Corel released a full version of Wordperfect 8 for Linux. How many people actually bought it? Apparently not enough to make them want to update it to the current version.
Yeah it worked by working with wine and it SUCKED!!!! It was in no way as good as the Windows version. I was VERY disapointed with it and after I bought it, I recomended others to NOT buy it. After that, I had no respect for Corel as a "Linux" company.
Next phase: penalties. How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"
I can see the apology letter now...
"We are very sorry we told you about our wonderfull offer to get rich while looking at hot girls at www.hotXXX.Financial.com. The State of Washington says that telling you about this great deal at www.hotXXX.Financial.com was wrong and so we are so sorry.
... sure, there's another project ('Chimera') to create a Mac OS X-friendly version of Mozilla, but there shouldn't *have* to be; the original Mozilla shouldn't be such a Frankenstein's monster on Mac OS X in the first place.
I disagree. Mozilla should NOT try to make a browser for a specific desktop. I like the fact that Galeon is out there for Linux and Chimera is out there for Mac. Mozilla is turning out to be an excellent collection of components for others to build excelent browsers around. It really is a waist of time for them to paint the pretty browser when there are people on various platforms who know thier platform BETTER and who have a personal interest in getting the GUI stuff right. I want the Mozilla developers to keep developing excellent components and work on making those components easier to use so that OTHERS can build the browser you want.
If this patch was distributed through Windows Update as a critical update, and thus was auto-installed on my machine through my XP Auto-Update configuration, then it's not like I've agreed to a new EULA, right?
If you are using auto update then I would not worry about this EULA. You have essentially given Microsoft the right to do anything they want at thier convenience anyway.
Was Turbo C available for any system other than DOS back in 1991? I think not.
As if that stopped Linus when to compile Linux, you needed Minix on another partition of your hard drive. Besides, I was giving Turbo C as a concrete example and not neccesarily the best one. Before GCC, BSD was being compiled on various hardware. My point is that Linus chose the tool that was the most convenient at the time but it does not make the tool irreplacable (or more important than the achievement done by the tool).
I think not. GCC was irreplaceable in compiling linux because Linus had said, from the outset, he wanted a cheap Unix-alike.
Borland C compiler was for about 50 US dollars. Right now linux has some specific GCC instructions so it will only compile with GCC. BUT if Linus had started off with Turbo C, it would probably only compiled with Turbo C (Borlands compiler). Linus has shown that he is willing to use "proprietary code" if it fits his needs best as he has said and shown (as the case with Bit Keeper). Some people think that because a person has chosen to do something a certain way that it was the ONLY way that it could have been done. It is so absurd that I won't even waist my time discussing it further.
I think if GCC did not exist, Linus could have found another c compiler to do the job. GCC was the compiler he used because it was convenient but NOT IRREPLACABLE. There were other C compilers for the 386.
Eventually, Amazon and Half.com are going to really hurt the publishing industry too. We need to find some balanced, middle ground. I wish someone could suggest something.
WRONG! Many people will only buy new books because they like thier books to be nice and neat. Others only buy used or go to the library. The fact is that for a ton of USED books to be posible, AN EVEN LARGER number of new books would have needed to be sold. Just face it- if a book has a huge "used" market, it has to be a great "new" market as well and therefor the publisher and author are getting well paid for their work. And hey- if used books start killing publishers, I am sure they can raise or lower the price of thier books to either kill the supply (raise price so only people who really wanted to own the books will buy them) of used books or eliminate the demand for them (lower price of new books to the extent that nobody will want to mess with possible torn pages or other blemishes incrued from other owners). But it really comes down to this: Publishers make a ton of money and until this is not a fact, then it is stupid to speculate. With speculation like this posters, LIBRARIES might have been OUTLAWED!
I think it is fine to charge for viewing slashdot free of various advertisements BUT I HATE the idea of micropayment and paying per page. If I pay xyz to have access to slashdot then I don't want to think of how many times I have reloaded the page or to suddenly get full fledged adds after xyz months. A yearly subscription is the simplest and best. If I get a subscription to an advertisement free magazine, no matter how many times I look at it, it will still be free of advertisements. Slashdot should think of itself as an electronic magazine and act the same way.
If slashdot could maintain "editorial independence" from VA Linux when they were bought, why couldn't Red Hat negotiate some kind of persistence of it's vision?
I am getting the impression this is a hostile takeover and that AOL is just going to buy enouph RHAT stock to vote in the merge. Slashdot was owned privately so the previous owners could negotiate terms with the buyer. A public company is owned by stockholders and if you own enouph stock, you can do what you want to a company. I own a 1000 shares of Red Hat and I intend to sell rouphly around $12 if AOL/TW's play is true. Why? I own RHAT because I think it has a viable bussiness plan and was undervalued when I bought it. If AOL is willing to give me an additional (hypothetically) $4,000 dollars for my piece of the company, I and many others will say it is good bussiness. Public companies can't ask for many conditions/terms because stock holders generally are not interested in the principals of a company but how much value they can get out of it. $12 is very likely VERY modest. More likely if this is all true then RHAT stock could likely go to $16 - $24 dollar range.
You should build it on your home machine or test box and run it for a while to help iron out the bugs
I agree with you ONLY IF you have a test box. I would not want to risk the data on my everyday use home box. If I had a test box, that is where this kernel would go.
This new-fangled Open Source thing only works if the end users hold up our end of the bargain. They release early and often, and we build and test it.
Even of open source users, we don't want them ALL to test stuff. Only those who are 1. Willing to take the risks of using dev. software and 2. Those that have the ability and DESIRE to return bug reports (and believe me when I say this is a more "elite" group than you might think). The trick of open source is that it ALLOWS people who are INTERESTED in the developement of a project to help. It does NOT mean that most people SHOULD. I would not want my girlfriend trying to recompile a kernel and then expect her to try to give a helpfull bug report to lkml. Even the testers of a new developement kernel should be very sophisticated users.
Also you may have lowered the stability of your machine by slowing it down that much. Certain parts of the logic need to 'refresh' to maintain their state, and when the designer assumes that the minimum speed a CPU will be sold at is 1.something Ghz, they might not make sure the charge sticks around long enough to work at less then half of the intended clock speed.
Actually, I underclocked my machine because I was trying to insure stability (not that I had any anyway but then it never hurt). I am told that a lot of servers are underclocked for the same purpose. I also had the idea that my cpu would run cooler thus reducing any chances of overheating and at the same time saving electricity since I keep my main machine on 24/7. As for instability, I have had none of that and I would not expect to. That is usually an OVER CLOCKER problem (which I believe AMD and Intel do which is indicated by the need for huge heat sinks and fans).
I just don't get the desire for machines faster than 600 mghz. The CPU is going at least twice as fast as any other component on a PC machine. What I did recently was buy a DDR motherboard to get ram that ran at 133 mghz (advertised at 266 mghz) and so I got a AMD 1.4 gigahertz cpu with it. One of the nice features of the motherboard was the ability to change the clock rate of cpu and bus. I LOWERED the clock rate of my CPU to 800 mghz and my machine is as responsive as I would ever want it to be. When I hear that Intel is charging twice the price for thier 2.0 gigahertz CPU as thier 1.8 ghz and people go out in droves to buy the 2 ghz anyway boggles me! Most of them don't need the speed of either CPU AND people are willing to pay 100% more money for a measly 10% performance boost. Ten years ago, Most PC's came with a "turbo button" on the case with the idea that only when you really had to use the the cycles would you press turbo and the CPU would go twice as fast. Back then, the button was pointless because when computers were going at 66 mgz, processors would regularly be very busy. But today the Turbo Button would actually be a nice feature. When doing word-processing or surfing the web, have the machine go slow but then when playing quake 18 (Revenge of the killer CPU), press the turbo button so the bloatware can look sweet. However, for people who REALLY NEED more power (all of the time) *couph* *couph*... SMP looks to be the far better alternative than these monster single cpu solutions.
I could never get into the whole small pc thing. Every time I have to fiddle with small case computers, I have visions of hell turned loose. To me a "sweet computer" is one in which everything is easily upgradable and insertable. On my last computer, I replaced every component except the actual case (which I am also planning to do soon with an addtronics 7896 case). This thing is just begging to be outdated before it is even fashionable due to when the next cool graphics card comes out or when 600X cd roms are all the minimum on games or even just to upgrade ram.
I think Alan did an excelent job maintaining 2.2. Now that he has officially left/declined the role of 2.4 maintainer, the question arrises to what/who is maintaining 2.2 (I am assumming Alan is looking to avoid all kernel maintenance for awhile)? My suspision is that it will soon "lay fallow" but I believe most distributions have not yet made the full leap to 2.4 yet. What I am curious about is how much longer will Alan maintain it? It would be ironic if 2.0.x had a maintainer but 2.2.x had none!
I just don't get them... MS is in an anti-trust case against them for leveraging thier monopoly to take over the browser market and now they do this?!? What are they thinking of... I just hope the DOJ don't miss this. I would have thought they would have been timid with anything close to this kind of stuff until AFTER the court case is over.
Re:Which releases are production stable?
on
Linux 2.4.13
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I must say that I am getting a little bit leary about using the 2.4.x series in production. The fast releases don't inspire confidence. On one hand people (perhaps rightfully so) say don't use a kernel that is newer than 6 mo. old or you are a beta tester.
For a production enviroment, I would get a Red Hat or SUSE (or any other large distributor's) kernel and just use that. They are heavily tested and heavily used kernels.
I for one would not upgrade to 2.4 on a serious production server yet unless thier is something 2.2 is missing that you need.
If you're talking a 50 year outlook, then *surely* there will be something mucb better than Linux by then?
I expect "Linux" will not be "Linux" in 50 years or at least not the OS we use today. Linux is an evolving OS. The kernel is becomming more robust and the applications on top of it are becomming much better. It also has something few other OS's have at the moment: A large *community* of developers and users who have a personal AND commercial interest in seeing it thrive. Remember that when MS was 10 - 11 years into the PC OS bussiness, they were still peddling DOS and windows 3.1. Linux has had a much better progression when looked at that way.
Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser!
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 2
Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla all on ONE list, I dont mean jabber but i mean OFFICIAL clients, Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.
Will AOL provide the source code and copyright it the way Mozilla is? No? Forget about it! It would only be CONSIDERABLE (but not desirable) if that stuff was also under the same license as Mozilla itself.
Once again, when more people get broadband it will be more important to pre cache websites by downloading BEFORE people actually click it, this gives them the illusion that things are faster because they dont have to "wait" for a page to load, its already loaded. For people on 56k i can see why they might complain, but please put some broadband options into Mozilla.
For this comment I can only say "those must be some good drugs you are taking." I could see it now: You go to a "favorite links" page and instead of happily clicking through, Mozilla tries to dowload gigs of data!
Without profiling you or intruding on your privacy in any way?
Man, you don't want much, do you?
I notice that slashdot tends to have banners that aim toward what geeks like and want. When I click on the finnance link on yahoo, I get adds from brokerage firms and the such. That is INTELEGENT MARKETING. You do not need to snoop around in peoples personal lives to target advertising intelegently. When I am on a Website like Anandtech.com or Tomshardware.com, I hope they have banner adds for PC hardware companies. You sell what people are interested in reading about. So easy and yet so many websites ignore that fundamental.
When people would report a problem, Rik would pretty much say: I don't have time to work on so and so.. feel free to pay me or convince my employeer to fund the work.
From what I understood, Rik was making changes/fixes but Linus was not applying them. Alan Cox was saying he was tired of resubmitting the same VM changes to Linus. I only lightly read the kernel mailing list, but if this is accurate, then it is really Linus's fault for the behavior of the old VM. From what I understand, the VM in ac kernels is not bad either and it is based on Rik's VM work.
Everybody is going through too much thought over this! The reason why there is a discrepancy IS because in the original series ALL THE ALIENS LOOK HUMAN and in TNG, they decided to make aliens look alien and thus the Klingons "got ridges" but when DS9 decided to splice a TOS with DS9- they were comfronted with a HUGE difference in Klingon looks so the writers thought "We are going to need an explanation for this. You know how the fans are..." and another writer (or maybe even the same writer) said "Hey- I got it, we will have Whorf say 'we used to look like that but I would rather not talk about it'. That line should fix our problem and we can continue to have fun splicing footage.".
No I have no IDEA what really "went down" but I believe MY conjecture is much more realistic than all the rationalizing done by fans to make all these shows a "cohesive whole".
Re:Very few mergers succeed. Combine two weaklings
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 2
Now Carly is going to take two companies, each weakened by current economic conditions, and combine them. Where exactly is the synergy?
When two company's with the same product combine, they often can make more money than if they were seperate. A combined HP/Compaq can cut the sales dept, IT overhead and many other redundant corporate systems but maintain the same volume of sales. Instead of competing with each other for a sale, they now are partners. Now that the x86 market is saturated, it is obvious that there are "too many fish in the pond" and it makes sense for PC makers to want to merge. When a product has small profit margins, a company has to copensate the margin with selling in higher volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Corel released a full version of Wordperfect 8 for Linux. How many people actually bought it? Apparently not enough to make them want to update it to the current version.
Yeah it worked by working with wine and it SUCKED!!!! It was in no way as good as the Windows version. I was VERY disapointed with it and after I bought it, I recomended others to NOT buy it. After that, I had no respect for Corel as a "Linux" company.
I can see the apology letter now...
I disagree. Mozilla should NOT try to make a browser for a specific desktop. I like the fact that Galeon is out there for Linux and Chimera is out there for Mac. Mozilla is turning out to be an excellent collection of components for others to build excelent browsers around. It really is a waist of time for them to paint the pretty browser when there are people on various platforms who know thier platform BETTER and who have a personal interest in getting the GUI stuff right. I want the Mozilla developers to keep developing excellent components and work on making those components easier to use so that OTHERS can build the browser you want.
Oh Windows does not allow you to use curses on it! It merely curses others around it! ;)
My answer to that would be "I don't know about 'summoning/conjuring' but Windows is awsome at curses".
If you are using auto update then I would not worry about this EULA. You have essentially given Microsoft the right to do anything they want at thier convenience anyway.
As if that stopped Linus when to compile Linux, you needed Minix on another partition of your hard drive. Besides, I was giving Turbo C as a concrete example and not neccesarily the best one. Before GCC, BSD was being compiled on various hardware. My point is that Linus chose the tool that was the most convenient at the time but it does not make the tool irreplacable (or more important than the achievement done by the tool).
Borland C compiler was for about 50 US dollars. Right now linux has some specific GCC instructions so it will only compile with GCC. BUT if Linus had started off with Turbo C, it would probably only compiled with Turbo C (Borlands compiler). Linus has shown that he is willing to use "proprietary code" if it fits his needs best as he has said and shown (as the case with Bit Keeper). Some people think that because a person has chosen to do something a certain way that it was the ONLY way that it could have been done. It is so absurd that I won't even waist my time discussing it further.
I think if GCC did not exist, Linus could have found another c compiler to do the job. GCC was the compiler he used because it was convenient but NOT IRREPLACABLE. There were other C compilers for the 386.
WRONG! Many people will only buy new books because they like thier books to be nice and neat. Others only buy used or go to the library. The fact is that for a ton of USED books to be posible, AN EVEN LARGER number of new books would have needed to be sold. Just face it- if a book has a huge "used" market, it has to be a great "new" market as well and therefor the publisher and author are getting well paid for their work. And hey- if used books start killing publishers, I am sure they can raise or lower the price of thier books to either kill the supply (raise price so only people who really wanted to own the books will buy them) of used books or eliminate the demand for them (lower price of new books to the extent that nobody will want to mess with possible torn pages or other blemishes incrued from other owners). But it really comes down to this: Publishers make a ton of money and until this is not a fact, then it is stupid to speculate. With speculation like this posters, LIBRARIES might have been OUTLAWED!
I think it is fine to charge for viewing slashdot free of various advertisements BUT I HATE the idea of micropayment and paying per page. If I pay xyz to have access to slashdot then I don't want to think of how many times I have reloaded the page or to suddenly get full fledged adds after xyz months. A yearly subscription is the simplest and best. If I get a subscription to an advertisement free magazine, no matter how many times I look at it, it will still be free of advertisements. Slashdot should think of itself as an electronic magazine and act the same way.
I am getting the impression this is a hostile takeover and that AOL is just going to buy enouph RHAT stock to vote in the merge. Slashdot was owned privately so the previous owners could negotiate terms with the buyer. A public company is owned by stockholders and if you own enouph stock, you can do what you want to a company. I own a 1000 shares of Red Hat and I intend to sell rouphly around $12 if AOL/TW's play is true. Why? I own RHAT because I think it has a viable bussiness plan and was undervalued when I bought it. If AOL is willing to give me an additional (hypothetically) $4,000 dollars for my piece of the company, I and many others will say it is good bussiness. Public companies can't ask for many conditions/terms because stock holders generally are not interested in the principals of a company but how much value they can get out of it. $12 is very likely VERY modest. More likely if this is all true then RHAT stock could likely go to $16 - $24 dollar range.
I agree with you ONLY IF you have a test box. I would not want to risk the data on my everyday use home box. If I had a test box, that is where this kernel would go.
This new-fangled Open Source thing only works if the end users hold up our end of the bargain. They release early and often, and we build and test it.
Even of open source users, we don't want them ALL to test stuff. Only those who are 1. Willing to take the risks of using dev. software and 2. Those that have the ability and DESIRE to return bug reports (and believe me when I say this is a more "elite" group than you might think). The trick of open source is that it ALLOWS people who are INTERESTED in the developement of a project to help. It does NOT mean that most people SHOULD. I would not want my girlfriend trying to recompile a kernel and then expect her to try to give a helpfull bug report to lkml. Even the testers of a new developement kernel should be very sophisticated users.
Actually, I underclocked my machine because I was trying to insure stability (not that I had any anyway but then it never hurt). I am told that a lot of servers are underclocked for the same purpose. I also had the idea that my cpu would run cooler thus reducing any chances of overheating and at the same time saving electricity since I keep my main machine on 24/7. As for instability, I have had none of that and I would not expect to. That is usually an OVER CLOCKER problem (which I believe AMD and Intel do which is indicated by the need for huge heat sinks and fans).
I just don't get the desire for machines faster than 600 mghz. The CPU is going at least twice as fast as any other component on a PC machine. What I did recently was buy a DDR motherboard to get ram that ran at 133 mghz (advertised at 266 mghz) and so I got a AMD 1.4 gigahertz cpu with it. One of the nice features of the motherboard was the ability to change the clock rate of cpu and bus. I LOWERED the clock rate of my CPU to 800 mghz and my machine is as responsive as I would ever want it to be. When I hear that Intel is charging twice the price for thier 2.0 gigahertz CPU as thier 1.8 ghz and people go out in droves to buy the 2 ghz anyway boggles me! Most of them don't need the speed of either CPU AND people are willing to pay 100% more money for a measly 10% performance boost. Ten years ago, Most PC's came with a "turbo button" on the case with the idea that only when you really had to use the the cycles would you press turbo and the CPU would go twice as fast. Back then, the button was pointless because when computers were going at 66 mgz, processors would regularly be very busy. But today the Turbo Button would actually be a nice feature. When doing word-processing or surfing the web, have the machine go slow but then when playing quake 18 (Revenge of the killer CPU), press the turbo button so the bloatware can look sweet. However, for people who REALLY NEED more power (all of the time) *couph* *couph*... SMP looks to be the far better alternative than these monster single cpu solutions.
I could never get into the whole small pc thing. Every time I have to fiddle with small case computers, I have visions of hell turned loose. To me a "sweet computer" is one in which everything is easily upgradable and insertable. On my last computer, I replaced every component except the actual case (which I am also planning to do soon with an addtronics 7896 case). This thing is just begging to be outdated before it is even fashionable due to when the next cool graphics card comes out or when 600X cd roms are all the minimum on games or even just to upgrade ram.
I think Alan did an excelent job maintaining 2.2. Now that he has officially left/declined the role of 2.4 maintainer, the question arrises to what/who is maintaining 2.2 (I am assumming Alan is looking to avoid all kernel maintenance for awhile)? My suspision is that it will soon "lay fallow" but I believe most distributions have not yet made the full leap to 2.4 yet. What I am curious about is how much longer will Alan maintain it? It would be ironic if 2.0.x had a maintainer but 2.2.x had none!
I just don't get them... MS is in an anti-trust case against them for leveraging thier monopoly to take over the browser market and now they do this?!? What are they thinking of ... I just hope the DOJ don't miss this. I would have thought they would have been timid with anything close to this kind of stuff until AFTER the court case is over.
For a production enviroment, I would get a Red Hat or SUSE (or any other large distributor's) kernel and just use that. They are heavily tested and heavily used kernels.
I for one would not upgrade to 2.4 on a serious production server yet unless thier is something 2.2 is missing that you need.
I expect "Linux" will not be "Linux" in 50 years or at least not the OS we use today. Linux is an evolving OS. The kernel is becomming more robust and the applications on top of it are becomming much better. It also has something few other OS's have at the moment: A large *community* of developers and users who have a personal AND commercial interest in seeing it thrive. Remember that when MS was 10 - 11 years into the PC OS bussiness, they were still peddling DOS and windows 3.1. Linux has had a much better progression when looked at that way.
Intergrate ICQ + AOL into mozilla all on ONE list, I dont mean jabber but i mean OFFICIAL clients, Mozilla afterall is owned by AOL.
Will AOL provide the source code and copyright it the way Mozilla is? No? Forget about it! It would only be CONSIDERABLE (but not desirable) if that stuff was also under the same license as Mozilla itself.
Once again, when more people get broadband it will be more important to pre cache websites by downloading BEFORE people actually click it, this gives them the illusion that things are faster because they dont have to "wait" for a page to load, its already loaded. For people on 56k i can see why they might complain, but please put some broadband options into Mozilla.
For this comment I can only say "those must be some good drugs you are taking." I could see it now: You go to a "favorite links" page and instead of happily clicking through, Mozilla tries to dowload gigs of data!
Man, you don't want much, do you?
I notice that slashdot tends to have banners that aim toward what geeks like and want. When I click on the finnance link on yahoo, I get adds from brokerage firms and the such. That is INTELEGENT MARKETING. You do not need to snoop around in peoples personal lives to target advertising intelegently. When I am on a Website like Anandtech.com or Tomshardware.com, I hope they have banner adds for PC hardware companies. You sell what people are interested in reading about. So easy and yet so many websites ignore that fundamental.
From what I understood, Rik was making changes/fixes but Linus was not applying them. Alan Cox was saying he was tired of resubmitting the same VM changes to Linus. I only lightly read the kernel mailing list, but if this is accurate, then it is really Linus's fault for the behavior of the old VM. From what I understand, the VM in ac kernels is not bad either and it is based on Rik's VM work.
Everybody is going through too much thought over this! The reason why there is a discrepancy IS because in the original series ALL THE ALIENS LOOK HUMAN and in TNG, they decided to make aliens look alien and thus the Klingons "got ridges" but when DS9 decided to splice a TOS with DS9- they were comfronted with a HUGE difference in Klingon looks so the writers thought "We are going to need an explanation for this. You know how the fans are..." and another writer (or maybe even the same writer) said "Hey- I got it, we will have Whorf say 'we used to look like that but I would rather not talk about it'. That line should fix our problem and we can continue to have fun splicing footage.".
No I have no IDEA what really "went down" but I believe MY conjecture is much more realistic than all the rationalizing done by fans to make all these shows a "cohesive whole".
Now Carly is going to take two companies, each weakened by current economic conditions, and combine them. Where exactly is the synergy?
When two company's with the same product combine, they often can make more money than if they were seperate. A combined HP/Compaq can cut the sales dept, IT overhead and many other redundant corporate systems but maintain the same volume of sales. Instead of competing with each other for a sale, they now are partners. Now that the x86 market is saturated, it is obvious that there are "too many fish in the pond" and it makes sense for PC makers to want to merge. When a product has small profit margins, a company has to copensate the margin with selling in higher volume.