Actually, yes. Everybody needs a full ACID compliant transactional database, however, many people don't use those features (even though they should, and are complete morons for not doing so). So basically, Everyone needs it, not everyone wants it.
Web apps in particular need concurrency, transactions, stored procedures to be robust and reliable (not to mention safe). Those people that don't use those features are creating unreliable, unstable, unsafe software that won't stand up to the issues faced by web apps. 90% of Web app developers don't take things like multiple concurrent record access into account when they write their code, then it crashes or corrupts data in weird ways when they least expect it.
Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?
I don't know, maybe the fact that IIS hasn't had a single criticle security vulnerability in 5 years, compared to several in Apache? Maybe the fact that the asp.net is a feature rich and fast platform with lots of third party support? Maybe the fact that Millions of developers are already familiar with the platform, languages, and characteristics?
I don't think anyone wants to deny someone the right to or ability to go do what they want to do, however, the vast majority of distros don't need to be unique distros.. many of them are just offshoots of existing distros. Take Unbuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Xubntu, etc.. this is how it should be done. Packages in a common distro that can be configured to make things the way you want, no need to *actually* create and maintain your own distro.
Very few of the hundreds of distro's are really unique enough to be their own full distribution. Maybe 20 or 30.
I think the part you aren't considering is the fact that MANY people are marketing Linux as a replacement for Windows. Yet, when Linux fails to live up to being a replacement, it's argued "Linux isn't windows, it's not broken, it's doing what it's supposed to", except of course that Linux was marketed to them as something it's not.
Many of the complaints about Linux would go away if it wasn't constatly being marketed as a replacement for Windows, but since it is.. it has to be able to deal with the complaints of those who find it doesn't meet their needs the way Windows does.
unless you have a way of turning your free time into income, that time is worthless.
Oh so short sighted. If money is the only thing you value, then perhaps that's true. What bout time with your friends and/or family? What about time spent relaxing and destressing? What about time spent improving your skills in your chosen (non-unix) profession? All those things are valuable, and time you spend not doing those things drains value.
I think you might want to reconsider you logic there.
You don't need special privileges to connect to port 25 on another computer, only to open a listening socket on your computer, and a spambot doesn't need to do that.
Not true. Even in Windows 2003, you just click the "Add" button to add the URL to the safe list, then you can download just fine without compromising the security settings.
Who cares how old it is? If it works and isn't known to have any stability or security issues
Well, that's just it. How do you know if it's stable or has security issues without doing a lot of googling?
Chances are, if you see a highly visible piece of software like the kernel, and it's date is more than 2 years old, chances are there's some security or stability issues related to it.
However, the date thing is largely stupid, because there are so many ways for a kernel to get updated. Is it an "official" release? Is it patched by your distro vendor? Is it patches you applied yourself? Which version of the kernel does this patch apply to? etc.. etc.. do we get kernel 2.6.2008-01-01.2008-06-05.2008-09-05?
kernel numbering is important in an open source kernel where people are free to make any patches they want, whenever they want.
Microsoft was hardly the only one doing the stuffing. IBM, Google, Oracle, and others were doing lots of their own stuffing. A lot of people like to point out all the people that joined recently and voted yes, but they ignore the fact that just as many (if not more) joined recently and voted no.
Have you ever heard of the term "rule of law"? If not, look it up.
The idea is, opinions do not matter in rule of law (other than legal opinions). If you don't follow the rule of law, then laws become meaningless.
The same is true for organziations like ISO, and while their rules aren't law, they may as well be for them. If they don't follow them and allow public opinion to sway their actions, then the rules are meaningless. If you don't like the rules, you have to work to get them changed, not cry foul for having followed the rules.
Most people against the ISO decisions don't seem to understand this. They think that if they just stand up and yell loud enough, then the ISO will (or should) violate it's own rules to side with them. That would be an even worse situation for the ISO and would make them even more worthless if they can be swayed to violate their own rules by public opinion.
Actually, no. It reminds me more of a scene from "A few good men"
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
I think the point is that the number of objections is irrelevant if it's deemed the rules have been followed. It's like having 1000 people show up for your traffic court hearing and booing the judge. If you were wrong, it won't affect the outcome.
Users have proven that they'll do whatever it takes to visit whatever porn site they want to. They'll whitelist anything. How is that any different from clicking through several levels of warnings?
The only thing I can remember was that the foundation had contributed to a charity that had also been represented by Jack Abramhoff. However, there was never anything bad about that charity, other than the association with Abramhoff.
Also, it would be kind of hard for The foundation to have been brought up in the anti-trust trial, since the foundation wasn't formed until 2000, and the antitrust trial was in 1998.
The people that can teach themselves are people that are generally already well educated (either by schools, or through self-teaching). In some west african tribal community, the opportunity for someone to educate themselves are very slim. It's highly unlkely that even 1/100th of 1% of the population of a non-technologically advanced society could 'teach themselves' how to use computers and open source software.
This is entirely false, and FUD. Any claims of money "funneling" are nothing more than allegations without any substance. But, hey, you believed them...
Really? And how could they afford the college education in computer science they'd need to figure out how to run, maintain, and fix their computers? Or how about how could they afford to pay someone to do all that for them?
That argument only makes some sense in a technologically advanced society.
You seem to be confused about the source of Bill Gates fortune. His fortune does not come from the profits of Microsoft. His wealth is almost entirely the result of sales of stock. He had one of the lowest salaries of any fortune 500 President/CEO/Chair (not quite at Job's legendary $1 level, but that was largely a scam anyways because he got other "benefits" that didn't count towards this).
So no, it's not a case of "robbing the rich, and giving a fraction to the poor".
Ahh yes, whitelisting. You know what would happen if Microsoft did the same thing, they'd be accused of monopolizing the ActiveX market and using their power to control who is allowed to install controls and who isn't.
Well, for starters, this would mean that ISP's would likely have to dramatically raise prices, maybe more than 10x the current price. The whole reason we have multi-megabit internet for $30 is because they oversell. The other option would be to reduce bandwidth by as much as 10x. (10:1 is the usual overcommit ratio). Then, there would be a lot of capacity going unused, because most people aren't utilizing even 10% of their bandwidth, especially over the long haul.
This would lead to decreased energy efficiency (thus generating more carbon and increasing greenhouse gasses), higher costs, reduced capacity, etc..
actually, the Linux kernel is kind of static these days. They seem to spend most of their time either rewriting code they've already written, or adding support for a new piece of hardware. How long has it been since 2.6 was released? And no sign of a 2.7 development tree?
The Linux kernel has gotten to the point where it is at a sweet spot. Adding more features just adds bloat, so the only thing they can do is try to make the kernel work better. There needs to be some major innovation here.
If you'd seen the movie, you'd know that they explained that. The breach occured through an external contractor who was on a secure network that allowed them backdoor access.
Wikipedia is wrong. Or rather, David Wheeler was wrong, or at only least partially right.
At the time, OOXML had not yet been published, only intiial schemas had been. It's true that the Office 2003 XML didn't have formulas, but that wasn't what was being presented as a standard. Brian Wheeler assumed that because the published schema was a string, then it too didn't define formulas, which was a wrong assumption. Formulas can be strings, like they were in ODF, but what ODF lacked was any kind of documentation on how to interpret those strings, i.e. the formula documentation.
May 2006 coincides with the first draft publication of what was to become the ECMA 376 specification, so the writeup is at best disingenuous, at worst deceptive and self-serving.
The point is that OASIS thought it was perfectly fine to publish a half-finished standard, and submit it to ISO. They submitted it to ISO knowing full well that OpenFormula was nowhere close to being done. They knew they'd have to ammend the standard when OpenFormula was finished.
This doesn't seem any different from many of the criticism leveled against OOXML for being a "work in progres" ISO submission.
My problem with many of the anti-OOXML crowd is how what was perfectly acceptable for ODF is not acceptable for OOXML, yet ODF proponents insist that OOXML shouldn't exist because ODF already does, despite the fact taht OASIS knows ODF wasn't finished.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, yes. Everybody needs a full ACID compliant transactional database, however, many people don't use those features (even though they should, and are complete morons for not doing so). So basically, Everyone needs it, not everyone wants it.
Web apps in particular need concurrency, transactions, stored procedures to be robust and reliable (not to mention safe). Those people that don't use those features are creating unreliable, unstable, unsafe software that won't stand up to the issues faced by web apps. 90% of Web app developers don't take things like multiple concurrent record access into account when they write their code, then it crashes or corrupts data in weird ways when they least expect it.
Why would anyone in their right mind set up a Web/SQL platform using MS products?
I don't know, maybe the fact that IIS hasn't had a single criticle security vulnerability in 5 years, compared to several in Apache? Maybe the fact that the asp.net is a feature rich and fast platform with lots of third party support? Maybe the fact that Millions of developers are already familiar with the platform, languages, and characteristics?
Just a thought...
Nice.. but completely wrong.
From your wikipedia link:
"His most famous acting role was as The Riddler in the Batman live action television series."
I don't think anyone wants to deny someone the right to or ability to go do what they want to do, however, the vast majority of distros don't need to be unique distros.. many of them are just offshoots of existing distros. Take Unbuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu/Xubntu, etc.. this is how it should be done. Packages in a common distro that can be configured to make things the way you want, no need to *actually* create and maintain your own distro.
Very few of the hundreds of distro's are really unique enough to be their own full distribution. Maybe 20 or 30.
I think the part you aren't considering is the fact that MANY people are marketing Linux as a replacement for Windows. Yet, when Linux fails to live up to being a replacement, it's argued "Linux isn't windows, it's not broken, it's doing what it's supposed to", except of course that Linux was marketed to them as something it's not.
Many of the complaints about Linux would go away if it wasn't constatly being marketed as a replacement for Windows, but since it is.. it has to be able to deal with the complaints of those who find it doesn't meet their needs the way Windows does.
unless you have a way of turning your free time into income, that time is worthless.
Oh so short sighted. If money is the only thing you value, then perhaps that's true. What bout time with your friends and/or family? What about time spent relaxing and destressing? What about time spent improving your skills in your chosen (non-unix) profession? All those things are valuable, and time you spend not doing those things drains value.
I think you might want to reconsider you logic there.
You don't need special privileges to connect to port 25 on another computer, only to open a listening socket on your computer, and a spambot doesn't need to do that.
Not true. Even in Windows 2003, you just click the "Add" button to add the URL to the safe list, then you can download just fine without compromising the security settings.
Who cares how old it is? If it works and isn't known to have any stability or security issues
Well, that's just it. How do you know if it's stable or has security issues without doing a lot of googling?
Chances are, if you see a highly visible piece of software like the kernel, and it's date is more than 2 years old, chances are there's some security or stability issues related to it.
However, the date thing is largely stupid, because there are so many ways for a kernel to get updated. Is it an "official" release? Is it patched by your distro vendor? Is it patches you applied yourself? Which version of the kernel does this patch apply to? etc.. etc.. do we get kernel 2.6.2008-01-01.2008-06-05.2008-09-05?
kernel numbering is important in an open source kernel where people are free to make any patches they want, whenever they want.
Microsoft was hardly the only one doing the stuffing. IBM, Google, Oracle, and others were doing lots of their own stuffing. A lot of people like to point out all the people that joined recently and voted yes, but they ignore the fact that just as many (if not more) joined recently and voted no.
Have you ever heard of the term "rule of law"? If not, look it up.
The idea is, opinions do not matter in rule of law (other than legal opinions). If you don't follow the rule of law, then laws become meaningless.
The same is true for organziations like ISO, and while their rules aren't law, they may as well be for them. If they don't follow them and allow public opinion to sway their actions, then the rules are meaningless. If you don't like the rules, you have to work to get them changed, not cry foul for having followed the rules.
Most people against the ISO decisions don't seem to understand this. They think that if they just stand up and yell loud enough, then the ISO will (or should) violate it's own rules to side with them. That would be an even worse situation for the ISO and would make them even more worthless if they can be swayed to violate their own rules by public opinion.
Quite a few ISO standards don't have full implementations, or took many years to get full implementations after approval, take C++ for instance.
I realize you're being sarcastic, but you do realize that would mean boycotting things like ODF, PDF, Standard text files, etc.. right?
Actually, no. It reminds me more of a scene from "A few good men"
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
I think the point is that the number of objections is irrelevant if it's deemed the rules have been followed. It's like having 1000 people show up for your traffic court hearing and booing the judge. If you were wrong, it won't affect the outcome.
Users have proven that they'll do whatever it takes to visit whatever porn site they want to. They'll whitelist anything. How is that any different from clicking through several levels of warnings?
The only thing I can remember was that the foundation had contributed to a charity that had also been represented by Jack Abramhoff. However, there was never anything bad about that charity, other than the association with Abramhoff.
Also, it would be kind of hard for The foundation to have been brought up in the anti-trust trial, since the foundation wasn't formed until 2000, and the antitrust trial was in 1998.
So how, precisely, could that have happened?
The people that can teach themselves are people that are generally already well educated (either by schools, or through self-teaching). In some west african tribal community, the opportunity for someone to educate themselves are very slim. It's highly unlkely that even 1/100th of 1% of the population of a non-technologically advanced society could 'teach themselves' how to use computers and open source software.
This is entirely false, and FUD. Any claims of money "funneling" are nothing more than allegations without any substance. But, hey, you believed them...
Really? And how could they afford the college education in computer science they'd need to figure out how to run, maintain, and fix their computers? Or how about how could they afford to pay someone to do all that for them?
That argument only makes some sense in a technologically advanced society.
You seem to be confused about the source of Bill Gates fortune. His fortune does not come from the profits of Microsoft. His wealth is almost entirely the result of sales of stock. He had one of the lowest salaries of any fortune 500 President/CEO/Chair (not quite at Job's legendary $1 level, but that was largely a scam anyways because he got other "benefits" that didn't count towards this).
So no, it's not a case of "robbing the rich, and giving a fraction to the poor".
Ahh yes, whitelisting. You know what would happen if Microsoft did the same thing, they'd be accused of monopolizing the ActiveX market and using their power to control who is allowed to install controls and who isn't.
There is no solution there.
Well, for starters, this would mean that ISP's would likely have to dramatically raise prices, maybe more than 10x the current price. The whole reason we have multi-megabit internet for $30 is because they oversell. The other option would be to reduce bandwidth by as much as 10x. (10:1 is the usual overcommit ratio). Then, there would be a lot of capacity going unused, because most people aren't utilizing even 10% of their bandwidth, especially over the long haul.
This would lead to decreased energy efficiency (thus generating more carbon and increasing greenhouse gasses), higher costs, reduced capacity, etc..
Now, why is that a good thing?
actually, the Linux kernel is kind of static these days. They seem to spend most of their time either rewriting code they've already written, or adding support for a new piece of hardware. How long has it been since 2.6 was released? And no sign of a 2.7 development tree?
The Linux kernel has gotten to the point where it is at a sweet spot. Adding more features just adds bloat, so the only thing they can do is try to make the kernel work better. There needs to be some major innovation here.
If you'd seen the movie, you'd know that they explained that. The breach occured through an external contractor who was on a secure network that allowed them backdoor access.
Wikipedia is wrong. Or rather, David Wheeler was wrong, or at only least partially right.
At the time, OOXML had not yet been published, only intiial schemas had been. It's true that the Office 2003 XML didn't have formulas, but that wasn't what was being presented as a standard. Brian Wheeler assumed that because the published schema was a string, then it too didn't define formulas, which was a wrong assumption. Formulas can be strings, like they were in ODF, but what ODF lacked was any kind of documentation on how to interpret those strings, i.e. the formula documentation.
May 2006 coincides with the first draft publication of what was to become the ECMA 376 specification, so the writeup is at best disingenuous, at worst deceptive and self-serving.
The point is that OASIS thought it was perfectly fine to publish a half-finished standard, and submit it to ISO. They submitted it to ISO knowing full well that OpenFormula was nowhere close to being done. They knew they'd have to ammend the standard when OpenFormula was finished.
This doesn't seem any different from many of the criticism leveled against OOXML for being a "work in progres" ISO submission.
My problem with many of the anti-OOXML crowd is how what was perfectly acceptable for ODF is not acceptable for OOXML, yet ODF proponents insist that OOXML shouldn't exist because ODF already does, despite the fact taht OASIS knows ODF wasn't finished.