"this websites role is a hefty counterbalance to the group think in microsoft-land."
I disagree. Like Democrats, developers in microsoft-land aren't very good at group think. That's a Republican and F/OSS thing. Think of RMS as the Rush Limbaugh of computing (without the money).
Well, I'm a guy who was in diapers about the same time as RMS, and I don't see how a guy who has never worked a real job and has no wife or children can be so damn busy. I don't know about you younger folks, but most people of our generation would consider him a bum. I'll take him seriously when he "graduates" from his student life.
Yes, please do as he says. I'm out of work and not too proud to be a shill for MS (let's see "I love MS Bob!) or even RMS (hmm, "M$ is trying to steal by body hair". Think about it. I'm cheap and easy.
"It's OK when then other companies compete with each other, but if they start to compete with Microsoft then it's unfair..."
Sure. That's why Sun and AOL pushed the government into investigating MS. It was OK to compete with each other, but they thought it was unfair that they had to compete with MS.
When it comes to a monopoly in the computer business, IBM invented both the pot and the kettle. IBM was a lot better at playing the politics than MS, that's why the DOJ could never close the deal on them after investigating for a decade.
Also remember that in order for MS to be successfully sued for anti-trust, servers had to be excluded from the market defined in the suit. If it's OK to define an OS market that is desktop specific, it's equally OK to define a computer market that is limited to mainframes.
"Perhaps there was no physical harm to the children, but I'm sure there will be damage to the reputation of these children if the pictures become widespread."
It might embarrass them, but I doubt it would damage their reputation. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think the faces and bodies go together.
"Not exactly accurate. For starters, Windows NT 3.1/3.5 also ran on Alpha and MIPs, not just x86. More importantly, Windows didn't take off until the 386 came out (and i386 is still the basis for much code, including Linux). Almost no one ran Windows on a 286, and virtually no one on a 8086/8088."
Suddenly you're jumping to Windows NT. I wasn't discussing when Windows "took off", I was talking about its origins. I don't think there was much expectation that legacy applications were going to be binary compatible with Alpha and MIPs. These non-x86 versions had far fewer users than pre-386 versions of Windows.
"Code originally designed to run on a 8086 and 286 won't even run on a 64 bit version of Vista (and 64 bit is the standard now, assuming you want over 3-4gb of ram, depending on BIOS). "
I don't know if your claim is true or not, but 64-bit won't be "the standard" for a few more years.
Fixing holes in their architecture? I don't think it works that way.
It's not that MS is incapable of making a more secure OS, it's just making an Windows-compatible secure OS that is the problem.
People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088).
So far legacy compatibility has more business value than a more secure architecture (at least on the desktop).
Well, you apparently want the masses to be able to view your stuff, so they are relevant. Otherwise you could just use whatever format you want and target your fellow "give a shitters".
Despite my moniker I don't totally agree with you. Clearly there are probably specific features in F/OSS applications that are better than their closed source "equivalents".
What I find unfortunate about F/OSS is that despite the fact that the developers don't have legacy issues and don't have to worry about Wall Street's short-time thinking, most of their applications are still "me too" types. Why not create new OS's that don't bow down to UNIX or Windows or anything else? Why not create new standards that really support web apps and aren't afraid of ditching HTML and HTTP?
What good is "freedom" if you just do the same old same old?
I'd say historically wikipedia's definition is wrong. Nerds were defined by particular interests (e.g. Star Trek, computers, etc) and a particular appearance (e.g. pocket protector, calculator on belt, etc). Being smart or getting good grades wasn't required to be a Nerd.
Now days it seems to be more of a derogatory classification directed toward anyone who isn't a slacker.
You're joking right? If you don't know where you used the words "rampant illegal practices" than perhaps you should see your doctor. I can't in good conscience debate you further.
Slashdot Mirror
"this websites role is a hefty counterbalance to the group think in microsoft-land."
I disagree. Like Democrats, developers in microsoft-land aren't very good at group think. That's a Republican and F/OSS thing. Think of RMS as the Rush Limbaugh of computing (without the money).
So you were an admin for Windows systems and didn't feel like a developer - Perhaps because software development WASN'T YOUR JOB!
Well, I'm a guy who was in diapers about the same time as RMS, and I don't see how a guy who has never worked a real job and has no wife or children can be so damn busy. I don't know about you younger folks, but most people of our generation would consider him a bum. I'll take him seriously when he "graduates" from his student life.
Yes, please do as he says. I'm out of work and not too proud to be a shill for MS (let's see "I love MS Bob!) or even RMS (hmm, "M$ is trying to steal by body hair". Think about it. I'm cheap and easy.
Old CS Professors are still pissed that "any slob in a smelly T-shirt" is able to use a computer thanks to PCs.
includes Google, the Linux Foundation, Oracle, Yahoo and Red Hat as members.
You should thank IBM too, since they taught MS everything they know about FUD.
Gates has no "rags to riches" story nor is he a robber baron.
"IBM in no way forces a customer to use their systems. At any time, a customer could leave and move to another setup."
I agree, but the fact that this was also true of Windows didn't stop MS from losing their case.
"It's OK when then other companies compete with each other, but if they start to compete with Microsoft then it's unfair..."
Sure. That's why Sun and AOL pushed the government into investigating MS. It was OK to compete with each other, but they thought it was unfair that they had to compete with MS.
Actually, it would be much bigger news.
When it comes to a monopoly in the computer business, IBM invented both the pot and the kettle. IBM was a lot better at playing the politics than MS, that's why the DOJ could never close the deal on them after investigating for a decade.
Also remember that in order for MS to be successfully sued for anti-trust, servers had to be excluded from the market defined in the suit. If it's OK to define an OS market that is desktop specific, it's equally OK to define a computer market that is limited to mainframes.
"Perhaps there was no physical harm to the children, but I'm sure there will be damage to the reputation of these children if the pictures become widespread."
It might embarrass them, but I doubt it would damage their reputation. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think the faces and bodies go together.
"Not exactly accurate. For starters, Windows NT 3.1/3.5 also ran on Alpha and MIPs, not just x86. More importantly, Windows didn't take off until the 386 came out (and i386 is still the basis for much code, including Linux). Almost no one ran Windows on a 286, and virtually no one on a 8086/8088."
Suddenly you're jumping to Windows NT. I wasn't discussing when Windows "took off", I was talking about its origins. I don't think there was much expectation that legacy applications were going to be binary compatible with Alpha and MIPs. These non-x86 versions had far fewer users than pre-386 versions of Windows.
"Code originally designed to run on a 8086 and 286 won't even run on a 64 bit version of Vista (and 64 bit is the standard now, assuming you want over 3-4gb of ram, depending on BIOS). "
I don't know if your claim is true or not, but 64-bit won't be "the standard" for a few more years.
"Oh wow 1 flaw, BFD."
Well, you have to add them all up you see..
"A shell that uses objects is asinine."
Right. We forgot that UNIX fans worship ASCII.
Fixing holes in their architecture? I don't think it works that way.
It's not that MS is incapable of making a more secure OS, it's just making an Windows-compatible secure OS that is the problem.
People forget (or weren't alive yet) that Windows roots are on a very limited platform that even a Linux kernel can't run on (no hardware support for "root" on a 8088).
So far legacy compatibility has more business value than a more secure architecture (at least on the desktop).
Well, you apparently want the masses to be able to view your stuff, so they are relevant. Otherwise you could just use whatever format you want and target your fellow "give a shitters".
Like BSDs and Linux, OS X owes more to ATT&T than any other entity. They only exist because AT&T bungled their rights to UNIX.
Despite my moniker I don't totally agree with you. Clearly there are probably specific features in F/OSS applications that are better than their closed source "equivalents".
What I find unfortunate about F/OSS is that despite the fact that the developers don't have legacy issues and don't have to worry about Wall Street's short-time thinking, most of their applications are still "me too" types. Why not create new OS's that don't bow down to UNIX or Windows or anything else? Why not create new standards that really support web apps and aren't afraid of ditching HTML and HTTP?
What good is "freedom" if you just do the same old same old?
"Yes, we should let the fact that many people have no ability to discern quality make the decision for us."
If it's not about other people, just use what you want. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't expect the masses to give a shit about your opinion.
"Seriously, there is a big risk here of blindly hopping into bed with the enemy of our enemy and catching something nasty."
I don't know. It worked so well when we aided the Taliban to fight the Soviets.
I'd say historically wikipedia's definition is wrong. Nerds were defined by particular interests (e.g. Star Trek, computers, etc) and a particular appearance (e.g. pocket protector, calculator on belt, etc). Being smart or getting good grades wasn't required to be a Nerd.
Now days it seems to be more of a derogatory classification directed toward anyone who isn't a slacker.
You're joking right? If you don't know where you used the words "rampant illegal practices" than perhaps you should see your doctor. I can't in good conscience debate you further.
And only on Slashdot is "rampant illegal practices" a synonym for "losing a civil antitrust case".