Indeed. If the ODF proponents had spent a fraction of the effort they spent fighting OOXML on improving ODF, I doubt MS could claim compliance and still be non-interoperable. Maybe Microsoft was right that ODF wasn't complete and wasn't suitable for interoperability.
Last time I was checking, Windows' POSIX doesn't support fork().
When was the last time you checked? The very first version of NT (NT 3.1) supported fork() in it's posix subsystem. Win32 apps don't run in the posix subsystem though and can't use fork(), but fork() is definitely there for posix apps.
Linux distros are typically consistent and the installer has the capability to locate and download the software too
You mean for sufficiently popular applications. If the app you want, or the version of the app you want isn't in the repository, it's a *LOT* harder than in Windows to get that app working on your system.
Typically it is only new, beta grade drivers that don't come with the kernel
Not true at all. There are tons of wireless cards that don't have drivers in the kernel. Even on the server, there are lots of drivers that don't come stock with the kernel, but Distro's like RHEL add those drivers. If you've ever tried to upgrade your RHEL kernel to a newer kernel than currently supported, you have to deal with getting those drivers into the kernel.. i know, i've had to do it.
I did say that slipstreaming wasn't for the average user. I was simply countering the claim that there was "no way" to do it. "no way" means, "no way".. not "no simple way".
Yeah, right. That explains why they boycott supermarkets then.
I suspected someone might make this argument. Doing so shows a serious lack of thought on the subject.
Supermarkets have lots of choice in products that are, essentially the same. One can of peaches provides sustenence just like another can of peaches. The only difference is personal preference (taste, level of sugar, etc..)
Two different OS's are more than just personal preference. The apps of OSX don't work in Linux, or Windows. Hell, the apps of Linux don't always work with every version of Linux either. There's an entire ecosystem of consequences to the choice of OS that just doesn't exist in most other markets. Plus, the cost of the OS in terms of man hours to switch to another OS is cost prohibitive. If you choose the wrong can of peaches, it's another.79 to pick a different one next time. If you choose the wrong OS, it could be 5 days of work to reconfigure everything, assuming you even know what you're doing.
The same is true of cars. All cars more or less drive the same way (not counting high end sportcars) and you basically have to know either an automatic or a stick. The rest is all personal preference (shape and size, color, what features it supports, etc..)
Yeah, right. What are you smoking? Windows does not even have a package manager!
Yes, it does. It's called Windows Installer and has come with Windows since Windows 2000. Even the so called "Installer software" is just a pretty front-end to Windows Installer and a script generator.
The end user either selects the driver in the package manager, like any other software, or it is already autodetected by the kernel, which is the case >90% of time.
Except of course for the hundreds of drivers out there that do not come with the kernel and aren't part of the package repository. That's really beside the point. The original author was talking about driver development. There is no common driver binary interface, which makes it very difficult to create a single binary that can be used on all versions of the kernel (or even all versions of a major version).
On Windows, there is no way a freshly installed OS can already use all hardware and hardware features.
This is patently untrue. It's called slipstreaming, and corporate IT departments do it all the time. Home users, not so much, but your "there is no way" comment shows ignorance on your part.
If Microsoft did not have a monopoly, there would be many many more variants of OSes.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe Microsoft has a monopoly because users don't want more variants of OS's?
By that, I mean, the market tends to a monopoly because end users don't want confusion.
I'm sure the very concept that users don't want 500 choices of something is hard for you to comprehend.
Personally, Anonymous scares me a hell of a lot less than the far right militia groups
It doesn't so much scare me as worry me. I see a lot of people getting swept up in this sort of thing, thinking they're doing "the right thing". The problem is, this is a group of, essentially, vigilantes. They decided that Scientology is bad, and they were going to do something about it. Whether or not Scientology is bad, vigilantism is worse because it relies on mob "logic" which has proven throughout history to make poor decisions. This is what brought us Lynchings, Burning Crosses, Witch Hunts, etc..
What's worse, in my opinion, is the fact that a group of people are taking it upon themselves to judge a (theoretical) religion as "false" or evil. Whether or not you believe Scientology is a religion, many of the people who are members do in fact view it as a religion. Anonymous is effectively persecuting people based on their religion. It doesn't matter if the founders of that religion are scam artists and using people, the catholic church can be considered to be doing that.
Anonymous does, in fact, meet the criteria of a terrorist organization. What's terrible is that it's members are otherwise intelligent people who end up doing stupid shit, and not realizing exactly what it is they're doing. Mobs are bad. All it takes is one spark to set them off. Like the DDoS attacks against Scientology that also affected thousands of other sites.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
No. I'm saying that Linux has more than enough resources, they are just poorly utilized by doing the same thing 500 different ways.
One of Amazon's top 10 apps is Photoshop Essentials. This is an app that many home users like because it allows them to manipulate their photos.
Could you do all that with Gimp? Perhaps, but nowhere near as easily or simply. Elements makes common tasks simple and fast. This is what people pay for.
Another example, Quicken. Sure, you've got Moneydance and gnucash, but these don't do the same kinds of things like having complete bank access (there is some in recent versions of open source apps, but not early enough). Then add the ability to take your files and export them directly to a tax preperation program, or to your accountant and again you've got apps people will pay for.
Then we've got whole other classes of apps. Family Will Makers, Greeting Card makers, Home 3D modelers (like for landscaping, deck building, etc..)...
There's tons of apps that people will pay for the fit and finish of a commercial app, who will not bother to do it manually with open source tools.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
other problem of course is that the average distro just doesn't have the resources to do wide scale usability testing.
If there weren't 500 projects all trying to do the same thing, they might be able to combine their resources to do that sort of thing.
That just seems like common sense. Oh, yeah, there's that word again.
What I do not understand is freeloaders who complain that things do not work and, moreover, complain that nobody will take their "criticism."
Are you kidding me? Free Software advocates preach about the "free as in speech"-ness, but when it comes right down to it, what you want is quid pro quo. You want people to give back to you what you've given. That's not "Free as in specch", that's "Scratch my back and i'll scratch yours".
You're doing Free Software a huge disservice by being this way, and you're creating the dichotomy of "Why isn't linux so successful" and "These freeloding twerps can do nothing but complain".
Re:Let me be the first critic
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is a BS argument. Seriously.
The majority of the apps in a typical Linux repository are not useful to the average person. If Linux ever becomes mainestream, people will not be using primarily open source apps, they'll be buying third party programs just like they do on Windows today. Why? Because commercial applications are more shiny. They are polished, and attention is paid to the small details that open source developers usually ignore.
As an example, no open source game is of the same quality as the current commercial state of the art. Yes, you might have the occasional commercial developer that releases their 10 year old source code (a la id), and those 10 year old versions are typical the best you can get for Linux (barring Cedega compatibility, but that invalidates your argument).
The only reason that linux is so "consistent" with app repositories is because it lacks a rich commercial ecosystem.
Could it be that playing Youtube videos uses 25% more cpu power? And thus, because you didn't play them on your ubuntu laptop it got longer battery life?
So what you're saying is that in order to be a "shell guru" you have to know more than just the shell. You have to know Perl and Python and Awk and Sed and Grep and a hundred other commands and languages.
What's wrong with knowing one, much more evolved system that has consistent syntax across all functions?
Well, apart from the fact that people need jobs too. A little cash in everyones pocket may create a temporary blip in the economy, but it's not going to solve the problem.
Also, government projects usually create artifacts, like bridges people can drive on, roads people can use, etc..
There's a lot to be upset about in these government programs, but this is the least objectionable.
I disagree. Much of that money *IS* going back into peoples pockets. For example, the people employed by the government projects.
It's certainly not going into everyones pockets, but a great deal of it is going back into the economy. You know, like government projects earlier last century, like the Hoover dam, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system.
I may not be able to tell you where the money is going by looking at the site, but I sure can tell you where it's NOT going by looking at the site.
It's not going into finding ways to present complex information easily to US taxpayers. Of course, they could probably spend the better part of the deficit on such a task and it wouldn't be a whole lot better.
Frankly, I don't believe Joss. He's appologized for Fox many times, and then later come back to say something different after the fact. He did similar for both Firefly and Angel.
It may have been his decision, but it was likely at the networks "suggestion".
If the machine is padlocked you're not going to reset the bios password without destroying the case.
And whether or not you log in as administrator, your machine is still joined to the domain, thus still lives by domain security policy. You can unjoin it from the domain, but then you can no longer access the domain protected services.
For instance, suppose your proxy server requires the computer to be connected via AD and an authorized user. I don't care what you think you can do by getting the local administrator password, you aren't going to get out on the net.
Group Policy only covers those things which know about and resepect GP, that much is true. But, properly setup, you can ensure that a computer follows group policy.
Unfortunately, few people in the Unix world seem to grasp what Group Policy is used for in Windows.
It's not simply preventing users from installing software.
Group policy is a set of policies that gevern everything from security policies, to application policies (for instance, say you want all users in a specific AD OU to use a specific proxy server, or maybe you want to limit all computers in a given lab from being able to use an MSN Messenger.
GP can be assigned to specific computers, groups of computers, users, groups of users, and a whole host of situations. The nice thing about it is that it's AD wide, and controls the user or the computer regardless of where, or what may be installed on the machine or how it's configured locally.
Lars, as a member of Metallica, owns the copyright on the album. Thus, he can't pirate his own material because he inherantly has the right to copy it no matter how he does it.
a license for Windows 2008 is no more expensive than a license for 2003. What's your point exactly?
We've got.net apps runnning no one in there right mind would rewrite for an upgrade.
Who said anyone would? Most shops write new apps, or upgrade apps to provide newer features. In the process of that, taking advantage of new web server features makes sense.
You seem to have a lot of excuses to ignore the new features of 2008, but yet you originally claimed that 2008 didn't have any new features. What you meant was that you didn't want it to have any new features, so you found excuses to ignore them.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. If the ODF proponents had spent a fraction of the effort they spent fighting OOXML on improving ODF, I doubt MS could claim compliance and still be non-interoperable. Maybe Microsoft was right that ODF wasn't complete and wasn't suitable for interoperability.
Last time I was checking, Windows' POSIX doesn't support fork().
When was the last time you checked? The very first version of NT (NT 3.1) supported fork() in it's posix subsystem. Win32 apps don't run in the posix subsystem though and can't use fork(), but fork() is definitely there for posix apps.
Linux distros are typically consistent and the installer has the capability to locate and download the software too
You mean for sufficiently popular applications. If the app you want, or the version of the app you want isn't in the repository, it's a *LOT* harder than in Windows to get that app working on your system.
Typically it is only new, beta grade drivers that don't come with the kernel
Not true at all. There are tons of wireless cards that don't have drivers in the kernel. Even on the server, there are lots of drivers that don't come stock with the kernel, but Distro's like RHEL add those drivers. If you've ever tried to upgrade your RHEL kernel to a newer kernel than currently supported, you have to deal with getting those drivers into the kernel.. i know, i've had to do it.
I did say that slipstreaming wasn't for the average user. I was simply countering the claim that there was "no way" to do it. "no way" means, "no way".. not "no simple way".
Yeah, right. That explains why they boycott supermarkets then.
I suspected someone might make this argument. Doing so shows a serious lack of thought on the subject.
Supermarkets have lots of choice in products that are, essentially the same. One can of peaches provides sustenence just like another can of peaches. The only difference is personal preference (taste, level of sugar, etc..)
Two different OS's are more than just personal preference. The apps of OSX don't work in Linux, or Windows. Hell, the apps of Linux don't always work with every version of Linux either. There's an entire ecosystem of consequences to the choice of OS that just doesn't exist in most other markets. Plus, the cost of the OS in terms of man hours to switch to another OS is cost prohibitive. If you choose the wrong can of peaches, it's another .79 to pick a different one next time. If you choose the wrong OS, it could be 5 days of work to reconfigure everything, assuming you even know what you're doing.
The same is true of cars. All cars more or less drive the same way (not counting high end sportcars) and you basically have to know either an automatic or a stick. The rest is all personal preference (shape and size, color, what features it supports, etc..)
Yeah, right. What are you smoking? Windows does not even have a package manager!
Yes, it does. It's called Windows Installer and has come with Windows since Windows 2000. Even the so called "Installer software" is just a pretty front-end to Windows Installer and a script generator.
The end user either selects the driver in the package manager, like any other software, or it is already autodetected by the kernel, which is the case >90% of time.
Except of course for the hundreds of drivers out there that do not come with the kernel and aren't part of the package repository. That's really beside the point. The original author was talking about driver development. There is no common driver binary interface, which makes it very difficult to create a single binary that can be used on all versions of the kernel (or even all versions of a major version).
On Windows, there is no way a freshly installed OS can already use all hardware and hardware features.
This is patently untrue. It's called slipstreaming, and corporate IT departments do it all the time. Home users, not so much, but your "there is no way" comment shows ignorance on your part.
If Microsoft did not have a monopoly, there would be many many more variants of OSes.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe Microsoft has a monopoly because users don't want more variants of OS's?
By that, I mean, the market tends to a monopoly because end users don't want confusion.
I'm sure the very concept that users don't want 500 choices of something is hard for you to comprehend.
Personally, Anonymous scares me a hell of a lot less than the far right militia groups
It doesn't so much scare me as worry me. I see a lot of people getting swept up in this sort of thing, thinking they're doing "the right thing". The problem is, this is a group of, essentially, vigilantes. They decided that Scientology is bad, and they were going to do something about it. Whether or not Scientology is bad, vigilantism is worse because it relies on mob "logic" which has proven throughout history to make poor decisions. This is what brought us Lynchings, Burning Crosses, Witch Hunts, etc..
What's worse, in my opinion, is the fact that a group of people are taking it upon themselves to judge a (theoretical) religion as "false" or evil. Whether or not you believe Scientology is a religion, many of the people who are members do in fact view it as a religion. Anonymous is effectively persecuting people based on their religion. It doesn't matter if the founders of that religion are scam artists and using people, the catholic church can be considered to be doing that.
Anonymous does, in fact, meet the criteria of a terrorist organization. What's terrible is that it's members are otherwise intelligent people who end up doing stupid shit, and not realizing exactly what it is they're doing. Mobs are bad. All it takes is one spark to set them off. Like the DDoS attacks against Scientology that also affected thousands of other sites.
No. I'm saying that Linux has more than enough resources, they are just poorly utilized by doing the same thing 500 different ways.
Sorry, Photoshop Elements, not Essentials. And it's #12 right now on Amazon's list, having recently been displaced by all the tax software.
One of Amazon's top 10 apps is Photoshop Essentials. This is an app that many home users like because it allows them to manipulate their photos.
Could you do all that with Gimp? Perhaps, but nowhere near as easily or simply. Elements makes common tasks simple and fast. This is what people pay for.
Another example, Quicken. Sure, you've got Moneydance and gnucash, but these don't do the same kinds of things like having complete bank access (there is some in recent versions of open source apps, but not early enough). Then add the ability to take your files and export them directly to a tax preperation program, or to your accountant and again you've got apps people will pay for.
Then we've got whole other classes of apps. Family Will Makers, Greeting Card makers, Home 3D modelers (like for landscaping, deck building, etc..)...
There's tons of apps that people will pay for the fit and finish of a commercial app, who will not bother to do it manually with open source tools.
other problem of course is that the average distro just doesn't have the resources to do wide scale usability testing.
If there weren't 500 projects all trying to do the same thing, they might be able to combine their resources to do that sort of thing.
That just seems like common sense. Oh, yeah, there's that word again.
What I do not understand is freeloaders who complain that things do not work and, moreover, complain that nobody will take their "criticism."
Are you kidding me? Free Software advocates preach about the "free as in speech"-ness, but when it comes right down to it, what you want is quid pro quo. You want people to give back to you what you've given. That's not "Free as in specch", that's "Scratch my back and i'll scratch yours".
You're doing Free Software a huge disservice by being this way, and you're creating the dichotomy of "Why isn't linux so successful" and "These freeloding twerps can do nothing but complain".
This is a BS argument. Seriously.
The majority of the apps in a typical Linux repository are not useful to the average person. If Linux ever becomes mainestream, people will not be using primarily open source apps, they'll be buying third party programs just like they do on Windows today. Why? Because commercial applications are more shiny. They are polished, and attention is paid to the small details that open source developers usually ignore.
As an example, no open source game is of the same quality as the current commercial state of the art. Yes, you might have the occasional commercial developer that releases their 10 year old source code (a la id), and those 10 year old versions are typical the best you can get for Linux (barring Cedega compatibility, but that invalidates your argument).
The only reason that linux is so "consistent" with app repositories is because it lacks a rich commercial ecosystem.
Could it be that playing Youtube videos uses 25% more cpu power? And thus, because you didn't play them on your ubuntu laptop it got longer battery life?
So what you're saying is that in order to be a "shell guru" you have to know more than just the shell. You have to know Perl and Python and Awk and Sed and Grep and a hundred other commands and languages.
What's wrong with knowing one, much more evolved system that has consistent syntax across all functions?
Well, apart from the fact that people need jobs too. A little cash in everyones pocket may create a temporary blip in the economy, but it's not going to solve the problem.
Also, government projects usually create artifacts, like bridges people can drive on, roads people can use, etc..
There's a lot to be upset about in these government programs, but this is the least objectionable.
I disagree. Much of that money *IS* going back into peoples pockets. For example, the people employed by the government projects.
It's certainly not going into everyones pockets, but a great deal of it is going back into the economy. You know, like government projects earlier last century, like the Hoover dam, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system.
I may not be able to tell you where the money is going by looking at the site, but I sure can tell you where it's NOT going by looking at the site.
It's not going into finding ways to present complex information easily to US taxpayers. Of course, they could probably spend the better part of the deficit on such a task and it wouldn't be a whole lot better.
Frankly, I don't believe Joss. He's appologized for Fox many times, and then later come back to say something different after the fact. He did similar for both Firefly and Angel.
It may have been his decision, but it was likely at the networks "suggestion".
Yes, because codes of laws completely prevent people from doing anything harmful to society.
Yeah, right.
If the machine is padlocked you're not going to reset the bios password without destroying the case.
And whether or not you log in as administrator, your machine is still joined to the domain, thus still lives by domain security policy. You can unjoin it from the domain, but then you can no longer access the domain protected services.
For instance, suppose your proxy server requires the computer to be connected via AD and an authorized user. I don't care what you think you can do by getting the local administrator password, you aren't going to get out on the net.
Group Policy only covers those things which know about and resepect GP, that much is true. But, properly setup, you can ensure that a computer follows group policy.
Unfortunately, few people in the Unix world seem to grasp what Group Policy is used for in Windows.
It's not simply preventing users from installing software.
Group policy is a set of policies that gevern everything from security policies, to application policies (for instance, say you want all users in a specific AD OU to use a specific proxy server, or maybe you want to limit all computers in a given lab from being able to use an MSN Messenger.
GP can be assigned to specific computers, groups of computers, users, groups of users, and a whole host of situations. The nice thing about it is that it's AD wide, and controls the user or the computer regardless of where, or what may be installed on the machine or how it's configured locally.
Probably because you can't guarantee that the users will ACT like adult human beings.
Any corporate policy that relies on "Let's just hope users don't do bad things" is doomed to fail.
Actually, no. His label doesn't own the copyright. Metallica does. Actually, Creeping Death Music, which is a corporation owned by Lars and James.
That's a ridiculous argument.
Lars, as a member of Metallica, owns the copyright on the album. Thus, he can't pirate his own material because he inherantly has the right to copy it no matter how he does it.
a license for Windows 2008 is no more expensive than a license for 2003. What's your point exactly?
We've got .net apps runnning no one in there right mind would rewrite for an upgrade.
Who said anyone would? Most shops write new apps, or upgrade apps to provide newer features. In the process of that, taking advantage of new web server features makes sense.
You seem to have a lot of excuses to ignore the new features of 2008, but yet you originally claimed that 2008 didn't have any new features. What you meant was that you didn't want it to have any new features, so you found excuses to ignore them.