It specifically states in the article that Lindows is being developed to help combat the constant upgrade cycle that MS tends to push with it's products. They're targetting Lindows at corporations with a large inventory of slightly older computers. Take those, put Lindows on them, get the current version of Office, and be done with it. So, does it really matter if future versions of Word don't run on it? Maybe in time, but not immediately.
This was already discussed here. The article was first run in early December
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/12/135723 2&mode=thread
Kids, don't learn English from reading this review
on
Review: Impostor
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
There are some amazing run on setences in that review. It's been a while since I've seen the English language mangled so badly.
Frankly, watching the movie, we're getting our asses kicked, with human society devolving into a fascistic state huddled under energy domes for protection.
While watching the movie chrisd got his ass kicked with a society that is fascist and hudled under domes. Exactly how do you assault someone with a society?
The aliens, however, really aren't the focus of the film, which is neither good nor bad, as they aren't really central to the plot.
That sentence, by lack of a strategically placed period, is telling us that the movie is neither good nor bad. I doubt that is what the reviewer had in mind. Since I've been told that the movie is so-so, why should I continue to read the review?
Sinise's character Olham is picked up by the government as he is suspected of being an alien replicant instead of the real Olham with the additional feature of a bomb in his chest designed to go off when he meets with the Chancellor of Earth.
If the real Olham has the additonal feature of a bomb in his chest what is the purpose of the replicant? Why is his chest designed to go off when he meets the chancellor? Is the chancellor going to be hurt by flying pectoral muscles? Maybe this is how you assault someone with a society?
Punctuation would solve so many problems with that atrocity of a thought chrisd wrote.
The effects are enjoyable in a "look it's a cool city with ships flying around all over it" way and the cast is much stronger than you'd expect in this kind of movie, but not too much.
The improperly used "and" ties two disparate thoughts together in new and interesting ways. If you're talking about the effects, talk about the effects. If you're talking about the cast, talk about the cast. Periods and capital letters were invented for a purpose.
To wrap up, "Impostor" is a decent flick worth your $5.75 matinee price while elongating your lunch hour and definitely worth taking the time to watch on cable, although the effects would not be as enjoyable.
So, the movie is decent and worth our $5.75, but only if we watch it during lunch and then alsotake time to watch it on cable. If I just watch it in the theater will it not be worth the $5.75? Taking the time to also watch it on cable will lessen the effects, though. Is this a "if the tree falls in the woods" type of philosophical discussion? If I actually watch the movie on cable the effects will be lessened. Ergo, if I never watch it on cable the effects will be mind-blowing.
That just replaces one problem with another. Now, instead of having to recreate my buddy list I have to take the time to try a bunch of different Jabber clients until I find one that has all of the features I want. That still isn't a panacea, though. The issues with finding a server, finding a stable server, and finding a server with the transports you want still exist.
Trillian solves all of those problems.
Jabber is a nice idea, but it's implementation is lacking in a number of important areas.
Jabber is great except for four very pesky problems:
1) You have to connect to a Jabber server
2) You have to find a Jabber server that is running all of the message protocols you want/need
3) Most servers are run by regular people, and they're not always on when you want/need them.
4) Your buddy list is stored server side, so you can not easily move to another server. If your sever goes down you'll have to recreate your entire buddly list on a new server if you want access.
Trillian, on the other hand, connects to the chat providers native servers and uses XML as a translation mechanism on the client side. The chances of Yahoo's chat server, AOL's chat server, ICQ's servers, or MSN's chat servers going down is very very slim. I used to use Jabber but gave up in frustration when the server I used disappeared for over a week.
Analogies aside, MS doesn't have to own your electric company; they just need to make a deal with them. And since it's quite likely that the electric company is already relying on MS software, the possibility isn't all that farfetched.
But that still doesn't mean it's correct to start getting all pissy about Microsoft unifying the login strategies for their web sites.
When you get a PO Box at the Post Office you have to use the key they provide you. That key clearly says, "DO NOT COPY". Is this the Post Office exercising their monopoly powers in PO box keys to prevent you from using other keys? No, it's just common sense. If you don't like it, find another PO box provider (ala Mail Boxes Etc...) that lets you use your own authentication (your own keys) to get at your mail.
Now, if the Post Office would never deliver your credit card bill except to a box that you had to use your key to access, regardless of whether you use a PO box or a house box, that would be cause for alarm.
The grocery stores are not owned by MS, the utilities are not owned by MS. MS owns Passport. MS owns the Zone. MS can use their own technology to gate access to the Zone.
Yes, if the grocery stores and utilities required Passport I would worry. But, again, that is not a proper analogy to what this story is about.
This has nothing to do with rights. Well, it does, but it has to do with Microsoft's rights. They have a right to use whatever authentication system for their web pages that they choose.
You, as the average internet consumer do not have a right to access some companies pages without using the access mechanism that they choose. You do have a right to not grace that company with your business, though.
Really, can someone explain to me all of the mis-directed righteous indignation at Microsoft over this? It's a non-issue. If you don't like what MS has done with the Zone...tough. Just go play elsewhere.
SoftImage took too long to rev from 3D to XSI. Then, when XSI finally arrived it had a very non-standard and unintuitive interface. Couple that with the fact that there was no polygonal modeller in XSI (they included a free copy of SI:3D with every XSI purchase so you could have polygonal tools) and you get a recipe for disaster.
SoftI was good at one point. It's been passed by both Maya and Max these days. SI has a lot of work to do to catch up.
Ha! - providing an automated tool for calling functions in Windows common to gaming, is not making the Windows platform a viable gaming platform per se, it's just making it easier to program for it.
What "automated tool" are you refering to? The viablity of Windows as a gaming platform goes much beyond the DirectX APIs. It's far more friendly to end users. You don't have to compile your video card drivers, window managers, and sound card drivers. You don't have to recompile your kernel to get joystick support (or, quite possibly, your video card and sound card drivers to work), you don't have to know about RPMs, configure, or make files. You just have to insert the CD and click "Install" from the little window that appears.
Even in the dark ages of DOS gaming, where you had games that shipped with upwards of 50 different video card drivers and almost as many sound card drivers you didn't have to recompile your OS, application, or drivers to get it all to work. Linux, for all of it's power, is still very unfriendly to end users. Until it becomes as easy as Windows for the end user it will not make inroads onto the desktop in appreciable numbers.
Without those installed desktop #s then game companies will not see a reason to do native Linux games to be sold at retail. Even if they did produce the games the retailers will still balk at having to waste shelf space on Linux games. The profit margins for the games will be non-existant.
Linux gaming is not a profitable business at the moment. Linux users can either suck it up and use WineX to play the games that interest them, dual boot Windows, or spend their time addressing the shortcomings of Linux to make it more readily accessible to end users in the hopes of increasing desktop installations.
WINEX also promotes the use of Windows software and insulates programmers from cross-platform considerations. (bad)
Just what cross platform considerations are you refering to--in regards to games? The buying public has spoken and it has said that Linux games do not sell at retail. Even id, the last holdout for retail Linux titles decided after Quake3:TA that retail Linux games sales were not a viable proposition.
Game developers are not being insulated from cross platform considerations. They don't really have any to be insulated from. For good or bad MS has provided the necessary tools to make Windows a viable gaming platform. Linux isn't at the same level. Buying a Windows game and playing it on WineX is not casting a vote against retail Linux games, nor is it paying the enemy in some OS holy war. It's the only way people will be able to play 1st run titles on Linux. That will not change in the foreseable future. Whether or not the developer gets money from a Windows game sale or a Linux game sale doesn't matter. The developer still gets money and the customer gets a product they want. That should be all that matters.
Kai and a group of Civ3 fans decided to translate portions of Civ3 to German and to make the result available as a set of files to be applied to the US on time for Christmas.
Well, I hope I have time to finish typing this before das ereignet.
The Cats Will Be Very Upset
on
Concept PC 2001
·
· Score: 5, Funny
No cables to play with and/or chew to bits. If I can't offer my computer to them as a sacrifice they'll make a beeline to the A/V gear cables.
How would this differ than just using AOL over a standard TCP/IP connection? My LinkSys cable/DSl 4 port gateway/router lets me connect to AOL just fine. I just have my AOL client set to use TCP/IP instead of a dialup connection.
Luckily I don't have to use AOL all that often.
Re:Quick and Dirty Interrupt Handler
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
I find the decision to remove any and all CLI from Windows a bit odd, considering that Apple went the opposite direction with Mac OS X.
I find it funny how people are equating "DOS is dead" to "No more CLI in Windows".
DOS was never a part of WinNT, Win2K, or WinXP. Yet, all three have command prompts.
Go check the PCData Top Ten list for the past 50-60+ weeks. What is either #1 or #2 on all of those charts?
The Sims
Quake isn't anywhere near the biggest game on the PC. The Sims is a $100 Mil industry unto itself at this point.
The argument could be made that The Sims isn't a game. But, it gets charted with other PC entertainment sales, so for this argument it must be treated as a PC game product.
Which company am I going to turn to to get my hemmorhoid ring shaped, iMac blue, wireless game pads? (http://www.intel.com/wireless_series/gamepad.htm)
Yes, but this time, the browser wars will be a fight to provide customers with the highest level of web standards compliance, rendering speed, cross-platform capability, and truly useful features. I, for one, think that this sounds like a good thing. (Even though I will probably not be using anything but Konqueror ever again.)
Excuse me? When was it that 99% of the population geeked-out? I must've missed it.
I dare you to go ask an average AOL user to even define the term "web standards compliance". You won't get a good answer.
The majority of people on the internet don't give a second thought to web standards or cross platform compatibility. They might care about rendering speed but they sure as heck don't view that as a function of their browser. They've been reared to think that their machine is too slow and they need the next uberPentium. The majority of users care about the content, not the delivery mechanism. If MSN were to provide 100% of the content that people want--in an exciting and snappy way--then they could use whatever browser technology and/or delivery mechanism that they wanted. The same is true for AOL or any other large content provider (notice I didn't say ISP).
Under the hood technologies don't mean a whit to the people that pay the subscription fees. It's the message, not the messenger that they care about.
I hear over and over again this call to arms, "Design a desktop that makes sense. Don't just design one that looks and runs like Windows."
Well, what would that be, exactly? There are a few basic tennants of a GUI that appear similar on all platforms:
Text boxes
Combo boxes
Drop Down menus
Radio Buttons
Check Boxes
Scroll Bars
Buttons
Tab Panels
Icons
Shortcuts/Aliases
Start Menu/Apple Menu/KDE Menu/GNOME Menu
etc...
These are basic items that are the foundation of a GUI. Yet, when people implement these things we get the cries of, "That's just a poor man's Windows. Create what the users *want*!"
Well, what do the users want? Don't you think that Apple and Microsoft have invested quite large sums of money figuring out what the users want? Realistically, in this day and age, if you build a GUI that completely changes the paradigm of a desktop with items on it, folders, widgets, etc... you better have an idea that immediately resonates with everyone. Else it will look alien and nobody will use it.
So, why doesn't anyone ever list the items that would make a desktop that would be Linux's own? Isn't it about time for somebody to pony up with this grand vision, instead of just crowing about the fact that we should all be reaching for this mythic concept?
Really, what is it that we should be doing? Which path should we be taking to achieve this epiphany in UIs?
A multi-cd changer in your car, loaded with all discs of a certain genre, will generate the same amount of content before a repeat as XM does, I bet.
Go turn on any given radio channel on your digital cable tv service. Listen to it and note how long it is before you hear a repeated song. It's pretty darn short. These "channels" are nothing more than banks of multi-CD changers.
After 3 days on any given XM channel you will be dying to hear something new.
You forgot to quote the very next paragraph from Cringley's article.
I am far from the first person to write about this problem. You can find it explained in excruciating detail by my old friend Steve Gibson of Gibson Research. That link, as always, is behind the "I like it" button on the bottom of this page.
Gibson has already been called to the carpet numerous times over this.
I never said that Mozilla has 100,000 bugs. I said that people are crowing about a bug tracking system that can handle the 100,000 bugs that have been reported for Mozilla.
illiterate (-ltr-t)
adj.
Unable to read and write.
Nope. I can do that just fine. I can manage it without using all caps too.
Having little or no formal education.
My two college degrees are enough to refute that
Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
Still not germane to what I wrote
Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing.
I will admit to making spelling errors now and again. That's not quite the same as illiteracy, though
Slashdot Mirror
It specifically states in the article that Lindows is being developed to help combat the constant upgrade cycle that MS tends to push with it's products. They're targetting Lindows at corporations with a large inventory of slightly older computers. Take those, put Lindows on them, get the current version of Office, and be done with it. So, does it really matter if future versions of Word don't run on it? Maybe in time, but not immediately.
This was already discussed here. The article was first run in early December http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/12/135723 2&mode=thread
There are some amazing run on setences in that review. It's been a while since I've seen the English language mangled so badly.
Frankly, watching the movie, we're getting our asses kicked, with human society devolving into a fascistic state huddled under energy domes for protection.
While watching the movie chrisd got his ass kicked with a society that is fascist and hudled under domes. Exactly how do you assault someone with a society?
The aliens, however, really aren't the focus of the film, which is neither good nor bad, as they aren't really central to the plot.
That sentence, by lack of a strategically placed period, is telling us that the movie is neither good nor bad. I doubt that is what the reviewer had in mind. Since I've been told that the movie is so-so, why should I continue to read the review?
Sinise's character Olham is picked up by the government as he is suspected of being an alien replicant instead of the real Olham with the additional feature of a bomb in his chest designed to go off when he meets with the Chancellor of Earth.
If the real Olham has the additonal feature of a bomb in his chest what is the purpose of the replicant? Why is his chest designed to go off when he meets the chancellor? Is the chancellor going to be hurt by flying pectoral muscles? Maybe this is how you assault someone with a society?
Punctuation would solve so many problems with that atrocity of a thought chrisd wrote.
The effects are enjoyable in a "look it's a cool city with ships flying around all over it" way and the cast is much stronger than you'd expect in this kind of movie, but not too much.
The improperly used "and" ties two disparate thoughts together in new and interesting ways. If you're talking about the effects, talk about the effects. If you're talking about the cast, talk about the cast. Periods and capital letters were invented for a purpose.
To wrap up, "Impostor" is a decent flick worth your $5.75 matinee price while elongating your lunch hour and definitely worth taking the time to watch on cable, although the effects would not be as enjoyable.
So, the movie is decent and worth our $5.75, but only if we watch it during lunch and then alsotake time to watch it on cable. If I just watch it in the theater will it not be worth the $5.75? Taking the time to also watch it on cable will lessen the effects, though. Is this a "if the tree falls in the woods" type of philosophical discussion? If I actually watch the movie on cable the effects will be lessened. Ergo, if I never watch it on cable the effects will be mind-blowing.
That just replaces one problem with another. Now, instead of having to recreate my buddy list I have to take the time to try a bunch of different Jabber clients until I find one that has all of the features I want. That still isn't a panacea, though. The issues with finding a server, finding a stable server, and finding a server with the transports you want still exist.
Trillian solves all of those problems.
Jabber is a nice idea, but it's implementation is lacking in a number of important areas.
Jabber is great except for four very pesky problems:
1) You have to connect to a Jabber server
2) You have to find a Jabber server that is running all of the message protocols you want/need
3) Most servers are run by regular people, and they're not always on when you want/need them.
4) Your buddy list is stored server side, so you can not easily move to another server. If your sever goes down you'll have to recreate your entire buddly list on a new server if you want access.
Trillian, on the other hand, connects to the chat providers native servers and uses XML as a translation mechanism on the client side. The chances of Yahoo's chat server, AOL's chat server, ICQ's servers, or MSN's chat servers going down is very very slim. I used to use Jabber but gave up in frustration when the server I used disappeared for over a week.
Analogies aside, MS doesn't have to own your electric company; they just need to make a deal with them. And since it's quite likely that the electric company is already relying on MS software, the possibility isn't all that farfetched.
But that still doesn't mean it's correct to start getting all pissy about Microsoft unifying the login strategies for their web sites.
When you get a PO Box at the Post Office you have to use the key they provide you. That key clearly says, "DO NOT COPY". Is this the Post Office exercising their monopoly powers in PO box keys to prevent you from using other keys? No, it's just common sense. If you don't like it, find another PO box provider (ala Mail Boxes Etc...) that lets you use your own authentication (your own keys) to get at your mail.
Now, if the Post Office would never deliver your credit card bill except to a box that you had to use your key to access, regardless of whether you use a PO box or a house box, that would be cause for alarm.
See what I'm getting at?
Your attempted analogy is not correct.
The grocery stores are not owned by MS, the utilities are not owned by MS. MS owns Passport. MS owns the Zone. MS can use their own technology to gate access to the Zone.
Yes, if the grocery stores and utilities required Passport I would worry. But, again, that is not a proper analogy to what this story is about.
This has nothing to do with rights. Well, it does, but it has to do with Microsoft's rights. They have a right to use whatever authentication system for their web pages that they choose.
You, as the average internet consumer do not have a right to access some companies pages without using the access mechanism that they choose. You do have a right to not grace that company with your business, though.
Really, can someone explain to me all of the mis-directed righteous indignation at Microsoft over this? It's a non-issue. If you don't like what MS has done with the Zone...tough. Just go play elsewhere.
>>Try taking the "explorer" out of windows.
http://www.litestep.net/
http://www.openvision.50megs.com/
You can even (at least on 9x) configure Windows to come up with the old Windows 3.x file/desktop manager.
Try here: http://www.softimage.com/. This 'web' thing is amazing. You should give it a whirl.
SoftImage took too long to rev from 3D to XSI. Then, when XSI finally arrived it had a very non-standard and unintuitive interface. Couple that with the fact that there was no polygonal modeller in XSI (they included a free copy of SI:3D with every XSI purchase so you could have polygonal tools) and you get a recipe for disaster.
SoftI was good at one point. It's been passed by both Maya and Max these days. SI has a lot of work to do to catch up.
Ha! - providing an automated tool for calling functions in Windows common to gaming, is not making the Windows platform a viable gaming platform per se, it's just making it easier to program for it.
What "automated tool" are you refering to? The viablity of Windows as a gaming platform goes much beyond the DirectX APIs. It's far more friendly to end users. You don't have to compile your video card drivers, window managers, and sound card drivers. You don't have to recompile your kernel to get joystick support (or, quite possibly, your video card and sound card drivers to work), you don't have to know about RPMs, configure, or make files. You just have to insert the CD and click "Install" from the little window that appears.
Even in the dark ages of DOS gaming, where you had games that shipped with upwards of 50 different video card drivers and almost as many sound card drivers you didn't have to recompile your OS, application, or drivers to get it all to work. Linux, for all of it's power, is still very unfriendly to end users. Until it becomes as easy as Windows for the end user it will not make inroads onto the desktop in appreciable numbers.
Without those installed desktop #s then game companies will not see a reason to do native Linux games to be sold at retail. Even if they did produce the games the retailers will still balk at having to waste shelf space on Linux games. The profit margins for the games will be non-existant.
Linux gaming is not a profitable business at the moment. Linux users can either suck it up and use WineX to play the games that interest them, dual boot Windows, or spend their time addressing the shortcomings of Linux to make it more readily accessible to end users in the hopes of increasing desktop installations.
WINEX also promotes the use of Windows software and insulates programmers from cross-platform considerations. (bad)
Just what cross platform considerations are you refering to--in regards to games? The buying public has spoken and it has said that Linux games do not sell at retail. Even id, the last holdout for retail Linux titles decided after Quake3:TA that retail Linux games sales were not a viable proposition.
Game developers are not being insulated from cross platform considerations. They don't really have any to be insulated from. For good or bad MS has provided the necessary tools to make Windows a viable gaming platform. Linux isn't at the same level. Buying a Windows game and playing it on WineX is not casting a vote against retail Linux games, nor is it paying the enemy in some OS holy war. It's the only way people will be able to play 1st run titles on Linux. That will not change in the foreseable future. Whether or not the developer gets money from a Windows game sale or a Linux game sale doesn't matter. The developer still gets money and the customer gets a product they want. That should be all that matters.
Kai and a group of Civ3 fans decided to translate portions of Civ3 to German and to make the result available as a set of files to be applied to the US on time for Christmas.
Well, I hope I have time to finish typing this before das ereignet.
No cables to play with and/or chew to bits. If I can't offer my computer to them as a sacrifice they'll make a beeline to the A/V gear cables.
How would this differ than just using AOL over a standard TCP/IP connection? My LinkSys cable/DSl 4 port gateway/router lets me connect to AOL just fine. I just have my AOL client set to use TCP/IP instead of a dialup connection.
Luckily I don't have to use AOL all that often.
I find the decision to remove any and all CLI from Windows a bit odd, considering that Apple went the opposite direction with Mac OS X.
I find it funny how people are equating "DOS is dead" to "No more CLI in Windows".
DOS was never a part of WinNT, Win2K, or WinXP. Yet, all three have command prompts.
Go check the PCData Top Ten list for the past 50-60+ weeks. What is either #1 or #2 on all of those charts?
The Sims
Quake isn't anywhere near the biggest game on the PC. The Sims is a $100 Mil industry unto itself at this point.
The argument could be made that The Sims isn't a game. But, it gets charted with other PC entertainment sales, so for this argument it must be treated as a PC game product.
Which company am I going to turn to to get my hemmorhoid ring shaped, iMac blue, wireless game pads? (http://www.intel.com/wireless_series/gamepad.htm)
Oh the humanity...
Yes, but this time, the browser wars will be a fight to provide customers with the highest level of web standards compliance, rendering speed, cross-platform capability, and truly useful features. I, for one, think that this sounds like a good thing. (Even though I will probably not be using anything but Konqueror ever again.)
Excuse me? When was it that 99% of the population geeked-out? I must've missed it.
I dare you to go ask an average AOL user to even define the term "web standards compliance". You won't get a good answer.
The majority of people on the internet don't give a second thought to web standards or cross platform compatibility. They might care about rendering speed but they sure as heck don't view that as a function of their browser. They've been reared to think that their machine is too slow and they need the next uberPentium. The majority of users care about the content, not the delivery mechanism. If MSN were to provide 100% of the content that people want--in an exciting and snappy way--then they could use whatever browser technology and/or delivery mechanism that they wanted. The same is true for AOL or any other large content provider (notice I didn't say ISP).
Under the hood technologies don't mean a whit to the people that pay the subscription fees. It's the message, not the messenger that they care about.
I hear over and over again this call to arms, "Design a desktop that makes sense. Don't just design one that looks and runs like Windows."
Well, what would that be, exactly? There are a few basic tennants of a GUI that appear similar on all platforms:
Text boxes
Combo boxes
Drop Down menus
Radio Buttons
Check Boxes
Scroll Bars
Buttons
Tab Panels
Icons
Shortcuts/Aliases
Start Menu/Apple Menu/KDE Menu/GNOME Menu
etc...
These are basic items that are the foundation of a GUI. Yet, when people implement these things we get the cries of, "That's just a poor man's Windows. Create what the users *want*!"
Well, what do the users want? Don't you think that Apple and Microsoft have invested quite large sums of money figuring out what the users want? Realistically, in this day and age, if you build a GUI that completely changes the paradigm of a desktop with items on it, folders, widgets, etc... you better have an idea that immediately resonates with everyone. Else it will look alien and nobody will use it.
So, why doesn't anyone ever list the items that would make a desktop that would be Linux's own? Isn't it about time for somebody to pony up with this grand vision, instead of just crowing about the fact that we should all be reaching for this mythic concept?
Really, what is it that we should be doing? Which path should we be taking to achieve this epiphany in UIs?
A multi-cd changer in your car, loaded with all discs of a certain genre, will generate the same amount of content before a repeat as XM does, I bet.
Go turn on any given radio channel on your digital cable tv service. Listen to it and note how long it is before you hear a repeated song. It's pretty darn short. These "channels" are nothing more than banks of multi-CD changers.
After 3 days on any given XM channel you will be dying to hear something new.
You forgot to quote the very next paragraph from Cringley's article.
I am far from the first person to write about this problem. You can find it explained in excruciating detail by my old friend Steve Gibson of Gibson Research. That link, as always, is behind the "I like it" button on the bottom of this page.
Gibson has already been called to the carpet numerous times over this.
I never said that Mozilla has 100,000 bugs. I said that people are crowing about a bug tracking system that can handle the 100,000 bugs that have been reported for Mozilla.
illiterate (-ltr-t)
adj.
Unable to read and write.
Nope. I can do that just fine. I can manage it without using all caps too.
Having little or no formal education.
My two college degrees are enough to refute that
Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
Still not germane to what I wrote
Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing.
I will admit to making spelling errors now and again. That's not quite the same as illiteracy, though
What was your point again?
So when Win2K was released the OSS people crowed about how it had 20K bugs in it.
Now those same people are lauding the fact that they have a bug tracking system able to withstand the sheer onslaught of Mozillas 100,000 bugs?
Whatever.