I actually prefer to see the advertisements. I want to know if a site I go to is more interested in annoying or intrusive ads than the visitor's experience. If a site has annoying ads I simply don't use the site any more. This way the sites that I like can still get revenue from my page views while the sites that choose to annoy me lose me forever.
These sights should drop DoubleClick immediately and switch to another ad partner. They should also consider a lawsuit. If they do nothing but point a finger at DoubleClick they don't deserve any visitors.
If only there were some device which could look at each packet that's passed through it and determine where to send it... To route the packets, if you will...
I recommended switching to Linux (or actually performing some research into switching) to a few managers there. Once I got past the usual lip service the end result was "well, we're a Microsoft shop." The conversation always ended there.
And that's one of the reasons I no longer work there.
It all depends on which part of the EULA you're going after.
Very true. I was simply referring to the fact that an EULA, in general, has been found to be a valid contract in court. Assuming everything within the license is legal and legit, it is enforceable.
There are many files included with Windows that corporate desktops don't require. One of my past employers chose to remove any unnecessary files. Even with a large Microsoft contract, Microsoft refused to disclose the details of every bundled DLL and EXE. So a small team of people deleted each file, one by one, and tested every desktop app in use in the company, until they determined the set of files they didn't need. It's almost silly, but if you're determined Microsoft leaves little choice. (I would have used one of those apps that shows every DLL in memory, but the idea is the same.)
This of course causes problems later, like when a patch or service pack requires a DLL that it never needed before. Or one of the custom apps adds a new feature and needs an OS file that's not part of any standard desktop in the company.
Microsoft isn't interested in giving customers exactly what they need. They prefer to generalize the OS to maximize revenue. These are just some of the negative consequences.
Because, if you RTFA, you'll see he found errors in his paper. It just so happens those incorrect assertions are being used by creationists as validation of their beliefs.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case semantics matter. When non-techies say, "I have to use Windows", they usually think that they have no choice. When techies say it, they usually don't mean it quite so literally. So techies saying "having to" reinforces the common misconception that Windows is the only option.
At least that's the way I see it. I can understand if someone doesn't agree with that view, though.
I'm not that dedicated to Linux. I use OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. No Windows needed.
And I agree, the only time Windows comes close to a "need" is when software for a commercial task is only available on Windows. CPAs, for example, have little choice if they want to use software for tax preparation. However, if CPAs really demanded to get off Windows, possibly using the leverage of their trade organizations, their software vendors would surely support other platforms. The CPAs that I know are willing to live with Windows and don't press for alternatives. So in my view they don't need Windows, they're just not dissatisfied with their situation.
Your definition is far more narrow than mine. You don't have to use Windows to use a computer. To make the analogy that not using Windows is like not breathing is just silly.
Name one. No one *has* to use anything. When I got sick of developing software on Windows I shifted my career to develop on Linux. People told me I *had* to work with Windows to make money, and they were wrong. If it's about a job, then change jobs. Or if you have influence over corporate policy, then change corporate policy. If it's about games, well no one needs games, but there are other options.
They aren't two completely independent companies. And the issue for investors isn't directly the small hit to Microsoft's purse or which division of the company pays. But rather their choice to fight for market share at just about any expense. Often times playing friendly is more profitable long term.
The complexity is as much in the software as the hardware. I've had some experience with this from the programming side and started a DocForge wiki page.
Didn't Google just start a new revenue-sharing plan on YouTube? Viacom should upload complete episodes as soon as they air so they can beat the other uploaders and still turn a profit.
The states' report seems to imply that Microsoft will try to find a way to tie Silverlight to IE in the future, and leverage the 80 percent market share of IE on the desktop to try and edge out competitors like Adobe AIR. In our view, it's more likely that Microsoft has learned to accept the reality of a web application future and simply wants to make sure that it is the driving force behind its development.
+1 Insightful
Microsoft is hedging their bets. If their cash cows are really threatened in the near future they need a backup plan. I think they're not sure how they would profit, be it software-as-a-service or infrastructure or development tools. But they know they need to cover as many angles as possible to survive long term.
only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak
Well that's what you get for crossing the streams. Egon warned us. Kaspersky's risking total protonic reversal. I guess they were fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually prefer to see the advertisements. I want to know if a site I go to is more interested in annoying or intrusive ads than the visitor's experience. If a site has annoying ads I simply don't use the site any more. This way the sites that I like can still get revenue from my page views while the sites that choose to annoy me lose me forever.
These sights should drop DoubleClick immediately and switch to another ad partner. They should also consider a lawsuit. If they do nothing but point a finger at DoubleClick they don't deserve any visitors.
If only there were some device which could look at each packet that's passed through it and determine where to send it... To route the packets, if you will...
I recommended switching to Linux (or actually performing some research into switching) to a few managers there. Once I got past the usual lip service the end result was "well, we're a Microsoft shop." The conversation always ended there.
And that's one of the reasons I no longer work there.
It all depends on which part of the EULA you're going after.
Very true. I was simply referring to the fact that an EULA, in general, has been found to be a valid contract in court. Assuming everything within the license is legal and legit, it is enforceable.
There are many files included with Windows that corporate desktops don't require. One of my past employers chose to remove any unnecessary files. Even with a large Microsoft contract, Microsoft refused to disclose the details of every bundled DLL and EXE. So a small team of people deleted each file, one by one, and tested every desktop app in use in the company, until they determined the set of files they didn't need. It's almost silly, but if you're determined Microsoft leaves little choice. (I would have used one of those apps that shows every DLL in memory, but the idea is the same.)
This of course causes problems later, like when a patch or service pack requires a DLL that it never needed before. Or one of the custom apps adds a new feature and needs an OS file that's not part of any standard desktop in the company.
Microsoft isn't interested in giving customers exactly what they need. They prefer to generalize the OS to maximize revenue. These are just some of the negative consequences.
Not necessarily. At least one court has found that a shrink wrap license is enforceable.
* There's a knock at the door *
Taco: Who's there?
Door: Goons.
Taco: Who?
Door: Hired goons.
Taco: Oh, c'mon in!
On a more serious note, I agree!
Because, if you RTFA, you'll see he found errors in his paper. It just so happens those incorrect assertions are being used by creationists as validation of their beliefs.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case semantics matter. When non-techies say, "I have to use Windows", they usually think that they have no choice. When techies say it, they usually don't mean it quite so literally. So techies saying "having to" reinforces the common misconception that Windows is the only option.
At least that's the way I see it. I can understand if someone doesn't agree with that view, though.
I'm not that dedicated to Linux. I use OS X on the desktop and Linux on the server. No Windows needed.
And I agree, the only time Windows comes close to a "need" is when software for a commercial task is only available on Windows. CPAs, for example, have little choice if they want to use software for tax preparation. However, if CPAs really demanded to get off Windows, possibly using the leverage of their trade organizations, their software vendors would surely support other platforms. The CPAs that I know are willing to live with Windows and don't press for alternatives. So in my view they don't need Windows, they're just not dissatisfied with their situation.
Your definition is far more narrow than mine. You don't have to use Windows to use a computer. To make the analogy that not using Windows is like not breathing is just silly.
like it or not, some people *have* to use Vista
Name one. No one *has* to use anything. When I got sick of developing software on Windows I shifted my career to develop on Linux. People told me I *had* to work with Windows to make money, and they were wrong. If it's about a job, then change jobs. Or if you have influence over corporate policy, then change corporate policy. If it's about games, well no one needs games, but there are other options.
your copy of Windows will stop working with very little notice (three days)
I don't know about anyone else, but if my OS stopped working after three days I'd definitely notice.
They aren't two completely independent companies. And the issue for investors isn't directly the small hit to Microsoft's purse or which division of the company pays. But rather their choice to fight for market share at just about any expense. Often times playing friendly is more profitable long term.
It's your user name. It's really throwing people off. Maybe if you changed it to "Corporate Funny" you'd get modded up.
Yet another reason investors should not be buying Microsoft stock.
Probably the same number of people that were elated to find out that Microsoft's site is cached using Linux. I found it deliciously amusing.
The complexity is as much in the software as the hardware. I've had some experience with this from the programming side and started a DocForge wiki page.
3 = 3 9x = 4 2k/xp = 5 vista = 6 7 = 7
Nuff said.
No, not really. That equation actually makes sense to you? Are you one of the Microsoft Excel developers?
Didn't Google just start a new revenue-sharing plan on YouTube? Viacom should upload complete episodes as soon as they air so they can beat the other uploaders and still turn a profit.
I don't like it when my TV / VCR gets Slashdotted.
The states' report seems to imply that Microsoft will try to find a way to tie Silverlight to IE in the future, and leverage the 80 percent market share of IE on the desktop to try and edge out competitors like Adobe AIR. In our view, it's more likely that Microsoft has learned to accept the reality of a web application future and simply wants to make sure that it is the driving force behind its development.
+1 Insightful
Microsoft is hedging their bets. If their cash cows are really threatened in the near future they need a backup plan. I think they're not sure how they would profit, be it software-as-a-service or infrastructure or development tools. But they know they need to cover as many angles as possible to survive long term.
And yet you read and post to it. Does that say more about Slashdot or about you?
only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak
Well that's what you get for crossing the streams. Egon warned us. Kaspersky's risking total protonic reversal. I guess they were fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.
I say we ridicule anyone with an ID over a quarter million. Surely joining in the prior millenium should distinguish one.