I don't know if the lyrics are available anywhere, but if they were, what use would they be? They're singing in Sanskrit. I don't know anybody who speaks Sanskrit.:-)
I'm not "dissing" Christianity at all, nor would I begrudge anybody the right to believe whatever they want. What I'm "dissing" is the extreme minority fundamentalist sects (I myself would be considered a Christian) who continually spread lies and attack "the establishment," which they view as a threat to them. The issue is not an unpopular or preposterous belief; the issue is the way that some of them feel the need to lash out at anybody who would question it. If you visited the "Earth Is Not Moving" page, you'd see plenty of references to "The Copernican Lie", attacks on science, and other such inflammatory rhetoric. This goes well beyond a deeply-held belief.
I do respect the beliefs of Christians who believe that the universe is between six and ten thousand years old, much as I respect other viewpoints that I don't agree with (such as the whole abortion issue.) What I do not respect is the methods that their most vocal members use, and the self-righteous manner in which they condemn anybody who dares to disagree with them. When somebody comes out and claims that NASA is leading us down the road to "hellfire and eternal damnation," I reserve the right to consider that to be nutty. And I stand by my assessment. (It doesn't really matter if the above post was a troll or not; I know an individual who actually claims that the scientists at NASA are the spawn of Satan.)
So to the fundamentalists: Believe what you want, but don't attack people for using the brains that they were given.
Aha! But you've forgotten to put a link to this site, which conclusively refutes the Satanic view that the Earth is not the center of the Universe! After you've read through that, buy the book!
I'm fairly certain that the above post is a troll, but I've included these two links to show the truly preposterous nature of creation "science" (that is, start out with a conclusion that must be reached at all costs, and then start looking for observations that could be interpreted as supporting that conclusion, while discarding everything else that does not.)
CRITICS LASH OUT AT LUCAS FOR MAKING A MOVIE THAT CHILDREN WILL LOVE "I Wanted 'Citizen Kane'", Sputters Furious David Ansen
HOLLYWOOD, CA (AP) - Critics have been quick to levy criticism towards George Lucas' latest Star Wars creation -- Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Blasting the film for having "too many digital effects" and "too little character development", critics seem to be treating the latest blockbuster as a modern-day Ishtar. Newsweek's David Ansen is among those critics.
"By God," fumed Ansen, "the children loved it. They were clapping and shouting in the aisles, and did not want it to end. To hell with the children, as far as I'm concerned. George Lucas has personally robbed me of a truly emotional film experience, and I for one will never, ever forgive him for it."
Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood magazine Variety echoed the sentiments put forth by Ansen. "I hope George Lucas rots in hell," he said, "for making such an empty movie that less snobby audiences love. Clearly, he is preying on the children's desire for pure fun, and paying no attention to the film critics' demands that The Phantom Menace be at least as good as The Godfather. No reasonable person likes a movie that is just fun to sit back and watch."
Jeff Craig, of Sixty Second Preview, expressed similar views. "Lucas seems to know that children will love this movie. Being the typical egomaniac, he places his desire to entertain America's youth in front of his desire to placate the film critic community. Well, George, let me be the first to say EAT SHIT. You and your digital effects don't impress anybody." Craig then spit on the floor and gave a four-star review to the wonderful Adam Sandler flick The Waterboy.
Lucasfilm is dismissing the negative reviews, saying that the critics are "out of touch with reality." While Lucas runs the very real risk of making millions upon millions of dollars for this movie, he doesn't hesitate to let the public know why he's doing all of this.
I'd have to agree with this. Linux is a wonderful operating system, and I'm a big fan of it and use it (almost) exclusively. However, if you've got a solution in place that works, and Linux knowledge at your workplace is sparse, a complete, across-the-board migration would most likely cause more headaches than it cures. If your organization is willing to put up with NT and it's working for you, then stick with it, at least in the short term.
On the other hand, if NT is causing serious problems that need to be addressed, you can start out by deploying Linux in a limited capacity. Convert over a couple of servers as testbeds, and get your administrators familiar with their day-to-day operation. This can introduce them to the benefits that Linux provides. Once that's done, you can gradually roll your remaining NT boxes to Linux as the administration crew gains experience.
First of all, I agree that a lot of the negativity hurled at Windows by Linux partisans is inane and childish. This is not to say that there aren't negative thing that we can legitimately say about Windows; it's just that a lot of the Linux faithful are exceedingly merciless in their attacks on Windows.
But, I digress..
Multimedia support on Linux sucks, and you can limp around using the brain-damaged version of Netscape as long as you like. Clue: the Windows version has more features.
What major functionality is present in the Windows version of Communicator 4.5 that is missing in the Linux version? (I don't use the Windows version, but I was under the impression that they were virtually identical.)
.. Linux isn't an OS, it's a religion.
Oh, bullshit. I work for one of the largest industrial corporations in the world, and we're in the midst of converting a lot of our existing NT workstations over to Linux. Why? Because it makes good sense. It's an excellent development platform, it's fast, it's stable, and it's cost effective. Millions of people are moving to Linux for good, solid technical reasons; "religion" is not among them.
In many ways, those who stand to lose from the success of Linux should be most afraid of people who choose it based on its merit as a platform. If Linux's competitors can portray it as a "religion", and if they can paint pictures of its users as being "zealots" and "rebels", then they can simply wave their hand condescendingly and dismiss it. "Linux?" they can say. "It's quaint, but come on.. those people are all just rabble rousers looking for attention."
But when people choose Linux over competing systems based on solid technical reasons, then they become much more difficult for the Suns and the Microsofts of the world to dismiss. These are people who have examined the issues and made an informed choice based on their current situation and on what each platform has to offer.
And nowhere do you find your "religion."
Stick to your outdated 1980's technology.
Pulled straight from Gates' Strawman File, no doubt. This is perhaps the most amusing "argument" against Linux (and others) that the FUDmeisters have come up with. To paraphrase for those keeping score at home, the suggestion here is that we all ought to abandon things that have proven themselves over time in favor of unproven technologies whose only apparent benefits are flashy graphics, multimillion dollar ad campaigns, and chatty paperclips.
Bill Gates is to software as Jerry Springer is to television. Think about it; both of them make their living by peddling trash to an unsuspecting public that, for whatever reason, can't get enough of it.
The Phantom Menace is being grossly overhyped, yes. But the original Star Wars trilogy is an American icon for reasons other than hype, marketing, and licensed merchandise. Comparing Lucas to Gates seems to be almost blasphemous.
Reading over all of these posts that apparently take this site seriously, I have to ask: Are you really missing the blatantly obvious parody, or are you just extending it by pretending that you think the site is genuine? Yes, there are a load of fundamentalist Christian nutballs on the 'net. This page, however, is not run by one of them, and it seems like it should be pretty obvious.
.. there are plenty of people who use Linux because they don't like Windows, and lots of others who enjoy the idea of "boycotting" Microsoft. What I'm saying is that this is not the only reason that people use it, which is what comments like Thompson's seem to make people believe.
How many times have we heard this assertation? In short, Linux users use Linux for the sole reason of boycotting Microsoft. They don't use it because they like the stability, the reliability, or the power. They don't use it because it's the environment that they're used to. No; they use Linux simply to thumb their noses at Bill Gates and sleep haughtily at night, knowing that they're "thwarting the evil empire."
We've heard this sort of nonsense from Microsoft. We've heard it from the "mainstream technical press." And now, apparently, we're hearing it from Ken Thompson, for crying out loud.
Get the message out, folks. There's a lot of good, technical reasons to use Linux, and these are the reasons why it's enjoyed its recent successes. Linux users are not, by and large, noisy protesters looking to rock the boat. They're people who care about their work, and people who have selected Linux for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.
In the end, the quality of an operating system is determined by the operating system itself, not by what people say about it. Yes, this even includes Thompson. One might argue that he is not in a comfortable position to be praising Linux.
There are two primary sources of data that Microsoft has used for the Terraserver project: the declassified Russian military imagery (the SPIN-2 imagery) and digital orthophoto quadrangles provided by the U.S. Geological Survey. The latter, which are what you are looking at if you're looking at the United States, is aerial photography.. not satellite imagery.
The launch of L7 was as close to perfect as you could expect to get, and four days after launch, the first ETM+ imagery was received at the EROS Data Center (it looked great!) Aside from a few minor anomolies that were resolved, the spacecraft and sensor are in great shape. Currently, the ETM+ instrument is being outgassed (that is, acclimated to conditions in space) and preparations are underway for Landsat 7 to underfly Landsat 5.
All in all, it's been a rousing success so far. If everything goes according to plan, expect the first data to be made available to the public on or about July 1st.
Katz, you doof.:-) You know perfectly well that this is going to turn into yet another thousand-comment debacle with the "authoritarian liberals" at the throats of the "loony gun nuts." Such is the nature of this debate.
Anyway..
Whenever something like this happens, the same group of usual suspects is always lined up and paraded in front of the public for analysis. In this case, this motley crew of usual suspects are
lax gun laws and American gun culture
rock music ("shock rock" nowadays)
violent movies/television programs
bloody video games
more recently, the Internet
However, in the absence of any damning, concrete evidences that actually conclusively faults any of the above-listed suspects, it is perhaps useful to step back and look at the problem from a more fundamental viewpoint.
The crux of the problem is that for whatever reason, people in general (and Americans in particular) are growing less and less tolerant of each other. Respect for and cooperation with others is becoming rarer and rarer. This is not a phenomenon that is observationally limited to kids and high schools. There are signs of this in almost every facet of ordinary, daily life.
Take, for example, the buzzword de jure: "road rage." A careless driver cuts off another driver, who becomes so enraged that he follows the poor bastard to his home, and proceeds to break his jaw. When did we hear about things like this happening, say, ten years ago? What about five? What is it that is promoting this sort of dangerous mindset in what should be a nonthreatening situation?
I don't pretend to know the answer to this question, and similarily, I don't pretend to have a solution. However, in my opinion, trying to identify and fix what's wrong with American's high schools is like irradiating only a small portion of a much larger tumor. People are losing their sense of community. Maybe one day we'll know why.
Hatton also admits that the Linux system would have performed better if it had been better optimised. "Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one."
Trust? Obviously you don't have too much confidence in NT, Ian.
The word you want is "transit", dude. "Transition" are these eyeglass lenses that go from light to dark depending on whether you're inside or outside. Operators are standing by.
ObJupiter: I picked up a copy of "2001: A Space Odyssey" on DVD today. Time to kick back with a few beers and watch Kubrick's meisterwerk.
NT and Linux are about the same age!.. NT has made huge gains in the Enterprise market, considering it started from ZERO.. Funny, how many folks here will poo-poo that accomplishment, yet praise Linux for it's growth.
For this observation to have even the slightest bit of validity, you would have to assume that both operating systems started off on equal ground. This, of course, isn't true. Linux, at its outset, was the brainchild of some Finnish graduate student and was of interest to kernel hackers, not to the decision-making managers in IT shops (many of whom would have problems pointing Finland out on a map.) NT, on the other hand, was the ultra-hyped brainchild of a large corporation that already had an effective stranglehold on the desktop. Is anybody surprised that lots of people blindly went to NT? I'm not. Brand name, dude.. brand name.
If Linux (somehow) slays Microsoft and becomes the OS de jure in, say, 2004... what happens next?
Why does this have to happen? Why must there be only one operating system (or family of operating systems) in widespread use? The concept of an "OS de jure" is an artifact of the current mindset of many in the industry. The truth is that the ideal situation is many popular and interoperable operating environments, none of them being the "OS de jure." Open standards is what will make this possible, and this is why Linux (among others) is good for everybody.. even those who have never heard of it! As "alternative" operating systems gain increasing acceptance, it becomes more and more difficult for Microsoft to pollute the open standards that make the industry work today.
Some people outside of the Linux world think that Red Hat is synonymous with Linux.
This is true. I've heard many people excitedly report that they had bought and installed a copy of "Linux 5.2." This is annoying and amusing at the same time, but it's certainly not Redhat's fault. I agree that a wide selection of high-quality, interoperable distributions is the best way to educate the public (particularly those that are excited by Linux, but innocently ignorant of some of the details.)
I really don't think that the Linux community should (or needs to) push forth this idea that people use Linux exclusively to get away from Windows and to "boycott M$". Sure, many people do, but that's not the only reason that it has enjoyed its recent successes. Linux is where it's at today because it's a fundamentally great operating system.
What we need to do, IMHO, is stop portraying Linux (and Linux users) in terms of Microsoft. Articles that use words like "rogue" and "subversive" to describe this "exciting operating system", even in Linux-friendly publications, don't do us any favors. These terms seem to confirm the image that Microsoft wants Linux users to have: rebellious teenagers with black leather jackets and nose rings. Similarily, this imagery is backed up by claims that people should be using Linux for "moral reasons", and that a choice to install Linux indicates that you are somehow taking the moral high ground, compared to the nameless millions stuck in the depravity of Windows.
How about focusing on what Linux can give people instead of what it takes them away from? In the midst firing off anti-Microsoft flames, it seems to be pretty easy to forget that Linux has a helluva lot going for it. If we want to win over the masses, shouldn't we be concentrating on getting the word out in a positive, constructive manner, instead of centering around a "we're-gonna-git-you-sucka" message aimed squarely at Redmond? I'm not saying that there isn't a time and a place for some good ole Microsoft bashing; I'm just saying that Linux advocacy needn't be centered on it.
I had one for my Apple//c back in the late eighties. I'm trying to think of who the manufacturer was (I want to say Mouse Systems, but for some reason I'm not convinced.) It was a neat little toy, but of course was constrained to the cross-hatched metallic pad that all of the other "optical" mice of the day were.
Woe be to all of us if we were to go back to the days not-too-long-ago where you could fit a suite of office applications on a single 5-1/4" floppy!
"What you're left with is a bunch of amateur coders who need to have real jobs to make ends meet. Are these the type of people you want developing the software products your business depends on?"
I wonder if Microsoft really realizes what they're saying here. It is widely recognized, even within the hallowed halls of Redmond, that Linux and the various *BSD offerings are more stable than Microsoft's "flagship" corporate operating system. Are we to take this to mean, then, that people who Microsoft refers to as "amateur coders" are able to produce systems that are more dependable than those produced by the "professionals" at One Microsoft Way? In their spare time? With "limited budgets?"
IMHO, proponents of Linux and OSS in general should be encouraging Microsoft to make arguments like this!
Slashdot Mirror
Lucas chose her, in part, because she can play both younger and older characters...
Also she's pretty hot.
I don't know if the lyrics are available anywhere, but if they were, what use would they be? They're singing in Sanskrit. I don't know anybody who speaks Sanskrit. :-)
Here's some links to check out:
sci.astro Cosmology FAQ
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
The above question is discussed, among other things.
I'm not "dissing" Christianity at all, nor would I begrudge anybody the right to believe whatever they want. What I'm "dissing" is the extreme minority fundamentalist sects (I myself would be considered a Christian) who continually spread lies and attack "the establishment," which they view as a threat to them. The issue is not an unpopular or preposterous belief; the issue is the way that some of them feel the need to lash out at anybody who would question it. If you visited the "Earth Is Not Moving" page, you'd see plenty of references to "The Copernican Lie", attacks on science, and other such inflammatory rhetoric. This goes well beyond a deeply-held belief.
I do respect the beliefs of Christians who believe that the universe is between six and ten thousand years old, much as I respect other viewpoints that I don't agree with (such as the whole abortion issue.) What I do not respect is the methods that their most vocal members use, and the self-righteous manner in which they condemn anybody who dares to disagree with them. When somebody comes out and claims that NASA is leading us down the road to "hellfire and eternal damnation," I reserve the right to consider that to be nutty. And I stand by my assessment. (It doesn't really matter if the above post was a troll or not; I know an individual who actually claims that the scientists at NASA are the spawn of Satan.)
So to the fundamentalists: Believe what you want, but don't attack people for using the brains that they were given.
Aha! But you've forgotten to put a link to this site, which conclusively refutes the Satanic view that the Earth is not the center of the Universe! After you've read through that, buy the book!
I'm fairly certain that the above post is a troll, but I've included these two links to show the truly preposterous nature of creation "science" (that is, start out with a conclusion that must be reached at all costs, and then start looking for observations that could be interpreted as supporting that conclusion, while discarding everything else that does not.)
CRITICS LASH OUT AT LUCAS FOR MAKING A MOVIE THAT CHILDREN WILL LOVE
"I Wanted 'Citizen Kane'", Sputters Furious David Ansen
HOLLYWOOD, CA (AP) - Critics have been quick to levy criticism towards George Lucas' latest Star Wars creation -- Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Blasting the film for having "too many digital effects" and "too little character development", critics seem to be treating the latest blockbuster as a modern-day Ishtar. Newsweek's David Ansen is among those critics.
"By God," fumed Ansen, "the children loved it. They were clapping and shouting in the aisles, and did not want it to end. To hell with the children, as far as I'm concerned. George Lucas has personally robbed me of a truly emotional film experience, and I for one will never, ever forgive him for it."
Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood magazine Variety echoed the sentiments put forth by Ansen. "I hope George Lucas rots in hell," he said, "for making such an empty movie that less snobby audiences love. Clearly, he is preying on the children's desire for pure fun, and paying no attention to the film critics' demands that The Phantom Menace be at least as good as The Godfather. No reasonable person likes a movie that is just fun to sit back and watch."
Jeff Craig, of Sixty Second Preview, expressed similar views. "Lucas seems to know that children will love this movie. Being the typical egomaniac, he places his desire to entertain America's youth in front of his desire to placate the film critic community. Well, George, let me be the first to say EAT SHIT. You and your digital effects don't impress anybody." Craig then spit on the floor and gave a four-star review to the wonderful Adam Sandler flick The Waterboy.
Lucasfilm is dismissing the negative reviews, saying that the critics are "out of touch with reality." While Lucas runs the very real risk of making millions upon millions of dollars for this movie, he doesn't hesitate to let the public know why he's doing all of this.
"It's for the fans," says Lucas.
I'd have to agree with this. Linux is a wonderful operating system, and I'm a big fan of it and use it (almost) exclusively. However, if you've got a solution in place that works, and Linux knowledge at your workplace is sparse, a complete, across-the-board migration would most likely cause more headaches than it cures. If your organization is willing to put up with NT and it's working for you, then stick with it, at least in the short term.
On the other hand, if NT is causing serious problems that need to be addressed, you can start out by deploying Linux in a limited capacity. Convert over a couple of servers as testbeds, and get your administrators familiar with their day-to-day operation. This can introduce them to the benefits that Linux provides. Once that's done, you can gradually roll your remaining NT boxes to Linux as the administration crew gains experience.
Good luck!
Well, for what it's worth, here's what I do:
Go to the first line that you want to indent and mark it (say, as A) with "M A".
Then go to the last line that you want to indent and do a "> ' A". (That's an apostrophe.)
There you are.
First of all, I agree that a lot of the negativity hurled at Windows by Linux partisans is inane and childish. This is not to say that there aren't negative thing that we can legitimately say about Windows; it's just that a lot of the Linux faithful are exceedingly merciless in their attacks on Windows.
..
.. Linux isn't an OS, it's a religion.
.. those people are all just rabble rousers looking for attention."
..
But, I digress
Multimedia support on Linux sucks, and you can limp around using the brain-damaged version of Netscape as long as you like. Clue: the Windows version has more features.
What major functionality is present in the Windows version of Communicator 4.5 that is missing in the Linux version? (I don't use the Windows version, but I was under the impression that they were virtually identical.)
Oh, bullshit. I work for one of the largest industrial corporations in the world, and we're in the midst of converting a lot of our existing NT workstations over to Linux. Why? Because it makes good sense. It's an excellent development platform, it's fast, it's stable, and it's cost effective. Millions of people are moving to Linux for good, solid technical reasons; "religion" is not among them.
In many ways, those who stand to lose from the success of Linux should be most afraid of people who choose it based on its merit as a platform. If Linux's competitors can portray it as a "religion", and if they can paint pictures of its users as being "zealots" and "rebels", then they can simply wave their hand condescendingly and dismiss it. "Linux?" they can say. "It's quaint, but come on
But when people choose Linux over competing systems based on solid technical reasons, then they become much more difficult for the Suns and the Microsofts of the world to dismiss. These are people who have examined the issues and made an informed choice based on their current situation and on what each platform has to offer.
And nowhere do you find your "religion."
Stick to your outdated 1980's technology.
Pulled straight from Gates' Strawman File, no doubt. This is perhaps the most amusing "argument" against Linux (and others) that the FUDmeisters have come up with. To paraphrase for those keeping score at home, the suggestion here is that we all ought to abandon things that have proven themselves over time in favor of unproven technologies whose only apparent benefits are flashy graphics, multimillion dollar ad campaigns, and chatty paperclips.
No thanks, dude. If it ain't broke
Bill Gates is to software as Jerry Springer is to television. Think about it; both of them make their living by peddling trash to an unsuspecting public that, for whatever reason, can't get enough of it.
The Phantom Menace is being grossly overhyped, yes. But the original Star Wars trilogy is an American icon for reasons other than hype, marketing, and licensed merchandise. Comparing Lucas to Gates seems to be almost blasphemous.
Reading over all of these posts that apparently take this site seriously, I have to ask: Are you really missing the blatantly obvious parody, or are you just extending it by pretending that you think the site is genuine? Yes, there are a load of fundamentalist Christian nutballs on the 'net. This page, however, is not run by one of them, and it seems like it should be pretty obvious.
.. there are plenty of people who use Linux because they don't like Windows, and lots of others who enjoy the idea of "boycotting" Microsoft. What I'm saying is that this is not the only reason that people use it, which is what comments like Thompson's seem to make people believe.
Well, here we go again, folks.
How many times have we heard this assertation? In short, Linux users use Linux for the sole reason of boycotting Microsoft. They don't use it because they like the stability, the reliability, or the power. They don't use it because it's the environment that they're used to. No; they use Linux simply to thumb their noses at Bill Gates and sleep haughtily at night, knowing that they're "thwarting the evil empire."
We've heard this sort of nonsense from Microsoft. We've heard it from the "mainstream technical press." And now, apparently, we're hearing it from Ken Thompson, for crying out loud.
Get the message out, folks. There's a lot of good, technical reasons to use Linux, and these are the reasons why it's enjoyed its recent successes. Linux users are not, by and large, noisy protesters looking to rock the boat. They're people who care about their work, and people who have selected Linux for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft.
In the end, the quality of an operating system is determined by the operating system itself, not by what people say about it. Yes, this even includes Thompson. One might argue that he is not in a comfortable position to be praising Linux.
There are two primary sources of data that Microsoft has used for the Terraserver project: the declassified Russian military imagery (the SPIN-2 imagery) and digital orthophoto quadrangles provided by the U.S. Geological Survey. The latter, which are what you are looking at if you're looking at the United States, is aerial photography .. not satellite imagery.
The launch of L7 was as close to perfect as you could expect to get, and four days after launch, the first ETM+ imagery was received at the EROS Data Center (it looked great!) Aside from a few minor anomolies that were resolved, the spacecraft and sensor are in great shape. Currently, the ETM+ instrument is being outgassed (that is, acclimated to conditions in space) and preparations are underway for Landsat 7 to underfly Landsat 5.
All in all, it's been a rousing success so far. If everything goes according to plan, expect the first data to be made available to the public on or about July 1st.
Anyway
Whenever something like this happens, the same group of usual suspects is always lined up and paraded in front of the public for analysis. In this case, this motley crew of usual suspects are
However, in the absence of any damning, concrete evidences that actually conclusively faults any of the above-listed suspects, it is perhaps useful to step back and look at the problem from a more fundamental viewpoint.
The crux of the problem is that for whatever reason, people in general (and Americans in particular) are growing less and less tolerant of each other. Respect for and cooperation with others is becoming rarer and rarer. This is not a phenomenon that is observationally limited to kids and high schools. There are signs of this in almost every facet of ordinary, daily life.
Take, for example, the buzzword de jure: "road rage." A careless driver cuts off another driver, who becomes so enraged that he follows the poor bastard to his home, and proceeds to break his jaw. When did we hear about things like this happening, say, ten years ago? What about five? What is it that is promoting this sort of dangerous mindset in what should be a nonthreatening situation?
I don't pretend to know the answer to this question, and similarily, I don't pretend to have a solution. However, in my opinion, trying to identify and fix what's wrong with American's high schools is like irradiating only a small portion of a much larger tumor. People are losing their sense of community. Maybe one day we'll know why.
Hatton also admits that the Linux system would have performed better if it had been better optimised. "Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one."
Trust? Obviously you don't have too much confidence in NT, Ian.
'Nuff said. :-)
Oh well. I guess I miss the 80's.
We need an operating system designed by Cyndi Lauper and David Lee Roth.
That would kick ass.
The word you want is "transit", dude. "Transition" are these eyeglass lenses that go from light to dark depending on whether you're inside or outside. Operators are standing by.
ObJupiter: I picked up a copy of "2001: A Space Odyssey" on DVD today. Time to kick back with a few beers and watch Kubrick's meisterwerk.
NT and Linux are
Dave Cutler might disagree with that assessment.
NT and Linux are about the same age!
For this observation to have even the slightest bit of validity, you would have to assume that both operating systems started off on equal ground. This, of course, isn't true. Linux, at its outset, was the brainchild of some Finnish graduate student and was of interest to kernel hackers, not to the decision-making managers in IT shops (many of whom would have problems pointing Finland out on a map.) NT, on the other hand, was the ultra-hyped brainchild of a large corporation that already had an effective stranglehold on the desktop. Is anybody surprised that lots of people blindly went to NT? I'm not. Brand name, dude
If Linux (somehow) slays Microsoft and becomes the OS de jure in, say, 2004... what happens next?
Why does this have to happen? Why must there be only one operating system (or family of operating systems) in widespread use? The concept of an "OS de jure" is an artifact of the current mindset of many in the industry. The truth is that the ideal situation is many popular and interoperable operating environments, none of them being the "OS de jure." Open standards is what will make this possible, and this is why Linux (among others) is good for everybody
This is good for everybody.
Some people outside of the Linux world think that Red Hat is synonymous with Linux.
This is true. I've heard many people excitedly report that they had bought and installed a copy of "Linux 5.2." This is annoying and amusing at the same time, but it's certainly not Redhat's fault. I agree that a wide selection of high-quality, interoperable distributions is the best way to educate the public (particularly those that are excited by Linux, but innocently ignorant of some of the details.)
.. but Linux can stand on its own two feet!
I really don't think that the Linux community should (or needs to) push forth this idea that people use Linux exclusively to get away from Windows and to "boycott M$". Sure, many people do, but that's not the only reason that it has enjoyed its recent successes. Linux is where it's at today because it's a fundamentally great operating system.
What we need to do, IMHO, is stop portraying Linux (and Linux users) in terms of Microsoft. Articles that use words like "rogue" and "subversive" to describe this "exciting operating system", even in Linux-friendly publications, don't do us any favors. These terms seem to confirm the image that Microsoft wants Linux users to have: rebellious teenagers with black leather jackets and nose rings. Similarily, this imagery is backed up by claims that people should be using Linux for "moral reasons", and that a choice to install Linux indicates that you are somehow taking the moral high ground, compared to the nameless millions stuck in the depravity of Windows.
How about focusing on what Linux can give people instead of what it takes them away from? In the midst firing off anti-Microsoft flames, it seems to be pretty easy to forget that Linux has a helluva lot going for it. If we want to win over the masses, shouldn't we be concentrating on getting the word out in a positive, constructive manner, instead of centering around a "we're-gonna-git-you-sucka" message aimed squarely at Redmond? I'm not saying that there isn't a time and a place for some good ole Microsoft bashing; I'm just saying that Linux advocacy needn't be centered on it.
I had one for my Apple //c back in the late eighties. I'm trying to think of who the manufacturer was (I want to say Mouse Systems, but for some reason I'm not convinced.) It was a neat little toy, but of course was constrained to the cross-hatched metallic pad that all of the other "optical" mice of the day were.
Woe be to all of us if we were to go back to the days not-too-long-ago where you could fit a suite of office applications on a single 5-1/4" floppy!
"What you're left with is a bunch of amateur coders who need to have real jobs to make ends meet. Are these the type of people you want developing the software products your business depends on?"
I wonder if Microsoft really realizes what they're saying here. It is widely recognized, even within the hallowed halls of Redmond, that Linux and the various *BSD offerings are more stable than Microsoft's "flagship" corporate operating system. Are we to take this to mean, then, that people who Microsoft refers to as "amateur coders" are able to produce systems that are more dependable than those produced by the "professionals" at One Microsoft Way? In their spare time? With "limited budgets?"
IMHO, proponents of Linux and OSS in general should be encouraging Microsoft to make arguments like this!