How did the US feel after the Revolutionary War about the British military?
For that last time, the US played a very minor role in the Russian Civil war. Your comparison is a joke - the role of the British in the American Revolution and the role of the Americans in the Russian Civil war are completely different.
I'm talking about the Armistice Agreement in the West. Read what I posted, including the references.
To quote: "By article twelve of the armistice Germany was bound to evacuate all former Russian territories 'as soon as the allies shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal situation of those territories'. It was intimated that the moment for evacuation of the Baltic had not yet come. In the first months of 1919 von der Goltz consolidated his position, recruited strong reinforcements from the German colonies in the Baltic countries and from 'white' Russian refugees, as well as from demobilized Germans and prisoners of war in Germany, and proclaimed him self the leader of an anti-Bolshevik crusade."
Boy, I can sure see how that would keep the Soviets mad at the US 70 years later. Obviously the fault of the Americans! Here's a hint - the US was a combatant on the western front in 1918, but the Armistice was primarily dictated by those countries who had been fighting for 4 years - you know, Britain and France.
I did not and do not assert that. Please try to argue with what I actually said, not a strawman of your own devising.
Bullshit - read your original post again. You stated that hard line American policies caused the Soviet Union to stay around longer and then backed it up with references to American actions in 1918. This is exactly what you were asserting - I don't a strawman to shoot such a ludicrous argument down.
If you want to make stupid statements and then try and back out of them feel free. I've wasted enough time on this thread.
America sure as hell invaded Russia with the British and Japanese and the Russian and later the soviets never forgot it.
Right. I can just picture Gorbachev... "well maybe we should open up to reforms, but those damn Americans send a few thousand troops to help the other side in our civil war 70 years ago, so forget it". Give me a break.
Nearly 1000 American marines were slaughtered by the red army in Vladivostok.
Best numbers I can find are 275 lost from all causes (including disease, etc.). Anything else you would like to make up?
However you want to quibble about it, the Soviet Union certainly thought that it existed in 1918.
The Bolsheviks had overthrown the Czar, but you can't say that the the USSR existed in 1918. The country was in an open state of civil war and the "Soviet" govenrment wasn't recognized by many other countries.
The US landed a division of 8500 men in Vladisvostok in August 1918 and three regiments in Archangel and Murmansk in September 1918 and a full division of 8500 men at Vladisvostok.
Under French command. Yes, I am aware (although you said 8500 twice, which is incorrect). However, their presence there was at the behest of groups inside Russia who were opposed to the Bolsheviks. Also, as I stated, the American involvement paled in comparison to the British and French (or the Japanese in the East). My point is that your comment that it was a "US invasion of the Soviet Union" is completely disingenuous - the US was invlovled in a small scale in the Russian civil war.
Sorry, I meant the Armistice agreement.
The Armistice agreement in the East was signed between Germany and the Russian Czar. What does that have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing - thanks for noticing.
With all due respect, it's you that needs to pick up a history book for a change.
Right. You make an inane assertion like the American involvement in events after WWI caused the cold war to be prolonged. You back it up with statements that are either false or are delberately twisted. Get a clue.
While the Republican party likes to claim that Reagan's hard-line policies were responsible the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's not clear that that was the case. In fact, hard-line American policies made it easier for the Soviet government to justify repressing its own people.
Sure. So persuasive when you back it up with...
After all, the US had invaded the Soviet Union in 1918
No they didn't. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918. The western powers participated in the Russian civil war in 1918-20 by allying with the forces opposed to the Communists. Small numbers of troops from western nations participated, but those were mostly British and French. The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false.
and the Treaty of Versailles required that German troops to continue occupying large areas of conquered Russia after the war
No it didn't. Versailles required the Germans to give back large pieces of territory in the East, primarily to Poland. It isn't like there were large pieces of Russian territory in the East occupied by the Germans by 1920. Besides, Versailles was hardly dictated by the Americans.
so how could they trust the US when it was building up its military?
Claiming that the events that transpired after WWI directly affected Soviet attitudes towards the US 70 years later is a joke. That it kept the Communists in power longer even more so. Try picking up a history book before you go making ridiculous assertions.
I'll be digging out my 1st edition AD&D rulebooks when I get home, but I think you are wrong. I am pretty sure that they used THAC0 (or the supplements did) and I know that the D&D sets that were out at the time (basic, expert, companion, masters, immortal) did for sure - I can picture the character sheet in my mind:-)
Regardless, as you stated, the system used the concept of THAC0: the unmodified d20 roll you needed to hit armor class 0.
You can point swmgr (and inst too - maybe?) at a directory containing tardists over HTTP. It will sort out the dependencies and install/update everything you want.
It isn't quite apt-get or up2date interms of automation, but it gets the job done. I'm not aware of anything that automates swmgr/inst so that it will automatically notify you of updates. However, SGI releases Freeware on a cycle, so you should know about when to update your installed packages.
Don't make us cut off your F-18 parts supply (and who do you think you're fooling by painting cockpits on the bottom of the plane?)
Hey, the original (C)F-18 order also specified a searchlight on the side of the aircraft (so we could illuminate Soviet recon aircraft flying at the edge of our airspace) as well as the fake cockpit painted on the underside of the aircraft:-)
I am working on Zaurus syncing as part of the multisync project for Gnome (see here).
It works well with Opie/OpenZaurus and the 2.x ROMS, but the changes int he new 3.x ROMs are a serious pain, especially since there isn't much good documentation in English. I suspect it will be a while before Multisync (Gnome), KithenSync or the Kompany (KDE) get anything working.
Metroid Prime, Zelda Wind Waker, Smash Bros Melee, Mario Sunshine and Waverace (5) vs. NHL 2003, Madden 2002 and Super Monkey Ball (3) for me as well.
I bought the GCN for the high quality first-party games, really. I grew up with Nintendo and the Zelda/Mario franchises so I expected the first-party titles to be excellent, and for the most part the GCN has delivered. I prefer to wait and spend my money and time on titles worth playing (i.e. Zelda Wind Waker, Metriod Prime, Mario Sunshine) rather than buy/rent the FPS or racing game of the week.
Most of the crap produced by Acclaim is just fuel for the teenage dorks that make up most of the the XBox buyers anyway (that might sound like flamebait, but log on to XBox Live and see for yourself...), so no big loss.
THREE: Look like the biggest ass ever when it is pointed out to you that this has nothing to do with the ISP; it is occurring because you have some spyware installed on your machine, probably put there when you installed some pr0n search software.
Your advice is what happens when you shoot off your mouth before getting your facts straight. Five minutes using whois and google solved this problem. Using ethereal and looking at the DHCPOFFER would confirm that his hypothesis about a cracked DHCP server was false.
If you are going to start calling CEOs, threatening legal action and trying to get publcity from TV stations you sure as hell better have your facts straight.
The book was not really aimed at you. It was aimed at open source programmers and hackers getting their first taste of database development.
Ok, I can buy that. Like I said, my bad for not reading the book first or reading a review. I just wanted a book on MySQL and I automatically grabbed the O'Reilly title.
I'm not a DBA, just a programmer that is familiar with databases. I guess for a more "advanced" user MySQL and mSQL is just not a good book might be a fairer statement.
Re:O'Reily's Msql and Mysql
on
Linux Clustering
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I own maybe 30 O'Reilly Titles and "MySQL and mSQL" is easily the worst one of the bunch. Here's my take as to why.
I came from an Oracle background (i.e. already understood SQL, relational databases, etc.) and I was interested in 2 things; how to administer a MySQL database and how to do simple access from PHP/Perl.
Now go and pick that book and try and find that information. The description of the MySQL security model is muddled and confusing. No good details on how to do backup and restore. The examples for using PHP/Perl are horrible. The book has several chapters of filler.
A year or two later I bought the New Riders title mentioned in the writeup. It is a massive improvement over "MySQL and mSQL" - read them side by side and you'll see.
One thing that book taught me - just because it is a publisher you trust, don't assume the book will be good. Read it or read a review first!
Man, Solaris ships a much more recent version of/bin/true:)
#!/usr/bin/sh # Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T # All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code.
for a lot of the desktop stuff when you want the latest and greatest you might well be thinking "need to upgrade want cool new evolution want funky new KDE 4" within 12 months anyway
Exactly. My desktop at work is maintained by me. I think that the current RH9 scheme (which is what I run) is fine for what I need. I get the stability I need to get work done along with relatively cutting edge software to run. I pay RH my $60 a year for RHN and upgrade my box every 12 months and I am all set. If I feel like more recent versions of some packages I can go to freshrpms.
People running Oracle in a big company or running 200 workstations can buy RH Enterprise and only upgrade their machines for errata for 5 years.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but lots of open source programs have both RPMs and SRPMs available from their website. No need to wait on RedHat, and you can still use RPM.
Cool, I can download RPMs for important packages (kernel, glibc, etc.) for RedHat that have been well tested with only the security fixes backported to them somewhere? Yeah, I thought so. Who cares if you can just go download the latest version of some simple userland app in RPM format.
I ran RedHat 7.2 long after everyone else went to 7.3 and then to 8.0. There was no "backporting" to do. If a newer version of a program came out, I just downloaded the new version and installed it.
First of all, RH 7.2 was stil being supported by RH. That is changing under their new scheme. Second, if you are maintining hundreds of workstations you are just going to "just download the new version and install it?". Sorry, no. You are going to stick to known stable versions that have security fixes backported to them and only upgrade to new functionality for well tested stable packages.
I was told that RH's "Enterprise" workstation product only comes with an additional year of security fixes and support, coming in at 2 years. We really need something on the order of 3-5 years.
1. RedHat 9 is only going to have 1 year of errata published for it.
2. RedHat Advanced Server is going to be the target for a lot of Enterprise application vendors.
For #1 - what are you going to do for errata after 1 year? Upgrade to RedHat 10? Find another source of binary patches, or hope that some other commercial entity decided to build them? Build them yourself? You need to figure this out
For #2 - many application vendors like Oracle are aiming at RHAS, simply because the "commercial" 8/9/10... distros are a target that moves too quickly. I assume that others (Veritas, etc.) are in the same boat.
My organization is small enough that people running Linux on their desktops take care of themselves and the Linux servers are few enough to be upgraded as needed. However, if your orgzanization is larger you need to consider what RHAS provides. I'd be interested in what people who have larger RH deployments are doing...
I wrote by first BASIC program on a ][e in the 6th grade. That being said...
the brains in the robotics projects i've been toying with has about the same computing power as a ][e and i can barely fit a serial communications library and a virtual machine in that much memory
I did a robotics project based on the handyboard (I still have a couple of them at home) and we did all of our work in Interactive C and 6811 assembly. The 32k of RAM was enough for several different control programs.
I can't say it had much to do with writing BASIC on a ][e. Maybe more like understanding how the underlying hardware works.
I was disappointed with WCIII too. Two big reasons really:
You have do do things in an exact order at the beginning of the game or you will lose
Too much micromanagement
#1 is an artifact of all RTS to a certain extent. However, I found that in WCIII it is true to an extreme - you win or lose based on how well you know your hotkeys and what order you build things in.
For #2 - I hate micromangaing battles in RTS. WCIII is all about hotkey swtiching between the heroes, using their abilities and getting them out before they die. Bleh.
I am a big RTS fan (playing lots of C&C - Generals right now) but WCIII simply didn't cut it for me. I bought the game based on my love of WCII and SC, but I don't see myself shelling out for the expansion.
Re:How can you be that trusting?
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 1
I don't beleive Gator will transfer my password file to their servers.
What is this, the blind leading the stupid?
You are either astroturfing for Gator (as evidenced my the multiple posts in this story) or you are the most naive person I have ever met.
Are you really that stupid? You can spend millions of dollars developing a software product and then "write off" the costs and sell the software for the cost of a CD? Write off the costs to what? What fantasy world do you live in?
MS has to amortize their development, support, sales, and other costs over all of the sales of W3K. Just because you can duplicate the CD media for $0.25 doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
That's OK - I am planning to attend a Microsoft Developer conference posing as an MCSE to see what "intelligence" I can gather. Let's check out my disguise:
That doesn't change the fact that 99% of all desktop usage under Linux and 99.999% under Windows use a display directly connected to the PC
Where did you come up with those numbers? Ah - you just made them up. I'm sure your vast experience backs this up, right?
I'll tell you what - when you grow up and actually use a PC for something besides playing games, you'll find out that your made up numbers aren't anywhere near correct. Out in the real world, people use remote desktops all of the time. In the mean time, feel free to complain about X all you want, and people who know better can feel free to laught at you
Slashdot Mirror
How did the US feel after the Revolutionary War about the British military?
For that last time, the US played a very minor role in the Russian Civil war. Your comparison is a joke - the role of the British in the American Revolution and the role of the Americans in the Russian Civil war are completely different.
I'm talking about the Armistice Agreement in the West. Read what I posted, including the references.
To quote: "By article twelve of the armistice Germany was bound to evacuate all former Russian territories 'as soon as the allies shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the internal situation of those territories'. It was intimated that the moment for evacuation of the Baltic had not yet come. In the first months of 1919 von der Goltz consolidated his position, recruited strong reinforcements from the German colonies in the Baltic countries and from 'white' Russian refugees, as well as from demobilized Germans and prisoners of war in Germany, and proclaimed him self the leader of an anti-Bolshevik crusade."
Boy, I can sure see how that would keep the Soviets mad at the US 70 years later. Obviously the fault of the Americans! Here's a hint - the US was a combatant on the western front in 1918, but the Armistice was primarily dictated by those countries who had been fighting for 4 years - you know, Britain and France.
I did not and do not assert that. Please try to argue with what I actually said, not a strawman of your own devising.
Bullshit - read your original post again. You stated that hard line American policies caused the Soviet Union to stay around longer and then backed it up with references to American actions in 1918. This is exactly what you were asserting - I don't a strawman to shoot such a ludicrous argument down.
If you want to make stupid statements and then try and back out of them feel free. I've wasted enough time on this thread.
America sure as hell invaded Russia with the British and Japanese and the Russian and later the soviets never forgot it.
Right. I can just picture Gorbachev ... "well maybe we should open up to reforms, but those damn Americans send a few thousand troops to help the other side in our civil war 70 years ago, so forget it". Give me a break.
Nearly 1000 American marines were slaughtered by the red army in Vladivostok.
Best numbers I can find are 275 lost from all causes (including disease, etc.). Anything else you would like to make up?
However you want to quibble about it, the Soviet Union certainly thought that it existed in 1918.
The Bolsheviks had overthrown the Czar, but you can't say that the the USSR existed in 1918. The country was in an open state of civil war and the "Soviet" govenrment wasn't recognized by many other countries.
The US landed a division of 8500 men in Vladisvostok in August 1918 and three regiments in Archangel and Murmansk in September 1918 and a full division of 8500 men at Vladisvostok.
Under French command. Yes, I am aware (although you said 8500 twice, which is incorrect). However, their presence there was at the behest of groups inside Russia who were opposed to the Bolsheviks. Also, as I stated, the American involvement paled in comparison to the British and French (or the Japanese in the East). My point is that your comment that it was a "US invasion of the Soviet Union" is completely disingenuous - the US was invlovled in a small scale in the Russian civil war.
Sorry, I meant the Armistice agreement.
The Armistice agreement in the East was signed between Germany and the Russian Czar. What does that have to do with the US? Absolutely nothing - thanks for noticing.
With all due respect, it's you that needs to pick up a history book for a change.
Right. You make an inane assertion like the American involvement in events after WWI caused the cold war to be prolonged. You back it up with statements that are either false or are delberately twisted. Get a clue.
While the Republican party likes to claim that Reagan's hard-line policies were responsible the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's not clear that that was the case. In fact, hard-line American policies made it easier for the Soviet government to justify repressing its own people.
Sure. So persuasive when you back it up with...
After all, the US had invaded the Soviet Union in 1918
No they didn't. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918. The western powers participated in the Russian civil war in 1918-20 by allying with the forces opposed to the Communists. Small numbers of troops from western nations participated, but those were mostly British and French. The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false.
and the Treaty of Versailles required that German troops to continue occupying large areas of conquered Russia after the war
No it didn't. Versailles required the Germans to give back large pieces of territory in the East, primarily to Poland. It isn't like there were large pieces of Russian territory in the East occupied by the Germans by 1920. Besides, Versailles was hardly dictated by the Americans.
so how could they trust the US when it was building up its military?
Claiming that the events that transpired after WWI directly affected Soviet attitudes towards the US 70 years later is a joke. That it kept the Communists in power longer even more so. Try picking up a history book before you go making ridiculous assertions.
I'll be digging out my 1st edition AD&D rulebooks when I get home, but I think you are wrong. I am pretty sure that they used THAC0 (or the supplements did) and I know that the D&D sets that were out at the time (basic, expert, companion, masters, immortal) did for sure - I can picture the character sheet in my mind :-)
Regardless, as you stated, the system used the concept of THAC0: the unmodified d20 roll you needed to hit armor class 0.
Real geeks know that this "thac0" thing was a 2E crap term and has no place in "real" (1st and 3rd) DnD. :PM
Real geeks played 1st Edition AD&D know that THAC0 was present then too. They changed the system for 3rd edition.
You can point swmgr (and inst too - maybe?) at a directory containing tardists over HTTP. It will sort out the dependencies and install/update everything you want.
It isn't quite apt-get or up2date interms of automation, but it gets the job done. I'm not aware of anything that automates swmgr/inst so that it will automatically notify you of updates. However, SGI releases Freeware on a cycle, so you should know about when to update your installed packages.
Don't make us cut off your F-18 parts supply (and who do you think you're fooling by painting cockpits on the bottom of the plane?)
Hey, the original (C)F-18 order also specified a searchlight on the side of the aircraft (so we could illuminate Soviet recon aircraft flying at the edge of our airspace) as well as the fake cockpit painted on the underside of the aircraft :-)
RedHat's policy is that if you want 5 years of support, buy a copy of enterprise Linux, otherwise upgrade your O/S every year. Simple.
The nice part about Linux is you aren't locked into one vendor. If you don't like it, run Debian or SuSE or something else!
I am working on Zaurus syncing as part of the multisync project for Gnome (see here).
It works well with Opie/OpenZaurus and the 2.x ROMS, but the changes int he new 3.x ROMs are a serious pain, especially since there isn't much good documentation in English. I suspect it will be a while before Multisync (Gnome), KithenSync or the Kompany (KDE) get anything working.
Metroid Prime, Zelda Wind Waker, Smash Bros Melee, Mario Sunshine and Waverace (5) vs. NHL 2003, Madden 2002 and Super Monkey Ball (3) for me as well.
I bought the GCN for the high quality first-party games, really. I grew up with Nintendo and the Zelda/Mario franchises so I expected the first-party titles to be excellent, and for the most part the GCN has delivered. I prefer to wait and spend my money and time on titles worth playing (i.e. Zelda Wind Waker, Metriod Prime, Mario Sunshine) rather than buy/rent the FPS or racing game of the week.
Most of the crap produced by Acclaim is just fuel for the teenage dorks that make up most of the the XBox buyers anyway (that might sound like flamebait, but log on to XBox Live and see for yourself...), so no big loss.
THREE: Look like the biggest ass ever when it is pointed out to you that this has nothing to do with the ISP; it is occurring because you have some spyware installed on your machine, probably put there when you installed some pr0n search software.
Your advice is what happens when you shoot off your mouth before getting your facts straight. Five minutes using whois and google solved this problem. Using ethereal and looking at the DHCPOFFER would confirm that his hypothesis about a cracked DHCP server was false.
If you are going to start calling CEOs, threatening legal action and trying to get publcity from TV stations you sure as hell better have your facts straight.
The book was not really aimed at you. It was aimed at open source programmers and hackers getting their first taste of database development.
Ok, I can buy that. Like I said, my bad for not reading the book first or reading a review. I just wanted a book on MySQL and I automatically grabbed the O'Reilly title.
I'm not a DBA, just a programmer that is familiar with databases. I guess for a more "advanced" user MySQL and mSQL is just not a good book might be a fairer statement.
I own maybe 30 O'Reilly Titles and "MySQL and mSQL" is easily the worst one of the bunch. Here's my take as to why.
I came from an Oracle background (i.e. already understood SQL, relational databases, etc.) and I was interested in 2 things; how to administer a MySQL database and how to do simple access from PHP/Perl.
Now go and pick that book and try and find that information. The description of the MySQL security model is muddled and confusing. No good details on how to do backup and restore. The examples for using PHP/Perl are horrible. The book has several chapters of filler.
A year or two later I bought the New Riders title mentioned in the writeup. It is a massive improvement over "MySQL and mSQL" - read them side by side and you'll see.
One thing that book taught me - just because it is a publisher you trust, don't assume the book will be good. Read it or read a review first!
for a lot of the desktop stuff when you want the latest and greatest you might well be thinking "need to upgrade want cool new evolution want funky new KDE 4" within 12 months anyway
Exactly. My desktop at work is maintained by me. I think that the current RH9 scheme (which is what I run) is fine for what I need. I get the stability I need to get work done along with relatively cutting edge software to run. I pay RH my $60 a year for RHN and upgrade my box every 12 months and I am all set. If I feel like more recent versions of some packages I can go to freshrpms.
People running Oracle in a big company or running 200 workstations can buy RH Enterprise and only upgrade their machines for errata for 5 years.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but lots of open source programs have both RPMs and SRPMs available from their website. No need to wait on RedHat, and you can still use RPM.
Cool, I can download RPMs for important packages (kernel, glibc, etc.) for RedHat that have been well tested with only the security fixes backported to them somewhere? Yeah, I thought so. Who cares if you can just go download the latest version of some simple userland app in RPM format.
I ran RedHat 7.2 long after everyone else went to 7.3 and then to 8.0. There was no "backporting" to do. If a newer version of a program came out, I just downloaded the new version and installed it.
First of all, RH 7.2 was stil being supported by RH. That is changing under their new scheme. Second, if you are maintining hundreds of workstations you are just going to "just download the new version and install it?". Sorry, no. You are going to stick to known stable versions that have security fixes backported to them and only upgrade to new functionality for well tested stable packages.
I was told that RH's "Enterprise" workstation product only comes with an additional year of security fixes and support, coming in at 2 years. We really need something on the order of 3-5 years.
You were told wrong:
In other words, they will be supporting 3 or 4 releases at a time.
You have to consider 2 things...
1. RedHat 9 is only going to have 1 year of errata published for it.
2. RedHat Advanced Server is going to be the target for a lot of Enterprise application vendors.
For #1 - what are you going to do for errata after 1 year? Upgrade to RedHat 10? Find another source of binary patches, or hope that some other commercial entity decided to build them? Build them yourself? You need to figure this out
For #2 - many application vendors like Oracle are aiming at RHAS, simply because the "commercial" 8/9/10... distros are a target that moves too quickly. I assume that others (Veritas, etc.) are in the same boat.
My organization is small enough that people running Linux on their desktops take care of themselves and the Linux servers are few enough to be upgraded as needed. However, if your orgzanization is larger you need to consider what RHAS provides. I'd be interested in what people who have larger RH deployments are doing...
I wrote by first BASIC program on a ][e in the 6th grade. That being said...
the brains in the robotics projects i've been toying with has about the same computing power as a ][e and i can barely fit a serial communications library and a virtual machine in that much memory
I did a robotics project based on the handyboard (I still have a couple of them at home) and we did all of our work in Interactive C and 6811 assembly. The 32k of RAM was enough for several different control programs.
I can't say it had much to do with writing BASIC on a ][e. Maybe more like understanding how the underlying hardware works.
I was disappointed with WCIII too. Two big reasons really:
#1 is an artifact of all RTS to a certain extent. However, I found that in WCIII it is true to an extreme - you win or lose based on how well you know your hotkeys and what order you build things in.
For #2 - I hate micromangaing battles in RTS. WCIII is all about hotkey swtiching between the heroes, using their abilities and getting them out before they die. Bleh.
I am a big RTS fan (playing lots of C&C - Generals right now) but WCIII simply didn't cut it for me. I bought the game based on my love of WCII and SC, but I don't see myself shelling out for the expansion.
I don't beleive Gator will transfer my password file to their servers.
What is this, the blind leading the stupid?
You are either astroturfing for Gator (as evidenced my the multiple posts in this story) or you are the most naive person I have ever met.
Either way you need a beating with a cluestick.
Dev costs are already written off/recouped.
Are you really that stupid? You can spend millions of dollars developing a software product and then "write off" the costs and sell the software for the cost of a CD? Write off the costs to what? What fantasy world do you live in?
MS has to amortize their development, support, sales, and other costs over all of the sales of W3K. Just because you can duplicate the CD media for $0.25 doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
That's OK - I am planning to attend a Microsoft Developer conference posing as an MCSE to see what "intelligence" I can gather. Let's check out my disguise:
- "Visual Studio
.NET Developer Program" golf shirt - check
- well ironed khakis - check
- lingo
... "You should consider developing your solution using the managed Windows .NET environment! Bah, Linux is for academics and tinkerers." - check
Yup, all set. We'll see who buys what "hook line and sinker".:-)
That doesn't change the fact that 99% of all desktop usage under Linux and 99.999% under Windows use a display directly connected to the PC
Where did you come up with those numbers? Ah - you just made them up. I'm sure your vast experience backs this up, right?
I'll tell you what - when you grow up and actually use a PC for something besides playing games, you'll find out that your made up numbers aren't anywhere near correct. Out in the real world, people use remote desktops all of the time. In the mean time, feel free to complain about X all you want, and people who know better can feel free to laught at you