That is a "lame excuse" not a "good reason" for MS to be using state resources, enjoying the advantages of being in WA State (one of the prettiest and most alluring places in the world), and not contributing a bit upkeep.
WTF are you talking about? Microsoft paid over 1 billion in taxes just last quarter alone.
No, but she still uses DOS 6.11 whenever she can. To the bane of those of us who have to hear about her wanting to reinstall it.
Can she set up her wireless interface with that command line? Or even GUI?
Why would she need to? Windows sets it up already for her without needing to.
My point was there is a tool for every job, and we have Windows and Macs for consumer level requirements. I don't want to see Linux bogged trying to support all hardware and all users for all situations to the point it becomes a useless tool for serious users.
No, your point was to try to act 1337 by bragging about how you can use a CLI when that's not an impressive feat.
Unix and Linux is for people who know what they are doing.
No, Unix was created in order to run a multi-user environment and was used extensively by people who didn't know much about the internals of the computer or their OS. The notion that Unix is for "1337 h4x0r5" only is fairly new phenomenon created by people who have a need to try to act superior to others because they can use a text editor and the CLI. These "1337 h4x0r5" often forget the fact that plenty of "regular" users were using the CLI all the time during the DOS days. Hell even my 78 year old grandma can use a CLI.
Unlike to the case of proprietary software, we are not being forced to upgrade to "bloated mess".
People keep mentioning that yet I use tons of old version of proprietary software all the time. I guess I've magically been able to resist this "forced upgrade path" that is always claimed.
This is why it's still considered acceptable for a desktop computer to boot in more than 5 seconds.
No it's considered acceptable because most people on reboot their systems on occasion. Smart people just put their computers to sleep or in hibernate when not using them so the speed of a cold boot really is a meaningless figure.
Well, you wouldn't necessarily expect x86 support on a non x86 architecture, would you.
It need not, and should not, be a deal breaker though.
Except for all the people running apps that only run on x86 that aren't going to up and ditch those programs to run an OS ported to an ARM chip. Yes, other than that huge barrier to switching there is no deal breaker.
I call bullshit, 2003 Server is basically the same codebase as XP with some extended (server) features.
And you know this how? Please enlighten us to how you have privy access to the codebases of XP and Server 2003 to definitively state this.
This is purely a strategic move to scare people into upgrading.
That's funny because they mark this as low risk for Windows XP which would seem to run contrary to a point of scaring people into upgrading away from it.
Their reasoning that XP is safe because it comes with the firewall enabled by default is bullshit too, soon as you join the machine to AD it's going to be vulnerable to any rouge device on the local broadcast domain.
If you're dumb enough to let rogue devices on the local broadcast domain, you probably deserve the consequences.
It finally makes the point about GNU/Linux obvious by showing exactly how replaceable the 'Linux' part is. You can run GNU/Linux software on GNU/kFreeBSD if it has the Linux ABI layer loaded (and even without it if it doesn't make system calls directly, just via glibc), but you can't run GNU/Linux software on an non-GNU system at all easily.
I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that you could run GNU tools on a BSD. That is considering that the BSDs use many of the GNU tools in their base systems.
# It frees the GNU project from dependency upon Linux. HURD is a nice research project, but it's not really a competitor to Linux. The GNU project wants a complete OS and doesn't want to have to depend on someone who is hostile to the FSF (Linus) for one of the key parts.
Yes, because the BSDs just absolutely love RMS and the FSF. LOL
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you so quick to jump to Microsofts defense?
So if you don't gush over Google that means you're jumping to Microsoft's defense?
Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in.
So then why are you using Google's proprietary products then?
OH HELL NO! The thing I absolutely hate about office 2007 is the god damn ribbon. Its the most assinine user-unfriendly POS I have seen since vi.
And yet once you leave the likes of sites like Slashdot you will notice that plenty of people like it.
Guess why MS isn't releasing the bulk of their apps using the Ribbon UI?
Because it's still fairly new and it always takes some time even for them to incorporate new things into even a majority of their products?
At 4000 lines of code every second (e.g. 4GHz) you are looking at 33.2 years to check that much code.
GHz = 1 billion cycles per second. You're only about 6 orders of magnitude off.
That is a "lame excuse" not a "good reason" for MS to be using state resources, enjoying the advantages of being in WA State (one of the prettiest and most alluring places in the world), and not contributing a bit upkeep.
WTF are you talking about? Microsoft paid over 1 billion in taxes just last quarter alone.
Then is she at home using unix?
No, but she still uses DOS 6.11 whenever she can. To the bane of those of us who have to hear about her wanting to reinstall it.
Can she set up her wireless interface with that command line? Or even GUI?
Why would she need to? Windows sets it up already for her without needing to.
My point was there is a tool for every job, and we have Windows and Macs for consumer level requirements. I don't want to see Linux bogged trying to support all hardware and all users for all situations to the point it becomes a useless tool for serious users.
No, your point was to try to act 1337 by bragging about how you can use a CLI when that's not an impressive feat.
Which is half the length of what Microsoft provides for their OSes.
Unix and Linux is for people who know what they are doing.
No, Unix was created in order to run a multi-user environment and was used extensively by people who didn't know much about the internals of the computer or their OS. The notion that Unix is for "1337 h4x0r5" only is fairly new phenomenon created by people who have a need to try to act superior to others because they can use a text editor and the CLI. These "1337 h4x0r5" often forget the fact that plenty of "regular" users were using the CLI all the time during the DOS days. Hell even my 78 year old grandma can use a CLI.
Unlike to the case of proprietary software, we are not being forced to upgrade to "bloated mess".
People keep mentioning that yet I use tons of old version of proprietary software all the time. I guess I've magically been able to resist this "forced upgrade path" that is always claimed.
This is why it's still considered acceptable for a desktop computer to boot in more than 5 seconds.
No it's considered acceptable because most people on reboot their systems on occasion. Smart people just put their computers to sleep or in hibernate when not using them so the speed of a cold boot really is a meaningless figure.
Well, you wouldn't necessarily expect x86 support on a non x86 architecture, would you.
It need not, and should not, be a deal breaker though.
Except for all the people running apps that only run on x86 that aren't going to up and ditch those programs to run an OS ported to an ARM chip. Yes, other than that huge barrier to switching there is no deal breaker.
That's because significantly more work was put in to it then a simple recompile. Which was the whole point of the GP.
I call bullshit, 2003 Server is basically the same codebase as XP with some extended (server) features.
And you know this how? Please enlighten us to how you have privy access to the codebases of XP and Server 2003 to definitively state this.
This is purely a strategic move to scare people into upgrading.
That's funny because they mark this as low risk for Windows XP which would seem to run contrary to a point of scaring people into upgrading away from it.
Their reasoning that XP is safe because it comes with the firewall enabled by default is bullshit too, soon as you join the machine to AD it's going to be vulnerable to any rouge device on the local broadcast domain.
If you're dumb enough to let rogue devices on the local broadcast domain, you probably deserve the consequences.
It's called apt. It's already widely deployed in Debian and Ubuntu, and has been for a long time. The problem is solved.
Did you forget to read the top of the figure where it says "Microsoft OS" and not "Linux"?
What part of "no software liability regulations" did you not understand?
Yes, because it's quite simple to backport fixes to a codebase that is 10 years out of sync with your mainline.
It finally makes the point about GNU/Linux obvious by showing exactly how replaceable the 'Linux' part is. You can run GNU/Linux software on GNU/kFreeBSD if it has the Linux ABI layer loaded (and even without it if it doesn't make system calls directly, just via glibc), but you can't run GNU/Linux software on an non-GNU system at all easily.
I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that you could run GNU tools on a BSD. That is considering that the BSDs use many of the GNU tools in their base systems.
# It frees the GNU project from dependency upon Linux. HURD is a nice research project, but it's not really a competitor to Linux. The GNU project wants a complete OS and doesn't want to have to depend on someone who is hostile to the FSF (Linus) for one of the key parts.
Yes, because the BSDs just absolutely love RMS and the FSF. LOL