Recent media reports suggest Klein may win his case, although the result is far from certain.
Wants to say "far from likely" but decides the more honest "far from certain" will probably align the same way in the readers mind.
encouraged premature discussions of "remedies" to punish Microsoft and prevent its future dominance...
The key is "premature" no? since when was planning ahead of time for a possible contingency considered the "encouragement of premature discussion"?
But they should realize that a market totally free of prices is not likely to produce quality merchandise and will quickly collapse...
Really, now. Are we to believe that a "market totally free...will quickly collapse" is some kind of economic axiom?
Actually, the "free software" movement is not opposed in theory to software sales, although some idealists oppose it.
We couldn't get anyone on record to say outright "I am opposed to software sales under all circumstances," so we'll just say that "in theory" this isn't what these loonies believe, it's precisely what they believe "in practice." Throw in the word "idealist" for extra fright.
For the sake of an imagined voluntary cooperative...
Right. We made it up and I'm presently doing some "imagined" stuff with "imagined" software that happens to include some fantasy items like Perl, and Apache and GNU tools, and (why should I even go on?)
In a free market, identifiable manufacturers own the product. They are responsible for product performance, and they can be held liable for inexcusable flaws.
When's the last time this guy read a MS EUL agreement?
How do consumers identify the products they need when software is constantly evolving and there are no standard products that enable users to share compatible information?
The real clincher. You will have to constantly attend to upgrades, possibly become dependent on something that becomes outdated and in all circumstances, your collegues will not be able to read your documents because the information will not be compatible. Yes, this is a problem when you use, for example, microsoft Word to write your documents.
Sorry, but I just can't bear to continue.
I'm amazed that CEOs don't DEMAND the code.
on
Open Source Windows
·
· Score: 1
I can't imagine that companies, perhaps monitering/transfering hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, are comfortable using a closed-source software. One, which because of a very restrictive license agreement has very limited liability in case anything goes wrong, in cases of negligence or security problems.
It seems to me that the interests of MS and the interests of companies using Windows are at extreme odds. How can this be true:
company CEOs do not want their shops tinkering with the code.
Its bad for companies to depend, say, on a single supplier of oil. But, for the sake of argument, suppose that I run a manufacturing firm and I require oil from MS. I would be uncomfortably dependent if they were the worlds only supplier. But even in this bad case I can still test the oil for purity in my own labs, filter it if necessary, add required components to the blend and so on. With Windows, you're stuck dependent on a single supplier and you're not even allowed to check the product for quality. (In fact, if the product is bad, you have very limited recourse. You're not even allowed to report how well it works ("no benchmarks" is part of license.)
Amazing to me then, unbelievable really, that a CEO is comfortable in this position and in fact, wouldn't want it improved.
I've found that with the new moderation system, only the longest most boring posts get scored high. The short, responsive (the comments are supposed to be responses, no?) posts, (like yours about Dilbert being created in advance) must be irrelevent. "Otherwise, why so short?" thinks a new moderator.
I found that before there were a million moderators, only posts by famous people got bumped up. Now, it's silly. I usually dislike, often don't have the patience for, and never laugh at, posts marked 3 or 4. You want a high score-- just read the article and write a loooooooong reply. Short, even intelligent short comments are doomed.
Allright. Federal jusrisdiction for sure...if..any laws were broken. I know it affected more than one state, that the FBI were involved from the beginning and some kind of National Infrastructure Protection Center was involved. I was more or less wondering what the federal laws were that were broken.
As for his supposed guilt--- I don't care if he did plead guilty. I still think alleged is correct and we should demand as much from journalists. Don't condone them babytalking us. Why not just say "a suspect has been arrested." That's the way it usually works here in the US-- first a suspect. Then charged. Then tried. Then guilty/not-guilty.
Very early on in mozilla.org, I read the Blue Sky page. There was veritable begging for crazy ideas about new features. The impression I got was that the code was hard to understand and not everyone could be expected to figure it out (or even all the cvs like tools required to get started.) So, if you didn't want to bughunt in a million lines of code, just give wacky ideas about what you'd love to see included.
there were dozens of web sites, hundreds of mailing lists, just devoated to the discussion of what should be in mozilla.
This seemed all according to plan. I'm not justifying the plan, I'm just saying that this seemed to be what mozilla.org was aiming for. It was practically a rally call: "More features. That's the way to win the browser war."
LinuxSoft, according to Torvalds, will experiment with a variety of business models -- including an innovative advertiser-supported approach, in which sponsors will pay to insert their messages directly into the program code. "We know that that's where they'll get the maximum eyeballs and best bang for their buck," he said.
That's the first sign. The "John Katz stock tip of the day" was the clincher.
So, you want everyone to use Linux, so that you get the option of using more applications? Sounds pretty selfish.
And as for Linux being an exclusive club, there is a certain appeal to that, but it's being discussed on another thread--- se Outsiders joining the club? Heavens, no!
Perhaps part of my confusion is that I really have no idea what people use their computers for. So, I guess if you're using Linux, it's because you're interested in understanding a computer and having it do just what you want. Therefore, making it for idiots doesn't make sense. Unless of course, you stand to make money off these idiots, which, by the way, was my original point.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. I really don't want to see Linux proliferate to every desktop. Frankly, I don't care who uses it and I've always been confused by the zealots who talk of "world domination." Dominating my work is about as far as I'm willing to go. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to help my friends-- but I don't care whether Joey Joey Jo Shabadoo uses Linux or not.
About RedHat: RedHat makes Linux more turnkey because they're a business and the more people using Linux --> the more successful they are as a business. Don't forget that. Example: gnome puts a directory in ~/ and doesn't even have the decency to let you know, like netscape or gimp. Hmmmmph! If you're using Linux because you like to know what your computer does at all times, forget RedHat and they're GUI simplification/solutions.
If people want a real easy, stable GUI for Linux, you should lobby for a Microsoft Linux. Don't laugh-- I'm serious about this. A solid Linux kernel would make the system stable, MS could persuade hardware manufacturers to write drivers for latest/greatest devices, and you can count on a GUI that is, well, the king and not imposter-to-the-king. The GPL would permit it and people would like it. Think about it, you'd have real TeX, real GNU tools, compilers, libraries, and the windows GUI. People would like it--- hell, maybe even I would like it. I already spend more money on Linux products than the cost of an MS operating system. Or, use BeOS, which is also a very good suggestion.
Linux isn't for dummies, and why make it so? Answer: You're in business and you stand to profit by making it for dummies.
Why would I listen to WXYZ when I can select my own music mix for the the same cost as cable?
Because there are djs out there that know a lot more about music than you do. Think about it: there are people who know as much about music as you know about computers. Why limit yourself to the music that you've taken the time to listen to and understand? Why not find a good station. By all means, if you hear something you like, buy it--- buy it one freakin' pico second at a time in MP3, if you like, but don't dis'spect radio--- praise it amigo. Don't you think it's better to permit computers to let music proliferate, rather than kill radio? Isn't sorta cool that using a computer, you can listen to particularly fash London stations that the airwaves just can't deliver?
And one more thing: I thought for a second that you said "Why would I listen to WXYC," which happens to be one of the best commercial-free stations here in the Linux-Love-Triangle of Chapel-Hill (sunsite), Durham (RedHat) and Raleigh. But, you said "XYZ," so you're off the hook on that.
I thought your post was a good one. It just seemed like too many posts were being marked with minus scores lately. Furthermore, it seemed that some very good, but not party-line pro-linux posts were being scored negatively. Yours was in this category and I thought I might draw attention to this fact with my post. I know the article that Rob posted recently explains some of this, but I didn't know it at the time. Having my threshold at -10, I just started to notice what some people might be missing.
Maybe your post would have been "moderated" but my reply made it seem somehow not okay to score it negative. In fact, it might be coincidence, but presently, your post is +2.
Of course, maybe my off topic, nasty post should have been "moderated" but perhaps it's disappearance would have been obvious and the moderators shyed from it, too. Maybe the presence of moderation immediately changes the tone of everything--- if one is aware of it, it can be manipulated. Who knows? As for the line at the bottom, it's just my sig for now.
I agree with you. I, too, have read with my own eyes strong posts marked -2. Maybe Rob thinks that if he doesn't have moderators, then the spunk will run rampant and the mere presence of moderation discourages. It's just too bad that we have to lose good posts to accomplish this discouragement.
The difference would be that it would be stable. Faster too. In fact, for people concerned about performance, not philosophy, MSLinux might be exactly what they want. Plus, it might provide a better launching point from which to develop future versions of Windows2000, Windows3D,... We would probably get device drivers for everythin in sight as a spinoff.
I didn't know that. The machine I saw was a stand alone at a Red Hat promotion thingy. It was definitely running kdm, some.99 version of gnome and enlightenment-0.xx. Maybe kdm is less alpha than gdm?
I just use "startx" for my linux-machine here, and all the ultras use xdm. So I've never played with any of these. What's wdm, by the way?
Slashdot Mirror
Wants to say "far from likely" but decides the more honest "far from certain" will probably align the same way in the readers mind.
The key is "premature" no? since when was planning ahead of time for a possible contingency considered the "encouragement of premature discussion"?
Really, now. Are we to believe that a "market totally free...will quickly collapse" is some kind of economic axiom?
We couldn't get anyone on record to say outright "I am opposed to software sales under all circumstances," so we'll just say that "in theory" this isn't what these loonies believe, it's precisely what they believe "in practice." Throw in the word "idealist" for extra fright.
Right. We made it up and I'm presently doing some "imagined" stuff with "imagined" software that happens to include some fantasy items like Perl, and Apache and GNU tools, and (why should I even go on?)
When's the last time this guy read a MS EUL agreement?
The real clincher. You will have to constantly attend to upgrades, possibly become dependent on something that becomes outdated and in all circumstances, your collegues will not be able to read your documents because the information will not be compatible. Yes, this is a problem when you use, for example, microsoft Word to write your documents.
Sorry, but I just can't bear to continue.
I can't imagine that companies, perhaps monitering/transfering hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, are comfortable using a closed-source software. One, which because of a very restrictive license agreement has very limited liability in case anything goes wrong, in cases of negligence or security problems.
It seems to me that the interests of MS and the interests of companies using Windows are at extreme odds. How can this be true:
Its bad for companies to depend, say, on a single supplier of oil. But, for the sake of argument, suppose that I run a manufacturing firm and I require oil from MS. I would be uncomfortably dependent if they were the worlds only supplier. But even in this bad case I can still test the oil for purity in my own labs, filter it if necessary, add required components to the blend and so on. With Windows, you're stuck dependent on a single supplier and you're not even allowed to check the product for quality. (In fact, if the product is bad, you have very limited recourse. You're not even allowed to report how well it works ("no benchmarks" is part of license.)Amazing to me then, unbelievable really, that a CEO is comfortable in this position and in fact, wouldn't want it improved.
And it's pretty good. The a/v is awesome, the stories, the tech upgrades, everything is just terrific. But, there's something missing....
So, is Call to Power great? Does it run in a window? Is the interface excellent? Can you play over a network? How does it compare to AC?
I've found that with the new moderation system, only the longest most boring posts get scored high. The short, responsive (the comments are supposed to be responses, no?) posts, (like yours about Dilbert being created in advance) must be irrelevent. "Otherwise, why so short?" thinks a new moderator.
I found that before there were a million moderators, only posts by famous people got bumped up. Now, it's silly. I usually dislike, often don't have the patience for, and never laugh at, posts marked 3 or 4. You want a high score-- just read the article and write a loooooooong reply. Short, even intelligent short comments are doomed.
thanks. I feel a bit better.
Allright. Federal jusrisdiction for sure...if..any laws were broken. I know it affected more than one state, that the FBI were involved from the beginning and some kind of National Infrastructure Protection Center was involved. I was more or less wondering what the federal laws were that were broken.
As for his supposed guilt--- I don't care if he did plead guilty. I still think alleged is correct and we should demand as much from journalists. Don't condone them babytalking us. Why not just say "a suspect has been arrested." That's the way it usually works here in the US-- first a suspect. Then charged. Then tried. Then guilty/not-guilty.
Very early on in mozilla.org, I read the Blue Sky page. There was veritable begging for crazy ideas about new features. The impression I got was that the code was hard to understand and not everyone could be expected to figure it out (or even all the cvs like tools required to get started.) So, if you didn't want to bughunt in a million lines of code, just give wacky ideas about what you'd love to see included.
This seemed all according to plan. I'm not justifying the plan, I'm just saying that this seemed to be what mozilla.org was aiming for. It was practically a rally call: "More features. That's the way to win the browser war."
I think they meant to say "Smith allegidly originated..." Am I wrong, or when terrorism is concerned is it "guilty until proven innocent."
Jesus, is there really federal jurisdiction in a case like this? I am afraid.
And why waste banana peels on a time machine, when you can smoke 'em.
Turns out I'm gay, but at least everyone knows who to blame since they have my Mother's_maiden_name. Explains why my high_school_gpa was so low.
Its 01-04 day for some of us.
I looked and looked and looked. I saw lots of interesting things, but no fusion stories. Why does the mere mention of fusion make me think "prank?"
That's the first sign. The "John Katz stock tip of the day" was the clincher.
So, you want everyone to use Linux, so that you get the option of using more applications? Sounds pretty selfish.
And as for Linux being an exclusive club, there is a certain appeal to that, but it's being discussed on another thread--- se Outsiders joining the club? Heavens, no!
Perhaps part of my confusion is that I really have no idea what people use their computers for. So, I guess if you're using Linux, it's because you're interested in understanding a computer and having it do just what you want. Therefore, making it for idiots doesn't make sense. Unless of course, you stand to make money off these idiots, which, by the way, was my original point.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. I really don't want to see Linux proliferate to every desktop. Frankly, I don't care who uses it and I've always been confused by the zealots who talk of "world domination." Dominating my work is about as far as I'm willing to go. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to help my friends-- but I don't care whether Joey Joey Jo Shabadoo uses Linux or not.
About RedHat: RedHat makes Linux more turnkey because they're a business and the more people using Linux --> the more successful they are as a business. Don't forget that. Example: gnome puts a directory in ~/ and doesn't even have the decency to let you know, like netscape or gimp. Hmmmmph! If you're using Linux because you like to know what your computer does at all times, forget RedHat and they're GUI simplification/solutions.
If people want a real easy, stable GUI for Linux, you should lobby for a Microsoft Linux. Don't laugh-- I'm serious about this. A solid Linux kernel would make the system stable, MS could persuade hardware manufacturers to write drivers for latest/greatest devices, and you can count on a GUI that is, well, the king and not imposter-to-the-king. The GPL would permit it and people would like it. Think about it, you'd have real TeX, real GNU tools, compilers, libraries, and the windows GUI. People would like it--- hell, maybe even I would like it. I already spend more money on Linux products than the cost of an MS operating system. Or, use BeOS, which is also a very good suggestion.
Linux isn't for dummies, and why make it so? Answer: You're in business and you stand to profit by making it for dummies.
Because there are djs out there that know a lot more about music than you do. Think about it: there are people who know as much about music as you know about computers. Why limit yourself to the music that you've taken the time to listen to and understand? Why not find a good station. By all means, if you hear something you like, buy it--- buy it one freakin' pico second at a time in MP3, if you like, but don't dis'spect radio--- praise it amigo. Don't you think it's better to permit computers to let music proliferate, rather than kill radio? Isn't sorta cool that using a computer, you can listen to particularly fash London stations that the airwaves just can't deliver?
And one more thing: I thought for a second that you said "Why would I listen to WXYC," which happens to be one of the best commercial-free stations here in the Linux-Love-Triangle of Chapel-Hill (sunsite), Durham (RedHat) and Raleigh. But, you said "XYZ," so you're off the hook on that.
I thought your post was a good one. It just seemed like too many posts were being marked with minus scores lately. Furthermore, it seemed that some very good, but not party-line pro-linux posts were being scored negatively. Yours was in this category and I thought I might draw attention to this fact with my post. I know the article that Rob posted recently explains some of this, but I didn't know it at the time. Having my threshold at -10, I just started to notice what some people might be missing.
Maybe your post would have been "moderated" but my reply made it seem somehow not okay to score it negative. In fact, it might be coincidence, but presently, your post is +2.
Of course, maybe my off topic, nasty post should have been "moderated" but perhaps it's disappearance would have been obvious and the moderators shyed from it, too. Maybe the presence of moderation immediately changes the tone of everything--- if one is aware of it, it can be manipulated. Who knows? As for the line at the bottom, it's just my sig for now.
You will be "moderatored" for that snide remark.
Maybe MS just said, "Wanna use NT instead?" And Gateway said, "OK, sure. Seems people like NT better, anyway."
It's so slow to reload and change thresholds. I know you can set it up in the preferences section, but only if you log in.
I think this is a poor policy. I'm sure somebody has a reason for it, but I can't think of one. I think either
I agree with you. I, too, have read with my own eyes strong posts marked -2. Maybe Rob thinks that if he doesn't have moderators, then the spunk will run rampant and the mere presence of moderation discourages. It's just too bad that we have to lose good posts to accomplish this discouragement.
The difference would be that it would be stable. Faster too. In fact, for people concerned about performance, not philosophy, MSLinux might be exactly what they want. Plus, it might provide a better launching point from which to develop future versions of Windows2000, Windows3D, ... We would probably get device drivers for everythin in sight as a spinoff.
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions/redh at/ only has 5.2
I didn't know that. The machine I saw was a stand alone at a Red Hat promotion thingy. It was definitely running kdm, some .99 version of gnome and enlightenment-0.xx. Maybe kdm is less alpha than gdm?
I just use "startx" for my linux-machine here, and all the ultras use xdm. So I've never played with any of these. What's wdm, by the way?
Didn't you know better than to go to Starbuck's before today?
You in Raleigh, tough guy?