Really? The Qt and GtK toolkits have been ported to OS/2? The Qt has been ported to Windows, but the Windows port of the GtK toolkits is *severely* broken. (No offense intended or implied to anyone working on the Windows port of the GtK toolkits.:)
these tools pale in comparison to proprietary tools available on other platforms.
How so? Most proprietary tools available on other programs (not mentioning any names (Visual C++, Visual Basic) or anything) are severely broken in terms of supporting standards and proper syntax.
Those tools are good for slapping out broken, severely buggy bloatware quickly, but not much else. GNU development tools are cross-platform, based on open standards, and are extremely robust. For instance, I wouldn't trade gdb for the broken, crappy debugger built into VC++ any day.
Until Linux gets some applications that are clearly superior to the ones in Windows, it will never get any significant penetration. People need a really good reason to switch, and there just isn't one when it comes to Linux -- but there are a whole slew of negatives.
Isn't it obvious? Linux' killer application, right now, is development tools. The development tools, right now today, are clearly superior to anything offered on any other platform. Why do you think Linux has been able to attract so many software development geeks?
<soapbox mode: on> Remember, Windows didn't always have superior applications to other alternatives. When Windows 3.0 was first introduced, the superior applications were on the DOS and Macintosh platforms (which is why Windows 3.0 beat out OS/2; better DOS compatibility). The fact that M$ developed what were then superior development tools to what was on DOS or Macintosh is exactly what M$ claims is the reason for the flocking of developers to its platform, and thus, ultimately the development of large numbers of applications, and the eventual superiority of those applications.
(While this claim is not entirely true, there is some element of truth to it.)
The point is, folks, that we're there. We've arrived. Now its time for the developers in the open source community to stand up and write those superior apps. There are a lot of things going on this arena (KOffice, GNUOffice, etc.) and its going to take time before we stop playing catchup, but if, and only if, we are willing to stick with it, and continue the fight, these superior applications will come.
My belief is that the key area where Linux developers need to concentrate on, once we get the basic office apps out of the way, is in the area of Internet-enabled apps. This is where MS and everyone else is headed, this is where we need to head as well. But we have the key experience that no one else has: many open source developers were on the Net before there was an HTML or a World Wide Web. This is an area where we have a chance to shine. Furthermore, developments in mobile technologies and embedded devices are equally as important, and we have some key players in these areas already, with Transmeta and others doing stuff for mobile and embedded devices...
My point is that the future is not as bleak as many who are not forward-thinking might expect. We won't be chasing MS forever, and eventually, we will succeed in "total world domination, but in a good way."
When I say free software, I always mean free as in speech, not free as in beer or free as in choice, or free as in love.
Well, according to the Debian Guidelines, the goal is for software that meets the Open Source Definition. Since MPL meets OSI, what is the big deal the Mozilla doesn't meet GPL? The goal is 100% free software, not 100% GPL software. Software does NOT have to be GPL to be considered "free".
"Qualified" representatives of "OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs," huh? Who determines who is and is not qualified? What determines who is an OEM, ISV or IHV?
Micros~1 already makes its Windows source code available to "qualified representatives" of certain OEMs, ISVs and IHVs through licensing and non-disclosure agreements. How does this change anything?
I disagree. My entire ext2 partition right now is free software
well, considering the way you wrote this statement, I assume this means that you have a non-ext2 partition?
Assuming you have this non-ext2 partition (we won't mention any OS names here;), I assume this also means that this non-ext2 partition contains non-free software on it?
And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it.
So this all means two things:
1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software. 2. You have failed to prove that there is a substantial market for a 100% free system.
Let's face it -- 99% of the populace, whether they use Windows (and I'm sure Microsoft will be so kind as to provide a VBScript hook for signing documents or at least publishing private keys, so that virus writers will have a new source of fun), or whether they use Linux (how many desktop-role Linux boxen do you know of that you would consider 100% secure?) is operating insecurely. And that insecurity is going to spell trouble if digital signatures are legally binding, because it opens up a whole new class of forgeries.
*I* would not consider *any* box, regardless of operating system, platform, etc., to be 100% secure. The main issue with security, aside from the fact that -any- security system can be cracked, has to do with the loose nut behind the mouse. Sorry, but when a security system relies on human intervention, well, humans just aren't very secure.:)
Yes, a written signature requires human intervention, but there is certainly less vulnerable than password-based security. With digital signatures, anyone who can physically access your private key, which usually means anyone who can get into your box (i.e., type yoru login and password in somewhere), can get to your digital signature. At least with written signatures, your actual human presence is required (excluding of course forgeries which are another matter entirely, that's why for certain legal documents we require them to be notarized or otherwise certified by a third party).
Debian is a non-profit trying to promote free software. They are only providing non-free software as a convenience. They should stop providing if at least one of two conditions are met:
Well, in order to promote free software, you have to get people to use it. And right now there is little market acceptance for a 100% free software system. Let's face it. In today's real world, non-free applications must supplement what OSS software developers cannot.
Until Mozilla is stable enough for every day use (its not, trust me:), Netscape 4.7 is a necessary evil. Until KOffice or GNUOffice or whatever are stable and fully-featured enough for everyday use, programs like StarOffice and WordPerfect will be necessary.
Pine I honestly don't understand. Isn't pine a BSD (or BSD-like) license? That meets OSI, right? Anyhow, IMHO mutt is a much better mail client:) (ok, blatant plug mode off:)
Actually, FWIW, Andover also has registered Slashdot.com for this site as well. I didn't realize it but Andover has had the name registered since April 11. (As a quick whois check will certainly reveal).
Slashdot sells nothing? Hmmm...well, consider that Andover owns ThinkGeek, whose banner ads frequently adorn Slashdot's pages. And they sell stuff.
Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD.com with a non-commerical entity? An.org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.
The official Internic policy is that ANYONE can register.com,.net. or.org domains.
In fact, Slashdot is clearly a money-making venture for VA/Andover. Should they change to Slashdot.com?
The only way I can see to get Microsoft to document their APIs and to ensure that they aren't holding back is to break them into multiple OS and multiple application companies and to limit the ability of those companies to establish exclusive contracts with one another.
Oh, I completely disagree. I think that this remedy could be made to work, but not in the way MSFT suggests. My suggestion would be to take this remedy to its logical extreme: force MSFT to release the entire Windows operating system under a license like the GPL. An important point would have to be that MSFT would not be able to write the license itself: the license would either have to be the GPL itself, or a similar license developed by the court (say, the Thomas Penfield Jackson Public License (TPJPL):)
Under such a license, MSFT would have to release the *entire* Windows source code openly, the license at a minimum would have to meet OSI. The license should be modified to prohibit even MSFT, at minimum, to have any part of Windows be closed source (with the exception of technologies licensed from other companies/developers of course, such as HyperTerminal and several of the games, including Windows Solitaire).
I think that would prevent MSFT from "weaseling out and involving endless debates among regulators and MSFT about the intricacies of software design."
Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the Macintosh? Everyone seems to forget about that one. I'll say it again for those who haven't been paying attention: "The two most popular MS-Office applications, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, STARTED OFF as MACINTOSH applications." (MS-Word for DOS came LATER. Excel for the PC wasn't introduced until Windows. Multiplan doesn't count for anything:).
And Microsoft still continues to do Macintosh-based Microsoft Office. This has never hurt customer confidence in the past.
Just the opposite for me. I learned my first language, BASIC, by reading manuals. My second language was Turbo Pascal, which I learned primarily through hyperlinked documentation (as in Turbo Pascal 4.0) and by hacking other people's code (of course)
Although, I have to say that its probably much different if you are learning your FIRST language as opposed to your SECOND or THIRD language. In retrospect, I think if my first language had been Turbo Pascal, it would have taken me much longer to learn.
Of course we aren't talking about programming languages here. I learned to use Lotus 1-2-3 (and later, Microsoft Excel) primarily through online documentation and just generally poking around at things. Most application software I learn this way. I learned Perl by basically inhaling the Camel Book, however, so I guess there can be made a case either way.
Even Microsoft has greatly reduced the manuals that they provide nowadays. Programs that used to be distributed in huge boxes are no longer distributed that way. Especially OEM software, which in many cases relies almost exclusively on online documentation.
I am responsible for software production and distribution at General Motors, and we are moving our release notes from paper to paperless. That is the general direction for GM anyway.
I don't think paper manuals are really a necessity. I personally don't use them, instead I always look on the CD for documentation in *preferrably* HTML format, but PDF is ok, too.
I like HTML because it fast, easily searchable, and viewable by standard Web browsing software, which virtually every computer already has installed nowadays.
Second largest? Blah. You have no idea what you are talking about. Intel is the largest, with Motorola a close second.
Don't need my suggestions? Who said I was offering suggestions? I was merely speculating about what AMD might do to improve its process in the future.
Audits by Compaq, HP, Gateway, etc. are of course going to offer praise to plants that do well in traditional manufacturing processes. If these processes work, then fine. Great. But if AMD is unable to meet production, they may need to look to alternatives.
I'm not saying JIT manufacturing is the be-all-end-all of processes. I'm not saying that it works for microprocessors right now but I'm sure that the R&D arms of companies like Intel and Motorola are looking into ways of making microprocessors using JIT manufacturing. Bet on it.
Re:Shouldn't we consider this a "good" thing?
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 2
You don't know what you are talking about. JIT (JustInTime) is not possible when it takes $1bln and at least a year or about that, to build a new fab to product chips. There is no way around it.
People have said the same thing about a LOT of industries, but JIT manufacturing has revolutionized these industries.
Re:Shouldn't we consider this a "good" thing?
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 2
You seem to be speaking out of ignorance. AMD is *NOT* having production problems. They are currently AHEAD of schedule ramping their Fab 30 plant in Dresden. Intel is having production problems; this, combined with the unexpected popularity of Athlons is why AMD is sold out.
If they are unable to keep up with demand then they are having production problems. Take some business classes before you go spouting off.
AMD's track record with production is not spotless. You don't seem to remember the production problems AMD had with their K5 and early K6 processors. Particularly with the K5's, where they were having significant yield problems.
Damn. I remember first using SEA's ARC program, and then PKARC/PKXARC for *everything*. And then one day I got PKZIP 0.93 Beta...(back when betas were not widely distributed except through the underground:) the files were much smaller, PKZIP was much faster than anything I'd seen.
I remember converting all those.ARC files on my BBS to.ZIP format. I remember when that was considered "controversial" because you were somehow "modifying" the shareware author's original distribution.
And then PKZIP exploded (no pun intended.) It's technology was used by many commercial installation programs (well, CorelDraw was shipped in.LZH format, but that's a different story.:)
I actually in some way feel *guilty* that I never ever registered my copy of PKZIP/PKUNZIP even though I had used it for years. And then I stopped using PKZIP/PKUNZIP altogether in favor of the freeware alternative Info-ZIP packages. And somehow I felt that Katz was getting ripped off when most Windows people started downloading WinZip in droves. He developed this technology, and he never really got the recognition he really deserved for it, IMHO. Many people today think that Niko Mak Computing invented the idea of the.ZIP file. (Which is humorous considering that WinZip used to be a shell for PKZIP and is now based entirely on InfoZIP)
*sigh*
And the guy was thirty-seven How many of us could be next? How many of us haven't contributed as HALF as much as he did to the computing and internet communities?
Re:Shouldn't we consider this a "good" thing?
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 2
Loss of profit due to underproduction is never a good thing. Consider that AMD's ability to make money is essentially now shut down until they are caught up with demand.
Exactly. AMD will lose money on this scenario. If they do not learn how to more accurately predict their future sales, they will continue to lose money in this fashion, and it will ultimately be their demise. AMD does not have a good track record in regards to maximizing production. Perhaps AMD needs to look into more modern production processes, like JIT manufacturing.
My congratulations go out to AMD for their success - it can only help out consumers in the long run.
That would be congratulations, with a strong word of caution. Production problems are the exact cause of Cyrix's troubles, and is also one of they key reasons that Texas Instruments is no longer in the business of manufacturing Intel-compatible CPUs. (Of course, those of you who know the whole TI/Cyrix saga will know what I'm talking about)
For an OS that was supposed to END the two different Windows OS's, Win2000 is extremely bad at compatibility, etc.
Who said Windows 2000 was supposed to do that? I mean, at one time that was Microsoft's story, but no longer. That's why it's called Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. Their will always be WindowsMe and Windows 2000 Consumer...
I use the command-line in Windows for almost everything but dinking with specific file operations
Same here.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about, I've used Win2000, hardware support? We obviously don't NEED hardware support in this OS, after all we're cool! (Now, on the other hand, Linux is good.. that's actually my main OS..)
Win2k detected every piece of hardware I had, both on my PII 450 desktop (mostly new hardware) and on my old laptop (P133). Of course, I don't have every wiz-bang programmable Speaker/Joystick/Modem/TurboKeyboard/Ethernet/Prin ter/Scanner combo device on the planet, but still...
And Win2k has better hardware support than Linux (sad, but true). Linux rule of hardware: if it just came out yesterday, or if it came out 10 years ago and almost nobody uses it, then there is no support for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? The Qt and GtK toolkits have been ported to OS/2? The Qt has been ported to Windows, but the Windows port of the GtK toolkits is *severely* broken. (No offense intended or implied to anyone working on the Windows port of the GtK toolkits. :)
Hey! Pine officially stands for Program for Internet News and Email! :) (But we all know what it really stands for.)
Damn. I can see the bubble sort program I wrote in the 5th grade didn't make it ... :)
these tools pale in comparison to proprietary tools available on other platforms.
How so? Most proprietary tools available on other programs (not mentioning any names (Visual C++, Visual Basic) or anything) are severely broken in terms of supporting standards and proper syntax.
Those tools are good for slapping out broken, severely buggy bloatware quickly, but not much else. GNU development tools are cross-platform, based on open standards, and are extremely robust. For instance, I wouldn't trade gdb for the broken, crappy debugger built into VC++ any day.
Until Linux gets some applications that are clearly superior to the ones in Windows, it will never get any significant penetration. People need a really good reason to switch, and there just isn't one when it comes to Linux -- but there are a whole slew of negatives.
Isn't it obvious? Linux' killer application, right now, is development tools. The development tools, right now today, are clearly superior to anything offered on any other platform. Why do you think Linux has been able to attract so many software development geeks?
<soapbox mode: on>
Remember, Windows didn't always have superior applications to other alternatives. When Windows 3.0 was first introduced, the superior applications were on the DOS and Macintosh platforms (which is why Windows 3.0 beat out OS/2; better DOS compatibility). The fact that M$ developed what were then superior development tools to what was on DOS or Macintosh is exactly what M$ claims is the reason for the flocking of developers to its platform, and thus, ultimately the development of large numbers of applications, and the eventual superiority of those applications.
(While this claim is not entirely true, there is some element of truth to it.)
The point is, folks, that we're there. We've arrived. Now its time for the developers in the open source community to stand up and write those superior apps. There are a lot of things going on this arena (KOffice, GNUOffice, etc.) and its going to take time before we stop playing catchup, but if, and only if, we are willing to stick with it, and continue the fight, these superior applications will come.
My belief is that the key area where Linux developers need to concentrate on, once we get the basic office apps out of the way, is in the area of Internet-enabled apps. This is where MS and everyone else is headed, this is where we need to head as well. But we have the key experience that no one else has: many open source developers were on the Net before there was an HTML or a World Wide Web. This is an area where we have a chance to shine. Furthermore, developments in mobile technologies and embedded devices are equally as important, and we have some key players in these areas already, with Transmeta and others doing stuff for mobile and embedded devices...
My point is that the future is not as bleak as many who are not forward-thinking might expect. We won't be chasing MS forever, and eventually, we will succeed in "total world domination, but in a good way."
<soapbox mode: off>
When I say free software, I always mean free as in speech, not free as in beer or free as in choice, or free as in love.
Well, according to the Debian Guidelines, the goal is for software that meets the Open Source Definition. Since MPL meets OSI, what is the big deal the Mozilla doesn't meet GPL? The goal is 100% free software, not 100% GPL software. Software does NOT have to be GPL to be considered "free".
"Qualified" representatives of "OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs," huh? Who determines who is and is not qualified? What determines who is an OEM, ISV or IHV?
Micros~1 already makes its Windows source code available to "qualified representatives" of certain OEMs, ISVs and IHVs through licensing and non-disclosure agreements. How does this change anything?
I disagree. My entire ext2 partition right now is free software
;), I assume this also means that this non-ext2 partition contains non-free software on it?
well, considering the way you wrote this statement, I assume this means that you have a non-ext2 partition?
Assuming you have this non-ext2 partition (we won't mention any OS names here
And if you have non-free software, it is probably safe to assume that you have this non-free software because you need it.
So this all means two things:
1. Despite what you say, your system is not 100% free software.
2. You have failed to prove that there is a substantial market for a 100% free system.
Right?
Let's face it -- 99% of the populace, whether they use Windows (and I'm sure Microsoft will be so kind as to provide a VBScript hook for signing documents or at least publishing private keys, so that virus writers will have a new source of fun), or whether they use Linux (how many desktop-role Linux boxen do you know of that you would consider 100% secure?) is operating insecurely. And that insecurity is going to spell trouble if digital signatures are legally binding, because it opens up a whole new class of forgeries.
:)
*I* would not consider *any* box, regardless of operating system, platform, etc., to be 100% secure. The main issue with security, aside from the fact that -any- security system can be cracked, has to do with the loose nut behind the mouse. Sorry, but when a security system relies on human intervention, well, humans just aren't very secure.
Yes, a written signature requires human intervention, but there is certainly less vulnerable than password-based security. With digital signatures, anyone who can physically access your private key, which usually means anyone who can get into your box (i.e., type yoru login and password in somewhere), can get to your digital signature. At least with written signatures, your actual human presence is required (excluding of course forgeries which are another matter entirely, that's why for certain legal documents we require them to be notarized or otherwise certified by a third party).
Debian is a non-profit trying to promote free software. They are only providing non-free software as a convenience. They should stop providing if at least one of two conditions are met:
:), Netscape 4.7 is a necessary evil. Until KOffice or GNUOffice or whatever are stable and fully-featured enough for everyday use, programs like StarOffice and WordPerfect will be necessary.
:) (ok, blatant plug mode off :)
Well, in order to promote free software, you have to get people to use it. And right now there is little market acceptance for a 100% free software system. Let's face it. In today's real world, non-free applications must supplement what OSS software developers cannot.
Until Mozilla is stable enough for every day use (its not, trust me
Pine I honestly don't understand. Isn't pine a BSD (or BSD-like) license? That meets OSI, right?
Anyhow, IMHO mutt is a much better mail client
Actually, FWIW, Andover also has registered Slashdot.com for this site as well. I didn't realize it but Andover has had the name registered since April 11. (As a quick whois check will certainly reveal).
Slashdot sells nothing? Hmmm...well, consider that Andover owns ThinkGeek, whose banner ads frequently adorn Slashdot's pages. And they sell stuff.
Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.
.com, .net. or .org domains.
The official Internic policy is that ANYONE can register
In fact, Slashdot is clearly a money-making venture for VA/Andover. Should they change to Slashdot.com?
That's positively disgusting.
The only way I can see to get Microsoft to document their APIs and to ensure that they aren't holding back is to break them into multiple OS and multiple application companies and to limit the ability of those companies to establish exclusive contracts with one another.
:)
Oh, I completely disagree. I think that this remedy could be made to work, but not in the way MSFT suggests. My suggestion would be to take this remedy to its logical extreme: force MSFT to release the entire Windows operating system under a license like the GPL. An important point would have to be that MSFT would not be able to write the license itself: the license would either have to be the GPL itself, or a similar license developed by the court (say, the Thomas Penfield Jackson Public License (TPJPL)
Under such a license, MSFT would have to release the *entire* Windows source code openly, the license at a minimum would have to meet OSI. The license should be modified to prohibit even MSFT, at minimum, to have any part of Windows be closed source (with the exception of technologies licensed from other companies/developers of course, such as HyperTerminal and several of the games, including Windows Solitaire).
I think that would prevent MSFT from "weaseling out and involving endless debates among regulators and MSFT about the intricacies of software design."
"you need OS9 and at least 64 megs of RAM, unless you're doing Web quality video, in which case 64 is fine."
Huh? Do you need 64 or 64?
Interesting theory, except how do you explain Microsoft Office for the Macintosh? Everyone seems to forget about that one. I'll say it again for those who haven't been paying attention: "The two most popular MS-Office applications, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, STARTED OFF as MACINTOSH applications." (MS-Word for DOS came LATER. Excel for the PC wasn't introduced until Windows. Multiplan doesn't count for anything :).
And Microsoft still continues to do Macintosh-based Microsoft Office. This has never hurt customer confidence in the past.
They made a song about this chip in the 60s...
:)
Da Duron-ron-ron Da Duron-ron...
Just the opposite for me. I learned my first language, BASIC, by reading manuals. My second language was Turbo Pascal, which I learned primarily through hyperlinked documentation (as in Turbo Pascal 4.0) and by hacking other people's code (of course)
Although, I have to say that its probably much different if you are learning your FIRST language as opposed to your SECOND or THIRD language. In retrospect, I think if my first language had been Turbo Pascal, it would have taken me much longer to learn.
Of course we aren't talking about programming languages here. I learned to use Lotus 1-2-3 (and later, Microsoft Excel) primarily through online documentation and just generally poking around at things. Most application software I learn this way. I learned Perl by basically inhaling the Camel Book, however, so I guess there can be made a case either way.
Even Microsoft has greatly reduced the manuals that they provide nowadays. Programs that used to be distributed in huge boxes are no longer distributed that way. Especially OEM software, which in many cases relies almost exclusively on online documentation.
I am responsible for software production and distribution at General Motors, and we are moving our release notes from paper to paperless. That is the general direction for GM anyway.
I don't think paper manuals are really a necessity. I personally don't use them, instead I always look on the CD for documentation in *preferrably* HTML format, but PDF is ok, too.
I like HTML because it fast, easily searchable, and viewable by standard Web browsing software, which virtually every computer already has installed nowadays.
Second largest? Blah. You have no idea what you are talking about. Intel is the largest, with Motorola a close second.
Don't need my suggestions? Who said I was offering suggestions? I was merely speculating about what AMD might do to improve its process in the future.
Audits by Compaq, HP, Gateway, etc. are of course going to offer praise to plants that do well in traditional manufacturing processes. If these processes work, then fine. Great. But if AMD is unable to meet production, they may need to look to alternatives.
I'm not saying JIT manufacturing is the be-all-end-all of processes. I'm not saying that it works for microprocessors right now but I'm sure that the R&D arms of companies like Intel and Motorola are looking into ways of making microprocessors using JIT manufacturing. Bet on it.
You don't know what you are talking about. JIT (JustInTime) is not possible when it takes $1bln and at least a year or about that, to build a new fab to product chips. There is no way around it.
People have said the same thing about a LOT of industries, but JIT manufacturing has revolutionized these industries.
You seem to be speaking out of ignorance. AMD is *NOT* having production problems. They are currently AHEAD of schedule ramping their Fab 30 plant in Dresden. Intel is having production problems; this, combined with the unexpected popularity of Athlons is why AMD is sold out.
If they are unable to keep up with demand then they are having production problems. Take some business classes before you go spouting off.
AMD's track record with production is not spotless. You don't seem to remember the production problems AMD had with their K5 and early K6 processors. Particularly with the K5's, where they were having significant yield problems.
Damn. I remember first using SEA's ARC program, and then PKARC/PKXARC for *everything*. And then one day I got PKZIP 0.93 Beta...(back when betas were not widely distributed except through the underground :) the files were much smaller, PKZIP was much faster than anything I'd seen.
.ARC files on my BBS to .ZIP format. I remember when that was considered "controversial" because you were somehow "modifying" the shareware author's original distribution.
.LZH format, but that's a different story. :)
.ZIP file. (Which is humorous considering that WinZip used to be a shell for PKZIP and is now based entirely on InfoZIP)
I remember converting all those
And then PKZIP exploded (no pun intended.) It's technology was used by many commercial installation programs (well, CorelDraw was shipped in
I actually in some way feel *guilty* that I never ever registered my copy of PKZIP/PKUNZIP even though I had used it for years. And then I stopped using PKZIP/PKUNZIP altogether in favor of the freeware alternative Info-ZIP packages. And somehow I felt that Katz was getting ripped off when most Windows people started downloading WinZip in droves. He developed this technology, and he never really got the recognition he really deserved for it, IMHO. Many people today think that Niko Mak Computing invented the idea of the
*sigh*
And the guy was thirty-seven How many of us could be next? How many of us haven't contributed as HALF as much as he did to the computing and internet communities?
Loss of profit due to underproduction is never a good thing. Consider that AMD's ability to make money is essentially now shut down until they are caught up with demand.
Exactly. AMD will lose money on this scenario. If they do not learn how to more accurately predict their future sales, they will continue to lose money in this fashion, and it will ultimately be their demise. AMD does not have a good track record in regards to maximizing production. Perhaps AMD needs to look into more modern production processes, like JIT manufacturing.
My congratulations go out to AMD for their success - it can only help out consumers in the long run.
That would be congratulations, with a strong word of caution. Production problems are the exact cause of Cyrix's troubles, and is also one of they key reasons that Texas Instruments is no longer in the business of manufacturing Intel-compatible CPUs. (Of course, those of you who know the whole TI/Cyrix saga will know what I'm talking about)
For an OS that was supposed to END the two different Windows OS's, Win2000 is extremely bad at compatibility, etc.
n ter/Scanner
Who said Windows 2000 was supposed to do that? I mean, at one time that was Microsoft's story, but no longer. That's why it's called Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. Their will always be WindowsMe and Windows 2000 Consumer...
I use the command-line in Windows for almost everything but dinking with specific file operations
Same here.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about, I've used Win2000, hardware support? We obviously don't NEED hardware support in this OS, after all we're cool! (Now, on the other hand, Linux is good.. that's actually my main OS..)
Win2k detected every piece of hardware I had, both on my PII 450 desktop (mostly new hardware) and on my old laptop (P133). Of course, I don't have every wiz-bang programmable Speaker/Joystick/Modem/TurboKeyboard/Ethernet/Pri
combo device on the planet, but still...
And Win2k has better hardware support than Linux (sad, but true). Linux rule of hardware: if it just came out yesterday, or if it came out 10 years ago and almost nobody uses it, then there is no support for it.