The same group of people who whine about no alternatives and always being forced into doing something is now asking for a SINGLE dvd standard? Wow... talk about hypocrits.
BTW, there have been many technologies which competed with other technologies... one of which prevailed and the others didnt:
BETA -- beat out by VHS
Laserdisc -- beat out by DVD
Macintosh -- beat out by IBM Clones
More?
Soon enough there will be a standard, but this competition is what drives the industry. Eventually there will be one manufacturer which truelly has the superior system... and that will become to standard because everyone will want that superior system. This is how technology works... this is why things are constantly improving!
Because our own guys tend to set off the IDS systems a lot themselves (mostly tripwire), we get daily (especially at 3AM) training on how to combat IT infrastructure security scenerios. =)
One thing I forgot to mention... I have several people I work with that either have or have had DSL... and out of about 30 people, only 1 person says he doesn't have any problems with it (but he doesn't count because his town is about 2 square blocks big, with the CO next door). So the growth rate of DSL is obviously proportionate to the quality of service. If they aren't going to provide a good-quality service, why shouldn't I use cable if it's available in my area?
I live in New Jersey. I've had cable (Comcast @Home) for about 5 years this summer. I haven't had any problems with it until this past january, but they seem to be clearing up (although @Home never admitted any problems.. heh). In any case, I tried to look for alternatives. 1) DSL 2) ISDN 3) something like frame relay? DSL is not available in my area and Verizon has no plans to implement it. I asked then about the ISDN service and they want like $300/mo for an unlimited ISDN line (not including Long Distance!).. and then you can imagine a frame connection @ 128k running about the same amount. Although cable has been good to me (minus the 192k upstream cap problem), there are *no* alternatives in the same price range in this area... and it sucks because I dont exactly live in the sticks.
Why do companies still insist in raping people with such technologies as ISDN and frame relay? These are two alternatives that are available in most areas that do not share the same speeds as DSL or cable, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to make these technologies more affordable to consumers who demand speeds a little better than 56k and aren't in an area where cable or DSL is available.
1) Like I said... the lawyer fees would be paid for through the lawsuit with Sony (or whoever)... or the out of court settlement.
2) You'd have to have a good lawyer to prove that the profits Sony (or whoever) made from the selling of the product should be returned to the original author of the software. Therefore, if Sony makes $1 million from selling their products with an OpenSource software package on it, then that money would be forfeited to the author of the Open Source package following the lawsuit.
... is a lawyer who is willing to support the GPL (and other licenses such as BSD, apache, etc) and he/she should also have a thorough understanding of the license. By having such a person or people under the wing of the OpenSource community, we could fight such legal battles... then the lawyer could sue for copyright infringement including lawyer fees and a moderate fee of $10 million to be contributed to the Open Source community projects.
This way, if a company such a Sony doesn't want to bother with the court case, maybe they'll settle out of court and provide, oh let's say only, $100,000 and add the GPL into their redistribution of the software. Pay the lawyer his part and then use the rest to provide everyone with/. t-shirts =)
Sure, there are a lot of things we'd like. Ten years ago someone said "Hey, i want an electronic device I can write into and it will interpret my hand writing and keep notes." Likewise, 20 years ago someone said "Hey, I want to be able to take my PS/2 with me between home and work."
Technology is always moving forward. However, keep in mind... we need to buy the current technology in order to provide manufacturers with the income to develope new, smaller, and better ways to make these things. If we don't buy a Palm today, then Palm Inc. won't be able to afford research into anything smaller (or better).
Complaining about what we don't have now won't get you anywhere and this concept isn't exactly visionary (heck, Palms now are smaller than tricorders on Star Trek... although they do perform less functions, but anyway...). What everyone needs to understand is that newer and greater things are coming before you know it and in order to get these things, you need to buy the current technology.
Ahh, I'm republican and therefore the farthest thing from a communist. I believe in capitalism.. just some things don't have the right and/or ability to be capital investments. A communist is someone who believes everyone should be equal and no one should be greater than anyone else. Sadly, you are mistaken
Both companies, particularly Linuxcare, expected to make their money as SERVICE companies.
Services is nice, but no major corporation is going to accept the statement from a "service" provider as saying "sure, we know there's a problem in Apache, but we can't do anything until the Apache developers provide a patch." Although I use Apache as an example, this is only an example and nothing against apache itself... it could be anything on a Linux system.
People that can start companies and make money from Linux inevitably help Linux penetrate the business environment and establish it as a software standard.
I never saw Linux as a commercial product, maybe that's me. I think it's best for people who want a nice desktop, or who want a cheap webserver for displaying their website, or educational use (learning UNIX-type systems). I also think Linux is pretty good for provoking the development of commercial UNIX systems as it becomes "just as good as" these systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. These are commercial systems where the support is real and the stability is real, and supported by highly trained technical staff, not some half-baked college kid. Linux is "pushing" the UNIX community and should be ONLY pushing. If it tries to takeover, it will fall short based on 1 thing only, lack of profits (it IS free, as you said). Linux also doesn't provide any new technologies, it just implements current technologies into it's kernel. Linux hasn't developed any "standard" as far as I know.
And finally, to imply Torvalds and the legion of developers as less than "good" developers because they produced Linux and its applications for free is a pretty slanderous as well.
I implied no such thing. Linus works for who? He does what? He does it... for omg MONEY?! I never said Linus or anyone else wasn't intelligent and a good coder... I just said that people need to make a living and will do so through commercial software vendors who can afford to pay them because they make PROFIT from their product.
...but you appear to be denser than average...
Insulting me is a direct reflection on your own intelligence. You might have well just said "your mom" because it requires less keystrokes.
But hey, everyone can't be a millionaire, and you're just another peon who can't grasp the concept of shareware, freeware, or consulting services.
Okay so if everyone can't be a millionaire, why are all these Linux gurus trying to become millionaires by selling Linux "services" (as you put it)? Because they are trying to make money and live and feed themselves and buy their new Athlon processor(s). No, not everyone can be a millionaire. Again, Linux is FREE and you do NOT make a profit from FREE.
Hey, what are you doing on Slashdot anyway?
Because sometimes a voice of common sense needs to be heard.
Get back to work and earn your wage, slave!
Assuming what I do or who I do it for is just wrong. I could assume a lot too. For instance, I could say that your daddy was a "slave" to someone and got money so he could buy you your computer (which probably had windows95 on it) and you played on the Internet and IRC for a while until someone told you it was cool to run Linux, so you did. I can also assume that you are still not out of high school or college and do not have the simple concept of making money to live. Daddy still takes care of you, doesn't he? He still buys you your own Athlon processors, right?
... just when I started to enjoy driving 40 minutes to work to diagnose a hardware fault, calling the vendor for a replacement hard drive and then swapping it out... all on a sunday morning after a keg party. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!
Not cloning humans (yet?) is common sense and far from ignorance as some people may be thinking.
The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet. Everyone yells at Intel for releasing a chip before it's ready, but now you want them to clone a human before it's ready? Babies will be born dead or deformed and then arent going to be wanted and then put into homes or get on welfare. That's all we need.
Secondly, Taco brings up another point by his "midget to mow his grass" idea. This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.
Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem. You really think it's a good idea to clone MORE people and continue the process of populating the planet? That means more people go hungry and die because someone can't afford to feed them 'cause he gotta worry about his clone.
Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning/bin/halt's evolution.
First, the United States doesn't "impose" it's ideals on the rest of the world, yet many nations have used the U.S.'s "model" or government, economy, etc to re-establish their own government. Their constitutions are based on the U.S.'s, with changes which fit their own society. I have never seen the U.S. go into a country and say "change or all your base are belong to us." Stating this, as you did, is simply ignorant on your behalf.
Second, apology or not, the fault does not lie within the U.S. on this isssue. I have been keeping pretty abreast with the issue. Weeks ago, the U.S. complained about the agressive nature of the Chinese Fighters' intercepts of U.S. aircraft, yet nothing changed. Just a couple days ago, the Pentago said the U.S. aircraft was on AutoPilot when the collision occured (common sense would lead us to believe that a plane on AutoPilot does not make sudden turns). Finally, the Chinese aircraft is more agile and quicker. If it chose to do so, it would have very rapidly changed altitude or heading so the slower moving, 737-sized aircraft would not hit it. There is an international aerospace law that says the quicker and more agile plane is responsible for the cause of any collisions (this was represented a few years ago when a U.S. fighter craft hit a civilian airliner in the Northeastern U.S.).
Overall, this is a political game on China's part. They do not feel they get respect of the nations of the world. For them to receive an apology for the nation with the greatest economy and greatest military strength in the world would make them feel better about themselves in some weird, shallow sense. China has an inferiority complex and is playing a political game to try to change public opinion, in and outside of China.
The U.S. has no reason to apologize, the Chinese have no reason to demand an apology, and they should release our property and citizens or be held accountable for their "acts of war" against the United States and the "Free World". Maybe we won't drop a bomb on them, but such things as removing their favorable nation status, increasing trade sanctions, impeeding their ability to host the Olympic games, etc will be the ultimate warfare and will force them to act differently than they currently are.
Doesn't the GPL say "you can use this as long as you give credit for it" and didn't this company put a credit to the software on the side of their box? Okay, so they fullfilled their portion of the GPL license agreement. You're out of luck.
This is why many, many developers prefer to work for closed-source companies... because their work is closed and copyrighted so others can not use it off the cuff as this was.
Sorry, you're out of luck. Maybe you should have used the Mozilla license on your software. =)
Who says Microsoft has to include support for every device on the market? Why are they required to include a driver for some hardware they do not necessarily want to? Do they not have the right for themselves to determine what hardware they want to support on their O/S?
If the Bluetooth companies want to write a driver for their devices, that's fine... but that doesn't mean MS MUST support the driver or the device.
On the same note, when was the last time Linus "supported" a hardware product? If I have a problem with a driver in the kernel, the first response back from the devel group is "then write a patch."
I'm sure if and when Bluetooth became popular that Microsoft will have a Compatibility Update for it or a service pack, then you restart your machine and the ability to use it at the kernel level would be there, but in NO WAY is Microsoft REQUIRED to include Bluetooth support in the first or any subsequent release of any of it's software.
I think many many years ago there were more or less wearable mice.
I'm still waiting for the device that reads your thoughts and moves your mouse.... or opens up your web browser... and brings up slashdot or your favorite pr0n site... just by thinking about it
ooh and it even works when your boss comes by... it'll read your mind and just go away.. what a concept, can i patent this?
This could have happened to anyone, any company, including GNU-based organizations that use SSL certificates to authenticate themselves. (like lots of people do with Certificates and vulnerability advisories?) Or maybe when you go to http://www.rehdat.com/ and purchase the new release =)
Well, yes, I do blame VIA (whether it be the software or hardware developers there), but my point was not to bash AMD directly other than to blame them for not having multiple manufacturers releasing chipsets for their CPUs. (Blame via proxy... via, VIA... hah no pun intended =)
And I can not blame Microsoft for this problem, since it's up to the hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their hardware that work under a particular O/S (at least in the commercial world), and it's Microsoft's responsibility, in this case, to "certify" the drivers (which they haven't because the drivers don't work right?).
I recently purchased my FIRST AMD chip since the 486 era and I must admit I was amazed by the speed and loved the price on it. However, since then I've been cursing up a storm due to problems with the VIA chipset under Windows 2000 and compatibility with the Geforce series of cards (which I happen to have). I had to reinstall 21 times before I found the *right* combination of drivers to install so Windows 2000 wouldn't bluescreen on me.
And yes, I know all of you are going to say "windows 2000 sucks" or "run Linux", well my answer to that refers to why business systems and makers of these systems (eg Dell, upper end Compaq workstations, etc) do not use AMD chips! Sure, Counter-strike ran great on my AMD chip, but Intel chips are still more stable in the workstation market and that's what these manufacturers (and myself) are really looking for.
I'm sorry, but until AMD gets another chipset maker other than VIA to start developing chipsets, the shortcomings of the chipset available will stop me from purchasing another AMD (and yes, the new laptop I just bought was an Intel and was a Dell and will run Windows 2000... without any problems =)
EMC sells units that are designed for high-end storage, usually RAID 5/10 arrays for redundant and protected storage. They have a "service option" which allows them to dialup through a telephone line into the EMC unit to do maintanence.
When EMC recently came to our business trying to sell us this product, we asked a simple security question of, "How can we be sure you can not view the data located on our unit?" Their answer was less than acceptible. Basically, we couldn't trust them with the data located on any of our units due to the sensitive nature of the material (we deal in pharmacutials).
This is similar to what subscription based software will be. What's to say Company A isn't going to try to download C:\My Documents when they are upgrading me to the latest version of Office? In a corporate environment, especially in one similar to mine, this would be unacceptable as it would pose a security risk to not just the individual workstation, but the entire network (which we have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure from the Internet).
And yes, people (I'm speaking to all you open source advocates), speak all you want about the value of open source projects, but corporate America (or Europe or Asia) is not running Linux w/ StarOffice for various reasons, which I will not get into. But because of this, subscription based software will fail miserably since you figure a good percentage of commercial software is purchased for corporate environments. The ONLY reason I run MS Word at home is to read the MS Word documents I create at work! Otherwise (g)vim would work fine for me (I dont care if I can bold or not). I'm sure I'm not the only one! Apple did this for years, selling systems outside of the education environment to parents of kids who used Mac's in the schools, despite the acknowledgement that IBM compatibles were more highly regarded in the business world.
Slashdot Mirror
The same group of people who whine about no alternatives and always being forced into doing something is now asking for a SINGLE dvd standard? Wow... talk about hypocrits.
BTW, there have been many technologies which competed with other technologies... one of which prevailed and the others didnt:
Soon enough there will be a standard, but this competition is what drives the industry. Eventually there will be one manufacturer which truelly has the superior system... and that will become to standard because everyone will want that superior system. This is how technology works... this is why things are constantly improving!
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
Because our own guys tend to set off the IDS systems a lot themselves (mostly tripwire), we get daily (especially at 3AM) training on how to combat IT infrastructure security scenerios. =)
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
One thing I forgot to mention... I have several people I work with that either have or have had DSL... and out of about 30 people, only 1 person says he doesn't have any problems with it (but he doesn't count because his town is about 2 square blocks big, with the CO next door). So the growth rate of DSL is obviously proportionate to the quality of service. If they aren't going to provide a good-quality service, why shouldn't I use cable if it's available in my area?
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
I live in New Jersey. I've had cable (Comcast @Home) for about 5 years this summer. I haven't had any problems with it until this past january, but they seem to be clearing up (although @Home never admitted any problems.. heh). In any case, I tried to look for alternatives. 1) DSL 2) ISDN 3) something like frame relay? DSL is not available in my area and Verizon has no plans to implement it. I asked then about the ISDN service and they want like $300/mo for an unlimited ISDN line (not including Long Distance!).. and then you can imagine a frame connection @ 128k running about the same amount. Although cable has been good to me (minus the 192k upstream cap problem), there are *no* alternatives in the same price range in this area... and it sucks because I dont exactly live in the sticks.
Why do companies still insist in raping people with such technologies as ISDN and frame relay? These are two alternatives that are available in most areas that do not share the same speeds as DSL or cable, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to make these technologies more affordable to consumers who demand speeds a little better than 56k and aren't in an area where cable or DSL is available.
I think you need to flash your brain's firmware.
The article I originally read on yahoo stated that Panasonic was the manufacturer of the batteries, so we can not necessarily blame Dell for this.
Even so, not *everything* works correctly all the time. If this was the case, we wouldn't have this thing called innovation.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
1) Like I said... the lawyer fees would be paid for through the lawsuit with Sony (or whoever)... or the out of court settlement.
2) You'd have to have a good lawyer to prove that the profits Sony (or whoever) made from the selling of the product should be returned to the original author of the software. Therefore, if Sony makes $1 million from selling their products with an OpenSource software package on it, then that money would be forfeited to the author of the Open Source package following the lawsuit.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
... is a lawyer who is willing to support the GPL (and other licenses such as BSD, apache, etc) and he/she should also have a thorough understanding of the license. By having such a person or people under the wing of the OpenSource community, we could fight such legal battles... then the lawyer could sue for copyright infringement including lawyer fees and a moderate fee of $10 million to be contributed to the Open Source community projects.
/. t-shirts =)
This way, if a company such a Sony doesn't want to bother with the court case, maybe they'll settle out of court and provide, oh let's say only, $100,000 and add the GPL into their redistribution of the software. Pay the lawyer his part and then use the rest to provide everyone with
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
Sure, there are a lot of things we'd like. Ten years ago someone said "Hey, i want an electronic device I can write into and it will interpret my hand writing and keep notes." Likewise, 20 years ago someone said "Hey, I want to be able to take my PS/2 with me between home and work."
Technology is always moving forward. However, keep in mind... we need to buy the current technology in order to provide manufacturers with the income to develope new, smaller, and better ways to make these things. If we don't buy a Palm today, then Palm Inc. won't be able to afford research into anything smaller (or better).
Complaining about what we don't have now won't get you anywhere and this concept isn't exactly visionary (heck, Palms now are smaller than tricorders on Star Trek... although they do perform less functions, but anyway...). What everyone needs to understand is that newer and greater things are coming before you know it and in order to get these things, you need to buy the current technology.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
what a communist troll you are.
Ahh, I'm republican and therefore the farthest thing from a communist. I believe in capitalism.. just some things don't have the right and/or ability to be capital investments. A communist is someone who believes everyone should be equal and no one should be greater than anyone else. Sadly, you are mistaken
Both companies, particularly Linuxcare, expected to make their money as SERVICE companies.
Services is nice, but no major corporation is going to accept the statement from a "service" provider as saying "sure, we know there's a problem in Apache, but we can't do anything until the Apache developers provide a patch." Although I use Apache as an example, this is only an example and nothing against apache itself... it could be anything on a Linux system.
People that can start companies and make money from Linux inevitably help Linux penetrate the business environment and establish it as a software standard.
I never saw Linux as a commercial product, maybe that's me. I think it's best for people who want a nice desktop, or who want a cheap webserver for displaying their website, or educational use (learning UNIX-type systems). I also think Linux is pretty good for provoking the development of commercial UNIX systems as it becomes "just as good as" these systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc. These are commercial systems where the support is real and the stability is real, and supported by highly trained technical staff, not some half-baked college kid. Linux is "pushing" the UNIX community and should be ONLY pushing. If it tries to takeover, it will fall short based on 1 thing only, lack of profits (it IS free, as you said). Linux also doesn't provide any new technologies, it just implements current technologies into it's kernel. Linux hasn't developed any "standard" as far as I know.
And finally, to imply Torvalds and the legion of developers as less than "good" developers because they produced Linux and its applications for free is a pretty slanderous as well.
I implied no such thing. Linus works for who? He does what? He does it... for omg MONEY?! I never said Linus or anyone else wasn't intelligent and a good coder... I just said that people need to make a living and will do so through commercial software vendors who can afford to pay them because they make PROFIT from their product.
Insulting me is a direct reflection on your own intelligence. You might have well just said "your mom" because it requires less keystrokes.
But hey, everyone can't be a millionaire, and you're just another peon who can't grasp the concept of shareware, freeware, or consulting services.
Okay so if everyone can't be a millionaire, why are all these Linux gurus trying to become millionaires by selling Linux "services" (as you put it)? Because they are trying to make money and live and feed themselves and buy their new Athlon processor(s). No, not everyone can be a millionaire. Again, Linux is FREE and you do NOT make a profit from FREE.
Hey, what are you doing on Slashdot anyway?
Because sometimes a voice of common sense needs to be heard.
Get back to work and earn your wage, slave!
Assuming what I do or who I do it for is just wrong. I could assume a lot too. For instance, I could say that your daddy was a "slave" to someone and got money so he could buy you your computer (which probably had windows95 on it) and you played on the Internet and IRC for a while until someone told you it was cool to run Linux, so you did. I can also assume that you are still not out of high school or college and do not have the simple concept of making money to live. Daddy still takes care of you, doesn't he? He still buys you your own Athlon processors, right?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
... just when I started to enjoy driving 40 minutes to work to diagnose a hardware fault, calling the vendor for a replacement hard drive and then swapping it out... all on a sunday morning after a keg party. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
Not cloning humans (yet?) is common sense and far from ignorance as some people may be thinking.
/bin/halt's evolution.
The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet. Everyone yells at Intel for releasing a chip before it's ready, but now you want them to clone a human before it's ready? Babies will be born dead or deformed and then arent going to be wanted and then put into homes or get on welfare. That's all we need.
Secondly, Taco brings up another point by his "midget to mow his grass" idea. This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.
Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem. You really think it's a good idea to clone MORE people and continue the process of populating the planet? That means more people go hungry and die because someone can't afford to feed them 'cause he gotta worry about his clone.
Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
First, the United States doesn't "impose" it's ideals on the rest of the world, yet many nations have used the U.S.'s "model" or government, economy, etc to re-establish their own government. Their constitutions are based on the U.S.'s, with changes which fit their own society. I have never seen the U.S. go into a country and say "change or all your base are belong to us." Stating this, as you did, is simply ignorant on your behalf.
Second, apology or not, the fault does not lie within the U.S. on this isssue. I have been keeping pretty abreast with the issue. Weeks ago, the U.S. complained about the agressive nature of the Chinese Fighters' intercepts of U.S. aircraft, yet nothing changed. Just a couple days ago, the Pentago said the U.S. aircraft was on AutoPilot when the collision occured (common sense would lead us to believe that a plane on AutoPilot does not make sudden turns). Finally, the Chinese aircraft is more agile and quicker. If it chose to do so, it would have very rapidly changed altitude or heading so the slower moving, 737-sized aircraft would not hit it. There is an international aerospace law that says the quicker and more agile plane is responsible for the cause of any collisions (this was represented a few years ago when a U.S. fighter craft hit a civilian airliner in the Northeastern U.S.).
Overall, this is a political game on China's part. They do not feel they get respect of the nations of the world. For them to receive an apology for the nation with the greatest economy and greatest military strength in the world would make them feel better about themselves in some weird, shallow sense. China has an inferiority complex and is playing a political game to try to change public opinion, in and outside of China.
The U.S. has no reason to apologize, the Chinese have no reason to demand an apology, and they should release our property and citizens or be held accountable for their "acts of war" against the United States and the "Free World". Maybe we won't drop a bomb on them, but such things as removing their favorable nation status, increasing trade sanctions, impeeding their ability to host the Olympic games, etc will be the ultimate warfare and will force them to act differently than they currently are.
Doesn't the GPL say "you can use this as long as you give credit for it" and didn't this company put a credit to the software on the side of their box? Okay, so they fullfilled their portion of the GPL license agreement. You're out of luck.
This is why many, many developers prefer to work for closed-source companies... because their work is closed and copyrighted so others can not use it off the cuff as this was.
Sorry, you're out of luck. Maybe you should have used the Mozilla license on your software. =)
Who says Microsoft has to include support for every device on the market? Why are they required to include a driver for some hardware they do not necessarily want to? Do they not have the right for themselves to determine what hardware they want to support on their O/S?
If the Bluetooth companies want to write a driver for their devices, that's fine... but that doesn't mean MS MUST support the driver or the device.
On the same note, when was the last time Linus "supported" a hardware product? If I have a problem with a driver in the kernel, the first response back from the devel group is "then write a patch."
I'm sure if and when Bluetooth became popular that Microsoft will have a Compatibility Update for it or a service pack, then you restart your machine and the ability to use it at the kernel level would be there, but in NO WAY is Microsoft REQUIRED to include Bluetooth support in the first or any subsequent release of any of it's software.
I think many many years ago there were more or less wearable mice.
I'm still waiting for the device that reads your thoughts and moves your mouse.... or opens up your web browser... and brings up slashdot or your favorite pr0n site... just by thinking about it
ooh and it even works when your boss comes by... it'll read your mind and just go away.. what a concept, can i patent this?
Well I was referring to the KT133 chipset with the new Socket A chips. (Yes, I know the KX133 had no problems and Yes, I should have specified).
This could have happened to anyone, any company, including GNU-based organizations that use SSL certificates to authenticate themselves. (like lots of people do with Certificates and vulnerability advisories?) Or maybe when you go to http://www.rehdat.com/ and purchase the new release =)
Well, yes, I do blame VIA (whether it be the software or hardware developers there), but my point was not to bash AMD directly other than to blame them for not having multiple manufacturers releasing chipsets for their CPUs. (Blame via proxy... via, VIA... hah no pun intended =) And I can not blame Microsoft for this problem, since it's up to the hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their hardware that work under a particular O/S (at least in the commercial world), and it's Microsoft's responsibility, in this case, to "certify" the drivers (which they haven't because the drivers don't work right?).
I recently purchased my FIRST AMD chip since the 486 era and I must admit I was amazed by the speed and loved the price on it. However, since then I've been cursing up a storm due to problems with the VIA chipset under Windows 2000 and compatibility with the Geforce series of cards (which I happen to have). I had to reinstall 21 times before I found the *right* combination of drivers to install so Windows 2000 wouldn't bluescreen on me.
And yes, I know all of you are going to say "windows 2000 sucks" or "run Linux", well my answer to that refers to why business systems and makers of these systems (eg Dell, upper end Compaq workstations, etc) do not use AMD chips! Sure, Counter-strike ran great on my AMD chip, but Intel chips are still more stable in the workstation market and that's what these manufacturers (and myself) are really looking for.
I'm sorry, but until AMD gets another chipset maker other than VIA to start developing chipsets, the shortcomings of the chipset available will stop me from purchasing another AMD (and yes, the new laptop I just bought was an Intel and was a Dell and will run Windows 2000... without any problems =)
This is a joke... here is why...
EMC sells units that are designed for high-end storage, usually RAID 5/10 arrays for redundant and protected storage. They have a "service option" which allows them to dialup through a telephone line into the EMC unit to do maintanence.
When EMC recently came to our business trying to sell us this product, we asked a simple security question of, "How can we be sure you can not view the data located on our unit?" Their answer was less than acceptible. Basically, we couldn't trust them with the data located on any of our units due to the sensitive nature of the material (we deal in pharmacutials).
This is similar to what subscription based software will be. What's to say Company A isn't going to try to download C:\My Documents when they are upgrading me to the latest version of Office? In a corporate environment, especially in one similar to mine, this would be unacceptable as it would pose a security risk to not just the individual workstation, but the entire network (which we have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure from the Internet).
And yes, people (I'm speaking to all you open source advocates), speak all you want about the value of open source projects, but corporate America (or Europe or Asia) is not running Linux w/ StarOffice for various reasons, which I will not get into. But because of this, subscription based software will fail miserably since you figure a good percentage of commercial software is purchased for corporate environments. The ONLY reason I run MS Word at home is to read the MS Word documents I create at work! Otherwise (g)vim would work fine for me (I dont care if I can bold or not). I'm sure I'm not the only one! Apple did this for years, selling systems outside of the education environment to parents of kids who used Mac's in the schools, despite the acknowledgement that IBM compatibles were more highly regarded in the business world.
Anyway, I'm done now.
=)