I've had my Visor Deluxe since January, and I absolutely love it. My first Visor died after two weeks, but I called their tech support, and they overnighted me a new one, no questions asked! I put my old one in the return box, sent it back to 'em, and I've had no problems since. It runs like a charm, and I've even been able to get it to work with Linux using the Linux Palm apps. I highly recommend the Visor. For what you pay (in my case, approx $240) you get a great deal, and the Springboard socket makes 'em very expandable.
Great idea, but unfortunately, the journalistic community defends its own as vigorously as we defend members of the Linux world.
Indeed, if Linus or Alan were to have written that article, and replaced every negative reference to Linux with Windows 2000, chances are we all would be praising the article for its "...accuracy and unbiased analysis of Windows 2000 in comparison with Linux...". Granted, Linus and Alan *wouldn't* write an article of that nature, but we're speaking hypothetically here.
If we make demands of ABC to ban Fred Moody (who is, obviously, not a true journalist, but an editorialist), they'll ignore us, or at best, defend Fred Moody's article as an exercise in free speech.
Uh, oh! Did I say "free speech?" Another point of irony:/. rants constantly about free speech, yet when someone with access to a large-access forum makes a statement we/.ers don't like, we immediately start demanding that he be banned, not be allowed to make his statements, he needs to be shut up, he has no right to say what he wants to say.
So, does free speech only apply to the things that we on/. like? Are we, in fact, espousing a double-standard? "Say what we like, and it's free speech. Say what we hate, and we'll ban you." Hypocracy isn't limited only to Fred Moody, it would appear.
Remember, chums, the journalists are going to defend Fredo, because he's one of their own. Let them. We need to start practicing what we preach. If we're going to be a forum advocating free speech, then we need to advocate that freedom for everyone, including Fred Moody.
Before we all start saying "Hotmail's going to die! Win2K can't handle the load!", let's wait and see what happens. We may be surprised: perhaps MS has finally started getting it right. Perhaps Win2K *can* handle the load. Right now, we simply don't know.
What we do know is that the Apache/BSD combo is very capable of doing the job. We can use that as evidence to convince the pointy-haired types of the validity of Linux/BSD/Apache as reliable tools, even though they're free.
I'm very interested to see the end results. Can Win2K handle the load? Is its reliability finally on par with *NIX? Will Marsha ever love again? (Uh... nevermind...)
I am a huge fan of Linux and BSD. I hate the crap that comes out of Redmond. However, I'm also a firm believer in "the best tool for the job." If Linux is the best, use it. If Windows does what you need, use it.
Those of us in the IT field aren't being paid for our prejudices for or against particular operating systems. We're paid to get the stuff to work right at the highest level of efficiency and reliability.
I'm very interested to see what the end results of this move are going to be.
What we need is product liability for this sort of thing. A few billion-dollar lawsuits will make Microsoft, Red Hat, and VA Linux get their act together.
Won't happen as long as software vendors are able to avoid warranties and guarantees of expected service level.
Make the vendors responsible for their software's performance, and perhaps a few of them will get things together. Otherwise, don't count on it.
For your Linux distribution to comply to the Ether Trogg Linux Standards Base, your distribution of Linux must contain the following:
The Linux Kernel Those nifty-neato GNU tools A C compiler would be nice Hmm... that X Window System thingy Oh, yeah, and the source code for all the above.
Follow this guideline, and you, too, can have a fully compliant Linux distribution!
Geez, you people have to be the most paranoid individuals outside of an insane asylum! Stop and think for a few minutes before whining about "Big, Evil Government gonna crush MY internet!"
First off, why would the US Govt. want to attempt to shut down the Internet? Yeah, there are a few ultra-conservative morons in Congress who get their panties in a wad about pr0n, but ol' Jesse "I hate everything" Helms and Dan "Let's launch another investigation" Burton don't have enough sway to shut down the entire US part of the Internet.
Second, what would be gained by shutting down the Internet? Hmmm... let's see... well, we'd piss off virtually every other nation on Earth, along with lots and lots of the US voting public (who still, believe it or not, wield an incredible amount of power.) Many of the US's most successful companies depend on the Internet, so we'd be cutting off a lucrative source of cashflow. But, by God, we'd stop that pr0n! Beyond that, there's no advantageous gain for shutting down the Internet. You may not believe this, but the US Govt. isn't that stupid.
Third, how would the US Govt. shut down the Internet? The very foundation of the Internet (as defined by the US Military when the Internet was first being built) was for extreme redundancy in the event of massive loss of nodes. This redundancy has extended out beyond the US borders to most of the world. Also, not every ISP has the Carnivore systems installed, and the reaction if the Carnivore'd systems were shutdown would be to rapidly deploy new systems that weren't Carnivore'd.
Furthermore, there are probably many, many people in US Govt. service that have thought of these and other reasons for why shutting down the Internet would be a bad idea. The US Govt. is the largest employer in the nation, so they've got a lot of smart people working for them.
Time to stop reading George Orwell, kids! Time to stop believing the X-Files! Just because it's a government doesn't automatically mean that it's going to take away each and every right and privledge you have. It's one thing to be an idealist, wanting to better the government for future generations, but this incessant "the Govt. is always evil, it's always Big Brother, and it can never be trusted" is really becoming ridiculous.
150 years ago John Brown said that slavery was wrong, even though it was the law of the land. He protested in the only way he knew how, which was a flagrant violation of the law, was captured, branded a traitor, and hung.
Today slavery is illegal. Today slavery is considered abhorent. Today we call John Brown a hero, even though he broke the law.
Washington broke the law. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin broke the law. Susan B. Anthony broke the law. William Wallace broke the law. Mohandas Gandhi broke the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. broke the law. Schindler broke the law. Thousands of people like them broke the law, not for personal gain, or revenge, or anger, but because the law was wrong.
A law is only good if it benefits the whole of the people being affected by it. A law is wrong if it benefits a select few to the detriment of the many.
If plot is the be all end all (which, I agree, it should be) then why was "Starship Troopers" so successful?
It was 90210 in space, with bad acting, stupid plotline, horrid dialogue (the best dialogue in the movie was the redhead coughing up blood!), and actors with absolutely no talent.
I felt more of an attachment and interest in the welfare of the Arachnids than the humans,and the Arachnids were nothing more than computer-generated special effects! (And I hate spiders!) They *did* have gripping dialogue: "Screech! Screechschree! Eeee! EEEEEeee!" Yep, stirred my soul.
So please explain to me how such a hideous movie could be so successful, when your argument is that plot is absolutely necessary for a movie to succeed.
In fact, on that note, why did Independence Day, Twister, Deep Impact, Armageddon (sp?), etc. succeed? Again, no plot, just great FX with big things blowing up.
SOL SYSTEM - Jupiter Satellite Enterprises (JSE) was awarded the patent on "moons" today after patent reviewers said "wow, we'd have never thought of that!" JSE immediately filed lawsuits against Earth, Inc., Consolidated Mars, the Saturn Company (not affiliated with the automobile manufacturer), Uranus Systems, and Neptune Affiliates, claiming patent and intellectual property infringement.
When asked why no suits had been filed against Pluto concerning its natural satellite Charon, spokesdroids of JSE responded, "Pluto's not a real planet, just a annoying big asteroid who occasionally gets in Neptune's way." Pluto responded by saying "Piss off! Damn, it's cold out here!"
The defendents each responded quickly, with Earth, Inc., and Consolidated Mars both claiming prior use of moons, and the Saturn Company saying, "We have more moons than Jupiter, our rings are prettier, and we can float in water, so they can get bent!" Neptune Affiliates had no immediate comment, while Uranus Systems was quoted as saying "Quit making fun of our name!"
Re:Slashdot Users and Spam
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
No, not really. I hate to admit it, though, but it does kinda taste good, especially with tomato, lettuce, and a good dijon mustard.
I've never been to SV, so I have no idea what it's like in that area, beyond what I've read here on/. and other geek-sites. However, I've always been curious about one thing:
Why does everyone seem to believe that Dot-Com companies must exist in the Valley? It seems to me that the overwhelming opinion is that if your particular DC doesn't exist in SV, then it's not a true DC, and therefore sucks, etc., etc., etc.
I work for a DC. We have two major offices (one in San Francisco, the other in Charlotte NC), and a few smaller offices elsewhere. We don't sit dead-center of the Valley, and a large portion of our software engineers are in Charlotte. Does that mean we automatically suck, and are doomed to failure?
My brother works for another DC that's based in Raleigh, NC. They're about as far away from the Valley as you can get in the continental US. Does that mean they're wasting their time, and won't be around in two weeks?
It seems to me that far too many people are obsessed with locating in the Silicon Valley, with all the baggage that includes: high cost of living, annoying neighbors, little chance for success with the opposite sex. Why?
The real irony is that a DC company can exist anywhere, provided you have a good connection to the Internet. Yet everyone seems consumed by the idea that DCs must be located in SV.
Intellecutal? Intellecutal? What the hell does that mean? Are these the new aliens that Butt F*kem must fend off while gratuitously ripping off quotes from "Army of Darkness"?
"Look out, Butt F*kem! The Intellecutals are attacking!"
At which point we get to see our hero stomp mudholes into the chests of everyone opposed to UCITA.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the anal lube."
Maybe he can team up with Blow Wang from Sh*tty Warrior for a gay romp through LawyerLand! "Blow Wang come to sue you, little free-speech coward!"
Any type of CensorWare (CW) that uses any form of encryption on its blacklist is fated to be broken. The whole concept of the Open Source Movement supports this: 1000+ eyes peering deep into the quality and structure of your software.
Those 1000+ eyes all have computers, and quite a few will have mathematical and progamming skills capable to dissecting the encryption used by the CW blacklists. All it takes is a little time, and the encryption will be broken.
Strangely enough, the US Govt's ban on exporting high-level encryption actually assists in this -- someone outside Canada or the US with a good machine can crack the export version of these CW blacklists in a short span of time.
Perhaps 5 years ago, this would not have been the case, but now we have personal computers that have massive calculative capabilities (equal to a Cray of 20 years ago??), and the ability to distribute the calculation/cracking process over multiple machines running 24/7. The encryption will fail.
So, will there ever be a time when CW blacklists are encrypted in such a manner that completely defeats the resourceful hacker? Not bloody likely.
Keep up the good work, guys. Every one of your successes shows the true meaning of Freedom of Speech.
I keep hearing this stuff about how we're about to have a fossil fuel shortage, and how we're going to run out of oil and natural gas and such in "just a few years," and it leads me to ask a question:
How do we know we're running short of fossil fuels?
Granted, the amount of fossil fuels on this planet is finite, but how are we coming to the conclusion that we're almost out? Is there a giant gas gauge somewhere? Perhaps a monstrous dip-stick jutting out of the earth?
To know that we are about to run out of fossil fuels would require knowledge of the exact amount left on the planet, and *no one can possibly know that*! There are projections and estimates on the total amount of fuel, but no one can know with absolute certainty the exact amount of fossil fuels contained by this planet! New sources of fuels are still being discovered, and new technologies are allowing us to harvest from oil wells that 10 years ago would have been abandoned as "non-productive". Therefore, we cannot possibly know when all the fossil fuels will be depleted, and your doomsaying is a waste.
Quote: "We will have a net natural gas shortage within two years as it is a local market." How do you know that? Where did you get this 'fact'? What is your undeniable proof?
Quote: "Oil will take a little longer - about 2008 - 2010." Again, where is your proof? Show me your figures, and prove to me that your figures and facts are, indeed, truthful and accurate.
To say that you know exactly how much crude petroleum is left on this planet is like saying you know exactly how many star there are in our galaxy. You can guess, but you have no way of knowing.
I wonder if they'll have specs for all their laptops. I have a Sat. Pro 490 CDT that I'd love to get Linux fully running on. I could get RH installed, but never had any luck with the PCMCIA stuff.
How many of you remember the early 80's, right after the original PCs came out, how bad the motherboard manuals were?
I honestly thought that they were translated from Japanese into English by a Russian who couldn't read either language.
Got to admit, though, that I do miss those manuals. They included specs for designing and implementing your own slots and ISA cards. I blasted many old PC motherboards because of the poor translations, but oh what fun it was!!
"For taht which is interface will interfacing with motherboard at clock ticks of 4.77 MHz."
As a computer network engineer, I know that I would most likely not suggest Linux (even with KDE) to be the front-end of a new system. Too many end-users are familiar and comfortable with the Windows 95 interface, and they know Windows apps and are functional with them. Putting Linux on the front end would be inviting disaster. (Ever worked Help Desk? Think of all the questions you get there on Windows 95, and then imagine how that would be with Linux!)
However, the backend is a different story. This is where reliability, performance, and sheer power are most needed. I have no qualms at all recommending Linux, esp. in places where the IT department is well developed, and already has UNIX experience.
Furthermore, the front end only affects one person per computer: the person sitting in front of the computer. If that computer hoses, then only one person is affected. If the backend hoses, *everyone* is affected. So, put something familiar and relatively stable on the front end -- Windows NT -- and put the real strength on the backend -- Linux. Combine the two and you've got a lethal, capable system that combines the familiar but somewhat unreliable (NT) with the exotic but powerful and robust (Linux).
Slashdot Mirror
I've had my Visor Deluxe since January, and I absolutely love it. My first Visor died after two weeks, but I called their tech support, and they overnighted me a new one, no questions asked! I put my old one in the return box, sent it back to 'em, and I've had no problems since. It runs like a charm, and I've even been able to get it to work with Linux using the Linux Palm apps. I highly recommend the Visor. For what you pay (in my case, approx $240) you get a great deal, and the Springboard socket makes 'em very expandable.
Great idea, but unfortunately, the journalistic community defends its own as vigorously as we defend members of the Linux world.
/. rants constantly about free speech, yet when someone with access to a large-access forum makes a statement we /.ers don't like, we immediately start demanding that he be banned, not be allowed to make his statements, he needs to be shut up, he has no right to say what he wants to say.
/. like? Are we, in fact, espousing a double-standard? "Say what we like, and it's free speech. Say what we hate, and we'll ban you." Hypocracy isn't limited only to Fred Moody, it would appear.
Indeed, if Linus or Alan were to have written that article, and replaced every negative reference to Linux with Windows 2000, chances are we all would be praising the article for its "...accuracy and unbiased analysis of Windows 2000 in comparison with Linux...". Granted, Linus and Alan *wouldn't* write an article of that nature, but we're speaking hypothetically here.
If we make demands of ABC to ban Fred Moody (who is, obviously, not a true journalist, but an editorialist), they'll ignore us, or at best, defend Fred Moody's article as an exercise in free speech.
Uh, oh! Did I say "free speech?" Another point of irony:
So, does free speech only apply to the things that we on
Remember, chums, the journalists are going to defend Fredo, because he's one of their own. Let them. We need to start practicing what we preach. If we're going to be a forum advocating free speech, then we need to advocate that freedom for everyone, including Fred Moody.
Opaque from the lack of sunlight? So, if that's ture, then people who spend all their time in the sun become transparent?
Hot damn! Invisibility, here I come!
Before we all start saying "Hotmail's going to die! Win2K can't handle the load!", let's wait and see what happens. We may be surprised: perhaps MS has finally started getting it right. Perhaps Win2K *can* handle the load. Right now, we simply don't know.
What we do know is that the Apache/BSD combo is very capable of doing the job. We can use that as evidence to convince the pointy-haired types of the validity of Linux/BSD/Apache as reliable tools, even though they're free.
I'm very interested to see the end results. Can Win2K handle the load? Is its reliability finally on par with *NIX? Will Marsha ever love again? (Uh... nevermind...)
I am a huge fan of Linux and BSD. I hate the crap that comes out of Redmond. However, I'm also a firm believer in "the best tool for the job." If Linux is the best, use it. If Windows does what you need, use it.
Those of us in the IT field aren't being paid for our prejudices for or against particular operating systems. We're paid to get the stuff to work right at the highest level of efficiency and reliability.
I'm very interested to see what the end results of this move are going to be.
Won't happen as long as software vendors are able to avoid warranties and guarantees of expected service level.
Make the vendors responsible for their software's performance, and perhaps a few of them will get things together. Otherwise, don't count on it.
For your Linux distribution to comply to the Ether Trogg Linux Standards Base, your distribution of Linux must contain the following:
The Linux Kernel
Those nifty-neato GNU tools
A C compiler would be nice
Hmm... that X Window System thingy
Oh, yeah, and the source code for all the above.
Follow this guideline, and you, too, can have a fully compliant Linux distribution!
See, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Heh...
Geez, you people have to be the most paranoid individuals outside of an insane asylum! Stop and think for a few minutes before whining about "Big, Evil Government gonna crush MY internet!"
First off, why would the US Govt. want to attempt to shut down the Internet? Yeah, there are a few ultra-conservative morons in Congress who get their panties in a wad about pr0n, but ol' Jesse "I hate everything" Helms and Dan "Let's launch another investigation" Burton don't have enough sway to shut down the entire US part of the Internet.
Second, what would be gained by shutting down the Internet? Hmmm... let's see... well, we'd piss off virtually every other nation on Earth, along with lots and lots of the US voting public (who still, believe it or not, wield an incredible amount of power.) Many of the US's most successful companies depend on the Internet, so we'd be cutting off a lucrative source of cashflow. But, by God, we'd stop that pr0n! Beyond that, there's no advantageous gain for shutting down the Internet. You may not believe this, but the US Govt. isn't that stupid.
Third, how would the US Govt. shut down the Internet? The very foundation of the Internet (as defined by the US Military when the Internet was first being built) was for extreme redundancy in the event of massive loss of nodes. This redundancy has extended out beyond the US borders to most of the world. Also, not every ISP has the Carnivore systems installed, and the reaction if the Carnivore'd systems were shutdown would be to rapidly deploy new systems that weren't Carnivore'd.
Furthermore, there are probably many, many people in US Govt. service that have thought of these and other reasons for why shutting down the Internet would be a bad idea. The US Govt. is the largest employer in the nation, so they've got a lot of smart people working for them.
Time to stop reading George Orwell, kids! Time to stop believing the X-Files! Just because it's a government doesn't automatically mean that it's going to take away each and every right and privledge you have. It's one thing to be an idealist, wanting to better the government for future generations, but this incessant "the Govt. is always evil, it's always Big Brother, and it can never be trusted" is really becoming ridiculous.
150 years ago John Brown said that slavery was wrong, even though it was the law of the land. He protested in the only way he knew how, which was a flagrant violation of the law, was captured, branded a traitor, and hung.
Today slavery is illegal. Today slavery is considered abhorent. Today we call John Brown a hero, even though he broke the law.
Washington broke the law. Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin broke the law. Susan B. Anthony broke the law. William Wallace broke the law. Mohandas Gandhi broke the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. broke the law. Schindler broke the law. Thousands of people like them broke the law, not for personal gain, or revenge, or anger, but because the law was wrong.
A law is only good if it benefits the whole of the people being affected by it. A law is wrong if it benefits a select few to the detriment of the many.
If plot is the be all end all (which, I agree, it should be) then why was "Starship Troopers" so successful?
It was 90210 in space, with bad acting, stupid plotline, horrid dialogue (the best dialogue in the movie was the redhead coughing up blood!), and actors with absolutely no talent.
I felt more of an attachment and interest in the welfare of the Arachnids than the humans,and the Arachnids were nothing more than computer-generated special effects! (And I hate spiders!) They *did* have gripping dialogue: "Screech! Screechschree! Eeee! EEEEEeee!" Yep, stirred my soul.
So please explain to me how such a hideous movie could be so successful, when your argument is that plot is absolutely necessary for a movie to succeed.
In fact, on that note, why did Independence Day, Twister, Deep Impact, Armageddon (sp?), etc. succeed? Again, no plot, just great FX with big things blowing up.
SOL SYSTEM - Jupiter Satellite Enterprises (JSE) was awarded the patent on "moons" today after patent reviewers said "wow, we'd have never thought of that!" JSE immediately filed lawsuits against Earth, Inc., Consolidated Mars, the Saturn Company (not affiliated with the automobile manufacturer), Uranus Systems, and Neptune Affiliates, claiming patent and intellectual property infringement.
When asked why no suits had been filed against Pluto concerning its natural satellite Charon, spokesdroids of JSE responded, "Pluto's not a real planet, just a annoying big asteroid who occasionally gets in Neptune's way." Pluto responded by saying "Piss off! Damn, it's cold out here!"
The defendents each responded quickly, with Earth, Inc., and Consolidated Mars both claiming prior use of moons, and the Saturn Company saying, "We have more moons than Jupiter, our rings are prettier, and we can float in water, so they can get bent!" Neptune Affiliates had no immediate comment, while Uranus Systems was quoted as saying "Quit making fun of our name!"
No, not really. I hate to admit it, though, but it does kinda taste good, especially with tomato, lettuce, and a good dijon mustard.
Heh...
I've never been to SV, so I have no idea what it's like in that area, beyond what I've read here on /. and other geek-sites. However, I've always been curious about one thing:
Why does everyone seem to believe that Dot-Com companies must exist in the Valley? It seems to me that the overwhelming opinion is that if your particular DC doesn't exist in SV, then it's not a true DC, and therefore sucks, etc., etc., etc.
I work for a DC. We have two major offices (one in San Francisco, the other in Charlotte NC), and a few smaller offices elsewhere. We don't sit dead-center of the Valley, and a large portion of our software engineers are in Charlotte. Does that mean we automatically suck, and are doomed to failure?
My brother works for another DC that's based in Raleigh, NC. They're about as far away from the Valley as you can get in the continental US. Does that mean they're wasting their time, and won't be around in two weeks?
It seems to me that far too many people are obsessed with locating in the Silicon Valley, with all the baggage that includes: high cost of living, annoying neighbors, little chance for success with the opposite sex. Why?
The real irony is that a DC company can exist anywhere, provided you have a good connection to the Internet. Yet everyone seems consumed by the idea that DCs must be located in SV.
Why?
---
"3D Realms Site: Intellecutal Property Rights..." (Emphasis added.)
Intellecutal? Intellecutal? What the hell does that mean? Are these the new aliens that Butt F*kem must fend off while gratuitously ripping off quotes from "Army of Darkness"?
"Look out, Butt F*kem! The Intellecutals are attacking!"
At which point we get to see our hero stomp mudholes into the chests of everyone opposed to UCITA.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the anal lube."
Maybe he can team up with Blow Wang from Sh*tty Warrior for a gay romp through LawyerLand! "Blow Wang come to sue you, little free-speech coward!"
Sheesh!
---
Oh look! My head exploded!
Any type of CensorWare (CW) that uses any form of encryption on its blacklist is fated to be broken. The whole concept of the Open Source Movement supports this: 1000+ eyes peering deep into the quality and structure of your software.
Those 1000+ eyes all have computers, and quite a few will have mathematical and progamming skills capable to dissecting the encryption used by the CW blacklists. All it takes is a little time, and the encryption will be broken.
Strangely enough, the US Govt's ban on exporting high-level encryption actually assists in this -- someone outside Canada or the US with a good machine can crack the export version of these CW blacklists in a short span of time.
Perhaps 5 years ago, this would not have been the case, but now we have personal computers that have massive calculative capabilities (equal to a Cray of 20 years ago??), and the ability to distribute the calculation/cracking process over multiple machines running 24/7. The encryption will fail.
So, will there ever be a time when CW blacklists are encrypted in such a manner that completely defeats the resourceful hacker? Not bloody likely.
Keep up the good work, guys. Every one of your successes shows the true meaning of Freedom of Speech.
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! You even mis-spelled "millennium" (it should have two 'N's) just like the NBC blurb!
Massive huge mega-ka-mayamaya kudos for this excellent parody of NBC's massive stupidity.
It'll be much better than "Cats".
... or not.
I keep hearing this stuff about how we're about to have a fossil fuel shortage, and how we're going to run out of oil and natural gas and such in "just a few years," and it leads me to ask a question:
How do we know we're running short of fossil fuels?
Granted, the amount of fossil fuels on this planet is finite, but how are we coming to the conclusion that we're almost out? Is there a giant gas gauge somewhere? Perhaps a monstrous dip-stick jutting out of the earth?
To know that we are about to run out of fossil fuels would require knowledge of the exact amount left on the planet, and *no one can possibly know that*! There are projections and estimates on the total amount of fuel, but no one can know with absolute certainty the exact amount of fossil fuels contained by this planet! New sources of fuels are still being discovered, and new technologies are allowing us to harvest from oil wells that 10 years ago would have been abandoned as "non-productive". Therefore, we cannot possibly know when all the fossil fuels will be depleted, and your doomsaying is a waste.
Quote: "We will have a net natural gas shortage within two years as it is a local market." How do you know that? Where did you get this 'fact'? What is your undeniable proof?
Quote: "Oil will take a little longer - about 2008 - 2010." Again, where is your proof? Show me your figures, and prove to me that your figures and facts are, indeed, truthful and accurate.
To say that you know exactly how much crude petroleum is left on this planet is like saying you know exactly how many star there are in our galaxy. You can guess, but you have no way of knowing.
I wonder if they'll have specs for all their laptops. I have a Sat. Pro 490 CDT that I'd love to get Linux fully running on. I could get RH installed, but never had any luck with the PCMCIA stuff.
I wait with baited breath...
How many of you remember the early 80's, right after the original PCs came out, how bad the motherboard manuals were?
I honestly thought that they were translated from Japanese into English by a Russian who couldn't read either language.
Got to admit, though, that I do miss those manuals. They included specs for designing and implementing your own slots and ISA cards. I blasted many old PC motherboards because of the poor translations, but oh what fun it was!!
"For taht which is interface will interfacing with motherboard at clock ticks of 4.77 MHz."
How cool was that?!?
As a computer network engineer, I know that I would most likely not suggest Linux (even with KDE) to be the front-end of a new system. Too many end-users are familiar and comfortable with the Windows 95 interface, and they know Windows apps and are functional with them. Putting Linux on the front end would be inviting disaster. (Ever worked Help Desk? Think of all the questions you get there on Windows 95, and then imagine how that would be with Linux!)
However, the backend is a different story. This is where reliability, performance, and sheer power are most needed. I have no qualms at all recommending Linux, esp. in places where the IT department is well developed, and already has UNIX experience.
Furthermore, the front end only affects one person per computer: the person sitting in front of the computer. If that computer hoses, then only one person is affected. If the backend hoses, *everyone* is affected. So, put something familiar and relatively stable on the front end -- Windows NT -- and put the real strength on the backend -- Linux. Combine the two and you've got a lethal, capable system that combines the familiar but somewhat unreliable (NT) with the exotic but powerful and robust (Linux).