THINK for a second. A bird is capable of bringing down some of the most modern jets. A helicoptor is among the most vulnerable of military aircraft because small arms damage to a blade could cause it to fragment, bringing the whole thing down.
You and your super-high-tech nerdy computer are easily taken out with a tossed rock. What a shithead YOU are because you can be taken down with a mere ROCK!
Our modern military does not mean our soldiers are invulnerable. Quit watching Star Trek and crap and think about the REAL world for a moment. There is no invulnerability.
As for your other nonsense...are you DEFENDING murderous looney warlords? Ahhh, poor widdle warlord got taken out. He was such a cute widdle cuddly pookie. You, candyass, are a freak.
Go ahead and make sh*t up to make your unreasoning hate fit. Reality isn't supportive of your fanaticism so you need to create a new reality with "evil" 'Merikan soldiers.
You poor little sissy. You don't have any clue at all do you?
A "demonstration" of the bomb would not have done it. It needed to be FELT. Proof: The annihilation of Hiroshima wasn't in itself enough. It was only AFTER Nagasaki was eliminated that Japan surrendered. So, the elimination of a city wasn't enough and you think a mere "look at what WE can do!" would be? You. Are. Fantasizing. Rewrite history in YOUR mind - it doesn't change the facts.
In any case, better several thousand of them than hundreds of thousands of their soldiers and ours. Less lives were lost by NOT invading than were lost to the wee little bombs.
And that means what in regards to the actual heroic events in Somalia? Or the other men who did NOT rape their child/daughters?
The military asked and got that particular character's name changed in the movie because they didn't think it appropriate (either) to glorify THAT particular individual's actions given his later, disgraceful behavior.
That mission in Somalia was a success too, forget not. They DID get the warlord and his close advisors...
Say whatever you want. It is of no interest to me in the slightest what Gates and Co think or want. I do what I want with MY software and I DO install it on any or all machines I own. Of course, I wouldn't pollute one of my pristine machines with any M$ OS, though I have used the OSes now and again to play certain games - yet I do this without ANY money going to Gates (what does THAT mean?!) EVER. I install whatever on any and all machines I own. They and the software on them are MINE to do with as I see fit. It doesn't matter what M$ or anyone else thinks or likes or wants. That is the way it be.
Ah, but that is what M$ thinks and I flat-out deny. I do not buy a license or simply a right to use software, I buy software. That means it is mine to do with as I please. I can put its CD in the microwave if I want and watch it spark when I turn it on, I can give it to my Da, I can sell it to my friend, and I can install it on multiple machines. M$ may not agree or like it but tough doo-doo. I own it.
And inspite of this, M$ spied on you and acquired your software list, checked to make sure you weren't violating "licenses". They own your computer (so they think).
Re:Why do companies tolerate this?
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Minors cannot legally sign a contract. I say, to avoid ALL claims by M$ or anyone else that you are bound by a bullshit EULA, have an underage child handle all the initial parts of your software installs. YOU never saw, nor clicked on any "I Agree" button and the child is not legally bound by such.
Get it through your skull. This is MAINLY about M$ spying on you and the software you use. It is about labeling you a pirate who is guilty until proven innocent. They are NOT just nicely checking your system out to see what needs updates, they are spying on you to make sure you are absolutely obeying their bullcrap license terms.
If I buy software I OWN it, I did NOT buy a license, no matter what they say, I bought SOFTWARE that I can do with as I please...it's frickin' MINE.
Re:Once again, Slashdotters want to have it both w
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 2
Is autoupd an executable-driven function or is it part of the kernel? If it is merely an executeable that gets activated now and again, or a daemon, can it be deleted? Is there an "autoupd.exe" or some such that one can delete and make this whole thing moot?
What port does M$ violate your privacy through? If you setup a nice firewall, could you not block all access to this port and prevent spying M$ eyes from getting in?
If you follow the link you will see that what type of license is finally selected is still very much up in the air. An X11-style license/mixed license is one of the latest suggestions. X11-like license for the kernel side, so if any closed stuff must be included for functionality it can but any dlls/libs beyond that would be LGPL.
And...you have no problem with M$ spying on you, telling you what software you can copy, what you can and cannot do to your hardware, etc. Send me all your vitals too, since you have no problem with that: full name, place of birth, date of birth, social security number (or equivalent), credit card numbers, personal likes and dislikes, sexual proclivities, shopping habits, what places you frequent and the times.
I assure you I am no worse than Gates and Co so you can feel happy and complacent about giving me all your info. Also, you need to contact be to get my OK to upgrade/change any of your computer hardware in the future.
I dorked with transgaming's wine not too long ago. As I recall, I was absolutely sickened to learn that it could not be installed system-wide ala the REAL wine, but had to be installed individually into each users home directory.
Requiring each user to install it separately on a system (multiple installs of the same damn app) is BOGUS. Have they changed their ways or is it still broken this way? You want to use it and play a game? Well install the big-ass app into your home directory AND install the frickin' game there too. Hundreds of wasted megabytes.
IS there a way to install it system-wide (/usr/local) so any user can use it instead of wasting lots and lots of HDD space on duplicated installs?
My last paragraphi is THE most important paragraph in some ways. I do NOT write-off linux/unix in it. I DO seek to throw water on the dreamy, fantasy that M$ is in any way going to allow Mono to succeed in ANY way the is competitve to M$. M$ holds ALL the cards and it stacked the deck. It NEVER EVER does ANYTHING without thoroughly thinking through how x is going to bring THEM buttloads more money. They do NOT give a flying f*ck for ANYONE outside M$..NET is NOT NOT NOT a gift to developers for their benefit. It is an M$ tool to develop more income and provide for more M$ lockin, NOT less.
Alan Cox's final paragraph is THE ONLY answer you need as to why Mono will NOT run non-trivial.NET apps. Period. I take his simple words over your starry-eyed dreamland fantasy any day. He is absolutely correct. Mono will not succeed in.NET. It MIGHT succeed within the world of linux/unix but that is ALL.
Hehe. Yeah, and the intention/plan by M$ with.NOT is that most those PCs, tablets, handhelds, PDAs, etc, will be running a variant of windoze. Thus,.NOT stuff will work well with them, naturally. If you are a competitor, the price of making them work MOSTLY OK (let's say 90%) will be a nice licensing fee, passed on to you, the purchaser of the competitor's PC, tablet, handheld, PDA, etc.
You get it coming and going if you buy into.NOT. M$ is a MARKETING company that just happens to deal with software and shit. Any useful trinkets that fall around are unintentional and incidental to the goal of the M$ Marketing machine. Forget ANYTHING having to do with making linux work properly with.NOT. You shouldn't want that anyway - otherwise why not just cave and buy their OSes, use Hotmail, get a passport and give them your private data, your financial data, and your soul? THAT is what.NOT is REALLY about.
Any gee-wiz nifty crap about the.NET FRAMEWORK is incidental and accidental. No bones about it. Don't be getting all starry-eyed.
And it is the extension inherent in C# that will make it not work out as the dreamy-eyed Miguel rhapsodizes about (running a.net binary seamlessly from the gnome desktop INDEED). Wine can't make more than a fraction of windoze apps run even though all the requisite win32 APIs are published and have been for years. Suddenly a broken/crippled version of C# is going to sidestep all that and with Mono we'll be able to run thos.not apps. Yeah, and my bunghole smells like jasmine.
All well and good but then it was brought on by bullcrap like "running a windoze.net binary seamlessly from the Gnome desktop" (to paraphrase). My ass. Only trivial windoze.net apps might actually work. REAL non-trivial apps will flat-out NOT work.
If you want to bring a neato development tool/environment to linux/*nix so that it is easier to write linux/*nix code fine, but never ever make any mention of running.net crap from the linux desktop. That is fantasy - trivial testruns be damned. The win32 APIs are published and available too aren't they? So why is it that after YEARS that wine only allows a mere fraction of a percent of windoze apps to run on linux? The APIs are published for all to see.
Nice development environment? No problem. Make ANY mention of running windoze binaries from linux and you're talking out your ass and dreaming the dreams of the Freedows people and probably the wine developers when they first started out.
Finally, by accepting M$ C#, you ARE feeding the monopoly, helping the monopoly, supporting the monopoly against good ethics and against good judgement.
Doesn't matter what they WANT. M$ *IS* a corrupt, illegal monopolist NOW. If the others WANT to be, so what, they aren't and likely wont be. It does matter that M$ IS and it is deadass wrong to help them continue or secure a new monopoly.
I am shamed. You said it ALL in a clean, precise manner that I have been essentially trying to say again and again. I take STRONG exception to any mention of.NET compatibility or an ability to run M$.NET binaries on linux. Not a chance (beyond, as you say, trivial code)..NET is based on and dependent on continued butts in seats using M$ operating systems be they embedded or on a PC. That means specific cryptic tie-ins to the underlying OS which is incompatible with linux. Wine does marginally OK on the windoze apps-running front. No way will Mono do better. Probably wont do as well - its years behind and it has barely started.
Yeah, no doubt that C# is great for a WIndoze software developer. Hooks into the heart of WIndoze for improved speed, etc. Problem...those frickin libs and functions don't exist anywhere but on windoze using directx crap and win32.
Wine is having a fun time implementing all the published windoze apis in linux aren't they?
And...every word he writes about Java doesn't somehow apply to C#? The IDENTICAL language with a few "embrace and extend" features from M$ for the SOLE purpose of undermining a competitor?
M$ doesn't really understand it all either. If they did, they wouldn't CONSTANTLY be in legal trouble for violating the rules.
THAT fact should give one pause for wanting to have ANYTHING to do with them. Convicted illegal monopolists and unethical criminals and Miguel wants to play with them. Looney.
OK, so the fantastical claim is that one could run.NET doze binaries via Mono (balderdash). Why is Mono in this regard going to be ANY different than wine? Windoze APIs are published so software developers can write windoze apps. C# is "published" - the APIs are there so anyone can use them. Big frickin' deal. Even with the published windoze APIs, with wine you can only run a fraction of a percent of windoze apps. The problem IS the intimate tie-in of API to windoze proper. C# APIs are no different (if they are, WHY?). They have their fingers tied right into the OS too.
All it seems that aspect of Mono is about is duplicating wine in a.NET framework instead of the classic win32 framework (which ties into.NET and C# since they ARE the windoze API that you are playing with when writing doze code, yes?
So the fantastical claim is that Mono will do better than wine at implementing doze api/functions in linux. That's what wine tries to do and they've been at it for years! It's nice, and all, but there's a buttload of windoze apps that just don't work in wine. By the time they do (IF they do) there will be new apps out there that people want to use that WONT work. Why wouldn't Mono experience the exact same problem?
.NET is designed with WINDOZE in mind. It is the target platform of.NET. To Gates, the internet and computers are and/or should be Windoze PCs or Windoze handhelds, etc. Everything else is invisable to Gates or is something to be extinguished.
Unless someone can explain why JUST because C# APIs may be published that means jackdiddle (vis a vis win32 apis being published and the success of wine) for running windoze.NET crap on linux? Even if you refer to VMs, the VM is designed by and for Windoze and M$, NOT competitors (or potential competitors).
I think that if Miguel and Ximian want a "better" developer environment, then fine, speak of ONLY that but forget about (entirely).NET and anything Windoze/M$. It is pollution that will not work out and it confuses the issue. You like the development environment of.NET? Fine, go with a similar development environment for LINUX and that is ALL.
Slashdot Mirror
THINK for a second. A bird is capable of bringing down some of the most modern jets. A helicoptor is among the most vulnerable of military aircraft because small arms damage to a blade could cause it to fragment, bringing the whole thing down.
You and your super-high-tech nerdy computer are easily taken out with a tossed rock. What a shithead YOU are because you can be taken down with a mere ROCK!
Our modern military does not mean our soldiers are invulnerable. Quit watching Star Trek and crap and think about the REAL world for a moment. There is no invulnerability.
As for your other nonsense...are you DEFENDING murderous looney warlords? Ahhh, poor widdle warlord got taken out. He was such a cute widdle cuddly pookie. You, candyass, are a freak.
Go ahead and make sh*t up to make your unreasoning hate fit. Reality isn't supportive of your fanaticism so you need to create a new reality with "evil" 'Merikan soldiers.
You poor little sissy. You don't have any clue at all do you?
A "demonstration" of the bomb would not have done it. It needed to be FELT. Proof: The annihilation of Hiroshima wasn't in itself enough. It was only AFTER Nagasaki was eliminated that Japan surrendered. So, the elimination of a city wasn't enough and you think a mere "look at what WE can do!" would be? You. Are. Fantasizing. Rewrite history in YOUR mind - it doesn't change the facts.
In any case, better several thousand of them than hundreds of thousands of their soldiers and ours. Less lives were lost by NOT invading than were lost to the wee little bombs.
Put that in you waterpipe and smoke it hippy.
And that means what in regards to the actual heroic events in Somalia? Or the other men who did NOT rape their child/daughters?
The military asked and got that particular character's name changed in the movie because they didn't think it appropriate (either) to glorify THAT particular individual's actions given his later, disgraceful behavior.
That mission in Somalia was a success too, forget not. They DID get the warlord and his close advisors...
Say whatever you want. It is of no interest to me in the slightest what Gates and Co think or want. I do what I want with MY software and I DO install it on any or all machines I own. Of course, I wouldn't pollute one of my pristine machines with any M$ OS, though I have used the OSes now and again to play certain games - yet I do this without ANY money going to Gates (what does THAT mean?!) EVER. I install whatever on any and all machines I own. They and the software on them are MINE to do with as I see fit. It doesn't matter what M$ or anyone else thinks or likes or wants. That is the way it be.
Ah, but that is what M$ thinks and I flat-out deny. I do not buy a license or simply a right to use software, I buy software. That means it is mine to do with as I please. I can put its CD in the microwave if I want and watch it spark when I turn it on, I can give it to my Da, I can sell it to my friend, and I can install it on multiple machines. M$ may not agree or like it but tough doo-doo. I own it.
And inspite of this, M$ spied on you and acquired your software list, checked to make sure you weren't violating "licenses". They own your computer (so they think).
Minors cannot legally sign a contract. I say, to avoid ALL claims by M$ or anyone else that you are bound by a bullshit EULA, have an underage child handle all the initial parts of your software installs. YOU never saw, nor clicked on any "I Agree" button and the child is not legally bound by such.
Get it through your skull. This is MAINLY about M$ spying on you and the software you use. It is about labeling you a pirate who is guilty until proven innocent. They are NOT just nicely checking your system out to see what needs updates, they are spying on you to make sure you are absolutely obeying their bullcrap license terms.
If I buy software I OWN it, I did NOT buy a license, no matter what they say, I bought SOFTWARE that I can do with as I please...it's frickin' MINE.
Is autoupd an executable-driven function or is it part of the kernel? If it is merely an executeable that gets activated now and again, or a daemon, can it be deleted? Is there an "autoupd.exe" or some such that one can delete and make this whole thing moot?
What port does M$ violate your privacy through? If you setup a nice firewall, could you not block all access to this port and prevent spying M$ eyes from getting in?
I'd LOVE to do it. Go. Fuck. Yourself. When they finished their facsist nonsense I'd sue for cost. Nail 'em for lost time and money.
SUE SUE SUE
Hmmm. Sounds like RedHat and IBM to me.
If you follow the link you will see that what type of license is finally selected is still very much up in the air. An X11-style license/mixed license is one of the latest suggestions. X11-like license for the kernel side, so if any closed stuff must be included for functionality it can but any dlls/libs beyond that would be LGPL.
And...you have no problem with M$ spying on you, telling you what software you can copy, what you can and cannot do to your hardware, etc. Send me all your vitals too, since you have no problem with that: full name, place of birth, date of birth, social security number (or equivalent), credit card numbers, personal likes and dislikes, sexual proclivities, shopping habits, what places you frequent and the times.
I assure you I am no worse than Gates and Co so you can feel happy and complacent about giving me all your info. Also, you need to contact be to get my OK to upgrade/change any of your computer hardware in the future.
I dorked with transgaming's wine not too long ago. As I recall, I was absolutely sickened to learn that it could not be installed system-wide ala the REAL wine, but had to be installed individually into each users home directory.
Requiring each user to install it separately on a system (multiple installs of the same damn app) is BOGUS. Have they changed their ways or is it still broken this way? You want to use it and play a game? Well install the big-ass app into your home directory AND install the frickin' game there too. Hundreds of wasted megabytes.
IS there a way to install it system-wide (/usr/local) so any user can use it instead of wasting lots and lots of HDD space on duplicated installs?
My last paragraphi is THE most important paragraph in some ways. I do NOT write-off linux/unix in it. I DO seek to throw water on the dreamy, fantasy that M$ is in any way going to allow Mono to succeed in ANY way the is competitve to M$. M$ holds ALL the cards and it stacked the deck. It NEVER EVER does ANYTHING without thoroughly thinking through how x is going to bring THEM buttloads more money. They do NOT give a flying f*ck for ANYONE outside M$. .NET is NOT NOT NOT a gift to developers for their benefit. It is an M$ tool to develop more income and provide for more M$ lockin, NOT less.
Alan Cox's final paragraph is THE ONLY answer you need as to why Mono will NOT run non-trivial .NET apps. Period. I take his simple words over your starry-eyed dreamland fantasy any day. He is absolutely correct. Mono will not succeed in .NET. It MIGHT succeed within the world of linux/unix but that is ALL.
Hehe. Yeah, and the intention/plan by M$ with .NOT is that most those PCs, tablets, handhelds, PDAs, etc, will be running a variant of windoze. Thus, .NOT stuff will work well with them, naturally. If you are a competitor, the price of making them work MOSTLY OK (let's say 90%) will be a nice licensing fee, passed on to you, the purchaser of the competitor's PC, tablet, handheld, PDA, etc.
You get it coming and going if you buy into .NOT. M$ is a MARKETING company that just happens to deal with software and shit. Any useful trinkets that fall around are unintentional and incidental to the goal of the M$ Marketing machine. Forget ANYTHING having to do with making linux work properly with .NOT. You shouldn't want that anyway - otherwise why not just cave and buy their OSes, use Hotmail, get a passport and give them your private data, your financial data, and your soul? THAT is what .NOT is REALLY about.
Any gee-wiz nifty crap about the .NET FRAMEWORK is incidental and accidental. No bones about it. Don't be getting all starry-eyed.
And it is the extension inherent in C# that will make it not work out as the dreamy-eyed Miguel rhapsodizes about (running a .net binary seamlessly from the gnome desktop INDEED). Wine can't make more than a fraction of windoze apps run even though all the requisite win32 APIs are published and have been for years. Suddenly a broken/crippled version of C# is going to sidestep all that and with Mono we'll be able to run thos .not apps. Yeah, and my bunghole smells like jasmine.
All well and good but then it was brought on by bullcrap like "running a windoze .net binary seamlessly from the Gnome desktop" (to paraphrase). My ass. Only trivial windoze .net apps might actually work. REAL non-trivial apps will flat-out NOT work.
If you want to bring a neato development tool/environment to linux/*nix so that it is easier to write linux/*nix code fine, but never ever make any mention of running .net crap from the linux desktop. That is fantasy - trivial testruns be damned. The win32 APIs are published and available too aren't they? So why is it that after YEARS that wine only allows a mere fraction of a percent of windoze apps to run on linux? The APIs are published for all to see.
Nice development environment? No problem. Make ANY mention of running windoze binaries from linux and you're talking out your ass and dreaming the dreams of the Freedows people and probably the wine developers when they first started out.
Finally, by accepting M$ C#, you ARE feeding the monopoly, helping the monopoly, supporting the monopoly against good ethics and against good judgement.
Doesn't matter what they WANT. M$ *IS* a corrupt, illegal monopolist NOW. If the others WANT to be, so what, they aren't and likely wont be. It does matter that M$ IS and it is deadass wrong to help them continue or secure a new monopoly.
I am shamed. You said it ALL in a clean, precise manner that I have been essentially trying to say again and again. I take STRONG exception to any mention of .NET compatibility or an ability to run M$ .NET binaries on linux. Not a chance (beyond, as you say, trivial code). .NET is based on and dependent on continued butts in seats using M$ operating systems be they embedded or on a PC. That means specific cryptic tie-ins to the underlying OS which is incompatible with linux. Wine does marginally OK on the windoze apps-running front. No way will Mono do better. Probably wont do as well - its years behind and it has barely started.
Yeah, no doubt that C# is great for a WIndoze software developer. Hooks into the heart of WIndoze for improved speed, etc. Problem...those frickin libs and functions don't exist anywhere but on windoze using directx crap and win32.
Wine is having a fun time implementing all the published windoze apis in linux aren't they?
And...every word he writes about Java doesn't somehow apply to C#? The IDENTICAL language with a few "embrace and extend" features from M$ for the SOLE purpose of undermining a competitor?
M$ doesn't really understand it all either. If they did, they wouldn't CONSTANTLY be in legal trouble for violating the rules.
THAT fact should give one pause for wanting to have ANYTHING to do with them. Convicted illegal monopolists and unethical criminals and Miguel wants to play with them. Looney.
OK, so the fantastical claim is that one could run .NET doze binaries via Mono (balderdash). Why is Mono in this regard going to be ANY different than wine? Windoze APIs are published so software developers can write windoze apps. C# is "published" - the APIs are there so anyone can use them. Big frickin' deal. Even with the published windoze APIs, with wine you can only run a fraction of a percent of windoze apps. The problem IS the intimate tie-in of API to windoze proper. C# APIs are no different (if they are, WHY?). They have their fingers tied right into the OS too.
All it seems that aspect of Mono is about is duplicating wine in a .NET framework instead of the classic win32 framework (which ties into .NET and C# since they ARE the windoze API that you are playing with when writing doze code, yes?
So the fantastical claim is that Mono will do better than wine at implementing doze api/functions in linux. That's what wine tries to do and they've been at it for years! It's nice, and all, but there's a buttload of windoze apps that just don't work in wine. By the time they do (IF they do) there will be new apps out there that people want to use that WONT work. Why wouldn't Mono experience the exact same problem?
.NET is designed with WINDOZE in mind. It is the target platform of .NET. To Gates, the internet and computers are and/or should be Windoze PCs or Windoze handhelds, etc. Everything else is invisable to Gates or is something to be extinguished.
Unless someone can explain why JUST because C# APIs may be published that means jackdiddle (vis a vis win32 apis being published and the success of wine) for running windoze .NET crap on linux? Even if you refer to VMs, the VM is designed by and for Windoze and M$, NOT competitors (or potential competitors).
I think that if Miguel and Ximian want a "better" developer environment, then fine, speak of ONLY that but forget about (entirely) .NET and anything Windoze/M$. It is pollution that will not work out and it confuses the issue. You like the development environment of .NET? Fine, go with a similar development environment for LINUX and that is ALL.