Umm... something having a bug isn't an incredible claim.
It does it if it's a Mac.
Let's face it. Everyone knows that Macs simply don't have bugs. Mac software and hardware is completely infallible, and it's simply impossible that anything that Apple produces could possibly have any sort of flaw, of any type. To suggest otherwise means you are either a heretic, or are deliberately trying to sully Apple's good name.
As part of the global computing community it is your divine duty to viciously attack this "Johnny Cache" (if that is his real name) in any and all public forums due to his outrageous propaganda and vicious lies against the One True Perfect Operating System, until such time as he repents his sinful actions, throws himself at the feet of Jobs and carries out self-immolation.
Yea verily, in the name of the Father, Sun, and Steve Jobs, Amen.
Because it threatens their business model, and they are scared shitless of change.
It will turn out to be a good deal for them
That's irrelevant. Radio was a good deal for them, and they fought tooth and nail because it threatened their business model. VCRs were a great deal for the movie industry, and look how hard they fought that.
It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money.
First of all, they don't want control of the "serious" money, they want control of *all* of the money.
Second, your condition ("as long as they have a lock") is not at all assured. What happens when major artists discover they no longer *need* the "major" distribution channels?
Third, record labels make millions of dollars from artists just starting out that are willing to sign contracts for what can only be charitably described as indentured servitude. When these artists see "hey, I'm paying for this myself anyway, why don't I keep all the money", the big record labels lose a major source of revenue. Steve Albini wrote an excellent essay entitled "The Problem with Music" - it's a must read if you want to know how the music industry works - which you need to if you want to understand their motivations and why they're so scared of the internet.
If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System
No, you're using the GNU operating system, along with X.org, Mozilla, and QT/KDE.
Remember that the "GNU" part of Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux only refers to a small set of command-line utilities - that's just one peice. The rest was put together by many volunteers across the globe.
I'll call it "GNU/Linux" when Stallman calls it "Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux." Until then, he's just being hypocritical.
they are running around pretending they are creating FREE code, helping everyone in the FREE software community by providing something.They are only helping a small subset of that community, the small subset that produces only GPL code.
Wrong - they are helping everyone - the only restriction is people who say "I don't want your help."
GPL code is totally worthless to a project like mozilla
Only because Mozilla *chooses* for it to be worthless. And in reality, it's not worthless (and this shows that you're not a programmer) because the Mozilla guys are perfectly free to look at GPL'ed code and learn from it. That's pretty far from "totally worthless."
It is my understanding that some of the principles trying to be upheld by the free software movement is that of a community. A place that is friendly and helps out one another.
"Don't like it, don't use it" doesn't fall into this category at all
So you're saying that if I belong to a community that I should be *FORCED* to help them, even if I don't want to? Yeah, that's a good idea.
"Don't use it" falls perfectly into that category. If someone wants to be a member of a community, then they must obey the community's code of conduct. I don't see any problem with that.
If the code is out there, and someone has been nice enough to release it then i shouldn't have to write my own all over again.
No, but why should you be given carte blanche to take that code and use it without giving the author the proper respect?
After all, your argument seems to say that the Wine guys should be free to use the NT codebase that was leaked then, right? After all, just because it wasn't MS that "released" it doesn't change the fact that it's out there, and you shouldn't have to re-write it all over again.
What I see: Proprietary software guy says "you can use my code, under the following conditions: (list of conditions follows.)" Free software guy says "you can use my code, under the following conditions: (list of conditions follows.)"
Why do you feel that it's OK for the proprietary guys to enforce conditions on people who want to use their code, but that it's not OK for the free software guys to do the same?
It is like a chef having to give up his secret recipe just because he used GPL Spices.
The solution is simple then - the Chef can either use different spices, or make his own.
You don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to incorporate GPL'ed code in your project, and nobody is forcing you to use the GPL for original works.
You'ld need a very good AI to do that. We don't know how to build one [...] a game AI powerful enough to auto-generate a completely engaging new story with a new and interesting murder plot on the fly.
Finally, a rational explanation for Dan Brown! He's just version 0.01!
I can buy organic beef at my local supermarket for about double the cost of regular beef.
Wow, you're getting ripped off.
The organic beef at my local supermarket is only about 20% more than the "regular" type. My wife and I picked up two cuts from each type, and were surprised at how much more tender and better tasting the organic beef was. We've only been buying the organic beef ever since.
TCP Offload Engines are actually a real feature in server NICS, and quite worthwhile imho.
Yes, and they're not real features in client NICS, for good reason - specifically that clients (especially gaming clients) don't suffer the network load to make effective use of them.
I really like how the question being answered specifically related to UDP nothing about TCP.
Actually, my favouite part was that he ignored the fact that clients and servers have vastly different requirements - namely that servers process much more network data.
"Oh, it's useful on a server, therefore it must be useful on a client!"
Show me an employer who doesn't mind employees spending all day on the phone making personal calls.
Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal.
Linus came and filled in a fairly small part of it, proportionally
If it was such a small part, why is it so important, and why (in the past 15 years, not counting the time when the Hurd was already in development) has there been nothing to replace it?
If Stallman was really concerned about being fair (as opposed to feeding his ego,) he would insist that everyone call it "Mozilla/[KDE/QT]/X/GNU/Linux". (Oh, he says "if you want to", you could call it that, but *he* won't - yeah, and I will only call it "Linux".)
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... something having a bug isn't an incredible claim.
It does it if it's a Mac.
Let's face it. Everyone knows that Macs simply don't have bugs. Mac software and hardware is completely infallible, and it's simply impossible that anything that Apple produces could possibly have any sort of flaw, of any type. To suggest otherwise means you are either a heretic, or are deliberately trying to sully Apple's good name.
As part of the global computing community it is your divine duty to viciously attack this "Johnny Cache" (if that is his real name) in any and all public forums due to his outrageous propaganda and vicious lies against the One True Perfect Operating System, until such time as he repents his sinful actions, throws himself at the feet of Jobs and carries out self-immolation.
Yea verily, in the name of the Father, Sun, and Steve Jobs, Amen.
You aren't even making a good argument, and bringing in a strawman (IE: Bush) isn't going to help you.
He's making a great argument - I'd say that the fact that you don't know what a strawman is stopping you from understanding it.
Why?
Because it threatens their business model, and they are scared shitless of change.
It will turn out to be a good deal for them
That's irrelevant. Radio was a good deal for them, and they fought tooth and nail because it threatened their business model. VCRs were a great deal for the movie industry, and look how hard they fought that.
It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money.
First of all, they don't want control of the "serious" money, they want control of *all* of the money.
Second, your condition ("as long as they have a lock") is not at all assured. What happens when major artists discover they no longer *need* the "major" distribution channels?
Third, record labels make millions of dollars from artists just starting out that are willing to sign contracts for what can only be charitably described as indentured servitude. When these artists see "hey, I'm paying for this myself anyway, why don't I keep all the money", the big record labels lose a major source of revenue. Steve Albini wrote an excellent essay entitled "The Problem with Music" - it's a must read if you want to know how the music industry works - which you need to if you want to understand their motivations and why they're so scared of the internet.
Have you ever seen an athelete and a non-athelete try to pick up golf?
s/golf/Halo 2/g
That doesn't make gamers "athletes" either.
You want to know if an activity requires athletic ability? Here's a simple litmus test:
Does the average participant sweat?
If the answer is no, then athletic ability isn't involved.
I think there must be a black hole between that person's ears.
Maybe it was the same guy who caused this. There couldn't be *two* of them, could there?
If you are using Linux then you're using his The GNU Operating System
No, you're using the GNU operating system, along with X.org, Mozilla, and QT/KDE.
Remember that the "GNU" part of Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux only refers to a small set of command-line utilities - that's just one peice. The rest was put together by many volunteers across the globe.
I'll call it "GNU/Linux" when Stallman calls it "Mozilla/[KDE|QT]/X.org/GNU/Linux." Until then, he's just being hypocritical.
they are running around pretending they are creating FREE code, helping everyone in the FREE software community by providing something.They are only helping a small subset of that community, the small subset that produces only GPL code.
Wrong - they are helping everyone - the only restriction is people who say "I don't want your help."
GPL code is totally worthless to a project like mozilla
Only because Mozilla *chooses* for it to be worthless. And in reality, it's not worthless (and this shows that you're not a programmer) because the Mozilla guys are perfectly free to look at GPL'ed code and learn from it. That's pretty far from "totally worthless."
So I guess humans had the first batch of crappy eyes and fish got the better ones then?
:o)
Sure, except that (according to the bible) fish were created before humans were.
It is my understanding that some of the principles trying to be upheld by the free software movement is that of a community. A place that is friendly and helps out one another.
"Don't like it, don't use it" doesn't fall into this category at all
So you're saying that if I belong to a community that I should be *FORCED* to help them, even if I don't want to? Yeah, that's a good idea.
"Don't use it" falls perfectly into that category. If someone wants to be a member of a community, then they must obey the community's code of conduct. I don't see any problem with that.
If the code is out there, and someone has been nice enough to release it then i shouldn't have to write my own all over again.
No, but why should you be given carte blanche to take that code and use it without giving the author the proper respect?
After all, your argument seems to say that the Wine guys should be free to use the NT codebase that was leaked then, right? After all, just because it wasn't MS that "released" it doesn't change the fact that it's out there, and you shouldn't have to re-write it all over again.
What I see:
Proprietary software guy says "you can use my code, under the following conditions: (list of conditions follows.)"
Free software guy says "you can use my code, under the following conditions: (list of conditions follows.)"
Why do you feel that it's OK for the proprietary guys to enforce conditions on people who want to use their code, but that it's not OK for the free software guys to do the same?
It is like a chef having to give up his secret recipe just because he used GPL Spices.
The solution is simple then - the Chef can either use different spices, or make his own.
You don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to incorporate GPL'ed code in your project, and nobody is forcing you to use the GPL for original works.
Shouldn't that be KHAAAN!!!?
I had no idea what Kobayashi Maru was
Heathen!
You'ld need a very good AI to do that. We don't know how to build one [...] a game AI powerful enough to auto-generate a completely engaging new story with a new and interesting murder plot on the fly.
Finally, a rational explanation for Dan Brown! He's just version 0.01!
Raman noodles are mostly carbohydrates and sodium.
Read the ingredients
I do have to ask, though...does your government subsidize that?
No.
Canada has quite the reputation down here for taxing heavily and subsidizing things
Yes, almost as much as the US has for taxing and subsidizing things. (The US oil companies are one that comes to mind.)
I can buy organic beef at my local supermarket for about double the cost of regular beef.
Wow, you're getting ripped off.
The organic beef at my local supermarket is only about 20% more than the "regular" type. My wife and I picked up two cuts from each type, and were surprised at how much more tender and better tasting the organic beef was. We've only been buying the organic beef ever since.
TCP Offload Engines are actually a real feature in server NICS, and quite worthwhile imho.
Yes, and they're not real features in client NICS, for good reason - specifically that clients (especially gaming clients) don't suffer the network load to make effective use of them.
I really like how the question being answered specifically related to UDP nothing about TCP.
Actually, my favouite part was that he ignored the fact that clients and servers have vastly different requirements - namely that servers process much more network data.
"Oh, it's useful on a server, therefore it must be useful on a client!"
Love to see Uwe Boll try to tackle that one.
My guess is that it wouldn't have anything to do with chess.
You're misreading it...
It's critical that no one person in a company ever appears to be above a code of ethics.
Maybe MS's code of ethics doesn't cover lying and theiving...
Or maybe they're planning on adding it in MS Ethics 2.0.
They're not treating it differently.
Yes, they are.
Show me an employer who doesn't mind employees spending all day on the phone making personal calls.
Show me an employer who places indiscriminate blocks on numbers that you can call during the day, in order to prevent you from making calls that *might* be personal.
worthless (you can't drink it) helium.
Just because you can't drink helium doesn't make it worthless. You can, for example, use it to make one awesome impersonation of a Keebler elf.
Linus came and filled in a fairly small part of it, proportionally
If it was such a small part, why is it so important, and why (in the past 15 years, not counting the time when the Hurd was already in development) has there been nothing to replace it?
If Stallman was really concerned about being fair (as opposed to feeding his ego,) he would insist that everyone call it "Mozilla/[KDE/QT]/X/GNU/Linux". (Oh, he says "if you want to", you could call it that, but *he* won't - yeah, and I will only call it "Linux".)
The amount of dependencies that would need to be ported before porting office itself would be prohibitive.
Exactly. That's also the reason why there will never be a port to Mac OSX either.
no end user organizations are using it yet
And there (I think) is the bigger reason for the 'recall' than a bunch of software bugs.