Well, the problem is is that this article is not news. It hasn't been news for a long, long time. It seems that the editors meet every few hours and say, "Well, we haven't- posted anything anti-MS in the last hour... let's just rehash this Palladium thing. It'll get us some more traffic, and people can gab ad-infinitum about how evil MS is."
Re:Especially when you see the adds :)
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Slashdot stands behind virtually nothing. The company is on the verge of going under, so they've pulled out the stops. On top of the incessant MS ads for a supposedly anti-MS site, they also don't write their pages with the new security header that they proclaim is the best thing since sliced bread, and they also are owned by a company that makes it's living from selling proprietary software, and very aggressively enforcing their IP (see the 10K for LNUX... too tired to get the link again).
Call me nuts, but I'd rather have an actual working product that *may* have a security bug that happens if you happen to go to one of three web pages on the entire Net. DHTML working is very, very basic. No, actually, in this day and age, DHTML is essential. That's like releasing Apache and saying "ooops, sorry, serving web pages through port 80 isn't working. Minor bug. We'll re-release." You can't have a security problem until you at least have a working product.
this is considered a serious bug--who actually uses DHTML?
I'll give your troll a C. I'm sorry, but this is just too ridiculous to even be considered close to anything resembling intelligent thought. If you're going to troll, try to at least use some fact next time. But, the effort was there (more than a one line troll), which is why you didn't fail altogether. Work on your trolls and please try again.
All anti-MS, all the time
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1, Troll
I'm thinking... maybe Slashdot should get another URL, maybe, http://www.iamreallyboredandIhavenothingbettertodo thantocriticizeMSevery5minutes.com
This hourly "M$ sucks because..." is getting very, very old and very childish.
This isn't a complete technology leap, though. This stuff exists, it's just expensive and hard to find, primarily because of lack of demand. I think a more appropriate question in 1870 would be: "If you could talk to anyone in the country any time from your own home through a box on the wall for $0.xx per minute, would you do it?" A person in 1870 would be a big flabbergasted, but they'd be able to think, "Sure, I could talk to my family without having to take a 3 day trip, I could talk to the guys at the store before making a 1 hour drive there, etc."
These companies asking "would you send pictures/video, etc. via your phone if it cost $xx.xx/month?" isn't a big leap. People know that it could be done. They know what it is. It's just that there honestly isn't any use for it for most people. I know, that I have no idea why I would want this service. If I need to send someone a picture, I turn on the computer, and send via email. It's done. I've never been anywhere where the need to send a picture or a video was so great that I *HAD* to do it right there over my phone, like they're showing in the ads. It's just ridiculous. They're trying to fill a non-existent need for a non-existent market.
No, "cola" is a generic term to describe a soft drink made with coca beans made by a wide variety of manufacturers under many, many product names. You can go to the store and buy generic "cola". "Windows", when describing software, describes a very specific group of products made by a specific company.
For example, what happened to 3G Video phones, or using 3G to send video clips to each other? These are all things that can be done with today's 2.5G technologies - GPRS and 1XRTT.
True they *can* be done with other technologies, but I think that the point is that people just don't need to do this stuff, with *any* technology. It's still just gee-whiz stuff without any real purpose outside of, "check out my new toy, Bob!".
I, for one, don't understand how major companies with gigantic R&D and marketing budgets can proceed to spend billions on infrastructure without doing just a bit of market research first. I think that asking a few thousand people, "Would you use a video phone if it cost this much?" would cost a few grand, and would very quickly tell them what they needed to know. Sounds like these companies didn't even do that much.
You definitely can use "Windows" when advertising a software product, as in "Works with Windows", or "Best xxx for Windows". But by using Windows in the name, the implication is that your package is in some way related to MS Windows, which is generally grounds for legal action. Just like if you made a soda can holder and called it the "Coca-Cola can holder". Can't do that.
No, you're responsible. Software can be used in bad, bad ways these days. What you're saying is along the lines of, "I've developed this bomb that is great for demolishing buildings. One tiny bomb can do it in one shot. Here's the recipie for everybody.", and then acting surprised when you found out some nasties got their hands on it and used it to kill thousands of innocent people. You *are* responsible. How you keep it out of bad guys' hands is your problem, since you're the one who decided to give it out for free.
I have no idea. But when you build something and throw it out there intending for *anybody* to use it, you are responsible for it. You can't say the consequences are unintended, either, because when you create something under an OS license, you specifically say that *anybody* can use it, including terrorists, oppressive governments, etc.
I don't think that this is funny at all. If anything, OSS is *more* to blame. OSS groups not only provide software for countries like China to use, but they do it at no cost. I think that OSS developers *should* be responsible for illegal and immoral uses of their software, also.
You're talking about anecdotal evidence of a few vocal people vs. scientific surveys of thousands upon thousands of people from all parts of the world. I'd definitely say that "people" do *not* hate Microsoft.
I can also make a web page that says "penguins love David Hasselhoff", and if you searched Google, it'd probably be at the top of the list. That in no way, shape, or form validates the statement that "penguins love David Hasselhoff".
Well, I seem to remember "XF86Config" being in some etc/ directory. "XF86Config" has nothing to do with graphics configuration other than config. So yes, comparing 1 among thousands of text files buried in a directory with some obtuse name seems very, very obscure compared to "Settings/Control Panel/Display" or just right clicking on the desktop.
I think that anyone sitting down in front of Windows for the first time would probably find the resolution settings in about 10 minutes, vs. *never* finding the settings in Linux without reading scads of documentation, asking people, figuring out how to navigate the file system, etc.
Actually, yes, I am willing to pay for good, solid software. Being a former developer, I understand the time and effort that goes into software, so I know that it would be a good bit more expensive. That's why I chose W2K over Linux. It "just works". That's why I chose my expensive POS system over a freebie. It's extremely critical to my business (and me being able to support myself). It works. But, I still don't feel like I have legal recourse to go after a company with software that doesn't work as advertised. I don't have the time & money to set a legal precedent, but I wish that somebody would. I'd also pay for a hard drive that worked for a long time and had a good warranty. I also pay extra to buy Japanese cars that last longer, and have better warranties.
So many software buyers feel like they're at the mercy of the software companies. Software quality is just abyssimal compared to other products. Then, they all try to claim that "our software may or may not work as advertised, and we absolve ourself of any liability". I know of no other product on the planet that is sold this way.
Wait a second... someone posts something patently untrue, with no way to prove it, and I disprove it by finding some links, and I'm spouting propaganda? Whoa. There are some seriously dillusional posters here.
Well, if you want to take some anecdotal evidence like your own, how about just changing resolution in X? It took me several hours, and a splitting headache to find the obscure little text file and figure out what it needed to be edited to just change the resolution. In W2K, it's control panel, display, settings.
And in your anecdote, yes, Alt+F4 is wrong for MDI interfaces. It's supposed to be Ctrl+F4. I still don't see that as how Windows is any harder to use.
No, they wouldn't have any more volume. People want Windows. People really, really want Windows. There aren't any really, really good alternatives right now, other than OSX, which is overpriced when the proprietary hardware is taken into consideration. MS is charging as much as they can get because that's what businesses do. There's very little switching to alternatives right now, so MS would probably see a net loss in revenue by dropping prices (especially on the desktop pieces).
You're exactly right. When I buy a piece of software, it should work, period. I shouldn't have to look at source code at all, just like I don't have to ask Honda who makes their starters, and in turn as the starter manufacturer who they buy their windings from, and check out the winding manufacturers, and check the quality of the copper. That's bullshit. Software should be warrantied, and if it doesn't work as sold, it's fraud. Period. Software license agreements that say "we don't warranty this product" need to be challeneged in court because they are simply illegal. Just like those truck on the highway that say "we aren't responsible for damaged windshields". That's bullshit. They're carrying gravel, it's uncovered, gravel flies out and hits your car, they're liable, regardless of what the back of the truck says.
We need to see some civil cases in which software companies are challeneged based on nonperformance of their products. It's not my responsibility to check the source code. My responsibility ends when I pay someone for the product. Period. I don't want to see the source code. I want the product to work.
Yup... There aren't a whole lot of other types of sites that get that kind of traffic. Besides, I think that porn is one of those truly universal web apps that has a good cross-section from all parts of society. Very representative. My sites by OS:
Windows 98 49.78% Windows NT 39.13% Windows 95 4.29% Macintosh PPC 2.45% Unknown 1.97% Windows 3.1x 1.55% LINUX 0.79% BSD UNIX 0.02% SUN OS 0.01% Macintosh 0.00% Amiga 0.00% OS/2 0.00% HP-UNIX 0.00%
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the problem is is that this article is not news. It hasn't been news for a long, long time. It seems that the editors meet every few hours and say, "Well, we haven't- posted anything anti-MS in the last hour... let's just rehash this Palladium thing. It'll get us some more traffic, and people can gab ad-infinitum about how evil MS is."
Slashdot stands behind virtually nothing. The company is on the verge of going under, so they've pulled out the stops. On top of the incessant MS ads for a supposedly anti-MS site, they also don't write their pages with the new security header that they proclaim is the best thing since sliced bread, and they also are owned by a company that makes it's living from selling proprietary software, and very aggressively enforcing their IP (see the 10K for LNUX... too tired to get the link again).
Call me nuts, but I'd rather have an actual working product that *may* have a security bug that happens if you happen to go to one of three web pages on the entire Net. DHTML working is very, very basic. No, actually, in this day and age, DHTML is essential. That's like releasing Apache and saying "ooops, sorry, serving web pages through port 80 isn't working. Minor bug. We'll re-release." You can't have a security problem until you at least have a working product.
this is considered a serious bug--who actually uses DHTML?
I'll give your troll a C. I'm sorry, but this is just too ridiculous to even be considered close to anything resembling intelligent thought. If you're going to troll, try to at least use some fact next time. But, the effort was there (more than a one line troll), which is why you didn't fail altogether. Work on your trolls and please try again.
I'm thinking... maybe Slashdot should get another URL, maybe, http://www.iamreallyboredandIhavenothingbettertodo thantocriticizeMSevery5minutes.com
This hourly "M$ sucks because..." is getting very, very old and very childish.
This isn't a complete technology leap, though. This stuff exists, it's just expensive and hard to find, primarily because of lack of demand. I think a more appropriate question in 1870 would be: "If you could talk to anyone in the country any time from your own home through a box on the wall for $0.xx per minute, would you do it?" A person in 1870 would be a big flabbergasted, but they'd be able to think, "Sure, I could talk to my family without having to take a 3 day trip, I could talk to the guys at the store before making a 1 hour drive there, etc."
These companies asking "would you send pictures/video, etc. via your phone if it cost $xx.xx/month?" isn't a big leap. People know that it could be done. They know what it is. It's just that there honestly isn't any use for it for most people. I know, that I have no idea why I would want this service. If I need to send someone a picture, I turn on the computer, and send via email. It's done. I've never been anywhere where the need to send a picture or a video was so great that I *HAD* to do it right there over my phone, like they're showing in the ads. It's just ridiculous. They're trying to fill a non-existent need for a non-existent market.
No, "cola" is a generic term to describe a soft drink made with coca beans made by a wide variety of manufacturers under many, many product names. You can go to the store and buy generic "cola". "Windows", when describing software, describes a very specific group of products made by a specific company.
For example, what happened to 3G Video phones, or using 3G to send video clips to each other? These are all things that can be done with today's 2.5G technologies - GPRS and 1XRTT.
True they *can* be done with other technologies, but I think that the point is that people just don't need to do this stuff, with *any* technology. It's still just gee-whiz stuff without any real purpose outside of, "check out my new toy, Bob!".
I, for one, don't understand how major companies with gigantic R&D and marketing budgets can proceed to spend billions on infrastructure without doing just a bit of market research first. I think that asking a few thousand people, "Would you use a video phone if it cost this much?" would cost a few grand, and would very quickly tell them what they needed to know. Sounds like these companies didn't even do that much.
You definitely can use "Windows" when advertising a software product, as in "Works with Windows", or "Best xxx for Windows". But by using Windows in the name, the implication is that your package is in some way related to MS Windows, which is generally grounds for legal action. Just like if you made a soda can holder and called it the "Coca-Cola can holder". Can't do that.
No, you're responsible. Software can be used in bad, bad ways these days. What you're saying is along the lines of, "I've developed this bomb that is great for demolishing buildings. One tiny bomb can do it in one shot. Here's the recipie for everybody.", and then acting surprised when you found out some nasties got their hands on it and used it to kill thousands of innocent people. You *are* responsible. How you keep it out of bad guys' hands is your problem, since you're the one who decided to give it out for free.
I have no idea. But when you build something and throw it out there intending for *anybody* to use it, you are responsible for it. You can't say the consequences are unintended, either, because when you create something under an OS license, you specifically say that *anybody* can use it, including terrorists, oppressive governments, etc.
I don't think that this is funny at all. If anything, OSS is *more* to blame. OSS groups not only provide software for countries like China to use, but they do it at no cost. I think that OSS developers *should* be responsible for illegal and immoral uses of their software, also.
You're talking about anecdotal evidence of a few vocal people vs. scientific surveys of thousands upon thousands of people from all parts of the world. I'd definitely say that "people" do *not* hate Microsoft.
I can also make a web page that says "penguins love David Hasselhoff", and if you searched Google, it'd probably be at the top of the list. That in no way, shape, or form validates the statement that "penguins love David Hasselhoff".
Well, I seem to remember "XF86Config" being in some etc/ directory. "XF86Config" has nothing to do with graphics configuration other than config. So yes, comparing 1 among thousands of text files buried in a directory with some obtuse name seems very, very obscure compared to "Settings/Control Panel/Display" or just right clicking on the desktop.
I think that anyone sitting down in front of Windows for the first time would probably find the resolution settings in about 10 minutes, vs. *never* finding the settings in Linux without reading scads of documentation, asking people, figuring out how to navigate the file system, etc.
Actually, yes, I am willing to pay for good, solid software. Being a former developer, I understand the time and effort that goes into software, so I know that it would be a good bit more expensive. That's why I chose W2K over Linux. It "just works". That's why I chose my expensive POS system over a freebie. It's extremely critical to my business (and me being able to support myself). It works. But, I still don't feel like I have legal recourse to go after a company with software that doesn't work as advertised. I don't have the time & money to set a legal precedent, but I wish that somebody would. I'd also pay for a hard drive that worked for a long time and had a good warranty. I also pay extra to buy Japanese cars that last longer, and have better warranties.
So many software buyers feel like they're at the mercy of the software companies. Software quality is just abyssimal compared to other products. Then, they all try to claim that "our software may or may not work as advertised, and we absolve ourself of any liability". I know of no other product on the planet that is sold this way.
Wait a second... someone posts something patently untrue, with no way to prove it, and I disprove it by finding some links, and I'm spouting propaganda? Whoa. There are some seriously dillusional posters here.
Well, if you want to take some anecdotal evidence like your own, how about just changing resolution in X? It took me several hours, and a splitting headache to find the obscure little text file and figure out what it needed to be edited to just change the resolution. In W2K, it's control panel, display, settings.
And in your anecdote, yes, Alt+F4 is wrong for MDI interfaces. It's supposed to be Ctrl+F4. I still don't see that as how Windows is any harder to use.
Considering the fact that they have cash reserves that would make god blush, I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon.
People hate Microsoft
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. etc., etc. You're wrong.
Red Hat is one of the fastest growing companies in America
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Sorry to make you look so incredibly wrong, but you posted first. I just couldn't let that fly. By the way, what planet do you live on, exactly?
No, they wouldn't have any more volume. People want Windows. People really, really want Windows. There aren't any really, really good alternatives right now, other than OSX, which is overpriced when the proprietary hardware is taken into consideration. MS is charging as much as they can get because that's what businesses do. There's very little switching to alternatives right now, so MS would probably see a net loss in revenue by dropping prices (especially on the desktop pieces).
80% profit? Really? I didn't read that in their 10K. How'd you come up with that number?
Well, last I checked, lowering prices is a very good example of "competition". They're lowering prices to compete. It's microeconomics 101.
Yes companies lower prices all of the time. It's called "competition". It's a *good* thing.
You're exactly right. When I buy a piece of software, it should work, period. I shouldn't have to look at source code at all, just like I don't have to ask Honda who makes their starters, and in turn as the starter manufacturer who they buy their windings from, and check out the winding manufacturers, and check the quality of the copper. That's bullshit. Software should be warrantied, and if it doesn't work as sold, it's fraud. Period. Software license agreements that say "we don't warranty this product" need to be challeneged in court because they are simply illegal. Just like those truck on the highway that say "we aren't responsible for damaged windshields". That's bullshit. They're carrying gravel, it's uncovered, gravel flies out and hits your car, they're liable, regardless of what the back of the truck says.
We need to see some civil cases in which software companies are challeneged based on nonperformance of their products. It's not my responsibility to check the source code. My responsibility ends when I pay someone for the product. Period. I don't want to see the source code. I want the product to work.
That's on your porn site I presume?
Yup... There aren't a whole lot of other types of sites that get that kind of traffic. Besides, I think that porn is one of those truly universal web apps that has a good cross-section from all parts of society. Very representative. My sites by OS:
Windows 98 49.78%
Windows NT 39.13%
Windows 95 4.29%
Macintosh PPC 2.45%
Unknown 1.97%
Windows 3.1x 1.55%
LINUX 0.79%
BSD UNIX 0.02%
SUN OS 0.01%
Macintosh 0.00%
Amiga 0.00%
OS/2 0.00%
HP-UNIX 0.00%