This war of abstraction is, in fact, a Campaign of Terror to frighten our citizenry into submission in order keep the current military-industrial complex in power. As I've said before, Bush is the greatest terrorist the world has ever known. Even if it's only half the population, he's terrorized 150 million people in as little as 6 years.
10.0 was released with 9.x for compatibility. Unlike MS wants to do, Apple had and has no plans to force OS upgrades each time a new version is released.
Linux breaks driver ABIs on purpose. Or at least without concern. If you really think the kernel developers are incapable of maintaining a stable driver ABI, you are really a sad case.
Most of the free downloads that MS offers are to offer functionality that Mac OS X has built in. And Apple has a site devoted to OS X software that is written by 3rd parties. A lot of it is free, and some is even open source.
If you removed Sysinternals (which they bought), most of the significant free downloads from MS are developer tools (OS X comes with all that on the OS X install media) or document viewers (built in to OS X).
Apple does not charge for bug fixes. This is a blatant lie. At this point in time, my Macbook wants to update iTunes, Front Row, Quicktime and one other I can't recall at the moment. All for free. The same machine is currently on 10.5.3, updated from 10.5.0 for free.
Apple charges for functional updates. The charge is reasonable, the upgrade is optional, and there aren't 5 dozen pricing schemes to keep track of.
The Linux kernel has extremely good binary compatiblity. One of Linus's guiding principles is that user-land must not break. Obviously, that can't be a hard rule, as that would impede progress, but it's very important to him.
I would say Linux does at least as good a job in this department as Windows. The main difference being that distributions are not that great at providing the user-land libraries that may be needed. As someone else already posted, however, if those libraries are installed, the application should work.
If you're a big corporation, you lease your computer hardware and you never upgrade the OS on existing leases. You simply have the new OS installed on new hardware as the leased equipment is swapped out.
If your company isn't doing that, I question it's assertion as to being a big corporation.
Great, it finally caught up with UNIX-like OSes that have been doing that practically since the advent of modern computing. Good to see that Vista caught up to a more then a decade-old system. Oh and it is sad to see that crashing has became such a central part of our computing world, it seems like the only platforms in need of something like Xkill are those that don't support it. Name one commercial Unix that supports anything remotely like Group Policy. Do you have any clue as to what that is? Just to be nice, I'll answer for you: Mac OS X. Which has been out less time than Windows NT, which had Group Policy from at least version 4.
By now most major companies are starting to look into other OSes other then Windows. On the server only. I work at a major company (150k Windows workstations and about 10k servers, both Unix and Windows). There is no talk of replacing the workstations with anything other than the next version of Windows (currently that is Vista). From a (computer, not PHB) management position, Linux is not even in the running.
That's because there are a lot of corporate buyers who have nightmares about the support problems Vista-based machine represent.
If MS pulls XP as planned, I predict that major PC vendors will start offering Linux/Wine/Microsoft Office bundles very soon. These two statements are completely contradictory. There is no way Wine+Anything is a smaller support nightmare than Vista. Believing the opposite just paints you as an anti-MS zealot.
Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that. I'd love to see you try that. Unless you live in a Communist country, the movie theatre is privately owned. They can kick you out for any reason, with the exception of blatant discrimination.
Do you also ignore the "No shirt (, no shoes), no service!" signs?
Did I tell you... Umm, you should have known, by reading your own post, that up until this point you hadn't. I think you need to work on writing things down more clearly:)
First, why does the U.S. Constitution apply to foreign nationals captured and held in places that are not the U.S.? IT DOESN'T!!!
Sheesh, people. The Constitution applies to the AMERICAN CITIZENs that make up the Executive Branch, including the Army (of which the Chief Executive is also the Commander in Chief).
Are you going to argue that you can kill a Canadian on US soil because he has no rights under US law? That's ridiculous. The laws prohibiting actions do not apply based on the victim.
What makes this case special is that POWs are covered by treaty. POWs are not held for criminal actions; they are held to prevent them from participating in the war. The treaties (chiefly the Geneva Convention) state that holding POWs until the end of hostilities is OK, as long as you treat them right.
The problem is that Bush and his SCOTUS pets want to treat the detainees as POWs in the sense of American law not applying to them, but also as "enemy combatants" so that the G.C. does not apply. The SCOTUS decision is basically saying that Bush cannot invent a new status to weasel his way out of the law. Either the detainees are POWs, and have rights under the law, or they are criminal suspects and they have a different set of rights under the law.
If Bush would just call them POWs, this whole debate would be moot. But he wants a double-standard so he can ignore the law.
Just last month, a former Gitmo detainee killed a group of Iraqi soldiers when he blew himself up in Mosul. And he was someone the military thought it was safe to release. Perhaps it will one day occur to these people that Gitmo is creating more terrorist acts than it will ever prevent.
They are out there defending our way of life. Don't throw that away over a few accused terrorists. That hasn't been true since the start of the Iraq War. That war was always about power and money for Bush, Cheney and their friends.
Saddam NEVER made a threatening move against the US. Even Chavez has been more threatening, and all he did was call Bush the Devil.
Dark Age of Camelot uses color to distinguish the relative difficulty of mobs. Since release, they have also included +'s and -'s to give the same information (3 levels of difficulty in either direction relative to the player), purely to aid the color-blind.
Slashdot Mirror
10.0 was released with 9.x for compatibility. Unlike MS wants to do, Apple had and has no plans to force OS upgrades each time a new version is released.
Linux breaks driver ABIs on purpose. Or at least without concern. If you really think the kernel developers are incapable of maintaining a stable driver ABI, you are really a sad case.
The vendor.
But what's your point? If the specs aren't known, Linux isn't going to support it either.
Most of the free downloads that MS offers are to offer functionality that Mac OS X has built in. And Apple has a site devoted to OS X software that is written by 3rd parties. A lot of it is free, and some is even open source.
If you removed Sysinternals (which they bought), most of the significant free downloads from MS are developer tools (OS X comes with all that on the OS X install media) or document viewers (built in to OS X).
Apple does not charge for bug fixes. This is a blatant lie. At this point in time, my Macbook wants to update iTunes, Front Row, Quicktime and one other I can't recall at the moment. All for free. The same machine is currently on 10.5.3, updated from 10.5.0 for free.
Apple charges for functional updates. The charge is reasonable, the upgrade is optional, and there aren't 5 dozen pricing schemes to keep track of.
The Linux kernel has extremely good binary compatiblity. One of Linus's guiding principles is that user-land must not break. Obviously, that can't be a hard rule, as that would impede progress, but it's very important to him.
I would say Linux does at least as good a job in this department as Windows. The main difference being that distributions are not that great at providing the user-land libraries that may be needed. As someone else already posted, however, if those libraries are installed, the application should work.
If you're a big corporation, you lease your computer hardware and you never upgrade the OS on existing leases. You simply have the new OS installed on new hardware as the leased equipment is swapped out.
If your company isn't doing that, I question it's assertion as to being a big corporation.
ashevin@SDG05693:~ $ dpkg -r dpkg
-bash: dpkg: command not found
ashevin@SDG05693:~ $
Are you insinuating that strawberries have low IQs? Perhaps they are simply too intelligent to deal with lower life-forms such as ours?
Do you also ignore the "No shirt (, no shoes), no service!" signs?
Sheesh, people. The Constitution applies to the AMERICAN CITIZENs that make up the Executive Branch, including the Army (of which the Chief Executive is also the Commander in Chief).
Are you going to argue that you can kill a Canadian on US soil because he has no rights under US law? That's ridiculous. The laws prohibiting actions do not apply based on the victim.
What makes this case special is that POWs are covered by treaty. POWs are not held for criminal actions; they are held to prevent them from participating in the war. The treaties (chiefly the Geneva Convention) state that holding POWs until the end of hostilities is OK, as long as you treat them right.
The problem is that Bush and his SCOTUS pets want to treat the detainees as POWs in the sense of American law not applying to them, but also as "enemy combatants" so that the G.C. does not apply. The SCOTUS decision is basically saying that Bush cannot invent a new status to weasel his way out of the law. Either the detainees are POWs, and have rights under the law, or they are criminal suspects and they have a different set of rights under the law.
If Bush would just call them POWs, this whole debate would be moot. But he wants a double-standard so he can ignore the law.
Perhaps they will discover fire one day too.
Supreme Court justices are political appointments. That's one part of the Constitution that Bush is very much in favor of.
The idea that this debate should be a matter of politics vs. morality scares me more than any terrorist act to-date.
There's a reason that I believe Bush is the most successful terrorist in the world.
Saddam NEVER made a threatening move against the US. Even Chavez has been more threatening, and all he did was call Bush the Devil.
Dark Age of Camelot uses color to distinguish the relative difficulty of mobs. Since release, they have also included +'s and -'s to give the same information (3 levels of difficulty in either direction relative to the player), purely to aid the color-blind.
Sorry. Everyone on /. favors legal piracy.
I believe you accidentally included an couple phrase. Namely, "the RIAA".
Not enough left for the sub.
The OOC is as morally bankrupt as the Chinese Government. They just don't have the same goals or political power.