No question about it. Reading it or watching it completely transports me to that alternate reality, a reality whose qualities I LOVE, even if not completely possible with our physics (how can people stand on the floor of a small spaceship without floating around?).
Not that I want to escape real life that badly, but I get a kick out of being there. It kinda feeds upon itself. That's exactly what science fiction is all about, no?
Why are these things posted here? Is it because of the many/. users that use windows:-), or is it because we're always trying to make windows look bad?
It's getting tiring to see all this sarcasm, like open source is so free of bugs or something...
Actually, there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't eventually do exactly the same thing Apple did, except pride keeps them from doign it.
Wrong! -- In contrast to Apple, MS does not have to do it.
WINE proves Unix can have Windows Binary compatibility
So??? It's never been about binary compatibility... It's about market share and maintaining a monopoly.
Microsoft proves they're too stubborn to evolve with the times
Wrong again... They prove they want to stay in the most profitable business possible... Cammon kinds, repeat after me: Microsoft is a business, and businesses exist to make profits...
Also, REdHat does not sell software (to prove it, go download the CD image from their site). They sell services and they sell support. $60/year for RedHat network per machine.
Like the guy in college who actually wrote all his lab reports while everybody else just copied one from last year.
If you think MS does not do research you are greatly, sadly mistaken. Go to http://research.microsoft.com/ to have a look. They have a great many very intelligent people in all areas of computing. I myself know several CompSci PhDs that have gone over there to work.
This exemplifies the problem with open source zealots^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvocates: They consider MS the enemy and then proceed to underestimate it so badly that they fall flat on their ass when argumenting.
MS is a formidable enemy: They hire extremely intelligent people. They make pinpointed, coordinated efforts to get what they want.
OSS advocates have loosely-banded groups of volunteers of whom only a hardcore few are consistent contributors. Then when those few dedicated people have disagreements, they split into a few groups doing the same thing instead of coming to a consensus and sticking with it. Perfect examples: The many distros out here (they never agreed on a single distro, did they?), the ridiculous desktop wars (gnome vs this vs that), the even more ridiculous GNU/Linux issue, and whetever else you can think of.
Then of course OSS advocates have a field day with a messed up PR document, all while MS gets more and more control over the desktop and people's privacy wihtout repercussion... (they are getting repercussion over the stupid ad issue, no?? yeah, right...)
The geeks amongst us should use this commonality to rise up and use our voice for progress and not petty squabbling.
"Geeks" are so into Microsoft bashing that they miss the big picture, and they miss the opportunity of letting Microsoft do their research. God knows MS maximizes their use of other people's research!
MS is really good at "borrowing and expanding" technologies not invented by them. "Geeks" hate everything from MS, including the best ideas. Here on/. for example, people bash.NET so much with dumb comments like "yes, but what does it do?". As a professional technical leader at work I can tell you that.NET is awesome, it really increases productivity and is a pleasure to program in. Just don't tell that to the "geeks." They'll go flaming ballistic. Long live PERL, they say...
Geeks are very smart and stubborn idealists. I ask you all, who would listen to someone like that? Certainly not a business person. I, personally, work for a business. Open source does not alone produce profit just by using it. It is the whole picture that counts. Unfortunately Microsoft's big picture is in many ways better for business than Linux's way. Also unfortunate is that geeks do not have the whole picture (nor do they want to have it, it seems). They have an ideal to pursue, an agenda for their actions, and rarely the needs of others in mind.
A good challenge to the geeks of this world would be to get away from politics, away from strict ideologies, and , as the article states, away from pettiness. I love reading/., but some of the discussion that go on in here are really funny, given that people care so much about dumb things and do not even consider the truly significant issues.
By far the most ridiculous major geek "Show Of Pettiness" is the stupid "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" naming debate.
Hey guys!!! Hello!!! How about focusing on Linux on the desktop?!?!?!? Who cares what it's called? How about a unified distro? A unified anything on Linux? Hello? Anyone there?
I'm thinking about complex scientific data sets where you may wish to "select" based on criteria that may not be keyed
By "keyed" do you mean indexed? Why is that hard? Time-consuming, yes (with large data sets), but "incredibly difficult"? Why is it incredibly difficult? Is it not involving just a single SQL statement, keyed or not?
Agree with you 100%. XML is not a database. XML is just a formatted, human-readable export file. If you run a database on top of the XML file, you will come up with anon-optimal system. The fact that it is human readable takes away from the computer's ability to read the data easily.
I dismissed XML altogether when people started to claim it was going to save the world. The situation is still ridiculous, some people just do not get it. In my database I want uptime, redundancy, speed, and recoverability. Does XML address any of these issues?
Really? So I guess if a system processes a data file with a flat structure it would make good design if the database is designed flat to fit the data format?
Systems work better when they are fine tuned to work with their data sets well!
You're blurring the line. I referred to data formats as they pertain to a data file, not as they do to a database design (If I had meant "database design" I would have said "database design").
A data format will NEVER dictate a system's design. XML is nothing other than a data format.
The relational model has no major shortcomings. The only thing XML offers that is not already very well done is easier data interchange. As a database administrator, I can tell you there is NO chance XML will dictate a change of how we store data. There are much higher priorities in database management than easier data interchange.
You figure dout how the third world works! Like Afghanistan, they keep people extremely hungry and lacking... No one there is thinking about a revolution!
Slashdot Mirror
Right on... Now if rms would realize that he's wasting everyone's energy and time by bitching about the silent "GNU" before "Linux"...
Enclosed is a Grand Jury subpoena requiring that Cryptome produce certain records.
The records are not being subpoenad, Cryptome is being requested to produce records.
The writer of the previous message did not even read the document.
So, following to the next step, politicians are the failed lawyers? Hmmmm... And they create our laws?
So spill it: From whom, what did you get, etc...
I think you're answering the wrong question.
Not that I want to escape real life that badly, but I get a kick out of being there. It kinda feeds upon itself. That's exactly what science fiction is all about, no?
Some people here have waaaay too much anger towards MS
It's getting tiring to see all this sarcasm, like open source is so free of bugs or something...
What universe do you live in, where every product must be profitable from day one or be declared monopolistic?
Take a business class - or better yet, start a business - and then see how long it takes you to turn a profit.
It is astounding how much economic muscle MS has...
Wrong! -- In contrast to Apple, MS does not have to do it.
WINE proves Unix can have Windows Binary compatibility
So??? It's never been about binary compatibility... It's about market share and maintaining a monopoly.
Microsoft proves they're too stubborn to evolve with the times
Wrong again... They prove they want to stay in the most profitable business possible... Cammon kinds, repeat after me: Microsoft is a business, and businesses exist to make profits...
Also, REdHat does not sell software (to prove it, go download the CD image from their site). They sell services and they sell support. $60/year for RedHat network per machine.
But the stock I own is MS, not RedHat. Businesses exist to make money, not spread ideaology.
To a company that sells software for a living, how can free software not be enemy #1?
Best news I've heard all year!
How will Apple stay alive if it's self righteous about attending a conference centered around its won products???
If you think MS does not do research you are greatly, sadly mistaken. Go to http://research.microsoft.com/ to have a look. They have a great many very intelligent people in all areas of computing. I myself know several CompSci PhDs that have gone over there to work.
This exemplifies the problem with open source zealots^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvocates: They consider MS the enemy and then proceed to underestimate it so badly that they fall flat on their ass when argumenting.
MS is a formidable enemy: They hire extremely intelligent people. They make pinpointed, coordinated efforts to get what they want.
OSS advocates have loosely-banded groups of volunteers of whom only a hardcore few are consistent contributors. Then when those few dedicated people have disagreements, they split into a few groups doing the same thing instead of coming to a consensus and sticking with it. Perfect examples: The many distros out here (they never agreed on a single distro, did they?), the ridiculous desktop wars (gnome vs this vs that), the even more ridiculous GNU/Linux issue, and whetever else you can think of.
Then of course OSS advocates have a field day with a messed up PR document, all while MS gets more and more control over the desktop and people's privacy wihtout repercussion... (they are getting repercussion over the stupid ad issue, no?? yeah, right...)
"It doesn't lock up as much as previous versions."
"Look at the pretty colors"
If you think pretty colors and a step up in stability makes people buy products, you are in another planet.
My company spends tons of money on MS products just because of improvements with new versions, specially in O/S stability.
"Geeks" are so into Microsoft bashing that they miss the big picture, and they miss the opportunity of letting Microsoft do their research. God knows MS maximizes their use of other people's research!
MS is really good at "borrowing and expanding" technologies not invented by them. "Geeks" hate everything from MS, including the best ideas. Here on
Geeks are very smart and stubborn idealists. I ask you all, who would listen to someone like that? Certainly not a business person. I, personally, work for a business. Open source does not alone produce profit just by using it. It is the whole picture that counts. Unfortunately Microsoft's big picture is in many ways better for business than Linux's way. Also unfortunate is that geeks do not have the whole picture (nor do they want to have it, it seems). They have an ideal to pursue, an agenda for their actions, and rarely the needs of others in mind.
A good challenge to the geeks of this world would be to get away from politics, away from strict ideologies, and , as the article states, away from pettiness. I love reading
By far the most ridiculous major geek "Show Of Pettiness" is the stupid "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" naming debate.
Hey guys!!! Hello!!! How about focusing on Linux on the desktop?!?!?!? Who cares what it's called? How about a unified distro? A unified anything on Linux? Hello? Anyone there?
I'm thinking about complex scientific data sets where you may wish to "select" based on criteria that may not be keyed
By "keyed" do you mean indexed? Why is that hard? Time-consuming, yes (with large data sets), but "incredibly difficult"? Why is it incredibly difficult? Is it not involving just a single SQL statement, keyed or not?
Again, would XML address this?
I dismissed XML altogether when people started to claim it was going to save the world. The situation is still ridiculous, some people just do not get it. In my database I want uptime, redundancy, speed, and recoverability. Does XML address any of these issues?
Really? So I guess if a system processes a data file with a flat structure it would make good design if the database is designed flat to fit the data format?
Systems work better when they are fine tuned to work with their data sets well!
You're blurring the line. I referred to data formats as they pertain to a data file, not as they do to a database design (If I had meant "database design" I would have said "database design").
The relational model has no major shortcomings. The only thing XML offers that is not already very well done is easier data interchange. As a database administrator, I can tell you there is NO chance XML will dictate a change of how we store data. There are much higher priorities in database management than easier data interchange.
I can just imagine what could have been: One more lamer posting on Slashdot!
You figure dout how the third world works! Like Afghanistan, they keep people extremely hungry and lacking... No one there is thinking about a revolution!