While the Pentagon claims it "won't use an Internet voting system for overseas U.S. citizens this fall because of concerns about its security", its more like they don't want US citizen's who haven't been brain-washed by the US media expressing their informed opinions in the voting both.
Who knows what someone who has been exposed to non-US media might think about any given topic? There's no way any right thinking politician would try to guess the voting habits of the well informed.;-]
I never mentioned price, not once. So it's interesting that you assume simply because there was no diamonds that I must have paid less.
Regardless, any idiot that thinks that women think the cost of the ring is more important that the thought put into it is a putz. The reason why women like it when you bring them flowers is because it shows them that you were thinking about them, not because you paid top dollar and got screwed over by the person selling them. Same goes for rings.
Oh, and if you're going to question my values again, then have the balls to use your real name.
My wife (of eight years) and I spent some time looking around a boutique jewellers and looking at what rings were available. We found some designs we really liked (not at all like the traditional diamond engagement ring) and then sat down with a jeweller and got him to make a ring we designed.
We live in Australia, but recently spent three years in the US living in MA, NV and MI. Everyone who saw her engagement ring were very impressed (most only had the standard diamond ring), and there's not a single diamond on the ring.
There is one ting better that a diamond ring, and that's a ring that been custom designed for her.
They'd rather keep it closed to protect the morons who don't apply patches than to open it up to fix the rest of the holes.
They're not keeping the source closed "to protect the morons who don't apply patches." They are keeping the source closed to protect everyone using the product from all the security flaws which they either haven't patched (because nobody has reported them) or the security flaws that come from terrible design and no patch is possible without redesigning they product.
Remember, Microsoft use the security by obscurity model, which Jim Alchin himself admitted in Appeals Court recently would make their software extremely vulnerable if they were forced to make the source code available.
This isn't just for the idiots that don't patch, this is for the idiots that choose to use software based on a security model that relies on Microsoft keeping the source a secret. God forbid what might happen if the source was to be leaked.
Mr Mundie misses two interesting counter-points when he says that Open Source software will mean less taxes paid to government.
Firstly, whilst less money may be gather from taxes on software, this money will most likely be spent elsewhere. The product on which taxes are collected may be different, but the money will still be spent and taxes will still be collected.
More importantly, Mundie fails to consider the enormous sums of money governments would save if they do not have to pay for software. Whilst I don't have any figures to support my claims, it's not hard to imagine the the savings goverments could make from not having to pay for software could well and truly make up a huge percentage of the total lost in taxes.
Combine these savings with the fact that most of the money saved by other organisations and businesses would be spent elsewhere i think you might find that the government could actually be better off.
And this of course ignores the advantages of actually having the source code to use too;-]
A recent article with Sun (I can't find) on why they chose Gnome (and I've heard this from other places as well) seemed to suggest that KDE was more polished on the surface, but that Gnome was more polished in the back-end. The Sun developers suggested that the Gnome Hackers had done a fantastic job getting all the libraries right, and that whilst the GUI needed some improvement this was easy enough to do. They didn't say that KDE was the opposite to this, but it seemed to be implied.
I like Gnome, and it works. Others like KDE and it works for them. Give both a try. Keep your mind open, and your sure to find a Desktop that you like.
What an incredible double-standard there is here at Slashdot whenever the subject of Microsoft comes up.
If Redhat were to donate $1 billion in free software to all the poorest schools in America, they'd be hailed as saviors of the poor, and nominated for sainthood. But when Microsoft does it, it's just another evil conspiracy.
Double standards are not always a bad thing...
This isn't a double standard at all. What MS is proposing is that instead of handing out money to the plaintiffs, they donate the same dollar value in software to poor schools. It costs the same to Microsoft either way, (actually, probably less for the donation as the retail cost is significantly more than the production cost). MS is just trying to turn a penalty into an PR exercise. MS aren't being penalized at all if their proposal is accepted and it makes a laughing stock of everyone who thinks that this is a good option.
On the other hand, what Redhat is offering is generous. Redhat will get good will from their action, but they deserve it. Redhatm unlike MS, is not saying we did something wrong, and as part of our punishment let us turn it into a shameless act of self-promotion.
If you can't see the difference between what MS and what Redhat are doing, then you've got to be blind.
In real terms, what Redhat is actually doing is highlight what a farce MS offer is!
I recall installing drivers for my ati rage 128 a few months back:
Windows 98: 10 minutes
Xfree86: 4 full evenings
I recall my recent attempts to install my new Nvidia Gforce MX 200
Linux: No reboots. The new card (the old one was a Voodoo 3) was detected during the boot sequence after adding the card. I configured the card for my setup and it started X using the new card without missing a beat. Time taken: 30 seconds (literally)
Windows: 4 reboots, two failed shut downs, a trip into Linux to download drivers because the ones on the disk didn't work, and finally it worked. Time taken, about an hour (including download time)
Granted, I then had to install the Nvidia version of the liunux drivers to get full value from the card, but that was relatively simple and didn't involve a reboot of the system to achieve, and took less than 30 minutes including downloading the drivers. This process wouldn't even be an issue if Nvidia would GPL their drivers so they could be included in the kernel and X. Yes, that's right, the only hick-up I had with installing a new graphics card under linux was problems caused by non-GPL software.
Here's another example
A recent change of network card on:
Linux: restarted computer, the change of network cards was detected during boot, the current network config was migrated to the new card (after asking me if I wanted too) and the connection to the network was made without a reboot. Time taken: 10 seconds
Windows 98: The new card was detected, a driver was requested (it was on a floppy) and the machine finished it's boot process. No network connection. I open the network config tools to find that a secondl network card config has been loaded (which doesn't work). I have to remove the original setup, config the new setup and reboot. Time taken: 10 minutes.
Still not convinced? Try it with a sound card.
Sadly, I think Linux gets a hard rap when it comes to hardware. Changing and installing hardware in Linux is exceptionally easy, and limited only by a lack of support by hardware manufacturers. Given support by manufacturers linux ability to hand new hardware or hardware changes leaves Windows for dead. I can even change my processor and motherboard anmd linux will get everything sorted out during the restart without having to reboot once. Try that in Windows!
Oh and before you start telling me that Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows, try installing windows on a Macintosh, or a mainframe, or a wristwatch. Many operating system companies won't even move to a new platform for fear of what new hard might do to their stability. Apple's reliability on Macintosh is often cited as a result of a limited hardware base (an that reliability isn't that good. Microsoft originally started NT on an Alpha and said they wanted a kernel that would be easy to port to different processors. They don't even support the Alpha chipset anymore and are having troubles getting Windows to run on x86.
We've got Linux running on three different platforms here at work (x86, PowerPC, M68K) and running well.
I noticed at the bottom of the article the usual this word is a tradment of this company. Then I took a second look.
It says:
Microsoft, Active Directory, Biztalk, SQL Server, Visual Studio, Windows, and Windows NT are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
The names of other companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
Windows NT is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
Biztalk is either a registered trademark or trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
Visual Studio is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
Active Directory, SQL Server, and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.
It would appear that MS has forgotten to include: Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvolds.
In other words, Microsoft representatives warned, "anyone who adds or innovates under the GPL agrees to make the resulting code, in its entirety, available for all to use... [which] might constrain innovating stemming from taxpayer-funded software development."
Quite the contrary, it is closed source software that contrains innovation. Microsoft would have us believe that everyone having access, and the ability to make changes to GPLed code is in some way limiting? Strange. I thought is was the other way around.
The ability to benefit from others work can only make things happen more quickly. It's a way of thinking that MS uses quite often in it's marketing. They say, "Let us create software so good you can just do what you have to!". And this is what the GPL is all about. You get the code, so when you want to write software, you don't have to waste time writing it all again (because the code is locked up under licenses), you can get on with writing additions to the software, making it better, instead of just making is the same.
GPL enhances innovation, because software developers can do new things, instead of having to reproduce current software to get around licensing issues. It can't be much simpler than that.
More importantly, (and I should stress that I don't live in the US, so I don't benefit from saying this), if the software is tax payer funded, then it should be made available to the tax payers without limitation. Tax payers should be able to get their hands on the source code and use it. The tax payer owns this software, it's theirs. And as something they own, they should have total access to it.
Given total access, innovation can only be magnified, because the less replication of software people need to do, the more they can be refining and extending software to meet more of their needs.
It's also worth adding that MS started on about the limited broadband access about the same time that they proposed their.NET stategy. I really suspect that the two are heavily related. Before that MS didn't give a shit how Australians connected to the net.
Sadly, all the media coverage I hearing at the moment seems to suggest that just because MS would like bigger pipes and tax breaks the government is taking them seriously. One guy even went as far as to say that encouraging companies like MS was good for innovation and competition. Sheesh, you wonder whether or not our politicians even know about a little lawsuit that's happening in the US as we speak.
Sheesh, people are starting to really to question the need to have a GUI on you server at all. And then Apple goes and sticks Aqua on there server. I know it's consistant across their product line. I know that some people think it looks good. But a GUI running on a server is just chewing up clock cycles, and any server that's worth using shouldn't be looked at that much any way, so the GUI is just unnecessary weight. And from all the reports, the Aqua OS is a lot of weight.
Apple should be spending time making an OS X server that actually lets you remotely administrate the server, with an optional GUI in case you can't, instead of inserting a GUI that just munches up clock cycles.
There's been plenty of comment that MS is failing to 'innovate' at the moment because the PTB at Redmond have their heads in a little law suit that's going on. I'm sure they are right.
So, let's stop being distracted by their lawsuit and get back to doing what we do best - making great software.
This case is irrelevant. By the time the courts decide one way or the other (could the US legal system be any more inadequate for this type of case), it's not going to matter. So let's stop taking the time to read about it and get back to hacking!
Many of those installations are probably reinstallations. I've completely reinstalled Helix-Gnome onto this desktop right here 4-5 times.
On the other hand, to save bandwidth, or to simply work around having to download using a modem (oh so slow), I download Helix-Gnome at work, burn it to disk, and then install it elsewhere. At last count, there's probably about 12 machines using helix-gnome from a single download.
If installs of Helix Gnome are anything like installs of Linux it'll be near impossible to count the number of users.
Regardless, I think this misses the whole point. I don't use Linux because there are a lot of Linux users, I use it because it works. There are a lot more Windows users, but that hasn't made Windows a better platform has it?
"If Nike has armed guards outside their factories keeping their "slaves" from leaving the factory then yes, that is horrible. So far though I've never heard of anything like that."
I don't know about the armed guards outside the factories, but it's interesting you should pick Nike as an example
Currently, Nike pays very few of it's 'third world' workers enough to keep them above the poverty line. To do so would result in the uncomfortable rise in price for US residents of a whole $2.00 a pair of shoes. (Outrageous!!!). I don't need to know whether or not Nike employs armed guards or not to know that this is unacceptable behaviour. Oh and if you're interested in why Nike doesn't pay a fair wage - well nobody else pays a fair wage either so why should they.
But of much more importance is you ability to decern quality. Nike does not make quality product. Nike makes consumer goods that you sadly equate with quality because they spend so much money telling you about how you'll have a good lifestyle if you buy their shoes. I can't even remember the last time Nike ran an add that talked about how good their equipment was. Nike's products are certainly no better than their consumers, the only difference is that their advertising budget is bigger and you've allowed yourself to think that because their adverts are good, so must their products be.
To follow this logic to is conclusion, Microsoft must produce the best operating system, because they spend a lot of money convincing you that your life will be simpler if you use their products, and that they aren't evil.
I've just stumbled over Sketch. It's quite a nice little vector based drawing program for X and whilst I haven't had much time to use it it seems pretty good. It even imports/exports AI files which is nice. Check it out more at http://www.online.de/home/sketch/Default.htm
If you take into account all the different FPS games out there - doom, quake, etc - then there can't be too many people out there who haven't played one of these games. I can't think of a single person I know with a computer who doesn't have an FSP installed on their box.
What the media fails to do is finish the facts. They're quick to point out the some gun wielding lunatic has quake installed on his computer at home and this must have been a major influence in the whole situation, but they never point out that almost everyone's got quake (or similar) installed on their computers and not everyone falls into the gun wielding lunatic category.
These two top figures look really suss! Surely, there's got to be some sort of figure fudging going on here. You can't tell me that some magazine site written in swiss gets more visitors that Microshaft, Yahoo or Altavista. In fact the rest of the list reads like sites people actually know and visit (no offense to the swedes).
I'd put my money on these two site artificially inflating their 'request' rate to get on the top of the list. I simply can't believe that microsoft only got 2539 requests but some obscure magazine in sweden got 6868. Those figures simply don't make sense. Does anyone know whether you could use some sort of robot to manipulate those figures?
Oh! And while your having another look check the rest of the list. Mac seems to be there twice! Not a great showing. Especially since if what you're saying is true, then surely Apple themselves would choose to use a Mac using WebSTAR instead of Solaris running Netscape.
"Before OS X Server was released, where and when did Apple claim that Macs were suitable for enterprise servers? Hmmmm?'
Don't tell me that www.macaddict.com needs an enterprise server./. runs on a P2/450 with 512M of RAM. Are you telling me that Apple doesn't make a computer of this calibre?
"Each platform has its own advantages; there's no such thing as a one trick pony in computers.'
Slashdot Mirror
...and they still work.
Spilled coke on one and the other was just filthy, so I took them out the back and hosed them down and then left them to dry (for about a week).
Worked like a charm, but my boss thought I was mad.
While the Pentagon claims it "won't use an Internet voting system for overseas U.S. citizens this fall because of concerns about its security", its more like they don't want US citizen's who haven't been brain-washed by the US media expressing their informed opinions in the voting both.
;-]
Who knows what someone who has been exposed to non-US media might think about any given topic? There's no way any right thinking politician would try to guess the voting habits of the well informed.
We have been waiting for a mature open source PIM to become available, and Kolab is certainly looking good.
Isn't Evolution a PIM and a fine one at that? I've been using if for at least 18 months now and it does all my PIM stuff I need.
I never mentioned price, not once. So it's interesting that you assume simply because there was no diamonds that I must have paid less.
Regardless, any idiot that thinks that women think the cost of the ring is more important that the thought put into it is a putz. The reason why women like it when you bring them flowers is because it shows them that you were thinking about them, not because you paid top dollar and got screwed over by the person selling them. Same goes for rings.
Oh, and if you're going to question my values again, then have the balls to use your real name.
My wife (of eight years) and I spent some time looking around a boutique jewellers and looking at what rings were available. We found some designs we really liked (not at all like the traditional diamond engagement ring) and then sat down with a jeweller and got him to make a ring we designed.
We live in Australia, but recently spent three years in the US living in MA, NV and MI. Everyone who saw her engagement ring were very impressed (most only had the standard diamond ring), and there's not a single diamond on the ring.
There is one ting better that a diamond ring, and that's a ring that been custom designed for her.
Congratulations!
They're not keeping the source closed "to protect the morons who don't apply patches." They are keeping the source closed to protect everyone using the product from all the security flaws which they either haven't patched (because nobody has reported them) or the security flaws that come from terrible design and no patch is possible without redesigning they product.
Remember, Microsoft use the security by obscurity model, which Jim Alchin himself admitted in Appeals Court recently would make their software extremely vulnerable if they were forced to make the source code available.
This isn't just for the idiots that don't patch, this is for the idiots that choose to use software based on a security model that relies on Microsoft keeping the source a secret. God forbid what might happen if the source was to be leaked.
Mr Mundie misses two interesting counter-points when he says that Open Source software will mean less taxes paid to government.
;-]
Firstly, whilst less money may be gather from taxes on software, this money will most likely be spent elsewhere. The product on which taxes are collected may be different, but the money will still be spent and taxes will still be collected.
More importantly, Mundie fails to consider the enormous sums of money governments would save if they do not have to pay for software. Whilst I don't have any figures to support my claims, it's not hard to imagine the the savings goverments could make from not having to pay for software could well and truly make up a huge percentage of the total lost in taxes.
Combine these savings with the fact that most of the money saved by other organisations and businesses would be spent elsewhere i think you might find that the government could actually be better off.
And this of course ignores the advantages of actually having the source code to use too
Congrats
I'm a Gnome user so I'm biased to some degree ;-]
A recent article with Sun (I can't find) on why they chose Gnome (and I've heard this from other places as well) seemed to suggest that KDE was more polished on the surface, but that Gnome was more polished in the back-end. The Sun developers suggested that the Gnome Hackers had done a fantastic job getting all the libraries right, and that whilst the GUI needed some improvement this was easy enough to do. They didn't say that KDE was the opposite to this, but it seemed to be implied.
I like Gnome, and it works. Others like KDE and it works for them. Give both a try. Keep your mind open, and your sure to find a Desktop that you like.
This isn't a double standard at all. What MS is proposing is that instead of handing out money to the plaintiffs, they donate the same dollar value in software to poor schools. It costs the same to Microsoft either way, (actually, probably less for the donation as the retail cost is significantly more than the production cost). MS is just trying to turn a penalty into an PR exercise. MS aren't being penalized at all if their proposal is accepted and it makes a laughing stock of everyone who thinks that this is a good option.
On the other hand, what Redhat is offering is generous. Redhat will get good will from their action, but they deserve it. Redhatm unlike MS, is not saying we did something wrong, and as part of our punishment let us turn it into a shameless act of self-promotion.
If you can't see the difference between what MS and what Redhat are doing, then you've got to be blind.
In real terms, what Redhat is actually doing is highlight what a farce MS offer is!
I recall my recent attempts to install my new Nvidia Gforce MX 200
Linux: No reboots. The new card (the old one was a Voodoo 3) was detected during the boot sequence after adding the card. I configured the card for my setup and it started X using the new card without missing a beat. Time taken: 30 seconds (literally)
Windows: 4 reboots, two failed shut downs, a trip into Linux to download drivers because the ones on the disk didn't work, and finally it worked. Time taken, about an hour (including download time)
Granted, I then had to install the Nvidia version of the liunux drivers to get full value from the card, but that was relatively simple and didn't involve a reboot of the system to achieve, and took less than 30 minutes including downloading the drivers. This process wouldn't even be an issue if Nvidia would GPL their drivers so they could be included in the kernel and X. Yes, that's right, the only hick-up I had with installing a new graphics card under linux was problems caused by non-GPL software.
Here's another example
A recent change of network card on:
Linux: restarted computer, the change of network cards was detected during boot, the current network config was migrated to the new card (after asking me if I wanted too) and the connection to the network was made without a reboot. Time taken: 10 seconds
Windows 98: The new card was detected, a driver was requested (it was on a floppy) and the machine finished it's boot process. No network connection. I open the network config tools to find that a secondl network card config has been loaded (which doesn't work). I have to remove the original setup, config the new setup and reboot. Time taken: 10 minutes.
Still not convinced? Try it with a sound card.
Sadly, I think Linux gets a hard rap when it comes to hardware. Changing and installing hardware in Linux is exceptionally easy, and limited only by a lack of support by hardware manufacturers. Given support by manufacturers linux ability to hand new hardware or hardware changes leaves Windows for dead. I can even change my processor and motherboard anmd linux will get everything sorted out during the restart without having to reboot once. Try that in Windows!
Oh and before you start telling me that Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows, try installing windows on a Macintosh, or a mainframe, or a wristwatch. Many operating system companies won't even move to a new platform for fear of what new hard might do to their stability. Apple's reliability on Macintosh is often cited as a result of a limited hardware base (an that reliability isn't that good. Microsoft originally started NT on an Alpha and said they wanted a kernel that would be easy to port to different processors. They don't even support the Alpha chipset anymore and are having troubles getting Windows to run on x86.
We've got Linux running on three different platforms here at work (x86, PowerPC, M68K) and running well.
Actually, if I understand XML properly, then Microsoft moving to XML format won't actually have any real affect on the format lock in.
The XML file still needs a DTD to show how the xml content should render, and this can be used to maintain the file lock in.
XML is a great way of standardizing data exchange, but in reality it doesn't open up the entire file format.
I noticed at the bottom of the article the usual this word is a tradment of this company. Then I took a second look.
It says:
It would appear that MS has forgotten to include: Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvolds.
Go get 'em, Linus! Defend those property rights.
Quite the contrary, it is closed source software that contrains innovation. Microsoft would have us believe that everyone having access, and the ability to make changes to GPLed code is in some way limiting? Strange. I thought is was the other way around.
The ability to benefit from others work can only make things happen more quickly. It's a way of thinking that MS uses quite often in it's marketing. They say, "Let us create software so good you can just do what you have to!". And this is what the GPL is all about. You get the code, so when you want to write software, you don't have to waste time writing it all again (because the code is locked up under licenses), you can get on with writing additions to the software, making it better, instead of just making is the same.
GPL enhances innovation, because software developers can do new things, instead of having to reproduce current software to get around licensing issues. It can't be much simpler than that.
More importantly, (and I should stress that I don't live in the US, so I don't benefit from saying this), if the software is tax payer funded, then it should be made available to the tax payers without limitation. Tax payers should be able to get their hands on the source code and use it. The tax payer owns this software, it's theirs. And as something they own, they should have total access to it.
Given total access, innovation can only be magnified, because the less replication of software people need to do, the more they can be refining and extending software to meet more of their needs.
It's also worth adding that MS started on about the limited broadband access about the same time that they proposed their .NET stategy. I really suspect that the two are heavily related. Before that MS didn't give a shit how Australians connected to the net.
Sadly, all the media coverage I hearing at the moment seems to suggest that just because MS would like bigger pipes and tax breaks the government is taking them seriously. One guy even went as far as to say that encouraging companies like MS was good for innovation and competition. Sheesh, you wonder whether or not our politicians even know about a little lawsuit that's happening in the US as we speak.
Eeaagads! Will people never learn.
Sheesh, people are starting to really to question the need to have a GUI on you server at all. And then Apple goes and sticks Aqua on there server. I know it's consistant across their product line. I know that some people think it looks good. But a GUI running on a server is just chewing up clock cycles, and any server that's worth using shouldn't be looked at that much any way, so the GUI is just unnecessary weight. And from all the reports, the Aqua OS is a lot of weight.
Apple should be spending time making an OS X server that actually lets you remotely administrate the server, with an optional GUI in case you can't, instead of inserting a GUI that just munches up clock cycles.
Hey People,
There's been plenty of comment that MS is failing to 'innovate' at the moment because the PTB at Redmond have their heads in a little law suit that's going on. I'm sure they are right.
So, let's stop being distracted by their lawsuit and get back to doing what we do best - making great software.
This case is irrelevant. By the time the courts decide one way or the other (could the US legal system be any more inadequate for this type of case), it's not going to matter. So let's stop taking the time to read about it and get back to hacking!
On the other hand, to save bandwidth, or to simply work around having to download using a modem (oh so slow), I download Helix-Gnome at work, burn it to disk, and then install it elsewhere. At last count, there's probably about 12 machines using helix-gnome from a single download.
If installs of Helix Gnome are anything like installs of Linux it'll be near impossible to count the number of users.
Regardless, I think this misses the whole point. I don't use Linux because there are a lot of Linux users, I use it because it works. There are a lot more Windows users, but that hasn't made Windows a better platform has it?
"If Nike has armed guards outside their factories keeping their "slaves" from leaving the factory then yes, that is horrible. So far though I've never heard of anything like that."
I don't know about the armed guards outside the factories, but it's interesting you should pick Nike as an example
Currently, Nike pays very few of it's 'third world' workers enough to keep them above the poverty line. To do so would result in the uncomfortable rise in price for US residents of a whole $2.00 a pair of shoes. (Outrageous!!!). I don't need to know whether or not Nike employs armed guards or not to know that this is unacceptable behaviour. Oh and if you're interested in why Nike doesn't pay a fair wage - well nobody else pays a fair wage either so why should they.
But of much more importance is you ability to decern quality. Nike does not make quality product. Nike makes consumer goods that you sadly equate with quality because they spend so much money telling you about how you'll have a good lifestyle if you buy their shoes. I can't even remember the last time Nike ran an add that talked about how good their equipment was. Nike's products are certainly no better than their consumers, the only difference is that their advertising budget is bigger and you've allowed yourself to think that because their adverts are good, so must their products be.
To follow this logic to is conclusion, Microsoft must produce the best operating system, because they spend a lot of money convincing you that your life will be simpler if you use their products, and that they aren't evil.
It's just a thought!
Mintslice
none of this would have happened!
I think I understand why this guy posted as Anonymous Coward. Stand up and be counted friend.
I've just stumbled over Sketch. It's quite a nice little vector based drawing program for X and whilst I haven't had much time to use it it seems pretty good. It even imports/exports AI files which is nice. Check it out more at http://www.online.de/home/sketch/Default .htm
everyone. Well maybe not everyone, but ...
If you take into account all the different FPS games out there - doom, quake, etc - then there can't be too many people out there who haven't played one of these games. I can't think of a single person I know with a computer who doesn't have an FSP installed on their box.
What the media fails to do is finish the facts. They're quick to point out the some gun wielding lunatic has quake installed on his computer at home and this must have been a major influence in the whole situation, but they never point out that almost everyone's got quake (or similar) installed on their computers and not everyone falls into the gun wielding lunatic category.
These two top figures look really suss! Surely, there's got to be some sort of figure fudging going on here. You can't tell me that some magazine site written in swiss gets more visitors that Microshaft, Yahoo or Altavista. In fact the rest of the list reads like sites people actually know and visit (no offense to the swedes).
I'd put my money on these two site artificially inflating their 'request' rate to get on the top of the list. I simply can't believe that microsoft only got 2539 requests but some obscure magazine in sweden got 6868. Those figures simply don't make sense. Does anyone know whether you could use some sort of robot to manipulate those figures?
Oh! And while your having another look check the rest of the list. Mac seems to be there twice! Not a great showing. Especially since if what you're saying is true, then surely Apple themselves would choose to use a Mac using WebSTAR instead of Solaris running Netscape.
MintSlice
"Before OS X Server was released, where and when did Apple claim that Macs were suitable for enterprise servers? Hmmmm?'
Don't tell me that www.macaddict.com needs an enterprise server. /. runs on a P2/450 with 512M of RAM. Are you telling me that Apple doesn't make a computer of this calibre?
"Each platform has its own advantages; there's no such thing as a one trick pony in computers.'
Yes there is, they call it Linux ;-]
MintSlice