There is a long list of MS trade names that were used by someone else before MS started using the name. The most egregious is probably "Personal Computer", which was used by all the small-computer makers before MS took it over
Please quote Microsoft's trademark on the phrase "Personal Computer". You should be able to find it at the USPTO website. Go ahead.
Of course, you won't be able to, because it's not.
Maybe you have to be a pilot to fully understand what I mean.
No, I'm willing to bet that being a pilot in this case merely serves to overanalyze throwaway lines to the point of them not meaning anything any more.
The NT scheduler most certainly is NOT O(1). But the NT kernel was written using Pascal calling conv. b/c the earlier kernels were written in Pascal. And most of Windows (but not the kernel) is still COM including IE, Outlook, Word, etc. Why do MS people insist that Windows includes technology it clearly doesn't. Just try to start a couple of apps at once and watch your screen freeze for over 500 ms and then tell me the scheduler is O(1). Do you even know what O(1) means?
You obviously don't.
Being disk IO bound does not mean that thread scheduling is not O(1).
The thread scheduler is indeed O(1).
Your example is one of being IO bound.
I've run tests to prove this. And before anyone links to the IBM benchmarks, they don't test thread scheduling efficiency - they test how quickly a thread can be woken up and made active from a signalled kernel object.
This article is just another example of such a case. The anticipatory scheduler algorithm was not published until 2001. With Linux you get these sorts of benefits integrated in reasonble time, with Microsoft you have to wait between W2K and Longhorn to get any of the new goodies.
You seem to have missed the point.
The "Goodies" as you put them, were already in place in Windows NT 4.0. Possibly earlier.
The first thing that they teach students in a graphic arts class is to never use primary colors together.
Really? Are you sure about that? Because the guys who do the graphic design for McDonalds, Burger King, British Telecom and many more probably missed that day in school.
Farscape is one of those shows that's very difficult to break into because of its highly seralized nature. That is to say, the plotline is very involved, and trying to break into it is very difficult.
Of course, if people would just chill out and accept that they're not going to understand it all right from the get go, and actually come along for the ride, then there wouldn't be a problem. They do litter enough material in there for a bright viewer to pick up the plot over a few shows - but it does take a few shows.
The reason Sun had MS stop distributing the JRE was because the only JRE MS could legally distribute when they had to include it in the OS was JRE 1.1.8. If you at all know about the Java industry, JRE 1.1.8 came out pre-1998 and Java is about to release 1.5 after 1.2.x, 1.3.x, and 1.4.x. So, if you were a company that wants developers to use the latest and greatest in what Java has to offer in their applets, then you definitely don't want JRE 1.1.8 being distributed. This is crippling the devolpment of at most applet development in the whole scheme of things that Java is used for. As a developer, you would have to consider this if you want to include as many people as possible into your web audience, which in effect forces development to pre-1999 levels of Java for applet development. That sucks
Oh, Mr. Sun Fanboy.... who made it so that the only JRE that MS could legally distribute was JRE 1.1.8?
That's right - Sun did.
That's why the original poster claimed that it was Sun's fault.
The worst programming job I ever had involved maintaining 60 KLOC of Fortran that had been hacked together by about 5 different guys, each of whom used EQUIVALENCE statements to alias all of the variables into mnemonics in their native languages. It was completely uncommented except for a single line, about halfway through the big plate o' spaghetti that this thing was, which read: C C OKEY DOKEY, SMOKEY! C
Oh, yeah, and need I mention that this was for a mission-critical system?
No, the industrial revolution started nearer to Newcastle and Stoke than Manchester. Manchester had little to do with the industrial revolution itself, but it did end up adopting a lot of the technology and as a result became as polluted and disgusting as the areas in which the rrevolution started.
Try reading up on it a little more. Manchester was indeed one of the main birthplaces of the industrial revolution - particularly for textiles.
Police Officer Jimmy Beck has just jumped off the top of a nearby building, after being harrassed by one Dr. Fitzgerald.
(In case you don't get it, Chapel Street - the entrance to the Guardian system is where they filmed Jimmy Beck's swansong in his last episode of Cracker).
I must ask - WHERE IS THE REDUNDANCY. Everyone with any sense knows you do not have a critical hub like that without having geographically seperate backup.
Edinburgh and London are the backups, according to what a friend of mine once told me.
This friend was one who worked on pulling out the last analogue switching units from that particular underground exchange. He had a tape of the sound the analogue exchange made before they pulled it out too... 'twas fascinating.
Right now, most calls are bypassing Manchester, and going to the other two main trunk stations - and if you're calling from Birmingham, you're probably going through Edinburgh to get to your destination.
First off, copyrights wern't created because books were being coppied without the creators consent as they starved in the streets. They were created for publishers who wanted to take works out of the public domain and keep their competitors from printing the same works, and by Kings who wanted to censor the press by granting such publisher monopolies in return for them agreeing not to publish bad things about the monarchy. So your premise is bogus.
Ironically, so is your conclusion. The simple observable measurable fact is - that for every creator that copyrights have financially benefited, there are thousands who they haven't helped a bit, hindered or even destroyed.
However, the others - the people who are not the creators - didn't actually contribute anything to actually putting the work together in the first place, so what makes you think that they deserve any kind of right to that material at all? Boo hoo - they're "destroyed" because they copied that material? Perhaps they shouldn't have copied it. Nobody forced them to. It wasn't like that material meant the difference between life or death to them. Color me unimpressed.
Your other implied premise, that noone will create worthwhile information without copyright monopolies, is also bogus.
So are you going to turn away 2 million concert goers nationwide who are willing to pay an average of over $40 a pop to see you entertain because they can copy your music online? Yeah, things will change when copyrights go away, so what, they need to change.
Without copyright, you return to the royalty system. The real royalty system - where royalty has to bestow upon you the title of "master composer" or some such nonsense, and then pay for you to live.
And no, you don't have to turn away 2 million concert goers. If you think that this way of working will benefit you, then it's your choice not to prosecute people who steal your material - and, if you prefer, to allow them to copy it legally without stealing. However, that doesn't mean that you should enforce that lifestyle on everyone else.
Similarly, you can't force anyone to release an original work under the GPL - no matter how much RMS might want that to be the case.
Actually, I'm all 4, I've heard that before, and I'm sick and tired of it because it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I'm all and because of that I've seen the crap related to copyrights first hand. (Oh, and PS, the entire renassance happened without copyrights, so where are you comming from)
Copyright only became necessary around the time of the Rennaisance; the printing press had only just been invented at that time, and it was nearly impossible to copy those artworks with it anyway.
It was only shortly afterward when book after book was being copied without the authors' consent that it was seen that copyright of some kind was a necessary concept.
The only difference between then and now is one purely of volume; with huge quantities of copyrighted works being created every day, people have lost sight of the fact that those works are indeed valuable - and that it takes work to create them. When everyone can be a journalist (though not necessarily a particularly good one) by throwing together a website, you no longer consider the articles you read online to be special - or work.
However, that doesn't change the intrinsic value inherent in that work one iota; it just means that there's more to choose from now.
I seem to recall the Rennaisance also involving much higher prices for those artworks... people were in the employ of kings and emperors and churches - and producing one artwork every 5 years was enough to keep you alive and fed and happy.
The same does not apply today - people don't pay those prices. So a different model evolved - the production of prints and duplicates, which could be sold for much less.
Copyright is and always has been all about selling on volume, not on margin. If you can mass produce something, the price drops for the individual consumer. Without copyright, you can expect the system to address that by raising the price accordingly.
Would you be willing to pay the $100,000 it costs to make a new album, if you're the only one paying for it? Or the $10,000,000 it costs to make a movie?
Movements like GNU were started in reaction to when companies and universities started rejecting OSS. One of the big events back then was when Bill Gates sent out a letter to the hobbyist community urging them to stop freely giving out their code, because (according to him) it encouraged theft.
Highly factually inaccurate. He sent out a letter to the hobbyist community urging them to stop copying his code, because that was copyright infringement and theft.
He couldn't care less what they were doing with their stuff - but he did care what they were doing with his.
Given that Grid-layouts of TV times are patented, and the TV scheduling data which xmltv (the MythTV backend screen scraper) obtains for MythTV are copyrighted by Tribune, and it's therefore most likely illegal to use that data in this manner...... well, just how long is MythTV going to last?
There's a reason you have to buy a subscription for a TiVo or a ReplayTV - because that guide data costs money, and the guide display patent royalties need to be paid.
I can't see MythTV surviving too long if Tribune start complaining - or TiVo or ReplayTV decide to push Tribune to complain about the use of the guide data for free.
RMS started GNU in the 80s, and not because Microsoft pissed him off, but because he didn't like proprietary software overall. Linus didn't make Linux because he wanted to kill Microsoft, it just kinda developed to scratch an itch, the itch being Minix's simplicity.
That's great. That's two people. I thought a lot more people worked on OSS?
Do you read Slashdot often? Doesn't this give you a bit of a clue as to the OSS mindset? Namely that Microsoft must be crushed?
Nope. The difference between a 30MHz Arm used 12 years ago and a 75Mhz Arm used today is nearly nothing. Software is and will be the limiting factor. And it is not just software - it is the OS.
Except for, of course, power consumption, the thumb system to reduce code size, package sizes, a factor of 3 performance, faster, lower-power memory, smaller footprint and larger storage size non-volatile RAM, the fact that the new ARM CPUs were designed explicitly to handle WindowsCE multitasking for up to 32 processes (the original didn't have fast context switching), lack of on-chip peripheral control (such as LCD, touch-screen, PCM audio), and so on and so forth, I guess you're right.
Back in 1995, Microsoft Word had a problem with auto-page numbering in the footer of documents that affected the page numbers as well as the font used if changed from the default 12pt Times Roman. 9 years later, this exact same bug remains
Funny... I rarely use Times Roman, and page numbering works fine for me - I've never had a problem in the last 10 years with it.
Do you have any specific examples or repro-cases of how to get it to screw up?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and a windowing system called "Windows" is generic. Thanks for making my point.
No, it's a graphical user interface (and now Operating System) called "Windows". The Windowing part of it is only very tiny.
For this reason, you could name a car "Gear Stick", and it would still be trademarkable.
Actually, Robertson has gone on record that his next OS name will be:
Siouxsie.
If that one fails, he'll probably go for Blue Chapeau. Or Boydrake.
There is a long list of MS trade names that were used by someone else before MS started using the name. The most egregious is probably "Personal Computer", which was used by all the small-computer makers before MS took it over
Please quote Microsoft's trademark on the phrase "Personal Computer". You should be able to find it at the USPTO website. Go ahead.
Of course, you won't be able to, because it's not.
Get your facts straight in future.
Which part of "you cannot trademark a generic term" don't you understand?
Which part of:
This is generic:
A screwdriver brand called "Screwdriver(R)" or "Flathead(R)"
This is not generic:
A lawnmower brand called "Screwdriver{R}" or "Flathead{R}"
Maybe you have to be a pilot to fully understand what I mean.
No, I'm willing to bet that being a pilot in this case merely serves to overanalyze throwaway lines to the point of them not meaning anything any more.
The NT scheduler most certainly is NOT O(1). But the NT kernel was written using Pascal calling conv. b/c the earlier kernels were written in Pascal. And most of Windows (but not the kernel) is still COM including IE, Outlook, Word, etc. Why do MS people insist that Windows includes technology it clearly doesn't. Just try to start a couple of apps at once and watch your screen freeze for over 500 ms and then tell me the scheduler is O(1). Do you even know what O(1) means?
You obviously don't.
Being disk IO bound does not mean that thread scheduling is not O(1).
The thread scheduler is indeed O(1).
Your example is one of being IO bound.
I've run tests to prove this. And before anyone links to the IBM benchmarks, they don't test thread scheduling efficiency - they test how quickly a thread can be woken up and made active from a signalled kernel object.
This article is just another example of such a case. The anticipatory scheduler algorithm was not published until 2001. With Linux you get these sorts of benefits integrated in reasonble time, with Microsoft you have to wait between W2K and Longhorn to get any of the new goodies.
You seem to have missed the point.
The "Goodies" as you put them, were already in place in Windows NT 4.0. Possibly earlier.
The first thing that they teach students in a graphic arts class is to never use primary colors together.
Really? Are you sure about that? Because the guys who do the graphic design for McDonalds, Burger King, British Telecom and many more probably missed that day in school.
I'm not even going to mention Wired magazine.
Because Samba is network IO bound, not disk IO bound.
Farscape is one of those shows that's very difficult to break into because of its highly seralized nature. That is to say, the plotline is very involved, and trying to break into it is very difficult.
Of course, if people would just chill out and accept that they're not going to understand it all right from the get go, and actually come along for the ride, then there wouldn't be a problem. They do litter enough material in there for a bright viewer to pick up the plot over a few shows - but it does take a few shows.
The reason Sun had MS stop distributing the JRE was because the only JRE MS could legally distribute when they had to include it in the OS was JRE 1.1.8. If you at all know about the Java industry, JRE 1.1.8 came out pre-1998 and Java is about to release 1.5 after 1.2.x, 1.3.x, and 1.4.x. So, if you were a company that wants developers to use the latest and greatest in what Java has to offer in their applets, then you definitely don't want JRE 1.1.8 being distributed. This is crippling the devolpment of at most applet development in the whole scheme of things that Java is used for. As a developer, you would have to consider this if you want to include as many people as possible into your web audience, which in effect forces development to pre-1999 levels of Java for applet development. That sucks
Oh, Mr. Sun Fanboy.... who made it so that the only JRE that MS could legally distribute was JRE 1.1.8?
That's right - Sun did.
That's why the original poster claimed that it was Sun's fault.
Lemme guess... Police Dispatch system?
No, the industrial revolution started nearer to Newcastle and Stoke than Manchester. Manchester had little to do with the industrial revolution itself, but it did end up adopting a lot of the technology and as a result became as polluted and disgusting as the areas in which the rrevolution started.
Try reading up on it a little more. Manchester was indeed one of the main birthplaces of the industrial revolution - particularly for textiles.
Police Officer Jimmy Beck has just jumped off the top of a nearby building, after being harrassed by one Dr. Fitzgerald.
(In case you don't get it, Chapel Street - the entrance to the Guardian system is where they filmed Jimmy Beck's swansong in his last episode of Cracker).
I must ask - WHERE IS THE REDUNDANCY. Everyone with any sense knows you do not have a critical hub like that without having geographically seperate backup.
Edinburgh and London are the backups, according to what a friend of mine once told me.
This friend was one who worked on pulling out the last analogue switching units from that particular underground exchange. He had a tape of the sound the analogue exchange made before they pulled it out too... 'twas fascinating.
Right now, most calls are bypassing Manchester, and going to the other two main trunk stations - and if you're calling from Birmingham, you're probably going through Edinburgh to get to your destination.
First off, copyrights wern't created because books were being coppied without the creators consent as they starved in the streets. They were created for publishers who wanted to take works out of the public domain and keep their competitors from printing the same works, and by Kings who wanted to censor the press by granting such publisher monopolies in return for them agreeing not to publish bad things about the monarchy. So your premise is bogus.
You're incredibly misinformed. It was the authors getting screwed. Copyright came about to protect them.
Ironically, so is your conclusion. The simple observable measurable fact is - that for every creator that copyrights have financially benefited, there are thousands who they haven't helped a bit, hindered or even destroyed.
However, the others - the people who are not the creators - didn't actually contribute anything to actually putting the work together in the first place, so what makes you think that they deserve any kind of right to that material at all? Boo hoo - they're "destroyed" because they copied that material? Perhaps they shouldn't have copied it. Nobody forced them to. It wasn't like that material meant the difference between life or death to them. Color me unimpressed.
Your other implied premise, that noone will create worthwhile information without copyright monopolies, is also bogus.
So are you going to turn away 2 million concert goers nationwide who are willing to pay an average of over $40 a pop to see you entertain because they can copy your music online? Yeah, things will change when copyrights go away, so what, they need to change.
Without copyright, you return to the royalty system. The real royalty system - where royalty has to bestow upon you the title of "master composer" or some such nonsense, and then pay for you to live.
And no, you don't have to turn away 2 million concert goers. If you think that this way of working will benefit you, then it's your choice not to prosecute people who steal your material - and, if you prefer, to allow them to copy it legally without stealing. However, that doesn't mean that you should enforce that lifestyle on everyone else.
Similarly, you can't force anyone to release an original work under the GPL - no matter how much RMS might want that to be the case.
Actually, I'm all 4, I've heard that before, and I'm sick and tired of it because it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I'm all and because of that I've seen the crap related to copyrights first hand. (Oh, and PS, the entire renassance happened without copyrights, so where are you comming from)
Copyright only became necessary around the time of the Rennaisance; the printing press had only just been invented at that time, and it was nearly impossible to copy those artworks with it anyway.
It was only shortly afterward when book after book was being copied without the authors' consent that it was seen that copyright of some kind was a necessary concept.
The only difference between then and now is one purely of volume; with huge quantities of copyrighted works being created every day, people have lost sight of the fact that those works are indeed valuable - and that it takes work to create them. When everyone can be a journalist (though not necessarily a particularly good one) by throwing together a website, you no longer consider the articles you read online to be special - or work.
However, that doesn't change the intrinsic value inherent in that work one iota; it just means that there's more to choose from now.
I seem to recall the Rennaisance also involving much higher prices for those artworks... people were in the employ of kings and emperors and churches - and producing one artwork every 5 years was enough to keep you alive and fed and happy.
The same does not apply today - people don't pay those prices. So a different model evolved - the production of prints and duplicates, which could be sold for much less.
Copyright is and always has been all about selling on volume, not on margin. If you can mass produce something, the price drops for the individual consumer. Without copyright, you can expect the system to address that by raising the price accordingly.
Would you be willing to pay the $100,000 it costs to make a new album, if you're the only one paying for it? Or the $10,000,000 it costs to make a movie?
Movements like GNU were started in reaction to when companies and universities started rejecting OSS. One of the big events back then was when Bill Gates sent out a letter to the hobbyist community urging them to stop freely giving out their code, because (according to him) it encouraged theft.
Highly factually inaccurate. He sent out a letter to the hobbyist community urging them to stop copying his code, because that was copyright infringement and theft.
He couldn't care less what they were doing with their stuff - but he did care what they were doing with his.
Given that Grid-layouts of TV times are patented, and the TV scheduling data which xmltv (the MythTV backend screen scraper) obtains for MythTV are copyrighted by Tribune, and it's therefore most likely illegal to use that data in this manner... ... well, just how long is MythTV going to last?
There's a reason you have to buy a subscription for a TiVo or a ReplayTV - because that guide data costs money, and the guide display patent royalties need to be paid.
I can't see MythTV surviving too long if Tribune start complaining - or TiVo or ReplayTV decide to push Tribune to complain about the use of the guide data for free.
Just a thought...
RMS started GNU in the 80s, and not because Microsoft pissed him off, but because he didn't like proprietary software overall. Linus didn't make Linux because he wanted to kill Microsoft, it just kinda developed to scratch an itch, the itch being Minix's simplicity.
That's great. That's two people. I thought a lot more people worked on OSS?
Do you read Slashdot often? Doesn't this give you a bit of a clue as to the OSS mindset? Namely that Microsoft must be crushed?
Because without a large "evil" bad guy to rail against, no-one would bother writing OSS.
The only reason you're using Linux today is because people hated Microsoft enough to write OSS to compete with it.
Just repaginate the document then. F9 or something. Not hard.
Alternatively, oddball fonts should be embedded in the document.
Nope. The difference between a 30MHz Arm used 12 years ago and a 75Mhz Arm used today is nearly nothing. Software is and will be the limiting factor. And it is not just software - it is the OS.
Except for, of course, power consumption, the thumb system to reduce code size, package sizes, a factor of 3 performance, faster, lower-power memory, smaller footprint and larger storage size non-volatile RAM, the fact that the new ARM CPUs were designed explicitly to handle WindowsCE multitasking for up to 32 processes (the original didn't have fast context switching), lack of on-chip peripheral control (such as LCD, touch-screen, PCM audio), and so on and so forth, I guess you're right.
Back in 1995, Microsoft Word had a problem with auto-page numbering in the footer of documents that affected the page numbers as well as the font used if changed from the default 12pt Times Roman. 9 years later, this exact same bug remains
Funny... I rarely use Times Roman, and page numbering works fine for me - I've never had a problem in the last 10 years with it.
Do you have any specific examples or repro-cases of how to get it to screw up?
Like I indicated in another post, there is nothing to stop Microsoft from having their own "windows-only" forked version of Java.
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall a long lawsuit over that exact matter.