"P" is the closest thing we have to the greek letter rho, which phonetically is "R." The "P" sound is taken by the greek letter pi.
Since Xr is written by people who speak English, not ancient Greek, it is likely that they're taking the letters from the modern alphabet, not the greek one. Therefore using the letters "Chi Rho" make sense when doing the translation into greek - since such translation is almost always done phonetically.
I have. I used it back when it was called mlview-dxpc. Trouble with that is that you have to recompile X11 on the server and the client just to use it, and that's not very useful when you aren't an administrator of the server (so that you can reinstall X11).
Of course, if you control both sides, it's nice.
It needs to be standardized to be useful. But anyway, it'll work even better with vector-based additions.
Re:We can do better than the mac implementation.
on
Xr Renamed to Cairo
·
· Score: 1
How about "exactly the same except that it doesn't cost anything."
It sounds better to me, anyway.
But, anyway, it will probably be better simply because it'll be a thin client, and the others aren't.
You think you had it bad? Back in my day, we didn't have mornings, cable, nails, fathers, or hands.
We had to grab ahold of something just to keep from floating away, and us without bodies! Heck, it wasn't even really us back then, it was just me, and I didn't even have consciousness. I didn't have nothin'.
And I was glad to get it.
Things just aren't what they used to be. Young folks have got all these newfangled "physical laws" and "universal constants" to make things easy for 'em. It's gettin' so that you can't much turn around without being attacked by some hooligan physical law keeping you on the ground, or from forcing you to conserve mass or some such.
Re:Please join the mandrake club.
on
Mandrake 9.2 RC1
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
How about not joining, using, or paying for it? Sounds like a good option to me. There are lots of companies out there making Linux products that aren't asking for money.
How do I know they're not using the club to give their CEOs higher salaries without changing the status of development? How are they accountable to their users?
I stand by my comment. If you read that article, you'll notice he's not against copyright law in general. He's against the CERTAIN copyright laws that prohibit the copying of works. He'd like to ensure that people always have the right to copy works, and that this can't be taken away.
You are creating silly hypothetical situations that would rarely even exist were it not for copyright laws,
Don't you mean silly hypothetical situations that would only exist if there weren't copywrite laws, which is the matter we're addressing?
Anyway, it's not really hypothetical. There are areas of IP that aren't protected by laws, such as, for example, processes for creating everything that has a particular smell or a particular taste. While this can be protected, it can't be protected well enough to keep someone from making a big change to the process which allows them to produce exactly the same smell or taste but with a new process. In other words, patents that cover things that are used to create smells or tastes are almost worthless (and by the way, smells and tastes themselves cannot be patented).
Pretty much all of these processes, therefore, are controlled using the situation I mentioned - NDAs and the inability to take your work home.
Of course such a situation doesn't exist as much in the software industry because software can be protected by copyright law right now, and the best we can do is speculate that since it almost exclusively the M.O. in other industries that there is a very good chance that it will happen if we lose all intellectual property rights in the software industry.
And, by the way, I have read Stallman's writings about the founding of the free software foundation. He's against non-free software; he wants all software to be freely available with source and executables, for which I believe I just demonstrated a case that this won't happen without copyrights. I have never seen anything by him that said, "I wish that there weren't any copyrights" though I have seen "all software should be free, and no one should be allowed to make it non-free" But that's immaterial, isn't it? Authors who put their work under GPL are looking for a guarantee that whenever their work is embellished and given away, the source code will go with it. With no IP, this doesn't have to happen.
Did you read my post? I gave you an example of why the GPL is needed. I'll be more explicit so that you won't skip over the example like you did the last time I wrote it.
Consider that someone may see some GPL'ed code they like and wants to use it, so they do. They hire engineers and make them all sign non-disclosure agreements for all code they write, and these engineers modify it into a product they want to sell.
They sell the finished product, and keep the source under a tight lid, both legally (through NDA's) and physically, by making sure that no one can take any code home or get it out of the office. Of course, if it was leaked, then it would be available, but no one would do that because they are bound not to and are unable to.
What have they done? They've made free code into non-free code. The GPL failed because there was no GPL.
Which is more foolish, anonymous coward, one who does not hold your views and has a reason for it, or one who doesn't read very well before posting?
Apparently you've never produced a creative work. Either that or you're one of those few people whose creative process can stand such organization.
Books aren't well produced when done by the hour, or under the pressures of time or wages. They're done well when the artists want to do them. You may want to live in a world where fiction is paid for and controlled hour-by-hour by the companies that buy the books, but I don't. I get enough of that out of movies.
Want to start a company that uses that mentality and see what kind of quality you can produce and if it can make money? You can change my mind and the world if you can get it to work! Otherwise, you're just going to go along with all of us who have produced creative works of our own or who follow those who do.
I as an 18 year old female with measurements of 36-24-36 take offense to this! I do because I am not a teenager who is just taking on a role, but a real live woman with actual breasts! I have two of them! Actual, live, real breasts, and not just something I'm thinking about right now and wishing were in my immediate vicinity because I am a real, live actual woman and not at all made up.
If there was one word I would use to describe myself it would be this: "totally real and not made up." Of all the nerve - I suppose next you're going to be claiming that I'm not actually a vampire.
GPL!=public domain, which would pretty much be the result if there wasn't any IP law. If people didn't care if others used their works in closed-source venues, then they would use less restrictive licenses like BSD-style. A copyleft is a form of copyright, not the absence of it.
Practically, companies could keep their code secret using NDAs and keeping close track of where they keep it in order to circumvent open sourcing their code if it didn't exist.
Artists don't have any God-given right to support themselves, it's true, but I wouldn't want to wait another 30 years because the lady who wrote Harry Potter gets no royalties or merchandising rights and has to live mostly off of her job at McDonalds and the meager fee she gets paid so that one printing company gets the stuff out there before the second one has time to copy it. We need a system in place that gives successful (as in, lots of people want to read/see their work) artists the ability to control the distribution of their works.
Me and my friend are both posting this, so I'll give you both.
Me: What has intellectual property law ever done for us?
Friend: Well, there is the GPL. That's from intellectual property law.
Me: Well, obviously that. But BESIDES the GPL, what has it done?
Friend: Given artists a way to survive off of their art. I doubt we'd have as much if they had to work day jobs.
Me, Okay, well, besides GPL, and protection of artists, what has intellectual property ever done for us?
Friend: There's protection of useful inventions. Edison's lab pumped out tons of them that we still use today. That lab wouldn't have lasted if other people could have copied their ideas.
Me: Besides GPL, protection of artists, protection of useful inventions, what has IP law ever done?
Friend: Don't forget about the public access to patents that we use to make new innovations.
Me: So besides GPL, protection of artists, protection of useful inventions and public access to patents, what has IP law ever done for us?
Friend:...I can't think of anything else.
Me: IP LAW GO HOME!
IP LAW GO HOME!
IP LAW GO HOME! (And on, and on, a few hundred times. Hopefully I got the conjugation right)
So not means "if the statistical likelihood is 40%, then the likelihood of the reverse is 60%," and "if the statistical likelihood of A is 50% and B is 50%, then the chance of getting in both is 25%."
Fuzzy logic isn't the same as likelihood. It's about sets, and it turns out to be useful more often that likelihood - enough so to make machines specifically to do fuzzy operations. To put it into perspective, fuzzy logic answers the question, what the amount that an element is in this set, if the boundary of the set is not clearly defined. This is especially useful when talking about quantum particles, for instance.
So if you've got an item that is 50% in set A, and 70% in set B, then it there it's 50% in A and B, and 70% in A or B.
Well, you can't use google or google groups to prop up your missing desk leg, and it won't help you reach that highest shelf to get your old physics book.
It's also not nearly as impressive for that geek-babe you've had your eye on to catch you searching google as to catch you reading this.
There's already a field devoted to what you descibe, and it's not called trinary logic because there are more than three states.
It's fuzzy logic, and the idea is that along with true and false there are also degrees of truth. If true is represented as 1, and false as 0, then an operand can have any value between zero and one. Here are a few fuzzy operators: Not: 1-operand And: min(operand1, operand2) Or: max(operand1, operand2)
Notice that this is a superset of the original operators; with normal true and false values they still behave the same way.
These operators give us a nice way to quantify "possibly," so that we can actually do math using it.
It's 42 for sufficiently large values of 100, and possibly also in a bistro, where none of the normal rules of mathematics or physics quite work the same. Coincidentally, this is also the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Unfortunately, the question, smeared slightly by time, appears to be "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"
Try applying for more scholarships. I had my financial aid go up as I went through school too.
First, I enrolled in special programs that my school offered which offered scholarships, such as, for instance, Research Experience for Undergraduates (it's a NSF program). Second, I just kept applying for stuff.
Finally, I had the condition that this guy mentioned: I became elegible for the government grant program because my sister entered college during my junior year and my parents instantly fell into the "poor" bracket.
I ended up graduating with so much financial aid that I hit the government imposed cap on financial aid. I bought a car when I graduated (it should be mentioned, however, that I did this when the old klunker that got me through college overheated, and my new car was ten years old).
I'm almost finished with grad school. I went to state schools, but not my state, and I haven't paid a dime for it.
All the merit-based monies I have "won" have not been the luck of the draw: you get them if you apply and are eligible.
No, I'd say it implies that SCO claims some part of the code is of their design, as indicated by the fact that it was a quote from Vomit. You must not like reading much if you think that every quote is a claim of fact and not something expressed by the characters.
Generally, the purpose of research is to demonstrate a concept - a new concept that has never been seen before. Therefore, the code would be modern but not necessarily -robust: only need to run it on one system - probably this is the case more than anything else -usable: programmer=user means that the code may be very difficult to use for other people -clean: who cares if you write ugly code? only you have to see it. You're publishing a paper, not the code -comments: don't need comments! You're the only one using the code and you're worried about getting it done!
So...if you think that any of those fall into state-of-the-art, I'd say that Academic code isn't. At least, this was the case in the lab that I used to work in.
It's not the affending system that is attacked and destroyed, it's the systems that are attacked via DDOS through the hacked boxes using signal propagating viruses.
Have you heard of Dalnet? The network that used to be the largest of the IRC networks? It isn't now. Four months of DDOS attacks against all it's servers brought that to a halt (and there were like 10 of them). It's come back up, but most people have moved to other networks.
Maybe you didn't see this as a real problem because it didn't affect you, but four months can do more than merely wipe data or destroy hardware. They can take down businesses forever.
I'd rather have the "malicious ones" destroy computers owned by users who are partially to blame for letting in viruses than destroy businesses that have no fault at all in the matter.
On an interesting parallel: one of the most destructive viruses (real world) on the planet is Ebola. How do you think it's rate of spreading and death rate compare to AIDS? It's the slow, insideous viruses that you have to worry about, not the ones that are obvious. Not knowing that the virus is there is the best defense a virus has against innoculation or containment, which gives it more time to spread and wreak havok.
Uh, perhaps you meant, "were networked." "inter-networked. Perhaps I should have said "intranetworked," - they had an intranet. I suppose "were networked" would cover it, but it is not quite as precise. What exactly is a "normal" business? What exactly is "too expensive"? Macs are pretty much comparable to PCs in price now. In this case I was using normal in the context of the discussion. Normal meaning "not a computer business," but rather "using computers to do business," which encompasses most of the businesses in existance, and would fit within the context of my discussion. A normal business would be one more likely to have users that only understand that the mouse goes clicky-clicky and the text can be entered with the keyboard.
I provided you with an example of such a business, if you'll reread my comment.
The guy I was talking to quoted me what he was going to pay for each solution he found. 28000 for five Macs along with the groupware stuff. The Windows solution was 18000 for 8 of them, along with the groupware stuff.
1) I can offer about eight machines for about 1800 that will do the job of that windows solution. I know what the Windows software he has is capable of, and I know I can do it for about that and still make a decent profit.
2) I've been evaluating of the currently available linux groupware packages. I'm not sure you're right. I'll let it slide, though, because I'm not sure. You shouldn't be so confident about this, though, because like me you can't prove it. You can only offer your opinion.
3) The next Clue Train leaves at 5:15. Be on it, Sparky. Breaking into the industry?" Please stop with the grandiose bullshit, you sound like an idiot.
Do you think that name-calling and condesension strengthen your argument? Anyway, I think that the term "breaking into the industry" accurately conveys the condition of beginning to get work in an industry that is traditionally held by one group of people by using a different technique than they do. Being that this statement is equivalent, though more direct than the explaination of it, I can't think of a better reason to use it. Had I used a meaningless phrase, I would understand your evaluation of my level of intelligence, even if I didn't agree. As it stands you have merely shown your ignorance of business jargon, which, of course begs a question: do you have a background to know about the business world?
I know of a company that used to use only Macs for their business - a law firm, actually.
They employ a total of five to ten people, and used to do everything via Macs that where internetworked. They couldn't afford IT (well...they could, but they didn't want to pay for it).
They recently switched to PCs because the Apple total groupware solution offered them was roughly three times the price of the PC groupware solution, including buying tech support - a technician that would check in once a month to fix any problems and install patches.
Macs are still too expensive for normal businesses.
I'm thinking of breaking into the industry selling server setups with Linux groupware packages. I think I can offer it for about a tenth of the price of the current Windows solution prices and still make a killing while also being able to show people how to administer it themselves without much difficulty.
1) For a family package they are cheaper than all the other big name providers because most of the others DON'T OFFER a family package. They also have the lowest rates of all of them if you want unlimited wireless.
2) It's nice to claim things, isn't it? I'm in a very metropolitan area, and the service here stinks. Look at the coverage map. They say that they've got coverage in Orlando, and considering how many people use it, it would be good to back it up. It may be "generally considered" to be the best, but it's certainly not the best here, at least not in my experience.
I don't see any reason to conclude that it would be the best elsewhere. My family travels extensively, and have gotten bad results in pretty much the whole southeast US. So...maybe it's the best in places OTHER than the southeast US.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you need it to build the xnest server they've got?
It's not really that awesome without that.
That depends largely on your perspective.
"P" is the closest thing we have to the greek letter rho, which phonetically is "R." The "P" sound is taken by the greek letter pi.
Since Xr is written by people who speak English, not ancient Greek, it is likely that they're taking the letters from the modern alphabet, not the greek one. Therefore using the letters "Chi Rho" make sense when doing the translation into greek - since such translation is almost always done phonetically.
I have. I used it back when it was called mlview-dxpc. Trouble with that is that you have to recompile X11 on the server and the client just to use it, and that's not very useful when you aren't an administrator of the server (so that you can reinstall X11).
Of course, if you control both sides, it's nice.
It needs to be standardized to be useful. But anyway, it'll work even better with vector-based additions.
How about "exactly the same except that it doesn't cost anything."
It sounds better to me, anyway.
But, anyway, it will probably be better simply because it'll be a thin client, and the others aren't.
The lack of vector graphics was on of the major arguments citing why X11 doesn't work very well over low-bandwidth links.
Is having X over low bandwidth eye candy?
You think you had it bad? Back in my day, we didn't have mornings, cable, nails, fathers, or hands.
We had to grab ahold of something just to keep from floating away, and us without bodies! Heck, it wasn't even really us back then, it was just me, and I didn't even have consciousness. I didn't have nothin'.
And I was glad to get it.
Things just aren't what they used to be. Young folks have got all these newfangled "physical laws" and "universal constants" to make things easy for 'em. It's gettin' so that you can't much turn around without being attacked by some hooligan physical law keeping you on the ground, or from forcing you to conserve mass or some such.
How about not joining, using, or paying for it? Sounds like a good option to me. There are lots of companies out there making Linux products that aren't asking for money.
How do I know they're not using the club to give their CEOs higher salaries without changing the status of development? How are they accountable to their users?
I stand by my comment. If you read that article, you'll notice he's not against copyright law in general. He's against the CERTAIN copyright laws that prohibit the copying of works. He'd like to ensure that people always have the right to copy works, and that this can't be taken away.
To make that true requires copyright law.
You are creating silly hypothetical situations that would rarely even exist were it not for copyright laws,
Don't you mean silly hypothetical situations that would only exist if there weren't copywrite laws, which is the matter we're addressing?
Anyway, it's not really hypothetical. There are areas of IP that aren't protected by laws, such as, for example, processes for creating everything that has a particular smell or a particular taste. While this can be protected, it can't be protected well enough to keep someone from making a big change to the process which allows them to produce exactly the same smell or taste but with a new process. In other words, patents that cover things that are used to create smells or tastes are almost worthless (and by the way, smells and tastes themselves cannot be patented).
Pretty much all of these processes, therefore, are controlled using the situation I mentioned - NDAs and the inability to take your work home.
Of course such a situation doesn't exist as much in the software industry because software can be protected by copyright law right now, and the best we can do is speculate that since it almost exclusively the M.O. in other industries that there is a very good chance that it will happen if we lose all intellectual property rights in the software industry.
And, by the way, I have read Stallman's writings about the founding of the free software foundation. He's against non-free software; he wants all software to be freely available with source and executables, for which I believe I just demonstrated a case that this won't happen without copyrights. I have never seen anything by him that said, "I wish that there weren't any copyrights" though I have seen "all software should be free, and no one should be allowed to make it non-free" But that's immaterial, isn't it? Authors who put their work under GPL are looking for a guarantee that whenever their work is embellished and given away, the source code will go with it. With no IP, this doesn't have to happen.
Did you read my post? I gave you an example of why the GPL is needed. I'll be more explicit so that you won't skip over the example like you did the last time I wrote it.
Consider that someone may see some GPL'ed code they like and wants to use it, so they do. They hire engineers and make them all sign non-disclosure agreements for all code they write, and these engineers modify it into a product they want to sell.
They sell the finished product, and keep the source under a tight lid, both legally (through NDA's) and physically, by making sure that no one can take any code home or get it out of the office. Of course, if it was leaked, then it would be available, but no one would do that because they are bound not to and are unable to.
What have they done? They've made free code into non-free code. The GPL failed because there was no GPL.
Which is more foolish, anonymous coward, one who does not hold your views and has a reason for it, or one who doesn't read very well before posting?
Apparently you've never produced a creative work. Either that or you're one of those few people whose creative process can stand such organization.
Books aren't well produced when done by the hour, or under the pressures of time or wages. They're done well when the artists want to do them. You may want to live in a world where fiction is paid for and controlled hour-by-hour by the companies that buy the books, but I don't. I get enough of that out of movies.
Want to start a company that uses that mentality and see what kind of quality you can produce and if it can make money? You can change my mind and the world if you can get it to work! Otherwise, you're just going to go along with all of us who have produced creative works of our own or who follow those who do.
How DARE you, sir!
I as an 18 year old female with measurements of 36-24-36 take offense to this! I do because I am not a teenager who is just taking on a role, but a real live woman with actual breasts! I have two of them! Actual, live, real breasts, and not just something I'm thinking about right now and wishing were in my immediate vicinity because I am a real, live actual woman and not at all made up.
If there was one word I would use to describe myself it would be this: "totally real and not made up." Of all the nerve - I suppose next you're going to be claiming that I'm not actually a vampire.
GPL!=public domain, which would pretty much be the result if there wasn't any IP law. If people didn't care if others used their works in closed-source venues, then they would use less restrictive licenses like BSD-style. A copyleft is a form of copyright, not the absence of it.
Practically, companies could keep their code secret using NDAs and keeping close track of where they keep it in order to circumvent open sourcing their code if it didn't exist.
Artists don't have any God-given right to support themselves, it's true, but I wouldn't want to wait another 30 years because the lady who wrote Harry Potter gets no royalties or merchandising rights and has to live mostly off of her job at McDonalds and the meager fee she gets paid so that one printing company gets the stuff out there before the second one has time to copy it. We need a system in place that gives successful (as in, lots of people want to read/see their work) artists the ability to control the distribution of their works.
Me and my friend are both posting this, so I'll give you both.
...I can't think of anything else.
Me: What has intellectual property law ever done for us?
Friend: Well, there is the GPL. That's from intellectual property law.
Me: Well, obviously that. But BESIDES the GPL, what has it done?
Friend: Given artists a way to survive off of their art. I doubt we'd have as much if they had to work day jobs.
Me, Okay, well, besides GPL, and protection of artists, what has intellectual property ever done for us?
Friend: There's protection of useful inventions. Edison's lab pumped out tons of them that we still use today. That lab wouldn't have lasted if other people could have copied their ideas.
Me: Besides GPL, protection of artists, protection of useful inventions, what has IP law ever done?
Friend: Don't forget about the public access to patents that we use to make new innovations.
Me: So besides GPL, protection of artists, protection of useful inventions and public access to patents, what has IP law ever done for us?
Friend:
Me: IP LAW GO HOME!
IP LAW GO HOME!
IP LAW GO HOME!
(And on, and on, a few hundred times. Hopefully I got the conjugation right)
Do you mean "this is how probability works?"
So not means "if the statistical likelihood is 40%, then the likelihood of the reverse is 60%," and "if the statistical likelihood of A is 50% and B is 50%, then the chance of getting in both is 25%."
Fuzzy logic isn't the same as likelihood. It's about sets, and it turns out to be useful more often that likelihood - enough so to make machines specifically to do fuzzy operations. To put it into perspective, fuzzy logic answers the question, what the amount that an element is in this set, if the boundary of the set is not clearly defined. This is especially useful when talking about quantum particles, for instance.
So if you've got an item that is 50% in set A, and 70% in set B, then it there it's 50% in A and B, and 70% in A or B.
Well, you can't use google or google groups to prop up your missing desk leg, and it won't help you reach that highest shelf to get your old physics book.
It's also not nearly as impressive for that geek-babe you've had your eye on to catch you searching google as to catch you reading this.
There's already a field devoted to what you descibe, and it's not called trinary logic because there are more than three states.
It's fuzzy logic, and the idea is that along with true and false there are also degrees of truth. If true is represented as 1, and false as 0, then an operand can have any value between zero and one. Here are a few fuzzy operators:
Not: 1-operand
And: min(operand1, operand2)
Or: max(operand1, operand2)
Notice that this is a superset of the original operators; with normal true and false values they still behave the same way.
These operators give us a nice way to quantify "possibly," so that we can actually do math using it.
It's 42 for sufficiently large values of 100, and possibly also in a bistro, where none of the normal rules of mathematics or physics quite work the same. Coincidentally, this is also the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Unfortunately, the question, smeared slightly by time, appears to be "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"
Try applying for more scholarships. I had my financial aid go up as I went through school too.
First, I enrolled in special programs that my school offered which offered scholarships, such as, for instance, Research Experience for Undergraduates (it's a NSF program). Second, I just kept applying for stuff.
Finally, I had the condition that this guy mentioned: I became elegible for the government grant program because my sister entered college during my junior year and my parents instantly fell into the "poor" bracket.
I ended up graduating with so much financial aid that I hit the government imposed cap on financial aid. I bought a car when I graduated (it should be mentioned, however, that I did this when the old klunker that got me through college overheated, and my new car was ten years old).
I'm almost finished with grad school. I went to state schools, but not my state, and I haven't paid a dime for it.
All the merit-based monies I have "won" have not been the luck of the draw: you get them if you apply and are eligible.
No, I'd say it implies that SCO claims some part of the code is of their design, as indicated by the fact that it was a quote from Vomit. You must not like reading much if you think that every quote is a claim of fact and not something expressed by the characters.
Generally, the purpose of research is to demonstrate a concept - a new concept that has never been seen before. Therefore, the code would be modern but not necessarily
-robust: only need to run it on one system - probably this is the case more than anything else
-usable: programmer=user means that the code may be very difficult to use for other people
-clean: who cares if you write ugly code? only you have to see it. You're publishing a paper, not the code
-comments: don't need comments! You're the only one using the code and you're worried about getting it done!
So...if you think that any of those fall into state-of-the-art, I'd say that Academic code isn't. At least, this was the case in the lab that I used to work in.
It's not the affending system that is attacked and destroyed, it's the systems that are attacked via DDOS through the hacked boxes using signal propagating viruses.
Have you heard of Dalnet? The network that used to be the largest of the IRC networks? It isn't now. Four months of DDOS attacks against all it's servers brought that to a halt (and there were like 10 of them). It's come back up, but most people have moved to other networks.
Maybe you didn't see this as a real problem because it didn't affect you, but four months can do more than merely wipe data or destroy hardware. They can take down businesses forever.
I'd rather have the "malicious ones" destroy computers owned by users who are partially to blame for letting in viruses than destroy businesses that have no fault at all in the matter.
On an interesting parallel: one of the most destructive viruses (real world) on the planet is Ebola. How do you think it's rate of spreading and death rate compare to AIDS? It's the slow, insideous viruses that you have to worry about, not the ones that are obvious. Not knowing that the virus is there is the best defense a virus has against innoculation or containment, which gives it more time to spread and wreak havok.
Uh, perhaps you meant, "were networked."
"inter-networked. Perhaps I should have said "intranetworked," - they had an intranet. I suppose "were networked" would cover it, but it is not quite as precise.
What exactly is a "normal" business? What exactly is "too expensive"? Macs are pretty much comparable to PCs in price now.
In this case I was using normal in the context of the discussion. Normal meaning "not a computer business," but rather "using computers to do business," which encompasses most of the businesses in existance, and would fit within the context of my discussion. A normal business would be one more likely to have users that only understand that the mouse goes clicky-clicky and the text can be entered with the keyboard.
I provided you with an example of such a business, if you'll reread my comment.
The guy I was talking to quoted me what he was going to pay for each solution he found. 28000 for five Macs along with the groupware stuff. The Windows solution was 18000 for 8 of them, along with the groupware stuff.
1) I can offer about eight machines for about 1800 that will do the job of that windows solution. I know what the Windows software he has is capable of, and I know I can do it for about that and still make a decent profit.
2) I've been evaluating of the currently available linux groupware packages. I'm not sure you're right. I'll let it slide, though, because I'm not sure. You shouldn't be so confident about this, though, because like me you can't prove it. You can only offer your opinion.
3)
The next Clue Train leaves at 5:15. Be on it, Sparky.
Breaking into the industry?" Please stop with the grandiose bullshit, you sound like an idiot.
Do you think that name-calling and condesension strengthen your argument?
Anyway, I think that the term "breaking into the industry" accurately conveys the condition of beginning to get work in an industry that is traditionally held by one group of people by using a different technique than they do. Being that this statement is equivalent, though more direct than the explaination of it, I can't think of a better reason to use it. Had I used a meaningless phrase, I would understand your evaluation of my level of intelligence, even if I didn't agree. As it stands you have merely shown your ignorance of business jargon, which, of course begs a question: do you have a background to know about the business world?
I know of a company that used to use only Macs for their business - a law firm, actually.
They employ a total of five to ten people, and used to do everything via Macs that where internetworked. They couldn't afford IT (well...they could, but they didn't want to pay for it).
They recently switched to PCs because the Apple total groupware solution offered them was roughly three times the price of the PC groupware solution, including buying tech support - a technician that would check in once a month to fix any problems and install patches.
Macs are still too expensive for normal businesses.
I'm thinking of breaking into the industry selling server setups with Linux groupware packages. I think I can offer it for about a tenth of the price of the current Windows solution prices and still make a killing while also being able to show people how to administer it themselves without much difficulty.
1) For a family package they are cheaper than all the other big name providers because most of the others DON'T OFFER a family package. They also have the lowest rates of all of them if you want unlimited wireless.
2) It's nice to claim things, isn't it? I'm in a very metropolitan area, and the service here stinks. Look at the coverage map. They say that they've got coverage in Orlando, and considering how many people use it, it would be good to back it up. It may be "generally considered" to be the best, but it's certainly not the best here, at least not in my experience.
I don't see any reason to conclude that it would be the best elsewhere. My family travels extensively, and have gotten bad results in pretty much the whole southeast US. So...maybe it's the best in places OTHER than the southeast US.