Bullshit yourself. Give us an in depth explanation of your experiences and the tools, methods and procedures you followed to determine that this precise bug bit you running 2.4.* on a PIII 450.
The fact that you ran into problems while you think your system is using AGP transfers, doesn't mean it's the same problem. The fact is that a lot of OS software is substandard and built with only a partial understanding of the hardware that is being targetted. It's orders of magnitude more likely that you ran into a completely different problem in what you perceived to be a similar situation.
So, what you are saying, is that people who have industry standard OSes, or the capability to put it all together, shouldn't actually get an enhanced experience, because some dumb ass thinks that all content should be exclusively textual. You know, why are we fighting for scads and grundles of bandwidth to our homes if we only need 14.4 kbps? Sheesh. Maybe we should go back to getting all our information from the local preist and do away with the concept of wide scale communication all together.
No offense, but you can check if they apply automatically, but you certainly can't check if they work automatically. Changes in different parts of the kernel can have wide reaching effects if they change the semantics of a particular routine, piece of data, or interface. It's absurd to think that merely because a patch applies, it works.
First, the significance of your argument that a corporation makes a profit when somebody switches over to their format, indicates that you aren't concerned about the ability to communicate. You are instead concerned, much like Dick Stallman is, that people use what you think they should use, rather than what they think they should use. If we wanted to carry the concept of "it's evil to have to pay a company in order to communicate" to an extreme, then we shouldn't be using email at all. How many of us are paying for our network connection and being forcibly caused to use telecom equipment, infrastructure, and software which we can't debug, disassemble, recompile, modify or study?
Second, a person importing a text file into Word implicitly is asking to have their file changed to a.doc. That's just the way life works. GCC doesn't ask me, or notify me, that it's going to encode my simple.c file into an ELF object file. Such examples exist in all facets of the computer industry.
Not being able to access the content certainly is one of his arguments. His only other complaint is marketshare. He needs to learn that inferior products generally won't win out in the market.
Finally I can't see how any individual choosing to send a word attachment is in any way indicative of "Microsoft's unceasing efforts to bend the Internet into a platform for the promotion of their own products." There's just no connection there. No more so than Netscape, for example, pioneering the use of HTML as a format for email.
Those are some interesting and unsubstantiated claims you are making. Does seem like the format changes on a whim, when it's backwards compatible for the last three versions of the software? (97, 2000, and XP.) Don't blaim the format for the failure of microsoft to properly secure their software. I don't know of any word macro viruses that function in Star Office. Nor can I see how a file format damages an industry as a whole. Nobody is stopping any one from creating an "open" standard. In fact there are lot's of them, but apparently none of the people who care about word processing enough to write a word processor feel the way you do about "open"-ness. But it's probably pretty justified in your mind that people who have no connection to you personally, have no obligation to you, have no connection to you in any way, should actually wrap their lives around your philosophies and ideologies.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't use an evolutionary approach to improving our ability to communicate, we should instead stick with a standard that works properly for only 1 language, sort of works ok for maybe a couple dozen more, and is completely unusable for something in the area of a dozen dozen. Heaven forbid that the majority of the planet be able to communicate in their native language..doc files are a solution to that problem. Maybe not the best and certainly not perfect, but it's better than not having one at all.
The point of the info system was to get customer lock in for his "products". It wasn't a matter of open vs. closed. It was a matter of Dick's way or the already existing standard, open, way of doing things. It's called NIH, and the GNU project is loaded with it.
Oh, you mean besides the fact that EVERYONE can read and write text?
How about the fact that standard ASCII (ie. this magic, all-purpose, solves every problem, format) that Dick Stallman is talking about isn't actually capable of transmitting many european languages and very few asian languages. Not to mention the complete lack of greek, cyrillic, scientific, latin, and mathematical notation, that many people need to communicate.
I bet Dick Stallman is going to ask everybody to speak and write in Esperanto next.
Doesn't anybody else find it ironic that a man who decides to go off and write his own documentation system (info) when a standard already exists (man), is asking people to change away from a "closed" format? I mean shit, more apps support.doc than support.info and yet Dick's little club mainly releases their documentation as.info files. Curious ain't it.
So how exactly is it different for someone to ask you to send them an email as a word document and you asking someone to send you an email as text? Seems like an analogous situation to me.
Once the state takes your money (ie. taxes) it's not yours anymore. You don't have the right to personally use everything that your tax money is spent on. Things like army bases, government buildings, government research labs, etc. are not open to all and sundry. Sucks don't it.
Yeah, their programmers/developers/admins have some spare time on their hands. Let's not try to make this overly complicated in order to paint the picture we want to see.
I think you are wrong. That was not in place before microsoft started using it. Seeing as how the publication date of that document it 1997, and MS was using dhcp in 1995...
I would have to say that since DHCP is a microsoft technology, then anyway that microsoft implements it is the "RightWay(TM)". Any other implementations are incomplete at best or incorrect at worst.
It would be nice if you could come up with an argument/analogy that fit the situation. A more correct analogy would be if Switzerland told the US to kill all their first born children or we couldn't export big macs to switzerland anymore. I figure we'd probably stop exporting bigmacs.
Yup. You got it right on your first guess. Nations always do this sort of thing. On one hand we have nations we have very little in the way of trade relations (iraq, afghanistan, etc.) Other nations we have very good relations with (canada, mexico, etc.) It's just the kind of thing nations do: "If you don't stop the sweatshops for making long underwear, we're going to put a huge tarriff on your exports of fruitloops to the US."
Why does your government have the right to tell its citizens what it can and cannot buy?
If GPL products were made illegal in the US, would you be OK with your government disallowing you from buying your official RedHat.fi CD from.. Finland, say?
You mean like my government telling me I can't buy nuclear weapons? Or steerable model rocketry? Or child pornography? Yes, the laws in my country do allow my government to prevent me from buying things. That's the way it is. However that kind of argument doesn't really apply, since I can still buy Ukrainian products, I will just end up paying a tarriff on them.
The US saying to implement such laws or we're going to start charging you a huge assed tariff is a perfectly legit thing to do. It's no different than any stupid-dotter saying "don't put copy protection on your CD or I'm not going to buy any more CD from your company." Sounds like a good idea to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit yourself. Give us an in depth explanation of your experiences and the tools, methods and procedures you followed to determine that this precise bug bit you running 2.4.* on a PIII 450.
The fact that you ran into problems while you think your system is using AGP transfers, doesn't mean it's the same problem. The fact is that a lot of OS software is substandard and built with only a partial understanding of the hardware that is being targetted. It's orders of magnitude more likely that you ran into a completely different problem in what you perceived to be a similar situation.
click once to select an item (menu, icon, etc.) click twice to "activate" (launch, open, whatever word you prefer) an icon.
simple enough.
You do realize that the site works splendidly as viewed on my RH 7 + mozilla box.
So, what you are saying, is that people who have industry standard OSes, or the capability to put it all together, shouldn't actually get an enhanced experience, because some dumb ass thinks that all content should be exclusively textual. You know, why are we fighting for scads and grundles of bandwidth to our homes if we only need 14.4 kbps? Sheesh. Maybe we should go back to getting all our information from the local preist and do away with the concept of wide scale communication all together.
No offense, but you can check if they apply automatically, but you certainly can't check if they work automatically. Changes in different parts of the kernel can have wide reaching effects if they change the semantics of a particular routine, piece of data, or interface. It's absurd to think that merely because a patch applies, it works.
First, the significance of your argument that a corporation makes a profit when somebody switches over to their format, indicates that you aren't concerned about the ability to communicate. You are instead concerned, much like Dick Stallman is, that people use what you think they should use, rather than what they think they should use. If we wanted to carry the concept of "it's evil to have to pay a company in order to communicate" to an extreme, then we shouldn't be using email at all. How many of us are paying for our network connection and being forcibly caused to use telecom equipment, infrastructure, and software which we can't debug, disassemble, recompile, modify or study?
.doc. That's just the way life works. GCC doesn't ask me, or notify me, that it's going to encode my simple .c file into an ELF object file. Such examples exist in all facets of the computer industry.
Second, a person importing a text file into Word implicitly is asking to have their file changed to a
Not being able to access the content certainly is one of his arguments. His only other complaint is marketshare. He needs to learn that inferior products generally won't win out in the market.
Finally I can't see how any individual choosing to send a word attachment is in any way indicative of "Microsoft's unceasing efforts to bend the Internet into a platform for the promotion of their own products." There's just no connection there. No more so than Netscape, for example, pioneering the use of HTML as a format for email.
Those are some interesting and unsubstantiated claims you are making. Does seem like the format changes on a whim, when it's backwards compatible for the last three versions of the software? (97, 2000, and XP.) Don't blaim the format for the failure of microsoft to properly secure their software. I don't know of any word macro viruses that function in Star Office. Nor can I see how a file format damages an industry as a whole. Nobody is stopping any one from creating an "open" standard. In fact there are lot's of them, but apparently none of the people who care about word processing enough to write a word processor feel the way you do about "open"-ness. But it's probably pretty justified in your mind that people who have no connection to you personally, have no obligation to you, have no connection to you in any way, should actually wrap their lives around your philosophies and ideologies.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't use an evolutionary approach to improving our ability to communicate, we should instead stick with a standard that works properly for only 1 language, sort of works ok for maybe a couple dozen more, and is completely unusable for something in the area of a dozen dozen. Heaven forbid that the majority of the planet be able to communicate in their native language. .doc files are a solution to that problem. Maybe not the best and certainly not perfect, but it's better than not having one at all.
The point of the info system was to get customer lock in for his "products". It wasn't a matter of open vs. closed. It was a matter of Dick's way or the already existing standard, open, way of doing things. It's called NIH, and the GNU project is loaded with it.
How about the fact that standard ASCII (ie. this magic, all-purpose, solves every problem, format) that Dick Stallman is talking about isn't actually capable of transmitting many european languages and very few asian languages. Not to mention the complete lack of greek, cyrillic, scientific, latin, and mathematical notation, that many people need to communicate.
I bet Dick Stallman is going to ask everybody to speak and write in Esperanto next.
Doesn't anybody else find it ironic that a man who decides to go off and write his own documentation system (info) when a standard already exists (man), is asking people to change away from a "closed" format? I mean shit, more apps support
So how exactly is it different for someone to ask you to send them an email as a word document and you asking someone to send you an email as text? Seems like an analogous situation to me.
None of them. Taco and the submitter are just stupid.
You are kidding? Right? I mean come on, slashdot for the "REAL" story? I don't think so.
Once the state takes your money (ie. taxes) it's not yours anymore. You don't have the right to personally use everything that your tax money is spent on. Things like army bases, government buildings, government research labs, etc. are not open to all and sundry. Sucks don't it.
Driving is a right. Driving on state funded roads is a privilege.
If you don't shut the hell up I'm going to have to kill you.
Shit the obvious unix script would need to go to special pains to store a cookie, let alone have to make an effort to delete it.
Yeah, their programmers/developers/admins have some spare time on their hands. Let's not try to make this overly complicated in order to paint the picture we want to see.
Not to mention anybody who has the consciousness level of a gold fish would notice that the opensource movement regularily uses /. to "rig" polls.
I think you are wrong. That was not in place before microsoft started using it. Seeing as how the publication date of that document it 1997, and MS was using dhcp in 1995...
One would expect that this box has shielding in it. Otherwise they'd have a hard time getting the thing to pass various EF emmission requirements.
I would have to say that since DHCP is a microsoft technology, then anyway that microsoft implements it is the "RightWay(TM)". Any other implementations are incomplete at best or incorrect at worst.
It would be nice if you could come up with an argument/analogy that fit the situation. A more correct analogy would be if Switzerland told the US to kill all their first born children or we couldn't export big macs to switzerland anymore. I figure we'd probably stop exporting bigmacs.
Yup. You got it right on your first guess. Nations always do this sort of thing. On one hand we have nations we have very little in the way of trade relations (iraq, afghanistan, etc.) Other nations we have very good relations with (canada, mexico, etc.) It's just the kind of thing nations do: "If you don't stop the sweatshops for making long underwear, we're going to put a huge tarriff on your exports of fruitloops to the US."
You mean like my government telling me I can't buy nuclear weapons? Or steerable model rocketry? Or child pornography? Yes, the laws in my country do allow my government to prevent me from buying things. That's the way it is. However that kind of argument doesn't really apply, since I can still buy Ukrainian products, I will just end up paying a tarriff on them.
The US saying to implement such laws or we're going to start charging you a huge assed tariff is a perfectly legit thing to do. It's no different than any stupid-dotter saying "don't put copy protection on your CD or I'm not going to buy any more CD from your company." Sounds like a good idea to me.