Actually, Palms have been abject failures. All PDA's have been. Too damn complicated, and too damn expensive. They're as complicated as computers, without a keyboard, a good screen, or a price savings. Palm is hanging on by a thread. God knows how many other PDA's have gone under. People either want a do-everything computer, or a simple, simple, simple box, like a Playstation (games and DVDs and music... put them in, they work), or a cell phone (type in the number, press "talk")
When I was a developer, I got a LOT of use out of Safari. I liked the Oracle books the best, because they're *always* the most expensive, but I could just "check them out" with the same $10/month plan. Very fucking nice.
Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 1
The people who get mad are the big companies with tons of site licenses who are told that they MUST upgrade NOW or pay full retail later. It can easily take two years to roll out a new OS at a big organization, and I think companies are tired of starting all over as soon as they are done.
That's why W2K is here to stay for a long time. It's finally good enough that it can be used indefinately. Hell, DOS still runs a lot of POS systems because DOS is stable as hell.
There's a ton of support. It's not in one place because there are just so damn many Windows developers. You get all of the Windows developers in one place, and it'd dwarf the user base of Slashdot many times over. Saying the "Windows Community" is like saying the "human community".
1. There are too many to form any kind of useful "community".
2. There's no driving common interest, like here at Slashdot. You write code, it works, period.
3. 99% of all *nix geeks can be described in a single paragraph. Windows users are all different kinds of people, with virtually nothing in common.
Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000. I love it. I don't know what the fuck this guy quoted in the article is talking about.
Yep - I am starting to feel that there needs to be some sort of regulation that if a patent has been in *widespread* public use after two years and the patent owner has not announced publically that they own a patent covering such technology, then they should be probhibted from suing implementers of the patent. 'Widespread' is is emphasized as the company or individuals should be able to protect their patent if it can be argued that there was a possibility that they didn't realise that anyone was infringing until date x.
Uh, that is patent law. If a company doesn't defend their patent for a certain period of time, they lose the patent. It's very simple. This ridiculousness was done without consulting a patent lawyer, I'm sure, so it won't even be heard by any judges.
Well, duh. "Conventional wisdom" is that a company needs to earn a profit in order to survive. So far, no companies making solely Linux distributions has come close to making a real profit. I know it's "kooky", this whole "profit" thing, but that's the way it is... How wacky.... A company needing to make a profit... What will they think of next?
I'm not talking about free. Their computers are FAR from free. But if their users, their loyal army of users that's followed them through a lot of shit, expect that service free, and now they're throwing the switch, that's bad. That's a fucking horrible PR move. The need to eat the cost of itools or whatever it is, so they can continue in the PC market. Lots of companies do that... Ever heard of IE? Apple is hanging on by a thread. Their computers are overpriced and plagued with problems the likes of which Wintel hasn't seen since '95. This is a bad time to be yanking the rug out from under so many loyal users who continue to buy their overpriced machines that are obsolete every 2 months.
c'mon Apple. Say it with me. Market share is what's *necessary* to survive in the PC market. They need the economies of scale to keep their products reasonable affordable. This is *not* how you gain market share. Of course, if Apple is just going for the very high end consumer and graphics market, great. But I thought that they were going for the general market with their newer, cheaper Imacs. Oh well, typical Apple shit.
I hope Wal-mart gets a real plan together and makes this work for the customers. If there is confusion about which software will run on it, they should quit selling windows software. Simple. Not like that is the core of their business or anything. The store demo units are always victims of poor setup and little maintence. They could farm out the maintence to a seperate company. A good working linux setup with a pile of apps will sell itself. Remember, you call it bloated, the consumers call it "feature packed".
Hey man, where'd you get that weed you're smoking? Sounds like some good shit.
I would love to read the interview, too. I've never read an interview with a dead person, before. I'd like to ask him about: 1. Why Wal-Mart computerized. 2. What else made Wal-Mart so successful. 4. Is there really life after death?
Wal-Mart and support? I hope you're kidding. Wal-Mart's business plan is to sell as many of a product as they can, with a minimum of returns. Period. The only "support" Wal-MArt has *ever* offered is free assembly of grills.
I'm personally going to Wal-Mart in the next few days to see if A. They're actually carrying them and B. How long the returns line is because C. after they have a return rate of around 90%, Wal-Mart will stop carrying 'em. I give 'em about 2-3 weeks. Wal-Mart doesn't waste time with products that lose them money.
If MS produced quality products, I wouldn't care much about their attempts at complete world domination. But, since they don't produce quality products because they don't have to with the monopoly they have.
Nice troll.
(Remember Bill Gate's quote from some book I read recently which said (approximately), "You don't want them to want your product, you want them to think they cannot survive without your product. Then you win." Or in rough translation, "Don't worry about creating good products, just manuever yourself into a position where they have no choice but to use your products."
Wrong again. I *can't* survive without MS in my retail biz. W2K runs it. The best software only comes out for Windows, and Windows is the only OS that's fast enough, and easy enough to use. MS plays a vital part in my business, and I'm happy to pay them because their product is *that* important to me and it works *that* well.
No, it's not stupid. Bandwidth costs money. I don't want to waste bandwidth on uber-geeks that use OSS because the fact is that they don't buy anything. They're not my customers. Right now, the only peolpe using Netscape or Opera are the ultra-left winger, anti-capitalist nutballs. Those people don't contribute to business at all. On most web sites, they're just leeches. So no, I don't want any non-IE users. Just like I don't want kids. They don't have (legal) credit cards.
I don't know. I'm still waiting to figure out why after 5 years, Mozilla still hasn't implemented the W3C's standard for a click() method on an A tag. IE has supported this for many years.
Then either you're using a Mozilla build from a year ago or you just don't know how to code HTML properly.
Nice troll. My bugs have been languishing in Bugzilla for months. I was writing something that was in the W3C spec that IE supported and Netscape did not
. Jackass.
And there's one more thing: our rights. People have the right to choose whatever they want. If I don't want to use Windows or IE, then that's my choice. Standards are created to make sure that I can still view the Internet, no matter which OS/browser I choose. But people like you are effectively taking away our right to choose.
First off, I can *choose* to write my sites any way I'd like. Secondly, you can either choose to visit them, or not visit them. You can choose what browser to use. It sounds like you're trying to take away my right to *choose* how I code my own websites. Jackass.
Who set these mythical "standards"? I do business online with my websites. Some arbitrary "standards" are irrelevant. What *is* relevant is making the best possible experience for the most possible users. The W3C has been irrelevant for several years now. IE is the de facto standard. If NS and Opera want to compete, they need to make *their* browsers compatible with the new de facto standard.
Hell, even when I tried making my stuff NS compatible, Mozilla is so full of rendering bugs that it was impossible.
That's been a standard business practice for a very long time.)
What do you call a "long" time? Seems to me that in the world of big servers, upgrades have *never* been done unless there's a goddamn good reason too. I don't know about you, but my small business is staying with W2K until there's a very, very, very good reason to upgrade. It costs a lot of money, time, and effort to upgrade. Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is truly stupid.
-Every single one of the W2K boxes have had to been rebuilt at least once in the last 2 years -Three of the boxes have had been rebuilt 3 or more times in this same time period -The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months -Four of the servers have outright locked up and stopped responding even to ping packets
Jesus christ... sounds like you work in one of the worst IT departments I've ever heard of. Can't make a W2K box stable? Jesus... it's a matter of installing, then going to Windows Update. I need a job. Where do you work?
Built for IE! (Score:5) by hkhanna on Thursday June 06, @04:05PM (#3654462) (User #559514 Info) For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.
This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant. Good job, Mozilla!
They've cut off their nose to spite their face. They should've made their browser IE and W3C compatible. As is, people are gonna download it, notice that it renders a lot of pages like shit, and get rid of it. They're gonna pay for their idealism with market share (or lack thereof).
Unless you have enough CPU power and RAM. Starting from a certain configuration, Mozilla is actually *faster* than NS4. Mozilla is slower than NS4 on my Pentium 233, but is much faster than NS4 on my Athlon 1,4 Ghz with 128 MB RAM.
I know this'll get modded as "flamebait" but Mozilla is bloated as hell. I shouldn't need a 1 Ghz machine to run a fucking web browser! The web browser is probably the most used app on most computers... it shouldn't be as bloated and resource intensive as Photoshop. All my PC's are sub 500 mhz boxes. Mozilla is just too slow and bloated for me to use.
Re:Sold like Slaves
on
IBM Spins Down
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Quit fucking whining. Most companies would have just canned all of their people in a situation like this. You father is goddamned lucky to have a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Palms and so on have been successes
Actually, Palms have been abject failures. All PDA's have been. Too damn complicated, and too damn expensive. They're as complicated as computers, without a keyboard, a good screen, or a price savings. Palm is hanging on by a thread. God knows how many other PDA's have gone under. People either want a do-everything computer, or a simple, simple, simple box, like a Playstation (games and DVDs and music... put them in, they work), or a cell phone (type in the number, press "talk")
When I was a developer, I got a LOT of use out of Safari. I liked the Oracle books the best, because they're *always* the most expensive, but I could just "check them out" with the same $10/month plan. Very fucking nice.
The people who get mad are the big companies with tons of site licenses who are told that they MUST upgrade NOW or pay full retail later. It can easily take two years to roll out a new OS at a big organization, and I think companies are tired of starting all over as soon as they are done.
That's why W2K is here to stay for a long time. It's finally good enough that it can be used indefinately. Hell, DOS still runs a lot of POS systems because DOS is stable as hell.
There's a ton of support. It's not in one place because there are just so damn many Windows developers. You get all of the Windows developers in one place, and it'd dwarf the user base of Slashdot many times over. Saying the "Windows Community" is like saying the "human community".
1. There are too many to form any kind of useful "community".
2. There's no driving common interest, like here at Slashdot. You write code, it works, period.
3. 99% of all *nix geeks can be described in a single paragraph. Windows users are all different kinds of people, with virtually nothing in common.
Actually, I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000. I love it. I don't know what the fuck this guy quoted in the article is talking about.
That IS scary! Who do they get their financial news from? The guy on the corner asking for handouts?
Yep - I am starting to feel that there needs to be some sort of regulation that if a patent has been in *widespread* public use after two years and the patent owner has not announced publically that they own a patent covering such technology, then they should be probhibted from suing implementers of the patent. 'Widespread' is is emphasized as the company or individuals should be able to protect their patent if it can be argued that there was a possibility that they didn't realise that anyone was infringing until date x.
Uh, that is patent law. If a company doesn't defend their patent for a certain period of time, they lose the patent. It's very simple. This ridiculousness was done without consulting a patent lawyer, I'm sure, so it won't even be heard by any judges.
Well, duh. "Conventional wisdom" is that a company needs to earn a profit in order to survive. So far, no companies making solely Linux distributions has come close to making a real profit. I know it's "kooky", this whole "profit" thing, but that's the way it is... How wacky.... A company needing to make a profit... What will they think of next?
I'm not talking about free. Their computers are FAR from free. But if their users, their loyal army of users that's followed them through a lot of shit, expect that service free, and now they're throwing the switch, that's bad. That's a fucking horrible PR move. The need to eat the cost of itools or whatever it is, so they can continue in the PC market. Lots of companies do that... Ever heard of IE? Apple is hanging on by a thread. Their computers are overpriced and plagued with problems the likes of which Wintel hasn't seen since '95. This is a bad time to be yanking the rug out from under so many loyal users who continue to buy their overpriced machines that are obsolete every 2 months.
c'mon Apple. Say it with me. Market share is what's *necessary* to survive in the PC market. They need the economies of scale to keep their products reasonable affordable. This is *not* how you gain market share. Of course, if Apple is just going for the very high end consumer and graphics market, great. But I thought that they were going for the general market with their newer, cheaper Imacs. Oh well, typical Apple shit.
I hope Wal-mart gets a real plan together and makes this work for the customers. If there is confusion about which software will run on it, they should quit selling windows software. Simple. Not like that is the core of their business or anything. The store demo units are always victims of poor setup and little maintence. They could farm out the maintence to a seperate company. A good working linux setup with a pile of apps will sell itself. Remember, you call it bloated, the consumers call it "feature packed".
Hey man, where'd you get that weed you're smoking? Sounds like some good shit.
I would love to read the interview, too. I've never read an interview with a dead person, before. I'd like to ask him about:
1. Why Wal-Mart computerized.
2. What else made Wal-Mart so successful.
4. Is there really life after death?
Wal-Mart and support? I hope you're kidding. Wal-Mart's business plan is to sell as many of a product as they can, with a minimum of returns. Period. The only "support" Wal-MArt has *ever* offered is free assembly of grills.
I'm personally going to Wal-Mart in the next few days to see if A. They're actually carrying them and B. How long the returns line is because C. after they have a return rate of around 90%, Wal-Mart will stop carrying 'em. I give 'em about 2-3 weeks. Wal-Mart doesn't waste time with products that lose them money.
If MS produced quality products, I wouldn't care much about their attempts at complete world domination. But, since they don't produce quality products because they don't have to with the monopoly they have.
Nice troll.
(Remember Bill Gate's quote from some book I read recently which said (approximately), "You don't want them to want your product, you want them to think they cannot survive without your product. Then you win." Or in rough translation, "Don't worry about creating good products, just manuever yourself into a position where they have no choice but to use your products."
Wrong again. I *can't* survive without MS in my retail biz. W2K runs it. The best software only comes out for Windows, and Windows is the only OS that's fast enough, and easy enough to use. MS plays a vital part in my business, and I'm happy to pay them because their product is *that* important to me and it works *that* well.
No, it's not stupid. Bandwidth costs money. I don't want to waste bandwidth on uber-geeks that use OSS because the fact is that they don't buy anything. They're not my customers. Right now, the only peolpe using Netscape or Opera are the ultra-left winger, anti-capitalist nutballs. Those people don't contribute to business at all. On most web sites, they're just leeches. So no, I don't want any non-IE users. Just like I don't want kids. They don't have (legal) credit cards.
I don't know. I'm still waiting to figure out why after 5 years, Mozilla still hasn't implemented the W3C's standard for a click() method on an A tag. IE has supported this for many years.
The new defacto standard *is* published:
New standards
Then either you're using a Mozilla build from a year ago or you just don't know how to code HTML properly.
Nice troll. My bugs have been languishing in Bugzilla for months. I was writing something that was in the W3C spec that IE supported and Netscape did not
. Jackass.
And there's one more thing: our rights. People have the right to choose whatever they want. If I don't want to use Windows or IE, then that's my choice. Standards are created to make sure that I can still view the Internet, no matter which OS/browser I choose. But people like you are effectively taking away our right to choose.
First off, I can *choose* to write my sites any way I'd like. Secondly, you can either choose to visit them, or not visit them. You can choose what browser to use. It sounds like you're trying to take away my right to *choose* how I code my own websites. Jackass.
Who set these mythical "standards"? I do business online with my websites. Some arbitrary "standards" are irrelevant. What *is* relevant is making the best possible experience for the most possible users. The W3C has been irrelevant for several years now. IE is the de facto standard. If NS and Opera want to compete, they need to make *their* browsers compatible with the new de facto standard.
Hell, even when I tried making my stuff NS compatible, Mozilla is so full of rendering bugs that it was impossible.
That's been a standard business practice for a very long time.)
What do you call a "long" time? Seems to me that in the world of big servers, upgrades have *never* been done unless there's a goddamn good reason too. I don't know about you, but my small business is staying with W2K until there's a very, very, very good reason to upgrade. It costs a lot of money, time, and effort to upgrade. Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is truly stupid.
-Every single one of the W2K boxes have had to been rebuilt at least once in the last 2 years
-Three of the boxes have had been rebuilt 3 or more times in this same time period
-The record uptime for our W2K servers is 3 months
-Four of the servers have outright locked up and stopped responding even to ping packets
Jesus christ... sounds like you work in one of the worst IT departments I've ever heard of. Can't make a W2K box stable? Jesus... it's a matter of installing, then going to Windows Update. I need a job. Where do you work?
Built for IE! (Score:5)
by hkhanna on Thursday June 06, @04:05PM (#3654462)
(User #559514 Info)
For one thing, Mozilla doesn't always render Web pages the same way IE does. Why does that matter? Many Web designers have built sites primarily for IE, and those pages look odd in Mozilla.
This is what irks me. The web is supposed to be platform-neutral, not built for IE. Mozilla, IMHO is doing the right thing by not making its browser conform to the skewed standards IE has set. I say let those pages that are "built for IE" look like crap. Sooner or later, Mozilla will gain market share (we hope,) and people will have to begin building web pages that are standards-compliant not IE-compliant. Good job, Mozilla!
They've cut off their nose to spite their face. They should've made their browser IE and W3C compatible. As is, people are gonna download it, notice that it renders a lot of pages like shit, and get rid of it. They're gonna pay for their idealism with market share (or lack thereof).
Unless you have enough CPU power and RAM. Starting from a certain configuration, Mozilla is actually *faster* than NS4.
Mozilla is slower than NS4 on my Pentium 233, but is much faster than NS4 on my Athlon 1,4 Ghz with 128 MB RAM.
I know this'll get modded as "flamebait" but Mozilla is bloated as hell. I shouldn't need a 1 Ghz machine to run a fucking web browser! The web browser is probably the most used app on most computers... it shouldn't be as bloated and resource intensive as Photoshop. All my PC's are sub 500 mhz boxes. Mozilla is just too slow and bloated for me to use.
Quit fucking whining. Most companies would have just canned all of their people in a situation like this. You father is goddamned lucky to have a job.