...who? The ISP? Nice revenue stream. Some would actively solicit spammers for the increased revenue...and be instantly and legitametly blacklisted. What revenue stream?
And then some ISP's would simply put it on a flat rate. Or advertise "Send free emails!", and charge an extra dollar on the base price.
Same result. You're talking about flushing spammers into the open, where they make easy targets. *AOL voice* You've Got Junk Mail! *AOL voice*
The recipient? hmmm.....there would end up being some kind of reciprocal agreement between spammers. "I pay you, you pay me."
Then it's not SPAM - the recipient would expect to receive SPAM. SPAMmers SPAMing SPAMers? Who cares, as long as it's not me.
The poor user whose box gets cracked and becomes the sender of a million emails is in for a fight getting his money back or account reinstated.
A legitemate concern. It would, however, make people protect thier assets far better. Besides, I'm sure ISPs could set up TOS with thier users, and say, limit an account to 1000 e-mails a month. Not terribly profitable.
And then of course the valid bulk email senders would wither and die.
Yes, and? Actually, only people who could provide value would survive in a world where UCE costs real $ - a good thing, IMHO.
Who pays, and who gets 'paid'?
You're missing the point. As soon as $ are involved, there's a trail to follow to the spammer. That's the main benefit, as we can then track down spammers and require them to account for thier transgressions, in either $ or time.
Sorry, but there are far too many loopholes and traps for paid email to actually work.
It's a new take on a system, bud. it may take some time to work out all of the kinks, but it sounds much more promising than what's curently in place.
This setup is not stable. I get regularly filesystem corruption if I stress the system. Apparently linux can't deal with the fact that the total transfer rate of 12 modern ultra dma133 disks more than maxes the PCI bus.
I don't think it's Linux, bud - my suspicion is that the controllers themselves can't deal with a maxed out PCI bus. They are normally bus-master cards, so it's possible that one is grabbing the PCI bus and holding it for so long that the one of the others is giving up, instantly corrupting your array. Promise likely didn't take into account such setups where there's more than one or two RAID contollers per machine.
Currently I am thinking about changing the raid 5 arrays into just plain volume groups without stripping. This would allow me to lose some of the transfer rate and avoid stressing the pci bus.
I doubt it - you still are tryng to squeeze way too much data through the northbridge chip on your motherboard. You may be able to do something with PCI bus timings, but you stand a very good chance of hosing the whole setup that way. You simply need more motherboard bandwidth if you want to support that much disk space - sorry.
What you need is a dual (or triple) peer PCI bus motherboard, so you an have 2 controllers per northbridge channel. Look into SuperMicro and one of their ServerWorks GC LE based boards.
If anyone saw the pictures, his setup looks awfully precarious.
He has 1 normal PC case, 2 homemade stands for the drives, and one more homemade stand for additional power supplies.
The stands with the drives look like they could topple with a moments notice! Why did he put them at the top...?
I agree. It would have been better engineered with 2 power supplies at the bottom of each tower, providing a more solid base for the disks. I'd of made the towers far shorter as well - perhaps even turned them sideways.
I think it would be better to mount as many power supplies and drives in 2 additional cases, with the shells removed.
That would be expensive, and would also make heat an issue. The setup he has allows for passive cooling - even a case with the shell removed would trap more heat. Heat can lower MTBF - not something to do with IDE drives. A proper external disk case would make even more sense, as most come with fans and cooling.
Might be a problem with IDE cable length; maybe you could do 2 next to each side the the master computer.
Now you know one of the reaons why SCSI is king for servers - it's meant to be used both internally and extrenally. I've used 10' long, high quality SCSI cables to attach external disks to servers in my time without issue. As well, you can have 14 disks per SCSI controller - not possible with IDE.
It's a nice hack, even if it had design issues, though.
Possibly, but I have a feeling that microsoft would probably remove all comments from their source code and make the variable names all meaningless.
I don't think so - there is the Shared Source initiative from Microsoft. Obuscation of the code would be unprofessional at best.
Then it would be nigh on impossible to understand how windows works.
With all of the code profilers and debuggers out there, obuscation would only be a temporary set back. (*Avoids cheap shot about the average Windows user*)
I don't say this because i think they're evil, but it's common sense for them if what you suggest might happen did happen. Their source code is a close secret, and I dont think they would even want a government of any country to see it.
I also don't think that MS is "evil", but I disagree with the rest of your statement. Along with your Shared Source agreement comes an NDA. In that NDA (AFAIK), you state that you won't use the source to make your own version of Windows, nor will you help the competition in any way, which does make perect sense from a business perspective.
However, seeing that Linux and a lot of other OSS is in direct competition with Microsoft, they've basically removed you from developing OSS. Why wouldn't they want a government to be legally bound to not develop OSS? That's part of the strategic fall out from Shared Source - stealing mindshare through NDAs.
Using a WAR3Zed copy of the Windows source code to "help" an OSS project would be even worse, since you would have used illegally obtained IP and polluted the code, giving Microsoft both legal and moral ground to kill the project you contributed to.
Please, stay away from Windows source code, unless you have no desire or need to contribute to OSS.
Agreed, but what most want is justice, not revenge.
Spammers use very slimy methods in the way they do thier business in order to avoid what would be appropriate justice - namely, having any e-mail sent by them filed immediately in the bit-bucket. Since there are currently no legally prescribed means of stopping the deluge, people become outraged, and well, you can figure out what's going on from there,.
While it's not really an excuse for questionable behaviour, these "businessmen" are actually inviting it by continuing along as though people actually want thier wares. As long as they do that, normally reasonable people will want to see all spammers get thier just reward - in spades.
There will always be people willing and able to pay $500 for a garden spade.
True. The amazing thing is that the person who bought the $500 spade will find a way to justify the cost, even though it and the $20 spade shovel the same shit the same way.;-)
There's more physics, science and strategy in running a modern stock car than setting up Apache on a Linux machine, bud. Most NASCAR fans are very familliar with the science behind the strategies and methods that make the winners win - hardly the prevue of "rednecks" with an "unsurprising lack of intelligence". They would also grasp the reason for your insipid comments - an appauling lack of good will towards your fellow man.
Geek though you may be, you and I are nothing special in relation to "the big picture". You really shouldn't look down upon people who can do something far better than you can (unless you actually _can_ build, then drive a car for 500 miles averaging over 170MPH). If I were you, I'd get off that high horse you're riding.
Just a bit of friendly advice from someone who's been there.
The whole point is that Microsoft will integrate the technology in the OS. If it's "Good Enough", thier customers will not look for alternatives. This will decrease the available market for this kind of software, where people look for the best choice possible.
That's pretty much what they did to Netscape. If VMWare's major revenue stream is from "Windows on Windows", the analogy is almost exact.
As well, if they do kill VMWare's major revenue source, this point:
I doubt that MS will offer any functionality where you can run a MS OS on top of a non MS OS...
takes on a more nefarious purpose. I've had several people try out Linux via VMWare, since it wouldn't touch thier main OS. One of my best advocay tools would be gone. Not to mention the headaches that some Mac users would now face with SoftPC off of the market.
IMHO, Microsoft should only be allowed to license this tehnology, and then be forced to keep it out of the default install of the product it's integrated with. That should keep the playing field somewhat even.
As I understand it, NVidias drivers basically use the assmbler in gcc build the "bianry only core", and source to link that core into the current kernel. IOW, thier package includes a binary image of thier driver that they insert into kernel space with a source code stub.
Full installation instructions are on the NVidia website.
Oh - the script. I use the source tarball from the site with the script below. The RPMs aren't updated quickly enough. 2 caveats:
The must be run as root, and you require the kernel headers for it to work.
#!/bin/bash cd/untar/NVidia/NVIDIA_kernel-xx.x-xxxx make install cd/untar/NVidia/NVIDIA_GLX-xx.x-xxxx make install
If you've done this once and modified/etc/X11/XF86Config already, you're good to go. If not - Read The Fine Manual on setting that up, available on the NVidia site
It could be prettier (use sudo, check for errors etc.), but I'm a bash noob really- works for me. Use at your own risk!
I recently (well, 2 months ago) upgraded my workstation to a P4, and had the pleasure of trying to set up a dual head system under RedHat 8.0. I tried the following cards, in order:
Matrox G450 DualHead (Cost: Rescuing it from the trashbin at work):
I loved Matrox cards under Windows, and they had a good rep with the Linux crowd, so I gave this one a whirl. I got the dual head working with the Matrox drivers without too much fuss. However, artifacts from one screen would just appear on the other screen, borking my display. For example, any time I used a pull-down menu on the second screen, the fly-down would apear on both screens. Couldn't fix that for love nor money, so I decided to part with some $.
ATI Radeon 9000Pro (Cost: $229 CDN):
Bleah. This card worked OK on single screen, but even there it just "felt" a little shaky for some reason. Dual head just would not work at all - X would panic each and every time. After 4 nights of mucking about with it, I gave up and exchanged it.
Pine XFX GeForce Ti4200 128Mb (Cost: $349CDN):
I had this card in, running X and set up in dual head in under 2 hours. 2D is crisp, fast and the dual head works as you'd expect. It's a keeper (esecially after trying out the UT2K3 demo). Updating the kernel causes a re-compile of the drivers, but I wrote a script to do that so it's no hassle now. OK, they're closed source drivers in reality, but I don't care - my card works as I want.
In the end, the drivers that a video card uses are just as important (see ATI) as the hardware itself. Think about that before you buy that dual head card for your workstation.
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together. Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
OK. And how is everyone to know that it's a poison pill, unless we discuss it directly with Microsoft in the open and get them to say as much? Until that's done, your "poison pill" is just theory and hearsay - it means nothing.
That's the beauty of free speech - it lets the villians show that they're a villian. Then when you know that thier cause is going to hurt you in some way, you can avoid helping them in thier cause or take appropriate steps to counter thier cause. If you shut them up, how do you know they have ill intent?
I say drag Microsoft into the conference kicking and screaming if needs be, so we can detail to others exactly what the poison in the pill is, and what to look for so everyone can avoid even putting that pill in thier mouth, let alone swallow it.
This bill will pass unless it is so far out there that even the parliament members can consciously vote in favor of this.
You forget that under our crippled system, the PM currently decides what will pass and what won't. For those not in the know, the PM can severaly discipline any member of his party that doesn't vote as the PMs caucus decides. With a majority government, the PM is basically a dictator. Ergo, if Jean wants it passed, it gets passed.
In Canada, when you write to your MP, you always, always, always send a copy to the PM and the Minister responsible for the legislation you're commenting on - in this case
The Honourable Elinor Caplan Minister of National Revenue 555 Mackenzie Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K10 0L5 - just so you know.
What will Canadian citizens do about it? Nothing, just look at how many posts there are. (9)
Hey, it's bloody cold tonight - my cable connection just thawed out enough for me to respond, and I'm in Southern Ontario. Winter^H^H^Hnipeg won't be able to respond until, say April???;-)
I have to give your point credence. Actually, I'm suprised that Microsoft wrote support specific to Opera into IIS at all, given it's market share. Simple logic dictates that Opera wouldn't be the target of such an underhanded thing - Mozilla would, since it poses more of an immediate threat to the browser hegeonomy the IE posseses.
This is likely just a bug in IIS (SHOCK!) and how it's handling the user agent. Microsoft is (justly or no) reaping the benefits of being a convicted monopolist here.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." ~ Hanlon's Razor.
That's really nice gear, but I'm not sure I could live with the whole keyboard lighting up like that.
What would be really cool is having the backlit, opaque key keyboard with the letter/symbol markings that are currenly printed in black on the keyface cut out of the keys instead, and then filled with clear plastic of some sort so they lit up too. Glowing gutters and letters is the effect I'm after.
That would be much easier on the eyes while still being fully darkness compatible.
As funny as that statement is, I'd rather it be modded as insightful, rather than funny.
Imagine, if you will, that CmdrTaco's little icon joke about the Borg is indeed correct. OK, now, imagine that we manage to insert a little bit of autonomy (by college education, for example) into one of the drones. Remember Hugh? Seems OSS has hurt Microsoft in ways that can't be measured quite yet on the balance sheet.
I've always thought that the best way to dismantle a machine is from the inside. Here's more credence to that thought, IMHO. Actually, my first thought when I read the article was "Merry Christmas, Soko - there really is a Windows user with a clue."
Very true - if you need to buy any more licenses, that is. This software will allow you to do two things:
1 - use the Office licenses you already have in perpetuity. No Licensing 6.0 style "software as a service" pay-me-now-and-pay-me-later is needed - it is, after all, Linux.
2 - pool the Office licenses you have, making better use of a valuable resource. Say you have 100 employees and 70 Office licenses. You can pool those 70 licenses on Crossover Office Server, and likely keep every one of your users happy. Not everyone has Word/Excel/Access open all of the time, so it makes very good sense to pool them in this way.
Slashdot Mirror
And then some ISP's would simply put it on a flat rate. Or advertise "Send free emails!", and charge an extra dollar on the base price.
Same result. You're talking about flushing spammers into the open, where they make easy targets. *AOL voice* You've Got Junk Mail! *AOL voice*
The recipient? hmmm.....there would end up being some kind of reciprocal agreement between spammers. "I pay you, you pay me."
Then it's not SPAM - the recipient would expect to receive SPAM. SPAMmers SPAMing SPAMers? Who cares, as long as it's not me.
The poor user whose box gets cracked and becomes the sender of a million emails is in for a fight getting his money back or account reinstated.
A legitemate concern. It would, however, make people protect thier assets far better. Besides, I'm sure ISPs could set up TOS with thier users, and say, limit an account to 1000 e-mails a month. Not terribly profitable.
And then of course the valid bulk email senders would wither and die.
Yes, and? Actually, only people who could provide value would survive in a world where UCE costs real $ - a good thing, IMHO.
Who pays, and who gets 'paid'?
You're missing the point. As soon as $ are involved, there's a trail to follow to the spammer. That's the main benefit, as we can then track down spammers and require them to account for thier transgressions, in either $ or time.
Sorry, but there are far too many loopholes and traps for paid email to actually work.
It's a new take on a system, bud. it may take some time to work out all of the kinks, but it sounds much more promising than what's curently in place.
Soko
This setup is not stable. I get regularly filesystem corruption if I stress the system. Apparently linux can't deal with the fact that the total transfer rate of 12 modern ultra dma133 disks more than maxes the PCI bus.
I don't think it's Linux, bud - my suspicion is that the controllers themselves can't deal with a maxed out PCI bus. They are normally bus-master cards, so it's possible that one is grabbing the PCI bus and holding it for so long that the one of the others is giving up, instantly corrupting your array. Promise likely didn't take into account such setups where there's more than one or two RAID contollers per machine.
Currently I am thinking about changing the raid 5 arrays into just plain volume groups without stripping. This would allow me to lose some of the transfer rate and avoid stressing the pci bus.
I doubt it - you still are tryng to squeeze way too much data through the northbridge chip on your motherboard. You may be able to do something with PCI bus timings, but you stand a very good chance of hosing the whole setup that way. You simply need more motherboard bandwidth if you want to support that much disk space - sorry.
What you need is a dual (or triple) peer PCI bus motherboard, so you an have 2 controllers per northbridge channel. Look into SuperMicro and one of their ServerWorks GC LE based boards.
Soko
If anyone saw the pictures, his setup looks awfully precarious.
He has 1 normal PC case, 2 homemade stands for the drives, and one more homemade stand for additional power supplies.
The stands with the drives look like they could topple with a moments notice! Why did he put them at the top...?
I agree. It would have been better engineered with 2 power supplies at the bottom of each tower, providing a more solid base for the disks. I'd of made the towers far shorter as well - perhaps even turned them sideways.
I think it would be better to mount as many power supplies and drives in 2 additional cases, with the shells removed.
That would be expensive, and would also make heat an issue. The setup he has allows for passive cooling - even a case with the shell removed would trap more heat. Heat can lower MTBF - not something to do with IDE drives. A proper external disk case would make even more sense, as most come with fans and cooling.
Might be a problem with IDE cable length; maybe you could do 2 next to each side the the master computer.
Now you know one of the reaons why SCSI is king for servers - it's meant to be used both internally and extrenally. I've used 10' long, high quality SCSI cables to attach external disks to servers in my time without issue. As well, you can have 14 disks per SCSI controller - not possible with IDE.
It's a nice hack, even if it had design issues, though.
Soko
It amazes me just how many coders or software professionals do not understand the power regular showers and GOOD DEODERANT."
;-)
It amazes me just how many posters do not understand the power of the Web and a good dictionary.
I mean if you want people to talk to you, you shouldn't reek like a bridge troll - no matter how well you code.
I mean, if you want people to talk to you, you shouldn't come off as a cave troll - no matter how well you code.
Soko
If utility is measured is measured in utiles, shouldn't reputation be measured in reptiles?
So, we should just get Steve Irwin to tackle Microsoft for us? Crikey!!!
Soko
Now my four-year old will be getting membership in the RIAA to protect their musical compositions on this thing.
Cool. She can be president. She'll do a much better job than the outgoing one, who only seems to have the mentality of a tempermental 2 year old.
Soko
Possibly, but I have a feeling that microsoft would probably remove all comments from their source code and make the variable names all meaningless.
I don't think so - there is the Shared Source initiative from Microsoft. Obuscation of the code would be unprofessional at best.
Then it would be nigh on impossible to understand how windows works.
With all of the code profilers and debuggers out there, obuscation would only be a temporary set back. (*Avoids cheap shot about the average Windows user*)
I don't say this because i think they're evil, but it's common sense for them if what you suggest might happen did happen. Their source code is a close secret, and I dont think they would even want a government of any country to see it.
I also don't think that MS is "evil", but I disagree with the rest of your statement. Along with your Shared Source agreement comes an NDA. In that NDA (AFAIK), you state that you won't use the source to make your own version of Windows, nor will you help the competition in any way, which does make perect sense from a business perspective.
However, seeing that Linux and a lot of other OSS is in direct competition with Microsoft, they've basically removed you from developing OSS. Why wouldn't they want a government to be legally bound to not develop OSS? That's part of the strategic fall out from Shared Source - stealing mindshare through NDAs.
Using a WAR3Zed copy of the Windows source code to "help" an OSS project would be even worse, since you would have used illegally obtained IP and polluted the code, giving Microsoft both legal and moral ground to kill the project you contributed to.
Please, stay away from Windows source code, unless you have no desire or need to contribute to OSS.
Soko
Perhaps a more '2000' reality based vampire show is in order, where the vampires vote each other off the show :)
Nah. That show would suck.
*OW!!!!*
Soko
Agreed, but what most want is justice, not revenge.
.
Spammers use very slimy methods in the way they do thier business in order to avoid what would be appropriate justice - namely, having any e-mail sent by them filed immediately in the bit-bucket. Since there are currently no legally prescribed means of stopping the deluge, people become outraged, and well, you can figure out what's going on from there,
While it's not really an excuse for questionable behaviour, these "businessmen" are actually inviting it by continuing along as though people actually want thier wares. As long as they do that, normally reasonable people will want to see all spammers get thier just reward - in spades.
Besides, there's and old saying that fits here:
"Turn-about is fair play."
Soko
There will always be people willing and able to pay $500 for a garden spade.
;-)
True. The amazing thing is that the person who bought the $500 spade will find a way to justify the cost, even though it and the $20 spade shovel the same shit the same way.
Soko
Lighten up, dude.
There's more physics, science and strategy in running a modern stock car than setting up Apache on a Linux machine, bud. Most NASCAR fans are very familliar with the science behind the strategies and methods that make the winners win - hardly the prevue of "rednecks" with an "unsurprising lack of intelligence". They would also grasp the reason for your insipid comments - an appauling lack of good will towards your fellow man.
Geek though you may be, you and I are nothing special in relation to "the big picture". You really shouldn't look down upon people who can do something far better than you can (unless you actually _can_ build, then drive a car for 500 miles averaging over 170MPH). If I were you, I'd get off that high horse you're riding.
Just a bit of friendly advice from someone who's been there.
Soko
I disagree with you.
The whole point is that Microsoft will integrate the technology in the OS. If it's "Good Enough", thier customers will not look for alternatives. This will decrease the available market for this kind of software, where people look for the best choice possible.
That's pretty much what they did to Netscape. If VMWare's major revenue stream is from "Windows on Windows", the analogy is almost exact.
As well, if they do kill VMWare's major revenue source, this point:
I doubt that MS will offer any functionality where you can run a MS OS on top of a non MS OS...
takes on a more nefarious purpose. I've had several people try out Linux via VMWare, since it wouldn't touch thier main OS. One of my best advocay tools would be gone. Not to mention the headaches that some Mac users would now face with SoftPC off of the market.
IMHO, Microsoft should only be allowed to license this tehnology, and then be forced to keep it out of the default install of the product it's integrated with. That should keep the playing field somewhat even.
Soko
As I understand it, NVidias drivers basically use the assmbler in gcc build the "bianry only core", and source to link that core into the current kernel. IOW, thier package includes a binary image of thier driver that they insert into kernel space with a source code stub.
/untar/NVidia/NVIDIA_kernel-xx.x-xxxx /untar/NVidia/NVIDIA_GLX-xx.x-xxxx
/etc/X11/XF86Config already, you're good to go. If not - Read The Fine Manual on setting that up, available on the NVidia site
Full installation instructions are on the NVidia website.
Oh - the script. I use the source tarball from the site with the script below. The RPMs aren't updated quickly enough. 2 caveats:
The must be run as root, and you require the kernel headers for it to work.
#!/bin/bash
cd
make install
cd
make install
If you've done this once and modified
It could be prettier (use sudo, check for errors etc.), but I'm a bash noob really- works for me. Use at your own risk!
Soko
I recently (well, 2 months ago) upgraded my workstation to a P4, and had the pleasure of trying to set up a dual head system under RedHat 8.0. I tried the following cards, in order:
Matrox G450 DualHead (Cost: Rescuing it from the trashbin at work):
I loved Matrox cards under Windows, and they had a good rep with the Linux crowd, so I gave this one a whirl. I got the dual head working with the Matrox drivers without too much fuss. However, artifacts from one screen would just appear on the other screen, borking my display. For example, any time I used a pull-down menu on the second screen, the fly-down would apear on both screens. Couldn't fix that for love nor money, so I decided to part with some $.
ATI Radeon 9000Pro (Cost: $229 CDN):
Bleah. This card worked OK on single screen, but even there it just "felt" a little shaky for some reason. Dual head just would not work at all - X would panic each and every time. After 4 nights of mucking about with it, I gave up and exchanged it.
Pine XFX GeForce Ti4200 128Mb (Cost: $349CDN):
I had this card in, running X and set up in dual head in under 2 hours. 2D is crisp, fast and the dual head works as you'd expect. It's a keeper (esecially after trying out the UT2K3 demo). Updating the kernel causes a re-compile of the drivers, but I wrote a script to do that so it's no hassle now. OK, they're closed source drivers in reality, but I don't care - my card works as I want.
In the end, the drivers that a video card uses are just as important (see ATI) as the hardware itself. Think about that before you buy that dual head card for your workstation.
Soko
My first was thought that someone pulled 2 of the wings off of the MSN butterfly.
Saaayyyyy.....
Soko
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together. Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
OK. And how is everyone to know that it's a poison pill, unless we discuss it directly with Microsoft in the open and get them to say as much? Until that's done, your "poison pill" is just theory and hearsay - it means nothing.
That's the beauty of free speech - it lets the villians show that they're a villian. Then when you know that thier cause is going to hurt you in some way, you can avoid helping them in thier cause or take appropriate steps to counter thier cause. If you shut them up, how do you know they have ill intent?
I say drag Microsoft into the conference kicking and screaming if needs be, so we can detail to others exactly what the poison in the pill is, and what to look for so everyone can avoid even putting that pill in thier mouth, let alone swallow it.
Soko
This bill will pass unless it is so far out there that even the parliament members can consciously vote in favor of this.
;-)
You forget that under our crippled system, the PM currently decides what will pass and what won't. For those not in the know, the PM can severaly discipline any member of his party that doesn't vote as the PMs caucus decides. With a majority government, the PM is basically a dictator. Ergo, if Jean wants it passed, it gets passed.
In Canada, when you write to your MP, you always, always, always send a copy to the PM and the Minister responsible for the legislation you're commenting on - in this case
The Honourable Elinor Caplan
Minister of National Revenue
555 Mackenzie Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K10 0L5
- just so you know.
What will Canadian citizens do about it? Nothing, just look at how many posts there are. (9)
Hey, it's bloody cold tonight - my cable connection just thawed out enough for me to respond, and I'm in Southern Ontario. Winter^H^H^Hnipeg won't be able to respond until, say April???
Soko
I have to give your point credence. Actually, I'm suprised that Microsoft wrote support specific to Opera into IIS at all, given it's market share. Simple logic dictates that Opera wouldn't be the target of such an underhanded thing - Mozilla would, since it poses more of an immediate threat to the browser hegeonomy the IE posseses.
This is likely just a bug in IIS (SHOCK!) and how it's handling the user agent. Microsoft is (justly or no) reaping the benefits of being a convicted monopolist here.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." ~ Hanlon's Razor.
Soko
hez, What\s the wronh with (raffittit.z? I likf it... ;)
Soko
Someone once said to me, 'cultivate your own garden,'" Hughes says. "I said, I'm going to use a microprocessor as a hoe and a modem as a wheelbarrow."
...and if he happens to come upon /., he'll get plenty of fertilizer to assist in cultivation...
Soko
That's really nice gear, but I'm not sure I could live with the whole keyboard lighting up like that.
What would be really cool is having the backlit, opaque key keyboard with the letter/symbol markings that are currenly printed in black on the keyface cut out of the keys instead, and then filled with clear plastic of some sort so they lit up too. Glowing gutters and letters is the effect I'm after.
That would be much easier on the eyes while still being fully darkness compatible.
Soko
Analog fails gracefully, digital fails catastrophically.
Ummm...
One or Zero - your choice?
Soko
As funny as that statement is, I'd rather it be modded as insightful, rather than funny.
Imagine, if you will, that CmdrTaco's little icon joke about the Borg is indeed correct. OK, now, imagine that we manage to insert a little bit of autonomy (by college education, for example) into one of the drones. Remember Hugh? Seems OSS has hurt Microsoft in ways that can't be measured quite yet on the balance sheet.
I've always thought that the best way to dismantle a machine is from the inside. Here's more credence to that thought, IMHO. Actually, my first thought when I read the article was "Merry Christmas, Soko - there really is a Windows user with a clue."
Soko
I beg to disagree. Think Jennicam.
'Nuf said.
Soko
Very true - if you need to buy any more licenses, that is. This software will allow you to do two things:
1 - use the Office licenses you already have in perpetuity. No Licensing 6.0 style "software as a service" pay-me-now-and-pay-me-later is needed - it is, after all, Linux.
2 - pool the Office licenses you have, making better use of a valuable resource. Say you have 100 employees and 70 Office licenses. You can pool those 70 licenses on Crossover Office Server, and likely keep every one of your users happy. Not everyone has Word/Excel/Access open all of the time, so it makes very good sense to pool them in this way.
Soko