Take a dozen non-technical, average users. Format their harddrives and put linux on in its place - you choose the distro you think is the best, easiest.
Come back in 6 months, I guarantee 11 of the PCs will have Windows back on the desktop. The other one hasnt been used at all.
For home users, that may be true. (Except the one that hasn't been used at all. I'll only give you that if he didn't use it as a Windows box either.) But only because Windows is already so entrenched. All the games and apps they are interested in run on Windows. They're sure to find things on Linux that they like better than what they had on Windows, but, overall, I'm guessing there's more stuff that they would miss.
Which, arguably, is another way that they "forced" to use Windows.
And yes, the apps are the only reason. People who can't admin a Linux box for lack of skill and/or interest (I am not saying that makes them dumb) also do a piss-poor job of administrating Windows machines.
Given a set of required apps that run on both Linux and Windows and IT support that does its job, most users won't care (and would hardly notice) which OS they use. But those interested in doing a bit more would be much happier on Linux. And things would be better for the admins, as well. (Actually, a just-okay Unix admin does better for his users than a just-okay Windows admin, but for this comparison lets assume superb adminstration on both platforms.)
As a matter of fact, you'd be surprised how many office workers have been exposed to various shades of UNIX running on mainframes all over the place. I was pretty taken back when my sister in law (as non-techie as you get) knew what cat, tar, and ps were - not only that, she knows how to use vi.
Comparing desktop Windows to time-share Unix isn't even remotely fair. That's not even apples and oranges. If somebody thinks Unix is only what they used on some big iron via a serial terminal, they may be in the worst position to make any judgements about desktop Linux.
Excuse me, I meant to spell it "linsucks". I figure that's pretty clever and hi-larious.
It's neither, but I'm not going to claim "Windoze" is either. Both names are, however, expressive.
Your analogy about the trucks is well taken, and I agree with it. But I don't really think it applies to anything I wrote. I certainly wasn't calling anybody a retard. You and (stratjakt) are still missing my point.
The people that I was talking about are ones who prefer Linux (or something like it) and use Windows because of factors outside their control. That doesn't make them bad or stupid (I'm one of them more often than I would like), but it does mean they have a familiarity with Unix-based open source software and an interest (if it's really that good) in having it run on Windows. That's what's relevant to the original topic.
To fit that into your analogy, they drive GMCs at home, know about some wonderful things that GMCs have that Fords don't, and, even though it won't really make the Fords any better, they'd like to see some of the things from the GMCs working on their Fords. Because, whatever they might want, they get paid to drive a Ford and they might as well make the best of it.
What does this have to do with a Win32 port indicating success for an open source project? There are a lot more Ford "things". So when a GMC thing is made to work on a Ford, it has succeeded because its users prefer it to all the GMC things and all the Ford things.
Whether they use Windows because that's what they have to use at work, or because that's what came preinstalled on their shiny new computers and they don't know any better, most Windows users never really chose to use it. So, while it might not be the perfect word, I don't feel bad about calling that "forced". (That doesn't mean I don't believe there are people who use Windows because they like it better. There are. And that's fine. I'm glad they have the choice.)
But that's beside the point.
I think most of the people who are familiar with Unix-based free software before a Win32 port is made don't use Windows out of preference. Those are the people I was talking about. Forced is definitely the right word for them.
BTW, despite my spelling, you knew what system I was talking about, and, because of my spelling (and perhaps a few other clues), you knew how I, personally, feel about it. I think "Windoze" was the more expressive choice;-)
I'm not sure whether or not stratjakt was trying to be a troll, but I think a Win32 port of a project really is a legitimate indication of success. It likely means somebody enjoys your program so much that they want to use it in those situations where they're forced into using Windoze. Because of the number of apps that are available for Windoze, that's a real compliment.
Really? Mostly I've seen them using those water balloon slingshots. But I can't say I pay all that much attention to those guys. It's not like they'd ever launch a t-shirt that'll fit me. So if any t-shirt launching people read Slashdot: fire off some shirts for fat people, too!
BTW, "USoC"? Huh? Where did that little o come from? It certainly does nothing to indicate the University of Southern California as opposed to the University of South Carolina? You must be a Bruin sharing your experience from the rivalry games.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Microsoft has no reason to complain about the government funding a BSD-licensed open source project because there's nothing stopping them from using the code. As far as they should be concerned, it's even better than the government funding somebody else's proprietary project.
At the same time, whether or not Microsoft releases anyhting under a BSD license has nothing to do with how they feel about other people releasing code under that license. Besides, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Would you really want their code?
The difference is that OpenBSD is released under a... you guessed it: BSD license. That means all those closed source shops can just take the code for free. Even Microsoft seems pretty okay with BSD-style licenses.
They have NOT made accusations. They are holding him as a "material witness". Which, ultimately, is a legal a tool they are abusing in order to keep secret the accusations that, presumably, will be made. Technically, however, there have not been any accusations
Which, of course, screws up your code for those of us using a reasonably sized font and a standard 80 columns. Anything but a newline past column 79 is rude, rude, rude.
(Commenting your code is good, though. Just wrap your comments before they get to column 80.)
That approach might accomplish as much in terms of finding out their online status, but it would not be equivilent to the AOL patent claims. AOL is claiming that the system lets you know their online status before trying to establish contact.
GCC is much more of a standard than Windows or Word. I would not be at all suprised if there are more platforms with GCC than there are with ANSI C compilers (other than GCC). GCC is nearly ubiquitous and anybody can take it and retarget it to any new platform. That makes it as good as just about any standard.
The AOL patent describes a system that shows when other users are online and allows one to send messages that arrive essentially instantly. The talk command did the messaging, finger allowed you to see if your buddy was online. It is the combination of talk and finger that is equivilent to AOL's patent claims. By itself, talk is not.
I think the point was to, in the first sentence, express the lift/power ratio in standard scientific units, and then, in the second sentence, translate those figures into units that most Americans are familiar with. They did nothing inconsistent in that regard.
I want to know why they used grams as a unit of lift. Shouldn't lift be measured as force (newtons), not as mass (grams)? In this way they were inconsistent. (Grams are mass, tons are force. So, in their translation from metric to english units, they go from mass/power to force/power. That seems wrong to me.)
I know I stopped using PowwerBuilder with the version 7, and the version 9 is out, but at that time, it was not a SQL database, only a client for SQL databases.
I'd place that in the same company as Access, which the book apparently talks about extensively. Sure Access has its own DB back end, but it sucks. People who need to do real work with it use it as a front end to a real database.
Does anybody know if this book talks about using Access by itself, or if it treats Access more in the context of accessing Oracle?
This book is more technical because it talks about source code. Rather than explaining what a tool does, it shows you how. Showing you source is a huge step in terms of technical detail.
You are writing, not talking. If you start your post thinking of two questions, and then have three by the time you're finished, go back and edit your previous statements to reflect that fact. I don't mean to pick on you specifically--a lot of people also do stuff like this. Posters, remember: write to make a point--don't just record your stream of thoughts. It's okay to go back and edit.
It shouldn't have anything to do with stealing bandwidth. Hopefully, the journalist mentioned the earlier incident just to let the readers know that they've heard of this guy before. I.e., the readers know the lawyer as that guy that stole coffee and creamer. So, to present the identity of the subject, the author points out that he's that guy that stole coffee and creamer.
Don't be silly. I don't think your lawyer friend understands the case. There are reasonable accommodations for web sites (alt tags, etc.) that don't have counterparts in billboards or radio. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would not have caused any of the things you described.
Having read the judgement, I think the judge probably ruled correctly. (Because, as written, the ADA seems to really only apply to physical establishments.) However, the problem with this case is that Southwest has Internet-only fares. By not making their web site accessible, they are denying those special fares to people with certain disabilities. That really is unfair and is discrimination (albeit unintentional). I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a new law that addresses the situation.
It's different than your example of a sign advertising a special. A blind person can still go into the store and purchase the product at the special price. The spirit of the ADA is not about legislating effective advertising. It's about ensuring that, as much as reasonbly possible, goods and services that are available to able-bodied people are available, without discrimination, to those with disabilities.
Right on. (I'm 6'4", 300 pounds). Of course, all I had to do was tell the guy to, "turn that thing off, or leave." There was no threat of violence. (Well, maybe it was implied--my wife seemed to think so. I thought I was being pretty polite, though.)
The value of a big Sun (and just about all big servers, for that matter) is the backplane. The big servers can simply push more data. It's all about I/O. So what if the $2K PC on my desk is faster (in terms of CPU power) than the $100K Sun in the back room? My PC can only pass through a tiny fraction of what the Sun can do. That means there are serving situations where the big, expensive machine is the best answer.
I bought two copies of UT GOTY edition. (Well, I bought one and my brother bought one.) Of course, they were under $20 by then.
I understand (and kinda agree with) what you're saying about per-household licensing. I seem to remember some game or something licensed that way. I was inclined to purchase the product just to support that licensing model. (I can't remember if I did--I don't even remember what the product is.)
At the same time, for a multiplayer game, I don't really feel like I'm getting shafted if I the license obligates me to buy a copy per player as long as the price is reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
For home users, that may be true. (Except the one that hasn't been used at all. I'll only give you that if he didn't use it as a Windows box either.) But only because Windows is already so entrenched. All the games and apps they are interested in run on Windows. They're sure to find things on Linux that they like better than what they had on Windows, but, overall, I'm guessing there's more stuff that they would miss.
Which, arguably, is another way that they "forced" to use Windows.
And yes, the apps are the only reason. People who can't admin a Linux box for lack of skill and/or interest (I am not saying that makes them dumb) also do a piss-poor job of administrating Windows machines.
Given a set of required apps that run on both Linux and Windows and IT support that does its job, most users won't care (and would hardly notice) which OS they use. But those interested in doing a bit more would be much happier on Linux. And things would be better for the admins, as well. (Actually, a just-okay Unix admin does better for his users than a just-okay Windows admin, but for this comparison lets assume superb adminstration on both platforms.)
Comparing desktop Windows to time-share Unix isn't even remotely fair. That's not even apples and oranges. If somebody thinks Unix is only what they used on some big iron via a serial terminal, they may be in the worst position to make any judgements about desktop Linux.
It's neither, but I'm not going to claim "Windoze" is either. Both names are, however, expressive.
Your analogy about the trucks is well taken, and I agree with it. But I don't really think it applies to anything I wrote. I certainly wasn't calling anybody a retard. You and (stratjakt) are still missing my point.
The people that I was talking about are ones who prefer Linux (or something like it) and use Windows because of factors outside their control. That doesn't make them bad or stupid (I'm one of them more often than I would like), but it does mean they have a familiarity with Unix-based open source software and an interest (if it's really that good) in having it run on Windows. That's what's relevant to the original topic.
To fit that into your analogy, they drive GMCs at home, know about some wonderful things that GMCs have that Fords don't, and, even though it won't really make the Fords any better, they'd like to see some of the things from the GMCs working on their Fords. Because, whatever they might want, they get paid to drive a Ford and they might as well make the best of it.
What does this have to do with a Win32 port indicating success for an open source project? There are a lot more Ford "things". So when a GMC thing is made to work on a Ford, it has succeeded because its users prefer it to all the GMC things and all the Ford things.
Whether they use Windows because that's what they have to use at work, or because that's what came preinstalled on their shiny new computers and they don't know any better, most Windows users never really chose to use it. So, while it might not be the perfect word, I don't feel bad about calling that "forced". (That doesn't mean I don't believe there are people who use Windows because they like it better. There are. And that's fine. I'm glad they have the choice.)
;-)
But that's beside the point.
I think most of the people who are familiar with Unix-based free software before a Win32 port is made don't use Windows out of preference. Those are the people I was talking about. Forced is definitely the right word for them.
BTW, despite my spelling, you knew what system I was talking about, and, because of my spelling (and perhaps a few other clues), you knew how I, personally, feel about it. I think "Windoze" was the more expressive choice
I'm not sure whether or not stratjakt was trying to be a troll, but I think a Win32 port of a project really is a legitimate indication of success. It likely means somebody enjoys your program so much that they want to use it in those situations where they're forced into using Windoze. Because of the number of apps that are available for Windoze, that's a real compliment.
Really? Mostly I've seen them using those water balloon slingshots. But I can't say I pay all that much attention to those guys. It's not like they'd ever launch a t-shirt that'll fit me. So if any t-shirt launching people read Slashdot: fire off some shirts for fat people, too!
BTW, "USoC"? Huh? Where did that little o come from? It certainly does nothing to indicate the University of Southern California as opposed to the University of South Carolina? You must be a Bruin sharing your experience from the rivalry games.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Microsoft has no reason to complain about the government funding a BSD-licensed open source project because there's nothing stopping them from using the code. As far as they should be concerned, it's even better than the government funding somebody else's proprietary project.
At the same time, whether or not Microsoft releases anyhting under a BSD license has nothing to do with how they feel about other people releasing code under that license. Besides, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Would you really want their code?
The difference is that OpenBSD is released under a... you guessed it: BSD license. That means all those closed source shops can just take the code for free. Even Microsoft seems pretty okay with BSD-style licenses.
They have NOT made accusations. They are holding him as a "material witness". Which, ultimately, is a legal a tool they are abusing in order to keep secret the accusations that, presumably, will be made. Technically, however, there have not been any accusations
Which, of course, screws up your code for those of us using a reasonably sized font and a standard 80 columns. Anything but a newline past column 79 is rude, rude, rude.
(Commenting your code is good, though. Just wrap your comments before they get to column 80.)
They are ;-)
That approach might accomplish as much in terms of finding out their online status, but it would not be equivilent to the AOL patent claims. AOL is claiming that the system lets you know their online status before trying to establish contact.
GCC is much more of a standard than Windows or Word. I would not be at all suprised if there are more platforms with GCC than there are with ANSI C compilers (other than GCC). GCC is nearly ubiquitous and anybody can take it and retarget it to any new platform. That makes it as good as just about any standard.
The AOL patent describes a system that shows when other users are online and allows one to send messages that arrive essentially instantly. The talk command did the messaging, finger allowed you to see if your buddy was online. It is the combination of talk and finger that is equivilent to AOL's patent claims. By itself, talk is not.
I think the point was to, in the first sentence, express the lift/power ratio in standard scientific units, and then, in the second sentence, translate those figures into units that most Americans are familiar with. They did nothing inconsistent in that regard.
I want to know why they used grams as a unit of lift. Shouldn't lift be measured as force (newtons), not as mass (grams)? In this way they were inconsistent. (Grams are mass, tons are force. So, in their translation from metric to english units, they go from mass/power to force/power. That seems wrong to me.)
Does anybody know if this book talks about using Access by itself, or if it treats Access more in the context of accessing Oracle?
The identifier in was previously declared. Because it was initialized as nonzero, the first loop is still going. (And going, and going,...)
Actually, it's not like anybody on Slashdot has ever figured out how to write a less than sign. As you know, what he meant almost certainly was:
(For the record, you have to use <. Even if you choose "Plain Old Text". Don't let them fool you--it isn't all that "Plain Old".)Here. It's never too late to change.
This book is more technical because it talks about source code. Rather than explaining what a tool does, it shows you how. Showing you source is a huge step in terms of technical detail.
You are writing, not talking. If you start your post thinking of two questions, and then have three by the time you're finished, go back and edit your previous statements to reflect that fact. I don't mean to pick on you specifically--a lot of people also do stuff like this. Posters, remember: write to make a point--don't just record your stream of thoughts. It's okay to go back and edit.
It shouldn't have anything to do with stealing bandwidth. Hopefully, the journalist mentioned the earlier incident just to let the readers know that they've heard of this guy before. I.e., the readers know the lawyer as that guy that stole coffee and creamer. So, to present the identity of the subject, the author points out that he's that guy that stole coffee and creamer.
Don't be silly. I don't think your lawyer friend understands the case. There are reasonable accommodations for web sites (alt tags, etc.) that don't have counterparts in billboards or radio. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would not have caused any of the things you described.
Having read the judgement, I think the judge probably ruled correctly. (Because, as written, the ADA seems to really only apply to physical establishments.) However, the problem with this case is that Southwest has Internet-only fares. By not making their web site accessible, they are denying those special fares to people with certain disabilities. That really is unfair and is discrimination (albeit unintentional). I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a new law that addresses the situation.
It's different than your example of a sign advertising a special. A blind person can still go into the store and purchase the product at the special price. The spirit of the ADA is not about legislating effective advertising. It's about ensuring that, as much as reasonbly possible, goods and services that are available to able-bodied people are available, without discrimination, to those with disabilities.
Right on. (I'm 6'4", 300 pounds). Of course, all I had to do was tell the guy to, "turn that thing off, or leave." There was no threat of violence. (Well, maybe it was implied--my wife seemed to think so. I thought I was being pretty polite, though.)
So what tools did you use to rip them? Were you able to rip them to standard audio formats?
The value of a big Sun (and just about all big servers, for that matter) is the backplane. The big servers can simply push more data. It's all about I/O. So what if the $2K PC on my desk is faster (in terms of CPU power) than the $100K Sun in the back room? My PC can only pass through a tiny fraction of what the Sun can do. That means there are serving situations where the big, expensive machine is the best answer.
I bought two copies of UT GOTY edition. (Well, I bought one and my brother bought one.) Of course, they were under $20 by then.
I understand (and kinda agree with) what you're saying about per-household licensing. I seem to remember some game or something licensed that way. I was inclined to purchase the product just to support that licensing model. (I can't remember if I did--I don't even remember what the product is.)
At the same time, for a multiplayer game, I don't really feel like I'm getting shafted if I the license obligates me to buy a copy per player as long as the price is reasonable.