As long as you can get things working you should be OK.
I have installed it in Shuttle machines and the only thing that didn't work out of the box was the network card driver, which I found quickly after googling a bit.
Why do people seem to be willing to accept abusive behaviour from technology companies that they would not accept from any other provider of goods or services?
I got tired of being ignored, and even antagonized, by Apple when it came to the iPod. So I sold mine on Ebay and bought something that works with Linux without having to wait for somebody to crack the asinine encryption the controls freaks at Apple insist in throwing at us,
Honestly, there are many music managers out there, why give Apple the satisfaction of counting one more download?
If yes, I fail to see the problem, if they brake it you claim the insurance and ask your friend to cover the deductible, that would be just fair.
If you don't (or if you simply don't want to share your laptop, you bastard) tell them that the laptop is not insured, and that you would prefer not to burden them with such responsibility, this way you are not really telling them to f. off although you would actually be doing exactly that, but showing an hypocrite concern for them, which must be something positive.
For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.
Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established, but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.
The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.
Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all. This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.
Once Gates & Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.
So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping. They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business. The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.
Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure. They really believed that the MSN (MS Network!) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.
That is what is being punished. It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.
People that sell and/or manufacture computers. The problem has been MS dictating what these companies can install, and thus, favouring their own browser.
Why browsers, but not other basic programs?
Because MS went out of its way in order to obliterate competition in the browser market when it was on its infancy. They subsidized a product and arm forced hardware manufacturers in order to make sure no other company could get access to a computer's desktop.
Won't people look at the screen, confused for a moment, and then click the familiar blue e?
They may, but that is not the point. Just ensuring people know there are choices would be good enough.
Why even bother doing this, since the people who care can easily get a new browser?
Because is people not caring whoul should be made aware about the state of affairs.
That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.
There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....
Without EU regulations there would be no serious attempt to have a level playing field for all the country members (things are bad as they are, no regulation would make them worse).
Normally the tabloid media name the regulations out of context, in which they seem ridiculous, further scrutiny very often reveals that there are very good reasons for arriving to certain rulings.
Granted, the EU will get some things monumentally wrong, but that does not mean that all what they do is useless and that regulation is uncalled for (banks gave us a shinning example of why we need regulation).
My Mexican passport has my photograph printed in the paper, so there is no way to replace it , like it was theoretically possible with older passports.
So they look at me, check the picture and let me in if I am the guy in the picture. Passports come with codes and an electronic tag that should ensure it is legit (as we know they are using the wrong technology, but that is the problem with authoritarian people, you can't trust them to run anything efficiently).
So which problem exactly they are trying to solve?
I'll tell you which one: they try to keep their jobs (Homeland Security) byt busying themselves doing something, anything, the more authoritarian the better.
I could save some money every time I go to Mexico by flying with an US airline from Europe.
I will not do so until the immigration policies in the US return to pre 9-11 levels of sanity (which were bad enough mind you, but not unbearably authoritarian like they are now).
As long as these idiotic policies continue European (and Canadian!) airlines will continue to have my business...
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you can get things working you should be OK.
I have installed it in Shuttle machines and the only thing that didn't work out of the box was the network card driver, which I found quickly after googling a bit.
Why do people seem to be willing to accept abusive behaviour from technology companies that they would not accept from any other provider of goods or services?
I got tired of being ignored, and even antagonized, by Apple when it came to the iPod. So I sold mine on Ebay and bought something that works with Linux without having to wait for somebody to crack the asinine encryption the controls freaks at Apple insist in throwing at us,
Honestly, there are many music managers out there, why give Apple the satisfaction of counting one more download?
Amazing nobody has mentioned this.
If yes, I fail to see the problem, if they brake it you claim the insurance and ask your friend to cover the deductible, that would be just fair.
If you don't (or if you simply don't want to share your laptop, you bastard) tell them that the laptop is not insured, and that you would prefer not to burden them with such responsibility, this way you are not really telling them to f. off although you would actually be doing exactly that, but showing an hypocrite concern for them, which must be something positive.
We must face this, ZFS ate Linux's lunch this time ...
It does not even have an equivalent to fsck.
Then why they don't apply a different price according to the postcode where you live (perfectly doable)?
I will tell you why: because their sorry asses would be landing in jail sooner than you can say Donkey Kong.
They apply this price fixing only because they can get away with it, as soon as governments get their act together such idiotic practice will stop.
They know it and they are milking it for all what is worth.
There is nothing they can do to stop me buying a console from another country and then buying games from there as well.
In DVDs they were completely owned by their incompetence, I am pretty sure BluRay will be the same (multi region players will appear soon).
But no matter what, they keep trying. YOu have to adminre the degree of idiocity and stuborness of the people in that industry ....
With many places having up to 25% of Firefox users, I think OEMs should wisen up to the fact that people are looking for options.
For somebody deriding others about their short memories, I have to say yours is pretty selective, to say the least.
Netscape may have sucked, I think that is now firmly established, but that is not the reason they collapsed so spectacularly.
The reason was that Microsoft used their controlling position in the operating system market in order to try to corner the Internet by means of their browser.
Unlike your amnesiac account of facts, I remember when Bill Gates wrote "The Road Ahead", its "visionary" book in which the Internet was hardly mentioned, if at all. This was 1995, when the Internet was firmly established as a medium to be reckoned with.
Once Gates & Co realized their short sightedness they refocused the company to the Internet, so they found themselves all of the sudden needing to refocus on the internet but without any control of the main application used to access it: the web browser.
So they did what many monopolists have done before: dumping. They subsidized IE in order to put Netscape out of business. The fact that Netscape sucked made it easier for Microsoft to succeed, but that does not excuse them of their responsibility of abuse of their monopolistic position.
Part 2 of their master plan was to get hold of the infrastructure. They really believed that the MSN (MS Network!) would beat the Internet, but understandably the administrators behind all those relatively new websites stuck with open, free standards instead of allowing the famous MS embrace to take place.
That is what is being punished. It may not be a timely punishment, but at least is something that may have some teeth ( we are still accessing the Internet using web browsers, unless you guys are using gopher or FTP), so I fail to see how this is not a useful measure.
Who gets to decide on the list?
People that sell and/or manufacture computers. The problem has been MS dictating what these companies can install, and thus, favouring their own browser.
Why browsers, but not other basic programs?
Because MS went out of its way in order to obliterate competition in the browser market when it was on its infancy. They subsidized a product and arm forced hardware manufacturers in order to make sure no other company could get access to a computer's desktop.
Won't people look at the screen, confused for a moment, and then click the familiar blue e?
They may, but that is not the point. Just ensuring people know there are choices would be good enough.
Why even bother doing this, since the people who care can easily get a new browser?
Because is people not caring whoul should be made aware about the state of affairs.
You don't have to own 100% of the market in order to be considered to have monopolistic influence in that market.
Car analogies are fun if used with some degree of wit
Car analogies are not always pertinent, this is such a case.
That is a great way of approach problems you have got there: brake the law in a way that makes life convenient, sit down and relax basking in your success since there will be people willing to vouch for you overlooking your illegal or unethical activities.
How can serious people advocate this?
Authorities in general don't get to clean the mess left behind by people or entities braking the law.
They impose remediation that in many instances may not be 100% satisfactory, but they may be doing the best of a bad job.
MS is the one that created this mess, don't blame the EU if it is difficult to come with a clean solution.
How many years do you need for something *not* to be a knee jerk reaction?
One hundred?
One glacial age?
Have you been asleep the last couple of years or what?
Oh yeah, never. That was much better.
There is such a thing as reputation, if anything this is yet another proof to show people about the kind of company they are dealing with when allowing Windows in their machines....
What is your problem with that exactly?
Let companies get it right, but let the EU in this case force them to make sure they are offering choice.
Don't embarrass yourself missing that obvious point.
Please refer us to the official MS document that will tell us how to do this.
Without EU regulations there would be no serious attempt to have a level playing field for all the country members (things are bad as they are, no regulation would make them worse).
Normally the tabloid media name the regulations out of context, in which they seem ridiculous, further scrutiny very often reveals that there are very good reasons for arriving to certain rulings.
Granted, the EU will get some things monumentally wrong, but that does not mean that all what they do is useless and that regulation is uncalled for (banks gave us a shinning example of why we need regulation).
I want to see where I can buy those things for the price you are saying....
My Mexican passport has my photograph printed in the paper, so there is no way to replace it , like it was theoretically possible with older passports.
So they look at me, check the picture and let me in if I am the guy in the picture. Passports come with codes and an electronic tag that should ensure it is legit (as we know they are using the wrong technology, but that is the problem with authoritarian people, you can't trust them to run anything efficiently).
So which problem exactly they are trying to solve?
I'll tell you which one: they try to keep their jobs (Homeland Security) byt busying themselves doing something, anything, the more authoritarian the better.
I could save some money every time I go to Mexico by flying with an US airline from Europe.
I will not do so until the immigration policies in the US return to pre 9-11 levels of sanity (which were bad enough mind you, but not unbearably authoritarian like they are now).
As long as these idiotic policies continue European (and Canadian!) airlines will continue to have my business...