Prove that they relate to the quality of the platform. You have nothing to stand on but your (baseless) assertion that they do.
When the market doesn't have any choices, you build marketshare.
When the market doesn't have any choices, you can charge what you want ($90 for Windows 98, in 2003??? please)
When the market doesn't have any choices, the ISVs will write software for your platform, regardless of whether or not its the best.
The hardware selection trumps the OS selection, because most people decide based on hardware cost, not OS quality. If it weren't, Macs would be what everyone uses and Intel PCs would be the niche platfrom.
Keep shouting all you want, that doesn't make you right. Linux is not perfectly consistent, but it is stable. Linux is not perfectly easy to use, but it's easy enough for my parents and grandparents. The learning curve for using KDE/Gnome is pretty small coming from Windows. As time goes on, it will continue to improve.
If you think Linux isn't ready, you've got the blinders on.
I don't need to eat feet...you've already eaten them all.
Market share, money made, and software made for the platform say NOTHING about the quality of the platform or that it excels. It only says that Windows is good enough for many users, and has the market penetration ISVs need in order to justify writing programs for it. Windows is not even the best "average consumer OS" on the market. That honor goes to MacOS. But then, we're not really talking about Linux being the best consumer OS, we're talking about it being sufficient.
Re: eating feet. You'd love to find some solace in words coming out of my fingers, but there just isn't any for you. The statement you referenced clearly and completely disproves your statement about Linux not having support and requiring kernel recompiles for hardware configuration changes. You'd love for it to be some other way, but you lack the mental grasp of Linux to be able to demonstrably prove it even if what I said weren't true. I've never had to recompile my kernel for hardware changes.
The bottom line is that Linux is already a good choice for an average consumer OS. Your lame attempts at trying to characterize me as some sort of zealot are just trying to distract from the fact that you don't know enough about Linux and lack the debating skills to make the case that it ISN'T ready. There are whole areas of subject matter you could bring up that would be worthwhile in a *PRODUCTIVE* discussion of whether Linux is ready to be a G.P. consumer OS. The average consumer wants to pay their bills, write letters to grandpa, organize their digital images and audio, and Linux has the tools to let a consumer do that in a straightforward fashion. I've never made the point that Linux is a better choice than Windows -- I've made the points that Linux is an option and Windows isn't the flawless wonder you've been representing it to be.
No one could honestly accuse me of being a linux cultist. My only allegiance is to the truth. If you don't want anyone to question your accuracy, keep your mouth shut. You sound like Microsoft's FUD machine. Your only accuracy is on the purest technical definition...Linux isn't, in and of itself, an OS. The rest is plain bunk.
RedHat/Mandrake/etc are not derivatives of Linux base. They are distributions of Linux -- the SAME AS ANY OTHER INSTALLATION OF LINUX.
Linux consistency. This is Microsoft's favorite FUD, and it's so false as to not be worth the effort to disprove it.
Interaction. Consumers don't care about interactions between OS's. They only care about doing the things they want to do - digital audio, digital pictures, e-mail, and web surfing. Linux-based OS's do these things just as well as Windows.
Dual booting. I only dual boot because WINE hasn't matured enough to run some Windows-only games. Windows users don't have a copy of Linux, and that doesn't tell anyone anything other than those users are content to be in Windows. It doesn't in the least bit say that Linux isn't ready.
$40B. Money doesn't tell you that they're a better consumer OS. It tells you that they're able to make a healthy profit margin selling it in a market with little to no competition. It says nothing about quality, other than it's "good enough" for OEMs and the people who buyit off the shelf.
Support. I laugh at your misreading of my comment. I pointed out a blatant falsehood in your previous post because I simply didn't feel like writing a novel tearing your whole post to shreds, point by point. I decided to do that this time.
Recompiling a kernel. I've compiled a kernel, but never because I had to in order to support something. Most Linux distributions automatically detect and update hardware configuration changes, and it's been that way for over 3 years.
Which brings me back to my previous post's point. You obviously aren't an expert at Linux, because the complaints you list ceased to be an issue 3 years ago.
I find it funny that you say so much that only relates to the state of Linux 3+ years ago and then say it's not a consumer OS in it's "CURRENT STATE". Obviously you don't know its current state...otherwise you wouldn't be responding with the same outdated FUD that Microsoft keeps spewing about Linux (e.g., "no support for latest greatest anything"...that's a statement that's trivial to show false).
...according to the article Newsweek did. Although I thought it was a bit anticlimatic, it resolved Saruman's fate (which, according to Newsweek, doesn't happen) and also provided an excllent contrast between the hobbits of the Fellowship as they were when they left the Shire and those same hobbits when they returned.
I didn't say it was inarguable. The notion is based on the fact that the title in question is *the* authority on copyright. So, if another law or statute talks about "financial gain" with respect to copyright, you could legitimately argue that the copyright statute's definition is the one that should be used. It's not a cut-and-dried argument, and I meant to make that clear, but didn't.
While what you say is true, it doesn't change the validity of the law's argument. The bottom line is that Congress changed the law to specifically include copyrighted works in the definition of "financial gain." In the end, it doesn't matter why it's there....Congress had the authority to define the definition for the purposes of copyright law, and that's the definition they chose.
Further, the lawyers defending against SCO could make the case that the return of an improved copyrighted work is a thing of value, which a judge could legitimately rule is a financial gain even without the benefit of statutory definition.
The credit usually goes to those who did something first. India and China have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of those who did it before. The USSR/CCCP and the USA deserve credit for being the inventors...India gets not as much credit because it duplicated the efforts of those that came before. Who remembers who the second person was that noticed what gravity was? Everybody sure remembers who did it first (Newton).
And they won't go to FAT32 + long file names (which they have to pay the licensing cost for) if FAT32 w/ short file names or FAT16 (which they don't) will do.
Yahoo is taking a standardization approach...the technology will be shared with open source and commercial developers, and the keys themselves will be put into the DNS system.
I'll be interested to see how the details of how they attempt to protect the system from key forgery.
The patent license is only necessary if the implementation infringes a patent. For media 2GB, the device maker could simply format it for FAT16, which doesn't require a patent license.
The intelligent device maker will simply go to the UDF or ISO standards instead of FAT.
After the first two LOTR movies, I've lost any hope that anything Jackson does will bear more than a vague resemblance (characters and overall plot). Seeing how the Saruman character is going to be left unresolved, I wonder if something significant from Hobbit will go, like maybe Bilbo finding the Ring.
As a parent of 3 children (2 in elementary and 1 entering elementary next year) this scares the hell out of me. I make my living in technology, and spent several years as the technology coordinator for a school district. Spending on technology is good, BUT not to the exclusion of experiences that can only be easily had within the classroom environment: labratory science, music, foreign language, at least.
Technology spending is a must, but it must exist in a peaceful equilibrium with the other things that are necessary to provide students with a well-rounded education. No amount of computer software is going to make up for the thrill of watching an actual (not virtual) chemical reaction, seeing the guts of a frog, conversing with a native speaker of a foreign tongue, or being able to play in a marching band.
The scary part is that depriving the children of first-hand experience may have detrimental affects to their cognitive abilities. Instead of being able to look at or do things and draw their own conclusions, software often feeds them that information. If we don't generate students that have the ability to think for themselves, the United States will doom itself to becoming an has-been in the world economy and as a prime policy player.
Umm, dude, the computer can't beat anything without the humans telling it how to think. It's not really the computer spanking the pants off of human chess players...it's an implementation of a human-developed probabilistic algorithm.
For once, it seems that Microsoft is doing the right thing. It might not be altruism that's motivating them (more like the sound of a dozen foreign governments moving to open source or threatening Microsoft that they'll move to open source), but I'm not going to hold it against them. IANAL, but it looks like the Patent license (which they stipulate for software that will read or write documents conforming to the schemas) is compatible with implementations that are open-source (obviously not the GPL, though).
It looks like an AT&T researcher "invented" sublists as a way to defeat duplicate detection filters as part of a research project. The patent reads like a research paper, with various theorems and corollaries to prove how various methods of filtering spam by duplicate detection are ineffective and that spammers have the upper hand against those methods.
Sounds just like a problem I had with an HP scanner. I bought an HP ScanJet (think it was a 2200C) scanner last October, and it was working just fine with my Windows 98 setup at the time. I installed XP in February and the drivers on the CD bundled with the monitor sent commands that caused the scanner to push the scan head beyond its tolerance. HP denied their drivers were at fault, and even if it was their drivers, the scanner was out of warranty so they wouldn't talk to me without me paying $25 for the privilege anyway.
Not necessarily, but note the reference to "IP issues in Linux". Free speech rights end when you start using lies to defame a competing product. It's similar to how you don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre/restaurant when there isn't one. Those are not protected forms of speech.
RedHat's case rests on the allegation that SCO's actions are deliberately trying to damage RedHat's sales potential (as the #1 Linux distribution). This would seem to directly support that allegation.
Why bring it up if you can't back it up? What reason do I have to trust your unvalidated opinion.
The bottom line is that this kind of censorship opens us all up to a slippery slope: pro-gun sites are banned now, but soon it could be movie sites, actor fan sites, anti-gun sites, and so on and so forth.
Even if your story is true, censorship should not be undertaken lightly, due to "user confusion".
Slashdot Mirror
is the U.S. Government. Broad patents don't help innovation and stifle the progress of the arts and sciences.
Further, you should look up the word "facts" in the dictionary. It obviously doesn't mean what you think it means, because opinions aren't facts.
Prove that they relate to the quality of the platform. You have nothing to stand on but your (baseless) assertion that they do.
When the market doesn't have any choices, you build marketshare.
When the market doesn't have any choices, you can charge what you want ($90 for Windows 98, in 2003??? please)
When the market doesn't have any choices, the ISVs will write software for your platform, regardless of whether or not its the best.
The hardware selection trumps the OS selection, because most people decide based on hardware cost, not OS quality. If it weren't, Macs would be what everyone uses and Intel PCs would be the niche platfrom.
Keep shouting all you want, that doesn't make you right. Linux is not perfectly consistent, but it is stable. Linux is not perfectly easy to use, but it's easy enough for my parents and grandparents. The learning curve for using KDE/Gnome is pretty small coming from Windows. As time goes on, it will continue to improve.
If you think Linux isn't ready, you've got the blinders on.
I don't need to eat feet...you've already eaten them all.
Market share, money made, and software made for the platform say NOTHING about the quality of the platform or that it excels. It only says that Windows is good enough for many users, and has the market penetration ISVs need in order to justify writing programs for it. Windows is not even the best "average consumer OS" on the market. That honor goes to MacOS. But then, we're not really talking about Linux being the best consumer OS, we're talking about it being sufficient.
Re: eating feet. You'd love to find some solace in words coming out of my fingers, but there just isn't any for you. The statement you referenced clearly and completely disproves your statement about Linux not having support and requiring kernel recompiles for hardware configuration changes. You'd love for it to be some other way, but you lack the mental grasp of Linux to be able to demonstrably prove it even if what I said weren't true. I've never had to recompile my kernel for hardware changes.
The bottom line is that Linux is already a good choice for an average consumer OS. Your lame attempts at trying to characterize me as some sort of zealot are just trying to distract from the fact that you don't know enough about Linux and lack the debating skills to make the case that it ISN'T ready. There are whole areas of subject matter you could bring up that would be worthwhile in a *PRODUCTIVE* discussion of whether Linux is ready to be a G.P. consumer OS. The average consumer wants to pay their bills, write letters to grandpa, organize their digital images and audio, and Linux has the tools to let a consumer do that in a straightforward fashion. I've never made the point that Linux is a better choice than Windows -- I've made the points that Linux is an option and Windows isn't the flawless wonder you've been representing it to be.
No one could honestly accuse me of being a linux cultist. My only allegiance is to the truth. If you don't want anyone to question your accuracy, keep your mouth shut. You sound like Microsoft's FUD machine. Your only accuracy is on the purest technical definition...Linux isn't, in and of itself, an OS. The rest is plain bunk.
RedHat/Mandrake/etc are not derivatives of Linux base. They are distributions of Linux -- the SAME AS ANY OTHER INSTALLATION OF LINUX.
Linux consistency. This is Microsoft's favorite FUD, and it's so false as to not be worth the effort to disprove it.
Interaction. Consumers don't care about interactions between OS's. They only care about doing the things they want to do - digital audio, digital pictures, e-mail, and web surfing. Linux-based OS's do these things just as well as Windows.
Dual booting. I only dual boot because WINE hasn't matured enough to run some Windows-only games. Windows users don't have a copy of Linux, and that doesn't tell anyone anything other than those users are content to be in Windows. It doesn't in the least bit say that Linux isn't ready.
$40B. Money doesn't tell you that they're a better consumer OS. It tells you that they're able to make a healthy profit margin selling it in a market with little to no competition. It says nothing about quality, other than it's "good enough" for OEMs and the people who buyit off the shelf.
Support. I laugh at your misreading of my comment. I pointed out a blatant falsehood in your previous post because I simply didn't feel like writing a novel tearing your whole post to shreds, point by point. I decided to do that this time.
Recompiling a kernel. I've compiled a kernel, but never because I had to in order to support something. Most Linux distributions automatically detect and update hardware configuration changes, and it's been that way for over 3 years.
Which brings me back to my previous post's point. You obviously aren't an expert at Linux, because the complaints you list ceased to be an issue 3 years ago.
I find it funny that you say so much that only relates to the state of Linux 3+ years ago and then say it's not a consumer OS in it's "CURRENT STATE". Obviously you don't know its current state...otherwise you wouldn't be responding with the same outdated FUD that Microsoft keeps spewing about Linux (e.g., "no support for latest greatest anything"...that's a statement that's trivial to show false).
I didn't make the point I meant to make...Jackson didn't even film the Scouring, so nothing exists to put on the extended edition dvd.
...according to the article Newsweek did. Although I thought it was a bit anticlimatic, it resolved Saruman's fate (which, according to Newsweek, doesn't happen) and also provided an excllent contrast between the hobbits of the Fellowship as they were when they left the Shire and those same hobbits when they returned.
I didn't say it was inarguable. The notion is based on the fact that the title in question is *the* authority on copyright. So, if another law or statute talks about "financial gain" with respect to copyright, you could legitimately argue that the copyright statute's definition is the one that should be used. It's not a cut-and-dried argument, and I meant to make that clear, but didn't.
While what you say is true, it doesn't change the validity of the law's argument. The bottom line is that Congress changed the law to specifically include copyrighted works in the definition of "financial gain." In the end, it doesn't matter why it's there....Congress had the authority to define the definition for the purposes of copyright law, and that's the definition they chose.
Further, the lawyers defending against SCO could make the case that the return of an improved copyrighted work is a thing of value, which a judge could legitimately rule is a financial gain even without the benefit of statutory definition.
The credit usually goes to those who did something first. India and China have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of those who did it before. The USSR/CCCP and the USA deserve credit for being the inventors...India gets not as much credit because it duplicated the efforts of those that came before. Who remembers who the second person was that noticed what gravity was? Everybody sure remembers who did it first (Newton).
And they won't go to FAT32 + long file names (which they have to pay the licensing cost for) if FAT32 w/ short file names or FAT16 (which they don't) will do.
Yahoo is taking a standardization approach...the technology will be shared with open source and commercial developers, and the keys themselves will be put into the DNS system.
I'll be interested to see how the details of how they attempt to protect the system from key forgery.
The patent license is only necessary if the implementation infringes a patent. For media 2GB, the device maker could simply format it for FAT16, which doesn't require a patent license.
The intelligent device maker will simply go to the UDF or ISO standards instead of FAT.
After the first two LOTR movies, I've lost any hope that anything Jackson does will bear more than a vague resemblance (characters and overall plot). Seeing how the Saruman character is going to be left unresolved, I wonder if something significant from Hobbit will go, like maybe Bilbo finding the Ring.
As a parent of 3 children (2 in elementary and 1 entering elementary next year) this scares the hell out of me. I make my living in technology, and spent several years as the technology coordinator for a school district. Spending on technology is good, BUT not to the exclusion of experiences that can only be easily had within the classroom environment: labratory science, music, foreign language, at least.
Technology spending is a must, but it must exist in a peaceful equilibrium with the other things that are necessary to provide students with a well-rounded education. No amount of computer software is going to make up for the thrill of watching an actual (not virtual) chemical reaction, seeing the guts of a frog, conversing with a native speaker of a foreign tongue, or being able to play in a marching band.
The scary part is that depriving the children of first-hand experience may have detrimental affects to their cognitive abilities. Instead of being able to look at or do things and draw their own conclusions, software often feeds them that information. If we don't generate students that have the ability to think for themselves, the United States will doom itself to becoming an has-been in the world economy and as a prime policy player.
Okay, positive Linux desktop story...how long until SCO decides they need to remind everybody that they're still around?
My guess is we'll see something Friday.
Umm, dude, the computer can't beat anything without the humans telling it how to think. It's not really the computer spanking the pants off of human chess players...it's an implementation of a human-developed probabilistic algorithm.
For once, it seems that Microsoft is doing the right thing. It might not be altruism that's motivating them (more like the sound of a dozen foreign governments moving to open source or threatening Microsoft that they'll move to open source), but I'm not going to hold it against them. IANAL, but it looks like the Patent license (which they stipulate for software that will read or write documents conforming to the schemas) is compatible with implementations that are open-source (obviously not the GPL, though).
It looks like an AT&T researcher "invented" sublists as a way to defeat duplicate detection filters as part of a research project. The patent reads like a research paper, with various theorems and corollaries to prove how various methods of filtering spam by duplicate detection are ineffective and that spammers have the upper hand against those methods.
A message promoting Howard Dean *and* the Official Vampire Webpage. Howard Dean's a wallet vampire.
Sounds just like a problem I had with an HP scanner. I bought an HP ScanJet (think it was a 2200C) scanner last October, and it was working just fine with my Windows 98 setup at the time. I installed XP in February and the drivers on the CD bundled with the monitor sent commands that caused the scanner to push the scan head beyond its tolerance. HP denied their drivers were at fault, and even if it was their drivers, the scanner was out of warranty so they wouldn't talk to me without me paying $25 for the privilege anyway.
Not necessarily, but note the reference to "IP issues in Linux". Free speech rights end when you start using lies to defame a competing product. It's similar to how you don't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre/restaurant when there isn't one. Those are not protected forms of speech.
RedHat's case rests on the allegation that SCO's actions are deliberately trying to damage RedHat's sales potential (as the #1 Linux distribution). This would seem to directly support that allegation.
The same could be said for IBM's counterclaim.
Why bring it up if you can't back it up? What reason do I have to trust your unvalidated opinion.
The bottom line is that this kind of censorship opens us all up to a slippery slope: pro-gun sites are banned now, but soon it could be movie sites, actor fan sites, anti-gun sites, and so on and so forth.
Even if your story is true, censorship should not be undertaken lightly, due to "user confusion".