You're not seeing the big picture, dude. Unix/Linux is still not ready for the desktop (for actual work, not playing MP3s) although I'm sure it's just swell for a web server. I'm not saying it can never be but someone has got to put some capital into it. Microsoft did that a long time ago and that's why it's multiplied like rats since then. So far, the only legitimate options we (garden variety users) have are Windows and Mac. Believe me, I sorely want another OS to choose from. I'm a de-facto sysadmin for a company who uses NT4 (my servers have run fine for years also) but I argue constantly in favor of Unix whenever I talk to someone who is misguided enough to fall for the DoJ's view of the Microsoft "monopoly." Can we still be friends?
That's all well and good but what do the rest of us who load RedHat Linux do when, after a couple of hours, come aross a 'python' error and can't continue? Unix may be more bulletproof but only after you get it running. Should we all become computer hobbyists first and then do our real work (accounting, HR, etc) later? Fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Microsoft, people like me would still not be using computers (at least not in the capacity that we use them now) but then again, some people would like it if it were still the domain of programmers and such. Another consideration is that, like them or not, Microsoft does raise the bar and gooses other software/OS firms to do the same to compete (key word: compete). Why don't you let Microsoft pass or fail on its merits/demerits instead of lambasting them and trying to shame them into backing off?
Given your rebuttal, I would ask you to ponder how much disk space would be saved in a large investment firm with multiple T-3 lines and lots of people with nothing better to do than download 25+ Mb movie trailers.
Sorry if I sounded so huffy. But if the idea has been out for a while and all these open source guys are out there, why didn't the problem get solved a long time ago? I personally live in a network that is clogged with duplicate files and it just doesn't need to be. I'm not in love with Microsoft (I'll use whatever fits my needs) but they did make the computer a viable tool to many people like myself.
Maybe you guys with the cute "nicks" are not as bright as you think you are. What Microsoft is doing, and has been doing, is bringing technology to the rest of us. If you had read the article instead of just the bitter-flavored teaser, you would realize that what is being developed is not a symbolic link but a way of transparently and automatically controlling redundency which has plagued computers since the beginning of (computer) time. Or maybe you guys are uncomfortable with the idea of computers that can be used by everyone - not just geeks who hide behind code names.
Slashdot Mirror
If I break into your house, even if I didn't take anything, wouldn't you want me to be arrested?
I agree. 'Nuff said.
You're not seeing the big picture, dude. Unix/Linux is still not ready for the desktop (for actual work, not playing MP3s) although I'm sure it's just swell for a web server. I'm not saying it can never be but someone has got to put some capital into it. Microsoft did that a long time ago and that's why it's multiplied like rats since then. So far, the only legitimate options we (garden variety users) have are Windows and Mac. Believe me, I sorely want another OS to choose from. I'm a de-facto sysadmin for a company who uses NT4 (my servers have run fine for years also) but I argue constantly in favor of Unix whenever I talk to someone who is misguided enough to fall for the DoJ's view of the Microsoft "monopoly." Can we still be friends?
Then isn't 15 years enough for someone to come along and improve upon it? Or should we wait for an open source guy to just get around to it?
That's all well and good but what do the rest of us who load RedHat Linux do when, after a couple of hours, come aross a 'python' error and can't continue? Unix may be more bulletproof but only after you get it running. Should we all become computer hobbyists first and then do our real work (accounting, HR, etc) later? Fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Microsoft, people like me would still not be using computers (at least not in the capacity that we use them now) but then again, some people would like it if it were still the domain of programmers and such. Another consideration is that, like them or not, Microsoft does raise the bar and gooses other software/OS firms to do the same to compete (key word: compete). Why don't you let Microsoft pass or fail on its merits/demerits instead of lambasting them and trying to shame them into backing off?
Given your rebuttal, I would ask you to ponder how much disk space would be saved in a large investment firm with multiple T-3 lines and lots of people with nothing better to do than download 25+ Mb movie trailers.
Sorry if I sounded so huffy. But if the idea has been out for a while and all these open source guys are out there, why didn't the problem get solved a long time ago? I personally live in a network that is clogged with duplicate files and it just doesn't need to be. I'm not in love with Microsoft (I'll use whatever fits my needs) but they did make the computer a viable tool to many people like myself.
Maybe you guys with the cute "nicks" are not as bright as you think you are. What Microsoft is doing, and has been doing, is bringing technology to the rest of us. If you had read the article instead of just the bitter-flavored teaser, you would realize that what is being developed is not a symbolic link but a way of transparently and automatically controlling redundency which has plagued computers since the beginning of (computer) time. Or maybe you guys are uncomfortable with the idea of computers that can be used by everyone - not just geeks who hide behind code names.