Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Nope. Sorry. Win2k still a reboot if you change nameserver information, which is utterly ridiculous. It's getting better though. You can change your IP address without a reboot. Why Microsoft didn't take this one step further is anyones guess (mine: laziness).
Have you tried it under linux? i know all of the DC2xx cameras are supported on the USB side, but gPhoto doesnt support the 290 yet (but does support the 280 though:), i heard there is a python script for the moment, what, if you tried it, do you think it is worth?
The DC290 works perfectly under Linux using the same ks binary that works with the 260/265. I've been downloading my pictures onto my Sony Vaio (which really needs a new HD as mine is failing) for weeks now with nothing but the occasional timeout. You will need patches for 2.2.14, which someone has pointed out in this thread already.
Consecutive picture time on the DC290 is a bit low for my tastes, but it offers great features for a digital camera including zoom, exposure settings, red-eye reduction and you can script it.
I disagree with the thrust of this claim. And I am
not in favor of breaking up MS -- making me probably a minority both as a slashdot reader and slashdot author, though I've not seen any real poll data;) -- but not for this reason. In fact, I think a flood of competing 'standards' (none of which is truly fixed, perfect or universally accepted) is the best thing that could happen to the computer industry, and the thing which is most harmful about Microsoft's market dominance.
Tim: For the record, you aren't the only author that feels that Microsoft shouldn't be broken up(I've got those poll numbers if you want them ). My sole hope from the effects of this trial is that the world's largest software company will, for the first time, have to play on a level field. Sure standards will fluxuate a bit, but it is another hope that standards will finally be chosen based on merit rather than because it follows the One Microsoft Way.
Microsoft isn't going to dissapear tomorrow, so I also think this prediction of us "losing 6 years" is hogwash. Microsoft still enjoys the marketshare today that it did yesterday. I don't see the government changing this overnight.
Should I take this title literally or not? Or am I going to have to apply more extreme methods to find out? (Of course, I could always listen to the stream, but that would be far, FAR too simple.) - Cliff
Actually, this hack has gotten front page exposure on Slashdot today. I've updated the headers to reflect this. The link to this page should also be in the article now.
Yes, but that would be the same as polling a database at specific intervals, which roadoi (the person who submitted this topic) said he did not want to do. Personally, your approach would be a similar approach to what I would do, however there may be more to the situation that makes such undesirable. I hope roadoi comes online and gives us some reasons as to why polling is undesirable in this case as cron and such were made for things like this.
Since the person asking the question did not once mention "Linux" in his question, I'm somewhat confused as to why the title of this Ask Slashdot is "Basic Linux Systems for the Home User?" Unless Cliff's biases are coming into play here, I don't see how this question could be interpreted in that way. The poster is asking how to set up a good system for his grandfather. He does not appear to care whether it is Windows, Mac OS, Linux, FreeBSD, or BeOS, as long as it works nicely. That's the proper question to ask anyway - asking "how do i set up a easy-to-use Linux box for my grandfather" is a stupid question, since you are unnecessarily limiting yourself to a single OS which may or may not be the best choice for the situation.
Trepidity, you do have a point here, I shouldn't have used "Linux" in the title and used "X11" instead primarily due to the fact that X11 desktops are infinitely more configurable than anything coming out of Redmond. Mainly, I posted this question because I wanted folks to think...REALLY think about how one would set up a Unix based GUI for someone who is not computer literate.
I wish this section had existed last week. A few of the Ask Slashdots that I decided NOT to post would have fitted well in this section. I will probably need to talk to Michael and Jamie about them as I think I have those submissions archived someplace.
An anonymous coward was caught asking this useful question: Great improvements to Slashdot, Rob! How about http://slashdot.org/index_N.shtml as a shortcut to nested mode, like you already have http://slashdot.org/index_F.shtml as a shortcut to flat mode?
That wouldn't work, as any page that has to parse the score would have to be a dynamic page rather than a.shtml page.
You're right though. The one critical piece of that film is that it WAS a propaganda piece. I mean, it gave me that same "get-a-load-of-this" feeling I always get when I see copies of Reefer Madness...another propaganda film if there ever was one.
explain to me what is going on at "Ask Slashdot?" is it that only articles from certain people get selected? or do articles get picked at random? or do most articles just get deleted. I have submmited many worthy articles that i believe to be exremly important to the linux community, yet they do not get posted. However this article get picked instead...
Datazone, I don't think I've SEEN any submissions from you in a while, and I should know. Most of the Ask Slashdot submissions from the PAST MONTH are still sitting in the submissions box.
Folks, I ask PATIENCE with Ask Slashdot questions. They are NOT like Slashdot articles. If you have a fairly INTERESTING question (and I'm not talking anything related to FAQ) then I'll hold your question until I can fit it in.
Somewhere.
Complaints like these will NOT get your submissions processed any faster. If you have problems and would like to talk to me directly about these things, then the email address to use is with this post.
Rampant flames will be forwarded to/dev/null immediately.
John Zachary was caught uttering the following rant...
You don't have a choice? What OS are you using right now to read this?
OS/2 (or I could be using Linux or Be right now), but that's only because I took proper steps to INSURE that. I think only 10-20% of computer owners are actually saavy enough to do this.
I'm not sure what the logic is with this supposed lack of choice. Unless you put your computer together from scratch, you bought it from some vendor. Did you buy it knowing a priori that it would come with Windows? If this was so distasteful, why didn't you exercise your choice and
buy from a vendor that doesn't sell computers with Windows such as VA Research or
put your own computer together?
Why is it that if you want a machine without Windows pre-installed, you have to either go to one of the niche dealers (which most beginning customers won't do, due to lack of information) or put one together by hand? That's like walking up to all of the car dealers in town, telling them what you want, and all of them replying: "Hey, if you want this specific model of car, then you can drive 50 miles to a dealer that specializes in that model or put it together yourself!"
That isn't choice. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Choice in the operating systems market would be me getting my mother to call Dell and having Dell walk my mother through the purchase of a machine down to having her pick the 3-4 OSes they happen to be installing at the time. (And no, before you use VA Research ala Microsoft using BeOS in it's defense, let me just say that VA Research, for all it's potential is NOT Dell and isn't Gateway either)
I'll believe there is choice in this market when does finally happen, and not one minute before.
And how so? This industry has now become more of perception rather than anything else. How can you say the perception of something doesn't affect how it will do in the market? Simple math will tell you that my assertion above is perfectly logical!
A computer engineering degree might be more valuable in this type of endeavor than a computer science degree. CS majors tend to stick with the algorithms and programming (software) side of things while CE majors deal more with the "whole system" (hardware and how it integrates with its software).
Most Universities use CE to represent Civil Engineers. Computer Engineers (which I'm guessing is really what you mean) are CpEs.
I do, however, agree with everything Fastolfe said in his post, but the CpE curriculum is highly theoretical in lots of places, and probably overkill for someone looking to get a "practical education" on becomming a Sysadmin.
Slashdot is the RIGHT Forum!
on
Why Work Sucks
·
· Score: 1
An Anonymous Coward was caught uttering the following:
As true as this article is, Slashdot is the wrong forum to express it. Simply because Slashdot users consist of the younger, cheaper workers that Jon discusses. (As an aside, what do you think Slashdot's demographis are - I'll bet it's 90% young males between 18-30).
90%? Not 90%, but close! According to this poll from August 8th, folks in their 20s, dominate the population of Slashdot (54%) with teenagers aged 16-19 as the next group (21%). I find it interesting that the older segment (folks older than 30) comprise the same percentage here (21%). That's hardly a small percentage, and certainly not as small as you make out.
Seriously: young or old, I think Katz is right in bringing something like this to the attention of the readership. Those who are willing to listen, will listen. Those who aren't, will not.
Quite frankly, I like my job, but then again, I work for a State University and not a coporation. The attitudes and atmosphere between the two are worlds apart. I can see how folks who do work in a corporation might need a little heads up. Sure, it might not be happening to you now but don't discount later!
The voiciferous Anonymous Coward responded to my earlier post with the following:
"Why is it that I can't pick and choose what offerings from Microsoft I want to have on my computer? Why can't I get a system preinstalled with Windows98 and WordPerfect 8?"
You can. 1) Build your own computer. 2) Buy a copy of Windows 95. 3) Buy a copy of Wordperfect.
Remember, you are getting DISCOUNTS on pre-loaded software which occurs because the vendor can handle that product in BULK.
You aren't answering my question. I was asking about preloading here, not assembling my own computer from scratch! Sure, the cheaper price comes from bulk deals, but I bet you that a company could get a good deal from Corel to preload WordPerfect onto their new Windows systems, and they can do this in addition to preloading Office or whatever other office suite they think their customers will want. To only allow pre-loads for just Microsoft Office strikes me as a huge and unfair bias! I want to see Dell and Gateway offer a variety of software from a variety of vendors, not one single, monolithic company. You have yet to provide me with a good reason why this is, and why the market tolerates it.
First of all, IE 4.0 is verfitably part of the operating system. So it's not forcing one product on the other, because IE 4.0 is IN the operating system. And I've studied EXACTLY how this was done, and many MANY parts of the operating system rely on IE code because the code is so reusable.
I too have studied the "integration" of IE into Windows98, and I must strongly disagree here. You mention that it's part of the OS simply because of the fact that the code is reusable...well, so is libgtk.a, so is libncurses.a, so are a lot of other libraries on Linux, but Linux doesn't go far enough as stating that any of them are part of the operating system ! Sure, there are several DLLs that IE uses that could be argued as part of the operating system, but we aren't talking DLLs, we are talking IExplorer.EXE and the HTML rendering engine. Neither of these things are critical to the functioning of an Operating System and should not be shoved down users throats. Fine. You like the integration - good for you, but Microsoft went against the reccommendations of a few of their own focus groups when it came to the decision to "include" IE as part of the Operating System.
Your argument about the new help files being better than the old RTF system is also lacking. The RTF help system worked and in my opinion is just as functional, if not moreso than its newer HTML-based equivalent. So why throw it all out all of that work on the old Help system simply to move to an HTML based system? You gain nothing from such a move.
No, this IE integration solely amounts to Microsoft moving a few critical interface functions into DLLs used by IE, and then claiming that IE was part of the OS, simply because DLLs that it used were also part of the OS. The move to HTML help files was just something to lend credance to this, and not some design issue to improve Windows in any way!
Second of all, those laws are written so vaguely that all kinds of companies hire lobbyists to pay ransom to the government so they aren't attacked by the laws. Microsoft didn't lobby for a very long time. Now the government is going after Microsoft for not paying its ransom money.
I don't see it that way. If this were true, then a lot more companies would be coming under fire from the Government for not paying their "tax". Your argument here, is entirely too cynical to take seriously.
Explain why it took FOREVER to be able to get ON the internet if you weren't in the government or the millitary or at a university.
Umm...how about lack of interest from the general public? How about lack of funds for the Internet of 3-4 years ago to upgrade itself in anticipation of the needs of millions of millions of users? Do not kid yourself, the reason why the internet didn't become popular until it did was because it was not ready to handle it ! All of the standards that make up the Internet as we know it today were in place years before it became truly usable by the public. More often than not, the public was afraid of the Internet. It wasn't until the Web gained popularity that people saw that the Internet could be fun and... *gasp*... profitable.
I'm not putting down standards. I AM putting down your suggestion that companies should wait till their new features are part of a standard before implimenting them...that would take FOREVER and they wouldn't gain any advantage from their work!
My appologies. That was not my intent. Any company can add features as they see fit to their products, even to the point of making "extensions" to commodity protocols. But then if these "extensions" to the commodity protocol become popular enough, then the company should work with the standards boards to see if they can get their new functionality included in the proper standards. A company that does anything less is being irresponsible to their users and the market at large.
"The Sherman Anti-Trust laws are in place simply to protect the consumer (ie, us) from the interests of a single corporation." Umm...how the hell do consumers need protection since WE'RE the people who decide whether companies live or die???
Simply because a company does not have the best interest of the consumer at heart. If this were true, then the government would not need to step in and the market could truly be self-governing. This is not the case and some kind of regulation needs to be done when greed overrides a companies responsibility to it's customers (ie, providing a working product that does what it's advertised to do). Microsoft has shown time and time again, that it doesn't give a rat's ass about the consumer. Think I'm wrong? Pull out a copy of any Microsoft End-User-Licence-Agreement and read it. Hell, pull out almost any software license and it will read fairly similarly. Why is it that computer software liability is so low when computers (and the software they run) are becoming more and more important in our day to day lives? We have gone past the point, where a simple computer glitch could cost lives. It's about time the market reflected this. Consumers are hurt by monopoly powers in a market, especially when that market doesn't offer the protection necessary to insure that the customer has received what he has paid for. The Sherman Anti-Trust laws are designed to protect against such monopolies.
What you're REALLY saying is that you don't trust the purchasing decisions of the general public. This is just another sign of "Programmer people sick of having to deal with computer idiots and the mess that they leave behind."
No. You are saying that, and I don't know where this insinuation comes from because I have said no such thing. Me personally, I'm glad that more of the public have started using computers. It bothers me when I can solve a Win98 problem in 5 minutes, which two 30 minute calls to Microsoft Technical Support couldn't solve, simply because they can't write a decent binary registry that won't like to eat itself from time to time.
I'll say it again, I think the Government is right in bringing Microsoft to court! If Microsoft is innocent of the charges that have been laid against it, then they can prove this to the public at large.
First off, I want to appologize for the length of this post. When one writes a long article, another tends to have to write another longer article to get the point across without losing the reader. If you are not interested in a lengthy diatribe on this topic, then please skip this post!
An Anonymous Coward was caught preaching the following in response to BOredAtWork:
>Engaged OEMs in closed contracts that expressidly forbit installation of >non-MS OS's. Hell, IBM can't even preinstall THEIR OWN OS >(OS2/Warp).
So, what? Nobody forced IBM to install Windows on their Aptivas. Oh, what's that you say? IBM wouldn't be able to sell their Aptivas if they didn't have Windows installed? So, you're saying that consumers WANT Windows? If consumers don't want Windows, then IBM wouldn't bother to put Windows on its computers. The fact that it makes good business sense for them to go exclusively Windows over OS/2 is the result of consumers choosing Windows over OS/2, not the result of Microsoft being a big schoolyard bully.
You give Microsoft FAR too much credit here. IBM preloaded Windows on Aptivas because they already had a deal with Microsoft from their PS/2 days. It was simple economics, not a matter of the customer's preferences. I do agree that IBM could have installed OS/2 on those Aptivas if they wanted, but IBM has been quoted as saying that OS/2 was NOT meant for the home market...and that was a mistake on their part.
>Engaged OEMs in closed contracts that mandate the installation of >(and payment for) MS Office on EVERY pc they sell. >Want WordPerfect? Too bad. Have a copy of Office already >and don't want to pay for another? Too bad. I can >personally attest to this from buying my PC from Dell...
Same argument. Dell could ship with StarOffice, Linux, and Netscape 4.5. But they chose to deal with Microsoft. And, Microsoft made an offer to sell Windows, which Dell accepted. That's life in the big city. Oh, yeah, and nobody's forced to buy from Dell. Or from any other OEM who sells its computers with MS Office. People WANT these products. Is it illegal for MS to sell them what they want?
You missed something here. First off, when Dell entered their agreement with Microsoft, StarOffice, Linux weren't on anyone's radar. Microsoft was the only game in town. Secondly, several OEMs would have preferred to install different application suites but were forced to take Office becuase of tying agreements between Windows and other Microsoft offerings (this was going to be in the anti-trust case, but was removed). Microsoft isn't in the business of selling you what you want, hell, there might be some non-Microsoft offerings in there. Instead, they'll sell you what they want you to have even if it means shoving it down your throat! Last I checked, product tying was illegal, and "force feeding" was just damned annoying.
Regarding the IE4 "integration":
What is the so-called-illegal part here? That's already been ruled to be OK by the appeals court. Oh, and I personally think using HTML for help over RTF is a valid reason for bundling IE. Windows Help has always been an obnoxious hack on RTF, but HTML is designed to be used in just the way Windows Help used RTF. I don't see the problem with this upgrade.
Well, the appeals court got this one wrong in my opinion (not that mine really matters), but that doesn't make product tying any more legal...and IE4+Win98 is product tying. Period. Why? Because there was already an existing browser market. If someone else who had an OS had integrated a browser, it would be fine, but the market leader (ie the owner of the Desktop Monopoly) does it, then the lawyers start pouncing.
Additionally, IE 4 includes some DLLS which weren't originally part of Win 95, but have become popular to use by some 3rd party developers. It's a lot easier for MS and the 3rd parties if IE comes with Windows, instead of distributing it with each piece of software that uses it.
Another excuse. What's preventing 3rd party developers from including it in their own distributions? I agree that it makes SENSE to include that DLL as part of an optional system package, but to call it part of the OS? No sir. Two entirely different things. Fact: The user has no choice but to accept IE when they install Windows. The choice to deinstall it doesn't come until later, and even that "deinstallation" isn't done properly.
Besides, MS isn't the only company to ship multiple products in one package. Every linux distributor I know of ships a whole bunch of software with the Linux kernel. But, I'll stick with MS. Should Microsoft be harassed because they bundled freecell? That was, and certainly still is, not an integral part of the OS. The same is true with EDIT.COM or Notepad. Where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line? Where Linux has, of course. Each of these products you've mentioned (including EDIT.COM) are applications. Linux doesn't claim that any of its applications are part and parcel of the OS. With Linux and other Operating Systems that bundle, you have the choice at install time whether these optional packages are installed. Not true with IE and most of the stuff that comes with Windows.
>Bastardized standards, licensed technologies, and protocols >in such a manner as to make the MS-Way the One True >Way. Java, streaming media, and DHTML, to name >a few examples.
Um... I'll take it one charge at a time.
What you call Bastardized standards some call added functionality. "Embrace and extend" is a clever strategy to gain business. By making their version do more than the published standard (Java for one) they give their customers more for their money than if MS had limited themselves to the standard. When is it illegal to make your software better than the other guy's? When you're Microsoft.
Added functionality is one thing, but when the people want that added functionality, then it should be incorporated into the standard. "Added functionality" isn't really added functionality until it becomes part of a standard protocol ! Until then, such "added functionality" is only available in the hands of one entity and that is not good for the consumer. Ask yourself then: If Microsoft was so committed to the customer, why haven't they worked with Standardization Committees to get this "added functionality" worked into the standards? Again, "embrace and extend" is only useful for someone trying to watch the bottom line in the easiest way possible.
Joe Schmo can survive if his software meets his custmoers wants. If MS copies his idea, then adds stuff to make it incompatible with Joe's work, then Joe had better get to coding, and make his version do all that MS's does.
And how is Joe Schmo supposed to fight a multi-billion dollar corporation without some protection of his ideas. Just because you can copy someone's ideas doesn't mean that you should. Clean room implementations of someone else's ideas are fine, but anything else falls short. Microsoft usually gives them an offer they can't refuse: sell out or die. And if they don't sell out, Microsoft will live up to their alternative threat, by any means necessary.
How does this help the perception of a "vital and innovative market"? -- It doesn't.
Oh yeah, and what, pray tell, does squash mean? Beaten in the market by a superior product? How is that illegal?
*sigh* -- That sounds as lame as Bill Gates in his DOJ deposition. What do you think it means? it means exactly what I stated above: "destroy by any means necessary".
Anytime Microsoft goes into a business venture, it's automatically an attempted takeover of the industry? It was this part of the comment that really pushed me to reply. This passage here really shows a fundamental anti-Microsoft bias, causing a tinted view of the facts.
How is this a tinted view of the facts, when in fact, there are several markets out there that are particularly worried about this exact thing! A few markets come to mind: Real Estate and Automobile Sales. You may think that this worry shows a "fundamental anti-Microsoft bias", but this bias only comes from the analysis of past behavior. Anti-Microsoft bias or not (and put plainly, I do have one): If the shoe fits, one should wear it.
Should an action be illegal because you don't like it? That seems to be the idea behind this posting. How does any of this justify the government's role in the matter?
Absolutely not! However, you seem to think that dislike is the only thing motivated behind this shift against Microsoft. Although it plays a big part, one has to look at why this company is so disliked: It's not that Microsoft is successful, it's how it attained that success! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The government is perfectly within its rights to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws! That's my justification, and it's also the DOJ's.
It's a commonly accepted fact that the software industry is different from most. Patents are silly, marginal costs are low, and turnover is rapid. How is it, then, that traditional government definitions of predatory monopoly should apply here? While MS is, or approaches, the government definition of a monopoly, Windows and Office are a far cry from becoming the economic definition of a monopoly. Witness the revival of Apple and the booming growth of Linux to see that.
This industry may be different than most, but its still subject to the rules every other market uses. It's the rules we've been using since the Union was founded, and for the most part, these rules work. Why should the software market be treated differently than any other? Point out to me distinct differences that would invalidate the Sherman Anti-Trust laws or the basic economic laws on which Sherman was founded. Until you can show me such proof, I'll continue to disagree with you. And if Windows is not the economic definition of a Monopoly, then tell me why its stock value is so high? Dispite the growth of Apple and Linux, neither of these issues can approach the fact that Microsoft and Windows have the greatest mindshare in this industry.
And with that mindshare, they can do anything to anyone in the industry that they want to.
An Anonymous Coward was caught uttering the following:
Puleeze... Like exclusivity clauses in contracts define whether a company is a monopoly. Sounds more like good business sense to me. I'd like to see the govt. sue McDonalds cause I can't get a Pepsi there. BTW, Pepsi doesn't own Taco Bell, or KFC, or Pizza Hut.
Well, if Microsoft were still a small company, I would see the need for exclusivity clauses in their contracts, but with them being the market leader? Come on. Exclusive contracts like that in today's market serves only one purpose: to cut out the competition. In Microsoft's position as a desktop Monopoly, they should not be allowed to do this.
The point is the original posted claimed the Microsoft is buying companies and shutting them down to sqash their technologies. Someone name two of these companies for me. I didn't think so.
You thought too soon:
BAO (Bruce Artwick Organization): Developer of Microsoft Flight Simulator and Flight Shop, a Flight Simulator add-on. Result: Purchased company, canceled U.S. distribution of Flight Shop. Circa 1995.
Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1995.
Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1997.
Softimage 3D graphics applications developer. Result: Purchased company; eventually discontinued development of non-Windows products.
You wanted two? I gave you four. you want more? Check here.
It saves an extra download, extra installation, and hasn't made my system and less stable. Plus I can still use Netscape and Opera, so what's the issue?
Touchy issue here. I agree with what you argue on this in principle, but after dealing with several systems with IE, this seems like more of an excuse. I've used many different Win32 systems in my time, and honestly, I wish I could get rid of the integrated browser and use the regular Explorer from Win95. Saying you can install Netscape and Opera just doesn't cut it anymore. What if I don't want any part of IE? Even to browse local resources? Saving download and installation time for something you do not want is not helpful to the customer in general...no matter how useful it might be to you.
Actually if the stupid gov't would get the hell out of the way the market will take care of everything, and quicker than any court system. Linux proves that if nothing else.
You must be really naive if you think the market can handle itself. This has been categorically proven otherwise. No matter how many times I hear people say it, if the market was capable of taking care of itself, then Microsoft would not be a problem now.
Put simply, this market is no longer about technical issues it's about marketing prowess and the computer industry is no exception in this respect! (Remember Beta vs VHS?)
Microsoft has near absolute power in this market due to its checkbook, and although Linux is making serious inroads, it is simply not a threat to Microsoft...yet! Linux needs a stable and consistent desktop before it can threaten Microsoft where it makes its money: the home user. Until then, expect the courts to move faster than Linux.
BTW - The government is not stupid in excercising its right (yes, its right) to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. It's amazing to me how many Microsoft pundits overlook this fact.
adder was caught uttering the following: "It says on that page that they're gonna have pics of 'Princess Leah, the Jedi Knight..." etc. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Leah be all of a very young child at this point? (ie: Luke is the OLDER brother, yes?)"
True, but that does not discount one of her ancestors being called "Leah" who was a princess and a Jedi Knight....
"It's the only window manager I use at the moment, and it has never crashed on me. You should be careful about iconization, though: I had icons disappearing from my desktop _and_ pager, so I couldn't access the associated program, even though it was still running."
What pager are you able to run with E 0.15? I thought they hadn't even started on that module yet!
Slashdot Mirror
Consecutive picture time on the DC290 is a bit low for my tastes, but it offers great features for a digital camera including zoom, exposure settings, red-eye reduction and you can script it.
Microsoft isn't going to dissapear tomorrow, so I also think this prediction of us "losing 6 years" is hogwash. Microsoft still enjoys the marketshare today that it did yesterday. I don't see the government changing this overnight.
Should I take this title literally or not? Or am I going to have to apply more extreme methods to find out? (Of course, I could always listen to the stream, but that would be far, FAR too simple.) - Cliff
Actually, this hack has gotten front page exposure on Slashdot today. I've updated the headers to reflect this. The link to this page should also be in the article now.
Yes, but that would be the same as polling a database at specific intervals, which roadoi (the person who submitted this topic) said he did not want to do. Personally, your approach would be a similar approach to what I would do, however there may be more to the situation that makes such undesirable. I hope roadoi comes online and gives us some reasons as to why polling is undesirable in this case as cron and such were made for things like this.
I wish this section had existed last week. A few of the Ask Slashdots that I decided NOT to post would have fitted well in this section. I will probably need to talk to Michael and Jamie about them as I think I have those submissions archived someplace.
Errr... Now the big question is: HOW did you manage to reply to the comment before it was posted?
> You just know the OS/2 holdouts HAVE to say something...
That doesn't make his point any less valid.
Eh? The OS/2 kernel and the WPS would be FAR more interesting things to peek into than anything NT has.
An anonymous coward was caught asking this useful question:
.shtml page.
Great improvements to Slashdot, Rob! How about http://slashdot.org/index_N.shtml as a shortcut to nested mode, like you already have http://slashdot.org/index_F.shtml as a shortcut to flat mode?
That wouldn't work, as any page that has to parse the score would have to be a dynamic page rather than a
Amen! I wonder how many other folks noticed this.
You're right though. The one critical piece of that film is that it WAS a propaganda piece. I mean, it gave me that same "get-a-load-of-this" feeling I always get when I see copies of Reefer Madness...another propaganda film if there ever was one.
My hat's off to you then! Star Control 2 had one of the BEST soundtracks at that point in Video Game history.
:)
Now please tell me that you were the one who did the UrQuan score and NOT the one that did the Spathi score!
Datazone, I don't think I've SEEN any submissions from you in a while, and I should know. Most of the Ask Slashdot submissions from the PAST MONTH are still sitting in the submissions box.
Folks, I ask PATIENCE with Ask Slashdot questions. They are NOT like Slashdot articles. If you have a fairly INTERESTING question (and I'm not talking anything related to FAQ) then I'll hold your question until I can fit it in.
Somewhere.
Complaints like these will NOT get your submissions processed any faster. If you have problems and would like to talk to me directly about these things, then the email address to use is with this post.
Rampant flames will be forwarded to
OS/2 (or I could be using Linux or Be right now), but that's only because I took proper steps to INSURE that. I think only 10-20% of computer owners are actually saavy enough to do this. Why is it that if you want a machine without Windows pre-installed, you have to either go to one of the niche dealers (which most beginning customers won't do, due to lack of information) or put one together by hand? That's like walking up to all of the car dealers in town, telling them what you want, and all of them replying: "Hey, if you want this specific model of car, then you can drive 50 miles to a dealer that specializes in that model or put it together yourself!"
That isn't choice. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Choice in the operating systems market would be me getting my mother to call Dell and having Dell walk my mother through the purchase of a machine down to having her pick the 3-4 OSes they happen to be installing at the time. (And no, before you use VA Research ala Microsoft using BeOS in it's defense, let me just say that VA Research, for all it's potential is NOT Dell and isn't Gateway either)
I'll believe there is choice in this market when does finally happen, and not one minute before.
I do, however, agree with everything Fastolfe said in his post, but the CpE curriculum is highly theoretical in lots of places, and probably overkill for someone looking to get a "practical education" on becomming a Sysadmin.
Seriously: young or old, I think Katz is right in bringing something like this to the attention of the readership. Those who are willing to listen, will listen. Those who aren't, will not.
Quite frankly, I like my job, but then again, I work for a State University and not a coporation. The attitudes and atmosphere between the two are worlds apart. I can see how folks who do work in a corporation might need a little heads up. Sure, it might not be happening to you now but don't discount later!
- Cliff
Your argument about the new help files being better than the old RTF system is also lacking. The RTF help system worked and in my opinion is just as functional, if not moreso than its newer HTML-based equivalent. So why throw it all out all of that work on the old Help system simply to move to an HTML based system? You gain nothing from such a move.
No, this IE integration solely amounts to Microsoft moving a few critical interface functions into DLLs used by IE, and then claiming that IE was part of the OS, simply because DLLs that it used were also part of the OS. The move to HTML help files was just something to lend credance to this, and not some design issue to improve Windows in any way! I don't see it that way. If this were true, then a lot more companies would be coming under fire from the Government for not paying their "tax". Your argument here, is entirely too cynical to take seriously. Umm...how about lack of interest from the general public? How about lack of funds for the Internet of 3-4 years ago to upgrade itself in anticipation of the needs of millions of millions of users? Do not kid yourself, the reason why the internet didn't become popular until it did was because it was not ready to handle it ! All of the standards that make up the Internet as we know it today were in place years before it became truly usable by the public. More often than not, the public was afraid of the Internet. It wasn't until the Web gained popularity that people saw that the Internet could be fun and
I'll say it again, I think the Government is right in bringing Microsoft to court! If Microsoft is innocent of the charges that have been laid against it, then they can prove this to the public at large.
So far, they've done a relatively poor job.
- Cliff
An Anonymous Coward was caught preaching the following in response to BOredAtWork: You give Microsoft FAR too much credit here. IBM preloaded Windows on Aptivas because they already had a deal with Microsoft from their PS/2 days. It was simple economics, not a matter of the customer's preferences. I do agree that IBM could have installed OS/2 on those Aptivas if they wanted, but IBM has been quoted as saying that OS/2 was NOT meant for the home market...and that was a mistake on their part. You missed something here. First off, when Dell entered their agreement with Microsoft, StarOffice, Linux weren't on anyone's radar. Microsoft was the only game in town. Secondly, several OEMs would have preferred to install different application suites but were forced to take Office becuase of tying agreements between Windows and other Microsoft offerings (this was going to be in the anti-trust case, but was removed). Microsoft isn't in the business of selling you what you want, hell, there might be some non-Microsoft offerings in there. Instead, they'll sell you what they want you to have even if it means shoving it down your throat! Last I checked, product tying was illegal, and "force feeding" was just damned annoying.
Regarding the IE4 "integration": Well, the appeals court got this one wrong in my opinion (not that mine really matters), but that doesn't make product tying any more legal...and IE4+Win98 is product tying. Period. Why? Because there was already an existing browser market. If someone else who had an OS had integrated a browser, it would be fine, but the market leader (ie the owner of the Desktop Monopoly) does it, then the lawyers start pouncing. Another excuse. What's preventing 3rd party developers from including it in their own distributions? I agree that it makes SENSE to include that DLL as part of an optional system package, but to call it part of the OS? No sir. Two entirely different things. Fact: The user has no choice but to accept IE when they install Windows. The choice to deinstall it doesn't come until later, and even that "deinstallation" isn't done properly. Where do you draw the line? Where Linux has, of course. Each of these products you've mentioned (including EDIT.COM) are applications. Linux doesn't claim that any of its applications are part and parcel of the OS. With Linux and other Operating Systems that bundle, you have the choice at install time whether these optional packages are installed. Not true with IE and most of the stuff that comes with Windows. Added functionality is one thing, but when the people want that added functionality, then it should be incorporated into the standard. "Added functionality" isn't really added functionality until it becomes part of a standard protocol ! Until then, such "added functionality" is only available in the hands of one entity and that is not good for the consumer. Ask yourself then: If Microsoft was so committed to the customer, why haven't they worked with Standardization Committees to get this "added functionality" worked into the standards? Again, "embrace and extend" is only useful for someone trying to watch the bottom line in the easiest way possible. And how is Joe Schmo supposed to fight a multi-billion dollar corporation without some protection of his ideas. Just because you can copy someone's ideas doesn't mean that you should. Clean room implementations of someone else's ideas are fine, but anything else falls short. Microsoft usually gives them an offer they can't refuse: sell out or die. And if they don't sell out, Microsoft will live up to their alternative threat, by any means necessary.
How does this help the perception of a "vital and innovative market"? -- It doesn't. *sigh* -- That sounds as lame as Bill Gates in his DOJ deposition. What do you think it means? it means exactly what I stated above: "destroy by any means necessary". How is this a tinted view of the facts, when in fact, there are several markets out there that are particularly worried about this exact thing! A few markets come to mind: Real Estate and Automobile Sales. You may think that this worry shows a "fundamental anti-Microsoft bias", but this bias only comes from the analysis of past behavior. Anti-Microsoft bias or not (and put plainly, I do have one): If the shoe fits, one should wear it. Absolutely not! However, you seem to think that dislike is the only thing motivated behind this shift against Microsoft. Although it plays a big part, one has to look at why this company is so disliked: It's not that Microsoft is successful, it's how it attained that success! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The government is perfectly within its rights to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws! That's my justification, and it's also the DOJ's. This industry may be different than most, but its still subject to the rules every other market uses. It's the rules we've been using since the Union was founded, and for the most part, these rules work. Why should the software market be treated differently than any other? Point out to me distinct differences that would invalidate the Sherman Anti-Trust laws or the basic economic laws on which Sherman was founded. Until you can show me such proof, I'll continue to disagree with you. And if Windows is not the economic definition of a Monopoly, then tell me why its stock value is so high? Dispite the growth of Apple and Linux, neither of these issues can approach the fact that Microsoft and Windows have the greatest mindshare in this industry.
And with that mindshare, they can do anything to anyone in the industry that they want to.
- Cliff
- BAO (Bruce Artwick Organization): Developer of Microsoft Flight Simulator and Flight Shop, a Flight Simulator add-on. Result: Purchased company, canceled U.S. distribution of Flight Shop. Circa 1995.
- Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1995.
- Blue Ribbon Soundworks, Ltd. Developer of SuperJam, EasyKeys and other MIDI music products for Amiga, OS/2 and Windows. Result: Purchased company. EasyKeys for OS/2 and Amiga products discontinued soon after. Circa 1997.
- Softimage 3D graphics applications developer. Result: Purchased company; eventually discontinued development of non-Windows products.
You wanted two? I gave you four. you want more? Check here. Touchy issue here. I agree with what you argue on this in principle, but after dealing with several systems with IE, this seems like more of an excuse. I've used many different Win32 systems in my time, and honestly, I wish I could get rid of the integrated browser and use the regular Explorer from Win95. Saying you can install Netscape and Opera just doesn't cut it anymore. What if I don't want any part of IE? Even to browse local resources? Saving download and installation time for something you do not want is not helpful to the customer in general...no matter how useful it might be to you. You must be really naive if you think the market can handle itself. This has been categorically proven otherwise. No matter how many times I hear people say it, if the market was capable of taking care of itself, then Microsoft would not be a problem now.Put simply, this market is no longer about technical issues it's about marketing prowess and the computer industry is no exception in this respect! (Remember Beta vs VHS?)
Microsoft has near absolute power in this market due to its checkbook, and although Linux is making serious inroads, it is simply not a threat to Microsoft...yet! Linux needs a stable and consistent desktop before it can threaten Microsoft where it makes its money: the home user. Until then, expect the courts to move faster than Linux.
BTW - The government is not stupid in excercising its right (yes, its right) to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. It's amazing to me how many Microsoft pundits overlook this fact.
- Cliff
adder was caught uttering the following:
"It says on that page that they're gonna have pics of 'Princess Leah, the Jedi Knight..." etc. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't Leah be all of a very young child at this point? (ie: Luke is the OLDER brother, yes?)"
True, but that does not discount one of her ancestors being called "Leah" who was a princess and a Jedi Knight....