie looks ugly, and find the new Netscape look refreshing myself. But (to the best of my knowledge) ie isn't skinnable, so you either like it, or leave it. (I left it).
>IE, on the other hand, is fast
Maybe for you. I find scrolling with the mouse in ie is an exercise in slowness. It's all in what matters to you.
>considerably more stable
Maybe a little more. It crashes about the same for me. Of course, whereas netscape just blows up and sometimes annoys me with its "full circle agent", ie explodes the OS.
I really hate runnnig simple items like browsers as root. Bad security policy. Running ie in the kernel gives it even handier access to my machine than root (if "root" existed in windows)... Not secure. And if it isn't at least reasonably secure, I'm not interested.
>but they make a damn fine web browser.
I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you are on.
I find Netscape also allows me to setup networked roving web-browsing profiles dead easy too. Copying them and backing them up is a cinch.
I never found an easy (ie: 3 steps or less) way to have roving profiles in ie without setting up policies and such... ugh... not fun at all for a home/small network.
>This GUI is closed-source (for whatever business reason, this is NOT the point).
Yes it is the point, if you ask me.
>Now GPL3 comes along, and of course gdb will move to it. What is hp to do ?
Open source EVERYTHING. You either do it the whole-assed way, or not at all. Trying to do something half-assed is only going to get you into trouble in the future.
The GPL isn't a "lets see if we can apply this here but not here" sort of license. It is all or nothing. Either GPL it all the way, or don't do it at all.
Imagine if the kernel was 1/2 GPL and 1/2 not. I can't. That's because the GPL isn't meant to work like that. The LGPL is meant for the half-assed approach.
Of course, all the above is just my opinion. If you think the GPL is meant to be used for half a project, and not for the other half, flame away...:-)
Your software is going to have to be installed too, unless you make a deal with MS/Apple to get it "integrated" into their OS. This really is a non-issue, since if you _wanted_ too, your installation program could easily call a routine to install bash. Just include it on the CD.
>AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
It's too bad you feel that way. I write notes in textbooks I own all the time, and NOT ONCE has anyone ever complained. I also open electronic devices (sometimes) and modify them. Again, no complaints. I never even got any complaints when I sold some of this stuff, too. For the kicker, I've seen many modification plans on the internet that get nary a complaint from the company (unless it is computer hardware).
Hell, once I took an old lamp with a cracked base and smashed the base right off so I could use the bulb holder in another project. Again, never heard any complaints.
I think that software (and occasionally computer hardware) developers are the only ones in the world that have the strange notion: "Modifying my stuff is immoral." I can't even think of a religion that supports the idea.
Based on not understanding something (there must be a better, non-insulting, way to say this). If, for example, I have no clue about electrical installations, and I wire a power plug with two male ends, and electrocute myself by using it, my "confusion" is my own and is not legally binding against the company, even though labelling said "power plugs", which could be confusing (if you don't know English).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying non-English speakers are under educated. I'm just saying that the lack of understanding about something doesn't give you an automatic legal right to change it. If I don't understand English, I have _no right_ to pass judgement on an English webpage; Most especially no right to pass judgement based on a title.
If I were to beleive that, I would have equated your post with Swahili information about Urethane Sealant and would have contacted Thompson's to make the necessary lawsuits immediately. But I think that the name/titling of a post doesn't mean its contents are the same.
In other words, you can't sue a book by its cover. It's what's inside that counts. And if I saw a webpage titled "Sucking Guinness" written in Swahili, I wouldn't assume they mean anything about beer, or sucking.
If I were to follow your logic, for example, this would happen: I don't speak Swedish. But hey, this site should be shut down: kändis-Guinness 2000, http://stockholm-just.nu/skvaller/guinness.htm because they use the word Guinness in their title. The rest of the title, and page, as a non-Swedish speaking person, leads me to believe that Guinness sells Candies, only started business in the year 2000, and likes to put supermodels on TV.
But I don't think like that because I know that I don't speak Swedish and therefore should assume nothing.
And I hope to God no one in Sweden sells a product "shepd" that automatically deletes slashdot posts. Because in that case the WIPO would toast me too.
But hey, no one says anyone has to agree with me... Unless I was international organization.:-)
>they are a MAJOR international company, and I can think of a non-english speaker thinking guinness-sucks.com would be a website about how to drink guinness or something...
Something can get lost in the translation, I agree. For example, when I translate "I am a jelly donut" to German on Babelfish, then back to English, I get "I am a jelly foam rubber ring". Unless I get my donuts from Krispy Kreme, this isn't true.
But I know that when I click on "English to German" and "German to English" that I shouldn't trust the output.
Same thing when I see English words on a site with an English title. If I didn't speak English I would:
- Not have a clue what is going on
- Not trust what _my_ native language to figure out what is on the page.
The same applies for a newspaper. For example, a real Quebec (French) newspaper is called "Les Affaires". But, I realise when I see the newspaper it is in French. At that point I give up on the assumption that "Les Affaires" is actually short form for a newspaper covering Lesbian Affairs. I don't ask them to change their newspaper's name to "Quebec/French Newspaper", or even ask them to quit publishing it.
The same applies for websites. If you don't speak English, and visit an English site, assume nothing. In fact, leave and find a site that can inform you in a manner you understand.
Slashdot Mirror
>Okay, I know I've been trolled
Really, I wasn't try to troll ya. I was just making an outlandish point in the interest of humor (I guess that is a troll, by some definitions).
100% agreed, moving out to the country is not the answer, for your exact reasons.
I just feel a little more strongly than most that the internet is slowly becoming an essential service, and that Canada has been behind most first world countries in national coverage. That probably brings me to think others are a little non-chalant towards the issue.
Ho-hum.
>What if he stapled "change of major" forms to your papers?
...that way he could always pawn it off on the TA.
Sure... why not. Although a nice suggestion note, like, "I feel you might be better suited to taking auto repair" would be a nicer idea.
Re:well, redundancy is *expensive* (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21, @08:50AM EST (#230)
>>You are an idiot
>
>If a professor said that to me, I'd have his ass in the Dean's office pronto
What if he stapled "change of major" forms to your papers?
>It is best to be subtle when dealing with zealots.
That's the way the law makes ya. Gotta CYA 24/7.
Discrimination:
- Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit
- The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting and marking differences.
Rural is a category. That fits the definition quite nicely.
>when a company chooses not to provide service where it's not cost effective, that isn't discrimination
It is when the phone company won't even bother to offer you a price for the service (this has happened to me in Canada way too many times).
>I just think people who act like they have some natural right to those subsidies are pricks.
I'm going to say that to the next prick in the city that bitches the government should do something about the nasty air in the city. They should simply move out into the country.
So what if the air smells like sulphur? If it won't kill you, it doesn't count!
>Besides every home is already wired with internet access points, they are called phone lines... ...people that want to drop the $200 bucks or so and pay the monthly fee are doing this
:-) ]
Ahahaha! You are one hell of a City Slicker. [I'm trying to be nice
Living in the country, I can tell you, the phone lines go out monthly, I can't get a connection above 26.4k to last more than an hour, and I have begged and pleaded with bell _monthly_ to get off their asses and do something. Can't even get leased 56k centrex packet service. I'm lucky -- there's people in my situation that STILL have to live with party lines and no touch tone. If it weren't for laws, they wouldn't even have a telephone.
Getting a line repaired here takes no less than FIVE phone calls to Bell Repair (the last one I threatened their supervisor with the minimum TOS laws) and two weeks. I think I'd have a better shot at getting my phone repaired in some third world countries.
No cable TV. Cable co doesn't even know the city exists (it's not even on their maps, although it does make it onto all the regular city maps). A church in the way blocks all radio connections.
What's left? An entire 60 hours (maximum) medium speed (on a good day) internet with Bell Expressvu / DirecPC. Whoopty...
We need laws like these so that children living in rural areas are given a fighting chance to compete with children living in urban centers. While it might be OK to deny adults (like myself) the right to a decent life (since we can always move), it simply isn't right to deny children a fighting chance in a new hi-tech society.
Just my 2 cents.
$50 is only supposed to get you "basic" high-speed service. ie: 1 email address, 1 connection, 128k in, xyz MB out.
If you want "business" level service, you pay premiums on top of that. Sort of like telephone lines costing no more than about $25 a month, unless you want extra stuff (call waiting, caller id, etc...).
I know I can get low-speed POTS internet service for $10 a month, but if I want dedicated, then I pay a premium ($150 a month).
>You are an idiot
:-)
If a professor said that to me, I'd have his ass in the Dean's office pronto. Like, chill out.
>The cable itself is far cheaper than the act of laying thousands of miles of it
I'd tend to agree, but what is the point of laying two cables side by side when anything strong enough to cut through one cable is likely going to cut through the the cable beside it?
There's a way to implement redundancy, and that means some separate paths. Two cables going through the same spot only helps if you are VERY lucky. Two cables 100's of miles apart is much different. And if you start to lay cables miles apart from each other, you start to double the cost of the work (if you ask me...).
That would explain why I can't find a decent SCSI adapter, external cable, or terminator for anything under $20, $40, $15 (respectively).
SCSI is really nice (IMHO) but I wish they had designed more cost-reduction into it. If they had, I think it would have been the winning bus for the PC.
>Would'nt this have some interference?
For modern ATA-66 cables and SCSI cables, I would think so. These cables alternate DATA/Ground pins for sheilding/impedance purposes. When you separate these cables, you change the shielding and impedance properties of the cable.
To create a properly rounded ATA-66 or SCSI cable, you really need to separate it into pairs of Data / Ground, or else you change the properties of the cable. You'll likely get crosstalk and interference from the computer otherwise.
Oh, BTW: The 4 pairs (8 wires) in CAT 3/5 ethernet cable are there because in most standards you can use the other 4 wires for voice or another Ethernet connection. Also, the added redundancy means that if a wire turns out to be cut somewhere along the run, you are still OK (use a different pair).
Some ethernet standards actually use all 8 wires (like 100VG... that stuff's neat, doesn't use CDMA in the normal sense).
>He estimated that the chance of cancer was up to fifteen times more likely.
I'll bet at about (what was) $2.50 US a minute to call next-door you'll find people use these phones a few hundred times less than their land-based cousins (the phones, that is).
It's probably safer to use an Iridium phone than a real cell phone due to the amount of time any person (even rich) would dare spend with it on.
If you're desprate, try right clicking the links and opening them in a new window (or single middle click in X).
I've found that after selecting too much text, too many times, from netscape it won't let you click links anymore also. But otherwise, it works fine (as long as you open the links in new windows).
Strange...
>Even [most] car salesmen know where to draw the line!
;-)
I've been noticing you driving around that 1999 Ferrari. Would you like to upgrade to our top of the line Lada? We accept trade-ins.
>put my home page up at www.porn-free.xxx with no pornographic content whatsoever and be filtered
.xxx domain.
:-)
.xxx where it would be automatically filtered?
.xxx domain.
.xxx domain. Don't like that? Put it elsewhere, and take the risks, like (after a WIPO investigation) your IP going on a worldwide router blacklist, similar to MAPS RBL, for disobeying the "rules", not to mention legal fun.
Well, that would be _your_ choice. Don't want your non-porno site to be filtered? Don't put it in the
That's like saying "If I put my Disney shop in the red light district people won't go there". No sh*t, sherlock.
>Why would a porn company start hosting on
So the local government doesn't arrest them for purposely defrauding young children into visiting their site. By making it obvious that your site serves porn (ie: xxx domain) you CYA. Not just that, but you are making it easy for people who WANT porn (and will pay for it...) to find you.
eg: Altavista (or where-ever) could have a choice to search by domain. Then you search for what you want in the
>Filtering on something as trivial as that is just another step in the wrong direction.
Uhhh, trivial? You choose to be filtered by putting your site in the
It isn't much different than a newspaper. You can safely advertise your 900 number in the "Porno" section of the classifieds, but it won't be noticed unless someone is looking for it. You could, instead, take out a full page ad beside the comics. It'll be noticed alright. Then you'll be in hot (legal) water.
Just my 2 cents (ok, I think I'll quit using that line for a bit).
I checked out what I think is a-trend's website. www.atrend.com
:-)
The only motherboard they have a manual for that is Socket 7 and has both DIMM and SIMM slots is the ATC5300.
If this is the board you have, the manual says you can't mix 3.3v SDRAM and regular DRAM (in Chinaglish. I'd give $$$, just once, for a motherboard manual actually written in reasonable English.)
Some very old (4-5 years) SDRAM could handle 5 volts. Maybe you've got that?
But maybe they don't have all the manuals online. It wouldn't surprise me.
>perhaps it's more of a timing problem?
That's also very possible.
Your problem was probably the mixture of SIMMS (72-pin) and DIMMS (168-pin).
:-)
SIMMS run at 5 volts. DIMMS usually run at 3.3 volts (unless you spent a lot of dough on them, they will be running at 3.3 volts). Running a DIMM at 5 volts will either cause it to burn out, or will cause it to be unstable.
Running a SIMM at 3.3 volts will certainly cause it to be unstable, but will not cause it to burn out.
Since I have never, ever, heard of even the most expensive motherboard supporting both SIMMS and DIMMS at the same time (unless they are all 5 volts... which is why some manuals say they can use both at the same time), I would say your board didn't support it.
So, you were either ruining your DIMMS, or not supplying enough voltage to the SIMMS. Since you say the DIMMS and SIMMS by themselves appear to still work, I'll assume the latter. You're pretty lucky actually...
[if I'm wrong, please correct me...]
[I'm going to turn things around right now... It works both ways]
It's really because Windows is impossible to support. Redhat 7 is Redhat 7, plain and simple.
So you have Windows?
2/3.0/3.1/3.11/95 original/95A/95B/95 OSR2.5/98/98 SE/Win Me/NT 3.51/NT 4.0/Win2k?
Win16/Win32 built for 95/Win32 built for NT?
IE 3/4/5/5.5/6 beta?
x86/alpha?
Do you have xyz.dll in \windows\system?
Is it in your registry?
Do you have the latest service pack?
Don't forget the lack of proper Win 3.0 compatibility in Win 3.1 and after.
>Like it or not, most of the world uses (and will continue to use) Microsoft Windows.
[oh man am I offtopic]
I seem to remember someone saying similar things about 640k RAM, MS-DOS, and OS/2.
If you ask me, the gig is up for windows. All the people I used to be pushing Linux onto (hey, you gotta at least mention it to them) are now deciding to take a look at it on their own volition because [they say, although I do agree] "Microsoft software generally sucks". I'm not saying Linux will be the next big OS out there, but I am trying to say that Windows has hit saturation, and then some.
These people refuse to "upgrade" from W98 because W Me has been a disaster of an O/S. You get a bunch of sucky, unnecessary, bells and whistles hold the DOS for $70 and one big headache hoping your drivers for your older hardware hold together.
Windows Update has made it easy enough to update Win 98 security holes and bugs that this isn't a reason to upgrade anymore (like it was for many going from Win 95 to Win 98).
Of course, Bill G. doesn't worry about bugs, since these (by his definition) don't exist. See: http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
These same people don't want to go to W2k because they (like most others) don't have the requisite 256 MB RAM to get decent performance out of it [I hear it runs "ok" on 128 Mb though. But nothing spectacular.]. Not to mention that some hardware has no W2k drivers, and again, no Real DOS for "power users" (ie: Emergency Mode).
Microsoft has pushed users about for long enough, and I think the users are sending a clear message back by not upgrading past Win 98.
Like I've said before, Just my 2 cents. (I really don't want to see this become a flamewar... As a "computer monkey" [repair guy] my opinion just differs, that's all).
>takes ages to start
Netscape 6 takes me about 5-10 seconds to start. ie takes me about 10 seconds to start (that's what I figure it is adding to the time it takes for my computer to boot).
If Netscape was in my startup menu, and all I had to do to "load" it was to click on the minimized process in the taskbar, well it would be damn fast too.
>and looks nasty to boot
That's why it's skinnable. I think ie looks ugly, and find the new Netscape look refreshing myself. But (to the best of my knowledge) ie isn't skinnable, so you either like it, or leave it. (I left it).
>IE, on the other hand, is fast
Maybe for you. I find scrolling with the mouse in ie is an exercise in slowness. It's all in what matters to you.
>considerably more stable
Maybe a little more. It crashes about the same for me. Of course, whereas netscape just blows up and sometimes annoys me with its "full circle agent", ie explodes the OS.
I really hate runnnig simple items like browsers as root. Bad security policy. Running ie in the kernel gives it even handier access to my machine than root (if "root" existed in windows)... Not secure. And if it isn't at least reasonably secure, I'm not interested.
>but they make a damn fine web browser.
I suppose it depends on which side of the fence you are on.
I find Netscape also allows me to setup networked roving web-browsing profiles dead easy too. Copying them and backing them up is a cinch.
I never found an easy (ie: 3 steps or less) way to have roving profiles in ie without setting up policies and such... ugh... not fun at all for a home/small network.
Just my 2 cents.
My question is...
:-)
Have you ever gotten a response written in Smalltalk (ie: they're lying), or has it usually been a C++/Java program "crapified" into pseudo code?
Just curious...
>This GUI is closed-source (for whatever business reason, this is NOT the point).
:-)
Yes it is the point, if you ask me.
>Now GPL3 comes along, and of course gdb will move to it. What is hp to do ?
Open source EVERYTHING. You either do it the whole-assed way, or not at all. Trying to do something half-assed is only going to get you into trouble in the future.
The GPL isn't a "lets see if we can apply this here but not here" sort of license. It is all or nothing. Either GPL it all the way, or don't do it at all.
Imagine if the kernel was 1/2 GPL and 1/2 not. I can't. That's because the GPL isn't meant to work like that. The LGPL is meant for the half-assed approach.
Of course, all the above is just my opinion. If you think the GPL is meant to be used for half a project, and not for the other half, flame away...
>Installing = time = money = hurting people
Your software is going to have to be installed too, unless you make a deal with MS/Apple to get it "integrated" into their OS. This really is a non-issue, since if you _wanted_ too, your installation program could easily call a routine to install bash. Just include it on the CD.
>AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
It's too bad you feel that way. I write notes in textbooks I own all the time, and NOT ONCE has anyone ever complained. I also open electronic devices (sometimes) and modify them. Again, no complaints. I never even got any complaints when I sold some of this stuff, too. For the kicker, I've seen many modification plans on the internet that get nary a complaint from the company (unless it is computer hardware).
Hell, once I took an old lamp with a cracked base and smashed the base right off so I could use the bulb holder in another project. Again, never heard any complaints.
I think that software (and occasionally computer hardware) developers are the only ones in the world that have the strange notion: "Modifying my stuff is immoral." I can't even think of a religion that supports the idea.
Oh well, each to his own, I guess.
>"an off button"
Boss dials 555-1212.
"I'm sorry, but the customer you have just dialed is either out of ranger or has deactivated their cell phone. Please try your call again."
Boss bitches at employee for not keeping company phone on.
If you leave the phone on and turn down the ringer, the boss still knows you aren't answering it when it rings 20 times. Then he bitches at you again.
Either way you look at it, a cell phone makes life hard if you don't want to be contacted.
>That is confusion
:-)
Based on not understanding something (there must be a better, non-insulting, way to say this). If, for example, I have no clue about electrical installations, and I wire a power plug with two male ends, and electrocute myself by using it, my "confusion" is my own and is not legally binding against the company, even though labelling said "power plugs", which could be confusing (if you don't know English).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying non-English speakers are under educated. I'm just saying that the lack of understanding about something doesn't give you an automatic legal right to change it. If I don't understand English, I have _no right_ to pass judgement on an English webpage; Most especially no right to pass judgement based on a title.
If I were to beleive that, I would have equated your post with Swahili information about Urethane Sealant and would have contacted Thompson's to make the necessary lawsuits immediately. But I think that the name/titling of a post doesn't mean its contents are the same.
In other words, you can't sue a book by its cover. It's what's inside that counts. And if I saw a webpage titled "Sucking Guinness" written in Swahili, I wouldn't assume they mean anything about beer, or sucking.
If I were to follow your logic, for example, this would happen: I don't speak Swedish. But hey, this site should be shut down: kändis-Guinness 2000, http://stockholm-just.nu/skvaller/guinness.htm because they use the word Guinness in their title. The rest of the title, and page, as a non-Swedish speaking person, leads me to believe that Guinness sells Candies, only started business in the year 2000, and likes to put supermodels on TV.
But I don't think like that because I know that I don't speak Swedish and therefore should assume nothing.
And I hope to God no one in Sweden sells a product "shepd" that automatically deletes slashdot posts. Because in that case the WIPO would toast me too.
But hey, no one says anyone has to agree with me... Unless I was international organization.
>they are a MAJOR international company, and I can think of a non-english speaker thinking guinness-sucks.com would be a website about how to drink guinness or something...
Something can get lost in the translation, I agree. For example, when I translate "I am a jelly donut" to German on Babelfish, then back to English, I get "I am a jelly foam rubber ring". Unless I get my donuts from Krispy Kreme, this isn't true.
But I know that when I click on "English to German" and "German to English" that I shouldn't trust the output.
Same thing when I see English words on a site with an English title. If I didn't speak English I would:
- Not have a clue what is going on
- Not trust what _my_ native language to figure out what is on the page.
The same applies for a newspaper. For example, a real Quebec (French) newspaper is called "Les Affaires". But, I realise when I see the newspaper it is in French. At that point I give up on the assumption that "Les Affaires" is actually short form for a newspaper covering Lesbian Affairs. I don't ask them to change their newspaper's name to "Quebec/French Newspaper", or even ask them to quit publishing it.
The same applies for websites. If you don't speak English, and visit an English site, assume nothing. In fact, leave and find a site that can inform you in a manner you understand.
Just an idea.
No they don't do that at all ...
...Or do they?
This Page sez the winner is the ATI Radeon DDR 32MB card. Although it didn't score _that_ much higher than the others. Just a couple of points.
3dfx, Leadtek, and the MSI card have the best price. The Radeon DDR is the highest in performance.
The lamest cards for performance: The 3dfx and the Matrox G450.
There are 28 pages in total, FYI.