It means taking care of the working class even if it pisses you off to think somebody has a nice life and didn't have to work that hard to get it.
You don't need to give people a nice life. It's enough to give them opportunities, a crappy roof over their heads, and not let them die or become disabled due to basic treatable medical conditions. This argument always gets me. Free healthcare, free college, and some basic social security does not create a "nice life", it creates a bare minimum maintainable life.
Performance is more important than aesthetics when you're talking servers, but for a desktop?
What a strange thing to say. I would say in terms of the home you are an absolute edge case. Desktop aesthetics matter for the receptionist at that flashy office where your customer will see the back of the monitor before anything else. It matters if your office is the formal part of the house..... What kind of house is that by the way, a studio apartment?
Most computers are not in the formal part of the house, and most towers even if they are can be safely hidden away under a desk leaving only a monitor and some wireless accessories in view.
There are many software packages from Microsoft that are irreplaceable. Powerpoint is not one of them. If anything it is pretty damn close to the bottom of the pile in terms of capability.
I wonder if they do, your example sounds familiar to me.... without ever leaving Powerpoint. Duplicating slides, copying and pasting content, even copying and pasting formatting, or moving a slide from one presentation to the other (selecting either keep source formatting or use destination) has frequently resulted in messed up formatting for me.
I've also had that between different computers where something that looked fine on my laptop suddenly ran off the edge of the page on the presentation machine, even on the same version of MS Office.
Given the content said he was promoting Linux on the desktop, the Linux desktop with all the wonderful features you listed is most definitely his dog food.
A filter is only able to block light. The problem with blocking light is... you are blocking light. So while it is able to increase contrast between the object and the background sky it doesn't actually make those objects any brighter, quite the opposite. A dark sky trumps filtering every time.
Also for non-visual astronomy filtering doesn't help if your goal is true colour images. A UHC filter or similar light pollution reduction filter massively skews the colour spectrum. Personally I've taken to doing narrow-band imaging and creating false colours afterwards. It does however make stars look like crap without the RGB data.
We all were. The difference is why, did we hate them because we were being objective and they were bastards, or did we do it because we were anti-establishment and prayed only to the almighty lord Stallman.
The former will hate MS for reasons that we can legitimately hate them (e.g. Bundling problems and privacy issues in Windows 10). The latter will hate them with 10 year old tripes that don't apply if you dedicated a functioning braincell to them (e.g. calling everything EEE).
Last month I put 4000 miles on the my vehicle for a road trip that traversed 7 states (only ~50% of the road was re-driven on the way back). Know how many pay phones I saw along the way?
As a matter of interest as there still emergency phones in the USA? I have seen various approaches to pay phones in different countries, from leaving them in place, to upgrading to take modern payment system, to riping out, and even to upgrade them with WiFi hotspots. But one thing that remained regardless of what happened to payphones was emergency phones on the highways.
I'm sure they're able to say "b-but, we're the good guys now!"
They aren't good guys, and being bad guys doesn't stop them from contributing to Linux. They do what makes business sense, and as a cloud platform provider currently using Linux to print money faster than a central bank it stands to reason that they would contribute to it. This has no bearing on their morality.
All the development described here is for the benefit and enhancement of their own products, mainly because in the server space their lunch is being eaten by Linux.
Oh is it? The way I see their server business has been on a dedicated upwards trend and has never been more profitable than it is now. They have several wonderful vendor locking products without any competition at all in open source. Oh and you're ignoring the shitload of money they make with Linux by offering Linux themselves for the Azure platform.
On what basis do you claim that Microsoft has changed?
I didn't say it changed. Microsoft are still arseholes. There is no reason to trust them.
But there's also no reason to think that this is part of the EEE strategy, a strategy that hasn't been employed in over 15 years, a strategy that makes zero sense in the current context of the market (specifically the "threat" Linux poses to them), and a strategy that would undermine their current core profitable business.
I'm sure they'll be dicks about it some other way, but it just doesn't make sense that they would even try and extinguish Linux, not when they are making so much money from it.
Oh there is an alternative. The open source alternatives are about equivalent to Exchange and Active Directory... in 1998. The are precisely zero open source alternatives that are feature comparable.
Many companies outsource e-mail these days, it is not a core business function.
Many do. The problem with writing something like "many" is that it's not a qualifier. Tell me a percentage, preferably a percentage of Fortune 500 companies with licenses for 50000+ users.
hahahahahahah. Oh myself, Microsoft and all the Fortune 500 companies which use none of your solutions are laughing at this. Thanks for the Sunday night comedy. hAHahaha mail standards = exchange. Oh that's a good one. I'll have to remember that for my next stand-up routine.
No seriously though, it's clear you don't work in IT and have never touched exchange, sharepoint, or Active Directory. It's not your fault that you're completely ignorant as to their deep integration with Windows and Office on a level that any 3rd party tool couldn't hope to ever achieve. Get yourself an education.
Were you born with disconnect between your brain and your fingers, or did you learn to take half sentences out of context and completely fail to see the fucking point?
If not why should anyone believe that the tiger changed its stripes?
You shouldn't believe anything, you should just use your brain and analyse the situation of the day. I didn't say MS aren't douchbags, I said that EEE doesn't make any sense in the context of their current business when applied to Linux.
... wants a deal more favourable to the country. Small EU economy pulling out the EU wants concessions and to keep all the benefits of being part of the EU.
No I shouldn't. There is no single thing that makes everyone "unhealthy". And just because sugar is bad (again a foregone conclusion that really doesn't warrant much further study) doesn't mean there shouldn't also be studies done on other things.
And yet, the damage has been done: the constant focus on saturated fats, created by the generous funding of the soda industry
Did nothing of the sort. There's never been a properly scientifically accepted study that focused entirely on saturated fats and advocated simply the complete removal of saturated fats to our health woes. You're directing your anger at the wrong field. There were however plenty of studies that show that excess saturated fat consumption is bad (it is), and advocated a standard balanced diet. It was the government advice, health group advice, and general media advice (funded by the soda industry) that then shaped the message.
Nothing was wrong with the underlying science.
And since the consumer has a very small attention span
They won't read the science anyway so there's no point to focus on the funding of the science as much as the funding of the message that gets delivered to the user in a 5 second soundbite. e.g. Saturated fat = bad, rather than spending 20min trying to define what constitutes a balanced meal.
We are still seeing this now regardless of what we currently know and what science has recently shown. Food labelling laws are trying to portray health in a short attention span and the industry is trying to define them in ways that consumers don't have a clue what they are actually eating (like with a traffic light system on the labels). That's not science at fault, that's poor policy and poor government propped up by industry money.
Everything's a poison. By stating it like that you're not going to win over any arguments. Sure the rise in sugar (specifically HFCS) and the rise in obesity and diseases are wonderfully correlated, but by completely vilifying it and advocating it's completely removal you will instantly lose all your potential audience, many of which who had grandmas and grandpas live for 100 years with a spoonful of sugar in their tea every day.
The only way you'll get people to change is to target what they eat, not what is on the ingredients list. Soda and sweets = bad, is a palatable. Sugar = bad is not, because then you end up with one of two results:
1. There's sugar in everything, too hard, I won't even try. 2. OMG how can you eat an Apple EVERY DAY. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SUGAR IS IN THERE!
I rarely find a middle ground between these in the eyes of the general news soundbite absorbing public. Hell you rarely find a middle ground on "health" blogs.
Slashdot Mirror
It means taking care of the working class even if it pisses you off to think somebody has a nice life and didn't have to work that hard to get it.
You don't need to give people a nice life. It's enough to give them opportunities, a crappy roof over their heads, and not let them die or become disabled due to basic treatable medical conditions. This argument always gets me. Free healthcare, free college, and some basic social security does not create a "nice life", it creates a bare minimum maintainable life.
The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything
Tell it to the countries currently cutting emissions to meet the "voluntary" obligations.
These guys' model just potentially moves the pickup point slightly closer to us.
And "staffed" it 24/7/365.
Performance is more important than aesthetics when you're talking servers, but for a desktop?
What a strange thing to say. I would say in terms of the home you are an absolute edge case. Desktop aesthetics matter for the receptionist at that flashy office where your customer will see the back of the monitor before anything else. It matters if your office is the formal part of the house. .... What kind of house is that by the way, a studio apartment?
Most computers are not in the formal part of the house, and most towers even if they are can be safely hidden away under a desk leaving only a monitor and some wireless accessories in view.
"Oh - nothing else measures up to Powerpoint!"
There are many software packages from Microsoft that are irreplaceable. Powerpoint is not one of them. If anything it is pretty damn close to the bottom of the pile in terms of capability.
LibreOffice still has work to do.
I wonder if they do, your example sounds familiar to me .... without ever leaving Powerpoint. Duplicating slides, copying and pasting content, even copying and pasting formatting, or moving a slide from one presentation to the other (selecting either keep source formatting or use destination) has frequently resulted in messed up formatting for me.
I've also had that between different computers where something that looked fine on my laptop suddenly ran off the edge of the page on the presentation machine, even on the same version of MS Office.
Given the content said he was promoting Linux on the desktop, the Linux desktop with all the wonderful features you listed is most definitely his dog food.
A filter is only able to block light. The problem with blocking light is ... you are blocking light. So while it is able to increase contrast between the object and the background sky it doesn't actually make those objects any brighter, quite the opposite. A dark sky trumps filtering every time.
Also for non-visual astronomy filtering doesn't help if your goal is true colour images. A UHC filter or similar light pollution reduction filter massively skews the colour spectrum. Personally I've taken to doing narrow-band imaging and creating false colours afterwards. It does however make stars look like crap without the RGB data.
You know I was a MS hater too
We all were. The difference is why, did we hate them because we were being objective and they were bastards, or did we do it because we were anti-establishment and prayed only to the almighty lord Stallman.
The former will hate MS for reasons that we can legitimately hate them (e.g. Bundling problems and privacy issues in Windows 10). The latter will hate them with 10 year old tripes that don't apply if you dedicated a functioning braincell to them (e.g. calling everything EEE).
Last month I put 4000 miles on the my vehicle for a road trip that traversed 7 states (only ~50% of the road was re-driven on the way back). Know how many pay phones I saw along the way?
As a matter of interest as there still emergency phones in the USA? I have seen various approaches to pay phones in different countries, from leaving them in place, to upgrading to take modern payment system, to riping out, and even to upgrade them with WiFi hotspots. But one thing that remained regardless of what happened to payphones was emergency phones on the highways.
Switch to sodium-vapor lamp and observatories can filter out the narrow notch of orange-yellow light it produces.
Doesn't help visual observation of the night sky. It's beauty is not only about measuring space with expensive science toys.
I'm sure they're able to say "b-but, we're the good guys now!"
They aren't good guys, and being bad guys doesn't stop them from contributing to Linux. They do what makes business sense, and as a cloud platform provider currently using Linux to print money faster than a central bank it stands to reason that they would contribute to it. This has no bearing on their morality.
All the development described here is for the benefit and enhancement of their own products, mainly because in the server space their lunch is being eaten by Linux.
Oh is it? The way I see their server business has been on a dedicated upwards trend and has never been more profitable than it is now. They have several wonderful vendor locking products without any competition at all in open source. Oh and you're ignoring the shitload of money they make with Linux by offering Linux themselves for the Azure platform.
On what basis do you claim that Microsoft has changed?
I didn't say it changed. Microsoft are still arseholes. There is no reason to trust them.
But there's also no reason to think that this is part of the EEE strategy, a strategy that hasn't been employed in over 15 years, a strategy that makes zero sense in the current context of the market (specifically the "threat" Linux poses to them), and a strategy that would undermine their current core profitable business.
I'm sure they'll be dicks about it some other way, but it just doesn't make sense that they would even try and extinguish Linux, not when they are making so much money from it.
Oh there is an alternative. The open source alternatives are about equivalent to Exchange and Active Directory ... in 1998. The are precisely zero open source alternatives that are feature comparable.
Many companies outsource e-mail these days, it is not a core business function.
Many do. The problem with writing something like "many" is that it's not a qualifier. Tell me a percentage, preferably a percentage of Fortune 500 companies with licenses for 50000+ users.
Their incentive is that small devices might suck the oxygen out of MS.
That's not an incentive to extinguish Linux, that's an incentive to try that with Android.
Sorry, but you are _indeed_ an idiot.
hahahahahahah. Oh myself, Microsoft and all the Fortune 500 companies which use none of your solutions are laughing at this. Thanks for the Sunday night comedy. hAHahaha mail standards = exchange. Oh that's a good one. I'll have to remember that for my next stand-up routine.
No seriously though, it's clear you don't work in IT and have never touched exchange, sharepoint, or Active Directory. It's not your fault that you're completely ignorant as to their deep integration with Windows and Office on a level that any 3rd party tool couldn't hope to ever achieve. Get yourself an education.
Microsoft doesn't get the benefit of the doubt
Didn't give them any. Just pointed out that EEE doesn't make sense in their business context.
Were you born with disconnect between your brain and your fingers, or did you learn to take half sentences out of context and completely fail to see the fucking point?
If not why should anyone believe that the tiger changed its stripes?
You shouldn't believe anything, you should just use your brain and analyse the situation of the day. I didn't say MS aren't douchbags, I said that EEE doesn't make any sense in the context of their current business when applied to Linux.
No, Microsoft's "premier" office product runs on their servers.
A distinction that no end user cares about save for a few people.
... wants a deal more favourable to the country.
Small EU economy pulling out the EU wants concessions and to keep all the benefits of being part of the EU.
And where is my damn pony!
But you should:
No I shouldn't. There is no single thing that makes everyone "unhealthy". And just because sugar is bad (again a foregone conclusion that really doesn't warrant much further study) doesn't mean there shouldn't also be studies done on other things.
And yet, the damage has been done: the constant focus on saturated fats, created by the generous funding of the soda industry
Did nothing of the sort. There's never been a properly scientifically accepted study that focused entirely on saturated fats and advocated simply the complete removal of saturated fats to our health woes. You're directing your anger at the wrong field. There were however plenty of studies that show that excess saturated fat consumption is bad (it is), and advocated a standard balanced diet. It was the government advice, health group advice, and general media advice (funded by the soda industry) that then shaped the message.
Nothing was wrong with the underlying science.
And since the consumer has a very small attention span
They won't read the science anyway so there's no point to focus on the funding of the science as much as the funding of the message that gets delivered to the user in a 5 second soundbite. e.g. Saturated fat = bad, rather than spending 20min trying to define what constitutes a balanced meal.
We are still seeing this now regardless of what we currently know and what science has recently shown. Food labelling laws are trying to portray health in a short attention span and the industry is trying to define them in ways that consumers don't have a clue what they are actually eating (like with a traffic light system on the labels). That's not science at fault, that's poor policy and poor government propped up by industry money.
Everything's a poison. By stating it like that you're not going to win over any arguments. Sure the rise in sugar (specifically HFCS) and the rise in obesity and diseases are wonderfully correlated, but by completely vilifying it and advocating it's completely removal you will instantly lose all your potential audience, many of which who had grandmas and grandpas live for 100 years with a spoonful of sugar in their tea every day.
The only way you'll get people to change is to target what they eat, not what is on the ingredients list. Soda and sweets = bad, is a palatable. Sugar = bad is not, because then you end up with one of two results:
1. There's sugar in everything, too hard, I won't even try.
2. OMG how can you eat an Apple EVERY DAY. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SUGAR IS IN THERE!
I rarely find a middle ground between these in the eyes of the general news soundbite absorbing public. Hell you rarely find a middle ground on "health" blogs.
Join a choir.
I've heard some choirs. Stick with the didgeridoo.
I've heard some didgeridoos, stick with the snoring.