I'm just some guy who fixes computers for friends occasionally
I get asked, because I'm a geek and therefore expected to know about computers, but my honest answer to friends who need tech support is "I don't know sweet FA about fixing windows. All my meagre knowledge is linux-based."
The only reason to run windows on any platform is because some vital piece of software requires windows to run.
So, if I only had a PPC-based computer, and I had a piece of software that I absolutely must use, and this software only runs on windows (and is available for winPPC), then, and only then would I run winPPC.
If I had a PPC-based computer that wasn't a Mac, I would run linux or freeBSD, except if the above scenario required me to run windows.
If I had a PPC-based computer that is a Mac, I would dual-boot MacOS and linux.
Ha! I once thought of changing my user agent for my browser to some mean javascript so if someone uses a browser-based log viewer to view their httpd logs, they'll run my script. Never got around to doing it though - I'm not really that mean.
If Microsoft made a PC, would you expect it to come with anything but Windows?
Good point, considering the lengths Microsoft goes to keep linux off its customers' xboxes, while Sony, otoh, even brought out a linux kit for its gaming console.
Nowhere in my post did I say I agree with impaling. My post was aimed at those supposed 40% to point out the irrationality of "approving of impaling for terrorists" due to the fuzzy definition of "terrorist".
I bet a good 40% of the people would approve of impaling terrorists
Depends on how the label "terrorist" is applied. I would agree with punishing people for what they do, not what they are. eg. killing or attempting to kill lots of people is bad. Holding the opinion that America is the "Great Satan" and that all Americans should die is not a crime. Some actions resulting from such an opinion are a crime.
Then there's the ever creeping extension of the term "terrorist" being applied to all sort of nonsensical situations.
eg. there is no such thing as a "Cyberterrorist". It is impossible for a hacker to make my computer explode killing everyone in this office.
if Gates died tomorrow, it would affect the economy a lot more than if Linus died tomorrow.
If Gates died tomorrow, and if that death caused Microsoft sales to decrease (I don't see how, but who knows? - it might), then it would affect the economy, but not in a bad way.
Non-IT companies who use IT would have more money to spend on what they do best if they weren't paying hefty IT licenses and hefty IT support costs.
It isn't necessarily legal in all places. I suspect that since it uses a modchip it is illegal in the UK and Australia.
I suspect it falls under interoperability exemptions under most DMCA-type laws. As long as its main purpose is to enable linux to run and not to run bootleg copies of games, then there is no legal reason to ban it.
Now if God himself came down and started doing god type stuff, well, I certainly don't deny evidence.
Christianity is the belief that God did exactly that.
Disclaimer: This post is not meant to assert that he did or didn't, or that Jesus was or wasn't. I'm merely pointing out the belief that he did and he was forms the basis of Christianity.
If you want to know what I believe, you'll have to meet me in real life.
Like most of the other posts so far, I see the corporate sponsership as a Good Thing(tm). The GPL prevents a complete takeover, meanwhile companies get to fix things to make linux work with their products.
Developers have the option of working for one of the hardware manufacturers, so they can feed their families while working on something they feel passionate about, and everyone wins.
I think we owe a great debt to RMS for the GPL, which makes this possible without a complete takeover.
Properly secure in this case would be a processor architecture that allows areas of memory to be marked "non-executable". A picture is data FFS! What would a processor need to treat any of the bytes that make up the image as instructions?
I must ask how much people will be willing to pay for warrantied software.
It's available, sort of. It's called a "Service Level Agreement". SLAs are horrendously expensive, but big companies pay up because getting stuck without an SLA is even more expensive.
Desperate, yes. Stupid, no. Their backer has deep pockets. This isn't about Darl, it's about a large software monopoly threatened by free open source alternatives. While we are all distracted by the SCO thing, said large monopoly is building a patent portfolio (forget about prior art, deep pockets carry more weight than prior art) to clobber the FOSS community.
This is just a small battle, a test case, in what will be a long, drawn out war.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes
I'm just some guy who fixes computers for friends occasionally
I get asked, because I'm a geek and therefore expected to know about computers, but my honest answer to friends who need tech support is "I don't know sweet FA about fixing windows. All my meagre knowledge is linux-based."
another 20% or 30% calls their ISP instead.
Yes, dammit!!
And I'm the call centre lacky who has to deal with these calls. (I work for a Telco/ISP/CableTV provider).
The only reason to run windows on any platform is because some vital piece of software requires windows to run.
So, if I only had a PPC-based computer, and I had a piece of software that I absolutely must use, and this software only runs on windows (and is available for winPPC), then, and only then would I run winPPC.
If I had a PPC-based computer that wasn't a Mac, I would run linux or freeBSD, except if the above scenario required me to run windows.
If I had a PPC-based computer that is a Mac, I would dual-boot MacOS and linux.
If I get too much crap on slashdot@mydomain I'll redirect it /dev/null
Right now I don't need to.
Driver: Car, slow down!
Car: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
I was not aware that this is not a common term
It is a common term, everywhere except the US.
I understood what you meant.
Plus one German Shepherd, ex-RAF guard dog.
You need three. One dog can be despatched (eg sleeping pills wrapped in bacon), two dogs maybe, but three is too hard to deal with.
Ha! I once thought of changing my user agent for my browser to some mean javascript so if someone uses a browser-based log viewer to view their httpd logs, they'll run my script. Never got around to doing it though - I'm not really that mean.
If Microsoft made a PC, would you expect it to come with anything but Windows?
Good point, considering the lengths Microsoft goes to keep linux off its customers' xboxes, while Sony, otoh, even brought out a linux kit for its gaming console.
Yep. A large portion of /.ers are likely running other OSes on boxes that came with windows.
I'd publish my unused XP key here, but it's an OEM key so probably not much use to anyone.
Nowhere in my post did I say I agree with impaling. My post was aimed at those supposed 40% to point out the irrationality of "approving of impaling for terrorists" due to the fuzzy definition of "terrorist".
I agree with you POV on this.
I bet a good 40% of the people would approve of impaling terrorists
Depends on how the label "terrorist" is applied.
I would agree with punishing people for what they do, not what they are.
eg. killing or attempting to kill lots of people is bad. Holding the opinion that America is the "Great Satan" and that all Americans should die is not a crime. Some actions resulting from such an opinion are a crime.
Then there's the ever creeping extension of the term "terrorist" being applied to all sort of nonsensical situations.
eg. there is no such thing as a "Cyberterrorist". It is impossible for a hacker to make my computer explode killing everyone in this office.
if Gates died tomorrow, it would affect the economy a lot more than if Linus died tomorrow.
If Gates died tomorrow, and if that death caused Microsoft sales to decrease (I don't see how, but who knows? - it might), then it would affect the economy, but not in a bad way.
Non-IT companies who use IT would have more money to spend on what they do best if they weren't paying hefty IT licenses and hefty IT support costs.
It isn't necessarily legal in all places. I suspect that since it uses a modchip it is illegal in the UK and Australia.
I suspect it falls under interoperability exemptions under most DMCA-type laws.
As long as its main purpose is to enable linux to run and not to run bootleg copies of games, then there is no legal reason to ban it.
Why should they? They're a for-profit-company, not a charity. It would be nice if they did, but they don't have to.
Now if God himself came down and started doing god type stuff, well, I certainly don't deny evidence.
Christianity is the belief that God did exactly that.
Disclaimer: This post is not meant to assert that he did or didn't, or that Jesus was or wasn't. I'm merely pointing out the belief that he did and he was forms the basis of Christianity.
If you want to know what I believe, you'll have to meet me in real life.
What about the injustices inflicted on the Boers by the British? Were they mentioned?
1 Timothy 5:23
Look it up.
should read
Cogito me cogitare ergo cogito me esse to convey the intended meaning in Latin.
Like most of the other posts so far, I see the corporate sponsership as a Good Thing(tm). The GPL prevents a complete takeover, meanwhile companies get to fix things to make linux work with their products.
Developers have the option of working for one of the hardware manufacturers, so they can feed their families while working on something they feel passionate about, and everyone wins.
I think we owe a great debt to RMS for the GPL, which makes this possible without a complete takeover.
Properly secure in this case would be a processor architecture that allows areas of memory to be marked "non-executable".
A picture is data FFS! What would a processor need to treat any of the bytes that make up the image as instructions?
I must ask how much people will be willing to pay for warrantied software.
It's available, sort of.
It's called a "Service Level Agreement". SLAs are horrendously expensive, but big companies pay up because getting stuck without an SLA is even more expensive.
Desperate, yes. Stupid, no.
Their backer has deep pockets.
This isn't about Darl, it's about a large software monopoly threatened by free open source alternatives.
While we are all distracted by the SCO thing, said large monopoly is building a patent portfolio (forget about prior art, deep pockets carry more weight than prior art) to clobber the FOSS community.
This is just a small battle, a test case, in what will be a long, drawn out war.
especially when juries are involved.