In the real world people use Microsoft Windows and Office. They upgrade their hardware and OS everytime a new version of Office comes out to be compatible. They don't really need any of the "new" features of Office or the latest OS or hardware, hell they haven't figured out how to use, or a need for, any of the latest "features" of those products for the last 6 years. But they do it anyway because they have to be compatible with their friends and co-workers and because their IT department tells them to.
Since Microsoft doesn't sell Plan 9, nor do they produce a copy of Office for Plan 9, nobody in "the real world" uses it.
No, this is not a troll, I'm just pointing out a very real fact about "the real world".
Since the money came out of the budget that I am responsible for, not to mention that the money comes from tax dollars, it is my money.
And maybe it is silly. The gods know I'm not the sharpest tack in the box. But it's awfully hard to be thankful for something that stopped productivity for 2 days, is now twice as slow, and took away money that I had hoped to use to keep a car on the road for another year.
Because this is a new computer, under contract and license agreements I am not allowed to remove, or install software. I could get IT to give me a waiver allowing them to remove Windows and Office but there is no refund. Even if I removed them and didn't use them there are several hundreds of dollars wasted.
A troll? I guess then a troll is in the eye of the beholder.
Let me try again, this time in the context of cars.
Suppose you drive a mid '80s car that has under 100,000 miles on it. You keep up maintenance on it like you should, keep it clean, rotate the tires, and take it in for regular service. You only drive a few miles a week, maybe only using it for doing the shopping and the occasional trip to grandma's house.
That car does what you require of it.
Now the neighbor just got a 2003 model SUV. It's got power windows, power locks, air bags, CD player, a big V6 or V8....you know, all the trimmings. And he's got a 10 year 10,000 mile coverage plan on it.
Who knows what he uses it for, and who the hell really cares. But he's got one.
So now you need to be "compatable" with him? Now you're gonna trade in your old car.....a car which met your needs, meets your present needs, and will meet your needs for the immediate future?
THAT IS WHAT THE ATTITUDE SEEMS TO BE WITH COMPUTERS!!!!
I'm sorry if it seems like a troll to you, but I honestly don't see the point in getting a faster computer with a bigger hard drive to run bloated software when what I had was doing the work I tasked it to do.
It's a waste of money. It's a waste of resources, It's just plain stupid from the way I see it.
If it ain't broke then don't fix it. If it runs on 6.2 then it should run on newer versions.
I still fail to understand why people upgrade office machines as often as they do. My IT person at work tells me she has to upgrade the hardware in order to run the latest software and that often requires an OS upgrade.
Why? Because her users have to be "compatible" with other users in the world. She cited several examples of people receiving files from vendors that were in OfficeXP so we had to have OfficeXP to be compatable.
That was the reason that, when she discovered my 486 box with RedHat 6.2 on it while I was on vacation, she replaced it with a brand new 1.2 GHz machine running Microsoft products of the XP line. She claims this to be an upgrade and is shocked at my lack of thankfulness.
She is, and I'm sure you will be, shocked that I am not happy about this. But damnit my computer was doing just what I wanted it to do, and quite reliably. It now takes longer to write a simple memo, to create a simple spreadsheet, even to check my email or find information on the WWW. But I've got a "compatable" configuration.
Not everyone needs or wants the latest and greatest. Because of this I'm glad that they are testing on a version of Linux that has been out there a while, is fairly common, and has proven itself. The results of those tests should indicate that their product will work fine on newer OS. If not, well that's an OS issue.
I guess I'm confused. I'm running OpenOffice on 5 different hardware systems here. The start up time for OpenOffice is very long, unreasonably long on all systems.
Sure it works great, and it's reliable. But I thought that the origionator of this thread has a good point.
I would like someone to explain to my just why the origional post was flamebait.
Then could someone please explain why, as a person selecting office machine (desktop) operating system packages and and office software suites I should not be concerned by things like program startup time or GUI responsiveness.
The ability to look at only a couple of hundred years and make a detailed geological judgement is a major advance. Normally geologists have to rely on evidence in context that is thousands and millions of years old.
So whatever these Greenpeace folks have that can determine that not only is it happening also determines that it is not natural.....well, this is quite a breakthrough I would imagine.
Way to go Greenpeace!
Now let's hope they will put their efforts to other worthy causes like finding less harmful ways to recycle paper products and generate electricity.
It's so nice when they are productive instead of combative.
In any case, I look forward to the scientific review of their tools and theories.
When this first came up I made a comment about Microsoft possibly going after glass companies for "installing windows". My point being that Microsoft was more than a bit silly for going after Lindows over the word and that Windows was too generic to be the basis of a real lawsuit.
Oh the crap I caught on here for that.
I sure hope that everyone who gave me crap points out to this judge what a blithering idiot he is.
For the courts next move I think they should find against Microsoft and in favor of Parker Brothers. Why? Parker Brothers has had the trademark of Monopoly for far longer than Microsoft has been playing the game.
I agree that the arguement won't hold water all the time. And a lot of it depends on just what this guy is doing with his system.
But my management training tells me that I also need to look at what tools not only will do the job, but which of those tools the employee is most comfortable with. The comfort level is going to be one factor in productivity.
Interesting that my reply has been modded down as offtopic. Wasn't the origional posts topic about choosing a tool for a job?
First off I have to say that seeing "Windows XP" and "Pro" on the same line gives me fits of laughter. Then again I'm strange.
But I wonder about why you think you have to use that particular OS at work? If tcsh is the tool you're most comfortable with, and does the job for you, then maybe Windows XP is not the right tool for the job.
I think about my employer expecting me to maintain a vehicle but the only sockets they would provide me with are S.A.E. Most equipment these days includes metric fasteners. It would be difficult to do my job, maybe impossible. You have to have the right tools.
If your employer can't or won't provide you with the proper tools for the job, it's time to start looking for an employer who will.
So a small garage band, just a few pals starting out, is gonna get taxed heavy just creating NEW material.
But it's brilliant tactics. Yup, we don't need none of them youngin upstarts commin round. So you get the govt to help you make it damned expensive to get the new acts noticed. Gawd forbid anyone might notice they sound better than the "big names" that are collecting this windfall.
Yes, by keeping the cost of breaking into the recording business so high it discourages new blood from comming in without being "guided" by the wise ones already in place. Makes it a pretty exclusive club.
Sounds to me like the recording industry has been learning business tactics from Bill Gates and Co.
I believe that you are correct about "off the shelf" Microsoft products. While I can't swear to it, I would imagine that Microsoft has a slightly different version of NT available for your situation which doesn't contain that limitation in the EULA. I know that is the case with the radio console system that I run for a 911 center, it runs NT (yuck) but it is not an off the shelf version, it was provided by the equipment manufacturer.
Because of that I can't go to Microsoft as an end user and purchase upgrades. There are strict limitations because of the life-critical nature.
This is true of many products. If you purchase a Ford chassis or van, you'll notice a sticker on it that informs you that you can not use the vehicle as an ambulance, nor can you build an ambulance from that vehicle. Yet Ford sells thousands of the very same vehicles which are for use as ambulances with very minor changes. Those changes protect life, protect Ford from liability.
Your question about UNIX tho is tricky. You see with Windows you have to go to a single source, Microsoft. If you want Unix then you can go to several sources. I believe that I've seen a similar limitation in the Sun Solaris license. I'm pretty sure of AIX and SCO.
I do know that in any situation where I have installed an OS in a life-critical situation such as yours I made sure that I had something on file that indicated that the OS and all software/hardware in use is ok for that. I get that documentation from the manufacturer. Not having that information in your file is a HUGE liability.
Just to be sure that this sort of thing is not allowed to happen again, perhaps we should get congress to pass some laws against it. And we really do need to look at the EPA regulations regarding this sort of thing and make sure that they are tight.
I'll agree to that to some extent. I would totally agree if John Wayne had been president and men were men and kicked ass just for doing the right thing and putting the "bad guys" in their place.
As with any administration, they had many other problems to deal with. Yes, it was the 1950's and men were men. Yes we did face a potential military threat and needed to stay on top of that. But the country also had a lot of other issues to deal with, not the least of which was the aftereffects of WWII and what to do about the people and economy.
In the early 1960's especially the administration was concerned not only with keeping up with technology, they were concerned with keeping the working man working and productive. They KNEW going into it that the military buildup of the cold war and the creation of a "space race" would help to that end.
Yes, the space race was about not letting those damned commies outdo us. But that was just the paint job on a total vehicle and everyone knew and expected there to be other benefits.
Even as crazy/stupid as our government is, and even in those wonderful male dominated days, common sense would not have allowed such an expensive undertaking just for the sake of a bad case of penis envy.
Re:This is NO BIG DEAL
on
Hack in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It might not be a new idea, and I'm sure it's not. But it is a VERY BIG DEAL.
The reason it is a VBD is that every space program in the world right now needs some positive press. Everyone has been so focused on the negative thing, and there have been a lot of negative things, that we've lost sight of even the small successes.
So let's make a big deal of an old trick, pat these guys on the back for being smart enough to dust off the trick and use it, and give them a bit more encouragement to do it better next time.
Otherwise I worry there wont' be a next time.
Re:NASA's troubles
on
Hack in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace. "
I think you miss an important effect of exploration such as this. Sometimes it's not the destination, it's the journey.
As someone else mentioned, we gained as much or more in "other" areas as we did actually achieving the goal of reaching the moon. Some of the research that was done to get us to the moon was useful to us here on earth directly. Other tidbits were byproducts of that.
But your comment is a bit like saying that while you would love to visit the UK someday you can't right now because you have laundry to do. Don't put your life on hold just to do the laundry, live a little. Pack up some of that laundry and do it with you on the way.
Can I get you to explain this to my ISP then? They are under the impression that the more bandwidth I use, the larger the pipe they have to have to accomidate that and that the larger pipe cost them more money which is passed on to me.
To that end I had to agree to TOS that says that I won't use whole gobs of bandwidth, and that if I do it can't be sustained rates.
So it's not necessarly that I disagree with you, it's that my ISP does.
As a member of the internet (that being one who is connected to the net, a resident, one who views content or provides content) we pay a fee to connect to the internet. The internet is us, it is both the content viewer and the content provider.
Supply is nothing without demand. Demand is nothing without supply. So yes, I'm telling you that I should have some say because I pay for my end of the traffic already. Slashdot might exist if it didn't have viewers, but what would be the point?
Your arguement would apply if we were talking about a different type of business. Take Wal Mart as an example. I can't bitch about the content of the local store because I don't pay to enter their store. If I want to go to their store I can walk or drive there and purchase what I desire, leave what I don't like on the shelf. Or I can choose to not go at all.
But with the internet I have to pay to connect. The amount I pay is directly related to the size and type of connection I desire. (28K dialup costs less than 56K dialup which is less than DSL, etc). My ISP is very concerned about how much of that pipe I fill. So yes, I have every right to tell content providers that I don't want to pay for their content. Certainly I shouldn't have to pay them to remove unwanted content that they inserted KNOWING FULL WELL that I didn't want that content to begin with.
And if you still you still think that you can use all the bandwidth you want on a residential account, try this: Write a simple script to download all the Red Hat ISO images over and over and over again. Run that script for a week. If your ISP doesn't complain then maybe I'm wrong. But I'll wager that you're going to find yourself being cut off by your ISP, or at the very least, getting a phone call from them insisting that you pay more based on your increased usage. It's extreme I know, but it should prove the point.
"Yeah, right. Kindly ask your ISP to give some of that money to the sites he allegedly charges you for"
You missed the point.
As a non-commercial account I pay my ISP and the telco to be able to access the internet and the content that is on the net. I pay for the access. I am charged for the bandwidth that my viewing uses. As a non-commercial account I can also host my own content, but I am only allowed to provide a limited amount of content and anyone who views it is using my bandwidth so I can only have so much traffic.
If I wanted to do something big, like/., then I would have to pay thier commercial rates. Those rates are quite a bit more but are based upon the same formula (paying for the amount of traffic).
As a non-commercial account it is important that I limit my traffic. The more crap I pull thru the pipe, the bigger the pipe my ISP has to have, driving costs up which means they have to charge me more for being such a bandwidth pig.
Which is fine.
I want to view/. I like the content. But Jesus H Christ on a friggin pony, if I'm gonna open and download a page full of goddam X10 ads with every story on/. I can't afford that. And it's a waste because all that data is transported to me just so I can close the window without ever looking at it.
In any case, I'm paying for the bandwidth I use. It isn't right that someone then thinks they have the right to tuck extra crap in there....or give me the option of paying them to not stuff it in there.
It's like me buying gas for my car and Tom Jones telling me he's gonna ride along with me and sing. Or I can pay him to stay home and I wont have to listen to him sing. Who the hell invited him to the party anyway? Sorry but I bought the gas, get the hell out of my car.
My internet connection should be the same way.
It's bad enough I have to accept the ads. Now it seems like extortion.
I already have to pay for an internet connection, why should I also have to pay not to see things?
My ISP and the telco are already charging me for to get the bits and bytes into my computer. Sites, like/. decide to put up ads and so I'm already paying for that to come down the pipe and into my computer.
Now you want me to pay further NOT to have that stuffed into the mix?
If it's so expensive to serve up/. then why not come up with a program of distributed webserving. I'm thinking about some way of serving up a/. like content which is distributed on among the systems of the various posters.
In other words, each poster would post his/her own comment/content on their own http or ftp server. Then some master system or systems would simply redirect you to it.
I don't know, just talking out my ass here and tossing ideas. But I for one am sick and tired of hearing all the excuses for why the internet must be commercial and that the only way it can be commercial is to pay for content or see advertising. There has to be a more simple way.
This is evidence to me that the following is possible:
Imagine a BOD meeting (21st century style with bottled water, not in a smoke filled room). In this BOD meeting sit those who own, and those in control of slashdot.
"Rob, you've got to change the script to remove any anti-microsoft content as it as posting. And the goat.cx stuff has got to go too"
"Uh, yeah. Well, um.....but slashdot is about freedom of speech, power to the people, communication of the masses"
"Sorry Rob, I know how you feel. But Microsoft is buying a lot of advertising with us lately and, quite frankly, they spend enough here to have earned our respect"
"But what about our subscriber base?"
"Look at the numbers guys. Subscriber revenue is one millionth of what advertiser revenue is. And Microsoft is now paying eighty percent of that advertiser revenue. And all that revenue is what's keeping your new bride living in luxury"
"It doesn't make it RIGHT"
"But it's what they want. And if they don't get what they want then they are pulling their account with us. We'll all be looking for jobs and the dot com thing is over. Your next job will consist of asking the customer if they want fries with their lunch"
"Oh. Well, um......will this afternoon be soon enough for those script changes then?"
I think what you mean here is that M$ sells more "office" software than anyone else, and in that you woulc be correct.
However if you look at productivity in the office I don't think that you'll find the most productive and efficient office workers use M$ software. M$ office software is bloated and inefficient and contains a lot of "features" that aren't needed for day to day office production for most users. The same can be said for StarOffice.
The point is that if you're going to deterimne who "owns" productivity, I think you're going to have to count out these fat boys.
Slashdot Mirror
No. There is nobody in the real world using this.
In the real world people use Microsoft Windows and Office. They upgrade their hardware and OS everytime a new version of Office comes out to be compatible. They don't really need any of the "new" features of Office or the latest OS or hardware, hell they haven't figured out how to use, or a need for, any of the latest "features" of those products for the last 6 years. But they do it anyway because they have to be compatible with their friends and co-workers and because their IT department tells them to.
Since Microsoft doesn't sell Plan 9, nor do they produce a copy of Office for Plan 9, nobody in "the real world" uses it.
No, this is not a troll, I'm just pointing out a very real fact about "the real world".
Yeah right, as if some stoner like RMS could ever come into power with his half baked national socialist ideas.
That's about as far fetched as Adolf Hitler becomming chancelor or that dufus William Clinton becomming president.
Oh fuck, wait a minute! I think I just scared myself.
Since the money came out of the budget that I am responsible for, not to mention that the money comes from tax dollars, it is my money.
And maybe it is silly. The gods know I'm not the sharpest tack in the box. But it's awfully hard to be thankful for something that stopped productivity for 2 days, is now twice as slow, and took away money that I had hoped to use to keep a car on the road for another year.
Because this is a new computer, under contract and license agreements I am not allowed to remove, or install software. I could get IT to give me a waiver allowing them to remove Windows and Office but there is no refund. Even if I removed them and didn't use them there are several hundreds of dollars wasted.
Ya, pretty silly.
A troll? I guess then a troll is in the eye of the beholder.
Let me try again, this time in the context of cars.
Suppose you drive a mid '80s car that has under 100,000 miles on it. You keep up maintenance on it like you should, keep it clean, rotate the tires, and take it in for regular service. You only drive a few miles a week, maybe only using it for doing the shopping and the occasional trip to grandma's house.
That car does what you require of it.
Now the neighbor just got a 2003 model SUV. It's got power windows, power locks, air bags, CD player, a big V6 or V8....you know, all the trimmings. And he's got a 10 year 10,000 mile coverage plan on it.
Who knows what he uses it for, and who the hell really cares. But he's got one.
So now you need to be "compatable" with him? Now you're gonna trade in your old car.....a car which met your needs, meets your present needs, and will meet your needs for the immediate future?
THAT IS WHAT THE ATTITUDE SEEMS TO BE WITH COMPUTERS!!!!
I'm sorry if it seems like a troll to you, but I honestly don't see the point in getting a faster computer with a bigger hard drive to run bloated software when what I had was doing the work I tasked it to do.
It's a waste of money. It's a waste of resources, It's just plain stupid from the way I see it.
If it ain't broke then don't fix it. If it runs on 6.2 then it should run on newer versions.
I still fail to understand why people upgrade office machines as often as they do. My IT person at work tells me she has to upgrade the hardware in order to run the latest software and that often requires an OS upgrade.
Why? Because her users have to be "compatible" with other users in the world. She cited several examples of people receiving files from vendors that were in OfficeXP so we had to have OfficeXP to be compatable.
That was the reason that, when she discovered my 486 box with RedHat 6.2 on it while I was on vacation, she replaced it with a brand new 1.2 GHz machine running Microsoft products of the XP line. She claims this to be an upgrade and is shocked at my lack of thankfulness.
She is, and I'm sure you will be, shocked that I am not happy about this. But damnit my computer was doing just what I wanted it to do, and quite reliably. It now takes longer to write a simple memo, to create a simple spreadsheet, even to check my email or find information on the WWW. But I've got a "compatable" configuration.
Not everyone needs or wants the latest and greatest. Because of this I'm glad that they are testing on a version of Linux that has been out there a while, is fairly common, and has proven itself. The results of those tests should indicate that their product will work fine on newer OS. If not, well that's an OS issue.
I guess I'm confused. I'm running OpenOffice on 5 different hardware systems here. The start up time for OpenOffice is very long, unreasonably long on all systems.
Sure it works great, and it's reliable. But I thought that the origionator of this thread has a good point.
I would like someone to explain to my just why the origional post was flamebait.
Then could someone please explain why, as a person selecting office machine (desktop) operating system packages and and office software suites I should not be concerned by things like program startup time or GUI responsiveness.
Thanks
The ability to look at only a couple of hundred years and make a detailed geological judgement is a major advance. Normally geologists have to rely on evidence in context that is thousands and millions of years old.
So whatever these Greenpeace folks have that can determine that not only is it happening also determines that it is not natural.....well, this is quite a breakthrough I would imagine.
Way to go Greenpeace!
Now let's hope they will put their efforts to other worthy causes like finding less harmful ways to recycle paper products and generate electricity.
It's so nice when they are productive instead of combative.
In any case, I look forward to the scientific review of their tools and theories.
When this first came up I made a comment about Microsoft possibly going after glass companies for "installing windows". My point being that Microsoft was more than a bit silly for going after Lindows over the word and that Windows was too generic to be the basis of a real lawsuit.
Oh the crap I caught on here for that.
I sure hope that everyone who gave me crap points out to this judge what a blithering idiot he is.
For the courts next move I think they should find against Microsoft and in favor of Parker Brothers. Why? Parker Brothers has had the trademark of Monopoly for far longer than Microsoft has been playing the game.
I agree that the arguement won't hold water all the time. And a lot of it depends on just what this guy is doing with his system.
But my management training tells me that I also need to look at what tools not only will do the job, but which of those tools the employee is most comfortable with. The comfort level is going to be one factor in productivity.
Interesting that my reply has been modded down as offtopic. Wasn't the origional posts topic about choosing a tool for a job?
First off I have to say that seeing "Windows XP" and "Pro" on the same line gives me fits of laughter. Then again I'm strange.
But I wonder about why you think you have to use that particular OS at work? If tcsh is the tool you're most comfortable with, and does the job for you, then maybe Windows XP is not the right tool for the job.
I think about my employer expecting me to maintain a vehicle but the only sockets they would provide me with are S.A.E. Most equipment these days includes metric fasteners. It would be difficult to do my job, maybe impossible. You have to have the right tools.
If your employer can't or won't provide you with the proper tools for the job, it's time to start looking for an employer who will.
So a small garage band, just a few pals starting out, is gonna get taxed heavy just creating NEW material.
But it's brilliant tactics. Yup, we don't need none of them youngin upstarts commin round. So you get the govt to help you make it damned expensive to get the new acts noticed. Gawd forbid anyone might notice they sound better than the "big names" that are collecting this windfall.
Yes, by keeping the cost of breaking into the recording business so high it discourages new blood from comming in without being "guided" by the wise ones already in place. Makes it a pretty exclusive club.
Sounds to me like the recording industry has been learning business tactics from Bill Gates and Co.
So they tax you when you create. Then they tax
I believe that you are correct about "off the shelf" Microsoft products. While I can't swear to it, I would imagine that Microsoft has a slightly different version of NT available for your situation which doesn't contain that limitation in the EULA. I know that is the case with the radio console system that I run for a 911 center, it runs NT (yuck) but it is not an off the shelf version, it was provided by the equipment manufacturer.
Because of that I can't go to Microsoft as an end user and purchase upgrades. There are strict limitations because of the life-critical nature.
This is true of many products. If you purchase a Ford chassis or van, you'll notice a sticker on it that informs you that you can not use the vehicle as an ambulance, nor can you build an ambulance from that vehicle. Yet Ford sells thousands of the very same vehicles which are for use as ambulances with very minor changes. Those changes protect life, protect Ford from liability.
Your question about UNIX tho is tricky. You see with Windows you have to go to a single source, Microsoft. If you want Unix then you can go to several sources. I believe that I've seen a similar limitation in the Sun Solaris license. I'm pretty sure of AIX and SCO.
I do know that in any situation where I have installed an OS in a life-critical situation such as yours I made sure that I had something on file that indicated that the OS and all software/hardware in use is ok for that. I get that documentation from the manufacturer. Not having that information in your file is a HUGE liability.
Just to be sure that this sort of thing is not allowed to happen again, perhaps we should get congress to pass some laws against it. And we really do need to look at the EPA regulations regarding this sort of thing and make sure that they are tight.
I'll agree to that to some extent. I would totally agree if John Wayne had been president and men were men and kicked ass just for doing the right thing and putting the "bad guys" in their place.
As with any administration, they had many other problems to deal with. Yes, it was the 1950's and men were men. Yes we did face a potential military threat and needed to stay on top of that. But the country also had a lot of other issues to deal with, not the least of which was the aftereffects of WWII and what to do about the people and economy.
In the early 1960's especially the administration was concerned not only with keeping up with technology, they were concerned with keeping the working man working and productive. They KNEW going into it that the military buildup of the cold war and the creation of a "space race" would help to that end.
Yes, the space race was about not letting those damned commies outdo us. But that was just the paint job on a total vehicle and everyone knew and expected there to be other benefits.
Even as crazy/stupid as our government is, and even in those wonderful male dominated days, common sense would not have allowed such an expensive undertaking just for the sake of a bad case of penis envy.
It might not be a new idea, and I'm sure it's not. But it is a VERY BIG DEAL.
The reason it is a VBD is that every space program in the world right now needs some positive press. Everyone has been so focused on the negative thing, and there have been a lot of negative things, that we've lost sight of even the small successes.
So let's make a big deal of an old trick, pat these guys on the back for being smart enough to dust off the trick and use it, and give them a bit more encouragement to do it better next time.
Otherwise I worry there wont' be a next time.
"The mission to Mars sounds even less appealing once you consider how much cancer / AIDS / environmental / fusion / fuel cell / quantum computing / immortality / (name your favorite project) research it would replace.
"
I think you miss an important effect of exploration such as this. Sometimes it's not the destination, it's the journey.
As someone else mentioned, we gained as much or more in "other" areas as we did actually achieving the goal of reaching the moon. Some of the research that was done to get us to the moon was useful to us here on earth directly. Other tidbits were byproducts of that.
But your comment is a bit like saying that while you would love to visit the UK someday you can't right now because you have laundry to do. Don't put your life on hold just to do the laundry, live a little. Pack up some of that laundry and do it with you on the way.
Can I get you to explain this to my ISP then? They are under the impression that the more bandwidth I use, the larger the pipe they have to have to accomidate that and that the larger pipe cost them more money which is passed on to me.
To that end I had to agree to TOS that says that I won't use whole gobs of bandwidth, and that if I do it can't be sustained rates.
So it's not necessarly that I disagree with you, it's that my ISP does.
As a member of the internet (that being one who is connected to the net, a resident, one who views content or provides content) we pay a fee to connect to the internet. The internet is us, it is both the content viewer and the content provider.
Supply is nothing without demand. Demand is nothing without supply. So yes, I'm telling you that I should have some say because I pay for my end of the traffic already. Slashdot might exist if it didn't have viewers, but what would be the point?
Your arguement would apply if we were talking about a different type of business. Take Wal Mart as an example. I can't bitch about the content of the local store because I don't pay to enter their store. If I want to go to their store I can walk or drive there and purchase what I desire, leave what I don't like on the shelf. Or I can choose to not go at all.
But with the internet I have to pay to connect. The amount I pay is directly related to the size and type of connection I desire. (28K dialup costs less than 56K dialup which is less than DSL, etc). My ISP is very concerned about how much of that pipe I fill. So yes, I have every right to tell content providers that I don't want to pay for their content. Certainly I shouldn't have to pay them to remove unwanted content that they inserted KNOWING FULL WELL that I didn't want that content to begin with.
And if you still you still think that you can use all the bandwidth you want on a residential account, try this: Write a simple script to download all the Red Hat ISO images over and over and over again. Run that script for a week. If your ISP doesn't complain then maybe I'm wrong. But I'll wager that you're going to find yourself being cut off by your ISP, or at the very least, getting a phone call from them insisting that you pay more based on your increased usage. It's extreme I know, but it should prove the point.
"Yeah, right. Kindly ask your ISP to give some of that money to the sites he allegedly charges you for"
/., then I would have to pay thier commercial rates. Those rates are quite a bit more but are based upon the same formula (paying for the amount of traffic).
/. I like the content. But Jesus H Christ on a friggin pony, if I'm gonna open and download a page full of goddam X10 ads with every story on /. I can't afford that. And it's a waste because all that data is transported to me just so I can close the window without ever looking at it.
You missed the point.
As a non-commercial account I pay my ISP and the telco to be able to access the internet and the content that is on the net. I pay for the access. I am charged for the bandwidth that my viewing uses. As a non-commercial account I can also host my own content, but I am only allowed to provide a limited amount of content and anyone who views it is using my bandwidth so I can only have so much traffic.
If I wanted to do something big, like
As a non-commercial account it is important that I limit my traffic. The more crap I pull thru the pipe, the bigger the pipe my ISP has to have, driving costs up which means they have to charge me more for being such a bandwidth pig.
Which is fine.
I want to view
In any case, I'm paying for the bandwidth I use. It isn't right that someone then thinks they have the right to tuck extra crap in there....or give me the option of paying them to not stuff it in there.
It's like me buying gas for my car and Tom Jones telling me he's gonna ride along with me and sing. Or I can pay him to stay home and I wont have to listen to him sing. Who the hell invited him to the party anyway? Sorry but I bought the gas, get the hell out of my car.
My internet connection should be the same way.
It's bad enough I have to accept the ads. Now it seems like extortion.
I already have to pay for an internet connection, why should I also have to pay not to see things?
/. decide to put up ads and so I'm already paying for that to come down the pipe and into my computer.
My ISP and the telco are already charging me for to get the bits and bytes into my computer. Sites, like
Now you want me to pay further NOT to have that stuffed into the mix?
Something is VERY, VERY wrong with that!
If it's so expensive to serve up /. then why not come up with a program of distributed webserving. I'm thinking about some way of serving up a /. like content which is distributed on among the systems of the various posters.
In other words, each poster would post his/her own comment/content on their own http or ftp server. Then some master system or systems would simply redirect you to it.
I don't know, just talking out my ass here and tossing ideas. But I for one am sick and tired of hearing all the excuses for why the internet must be commercial and that the only way it can be commercial is to pay for content or see advertising. There has to be a more simple way.
This is evidence to me that the following is possible:
Imagine a BOD meeting (21st century style with bottled water, not in a smoke filled room). In this BOD meeting sit those who own, and those in control of slashdot.
"Rob, you've got to change the script to remove any anti-microsoft content as it as posting. And the goat.cx stuff has got to go too"
"Uh, yeah. Well, um.....but slashdot is about freedom of speech, power to the people, communication of the masses"
"Sorry Rob, I know how you feel. But Microsoft is buying a lot of advertising with us lately and, quite frankly, they spend enough here to have earned our respect"
"But what about our subscriber base?"
"Look at the numbers guys. Subscriber revenue is one millionth of what advertiser revenue is. And Microsoft is now paying eighty percent of that advertiser revenue. And all that revenue is what's keeping your new bride living in luxury"
"It doesn't make it RIGHT"
"But it's what they want. And if they don't get what they want then they are pulling their account with us. We'll all be looking for jobs and the dot com thing is over. Your next job will consist of asking the customer if they want fries with their lunch"
"Oh. Well, um......will this afternoon be soon enough for those script changes then?"
I've got two 16's and a 64 Memorex. Amazing how much you could do with that much.
And imagine StarOffice running on it!
Oh well, you know the old ZX-81 and tape drive loading was still far more reliable than any PC hardware and Windows combination I've ever seen. IMHO.
On a (slightly) more serious note:
I wonder if anyone has run any *nix on a C64.
"M$ owns the office productivity market."
I think what you mean here is that M$ sells more "office" software than anyone else, and in that you woulc be correct.
However if you look at productivity in the office I don't think that you'll find the most productive and efficient office workers use M$ software. M$ office software is bloated and inefficient and contains a lot of "features" that aren't needed for day to day office production for most users. The same can be said for StarOffice.
The point is that if you're going to deterimne who "owns" productivity, I think you're going to have to count out these fat boys.