No, it's not. With RedHat I just pay for a server. I can have 5000 clients accessing that server without paying a dime for each client accessing the server not to mention being able to use something cheap or even free on the clients.
Completely and utterly irrelevant. The criticism is that Microsoft has a yearly charge, "regardless of whether or not you upgrade". Most commercial OSS follows - indeed, pretty much has to follow - the same model. Presumably OP feels the same way about them, so why single out Microsoft for criticism ?
Oh, and I can switch to Suse or Ubuntu without have to completely rebuild all my information systems and apps from scratch.
Clearly you've never had anything remotely important to do in a "5000 client" network, if you think it's that easy to change.
Simple fact is "CAL costs" fade into insignificance, taken against the overall cost of managing a large (or small, for that matter) network. Which is why the "but Linux is free" argument carries little weight for decision makers. _Buying_ commodity software like Windows and Office is so cheap it barely even registers on the books. Running the network is what's expensive.
That's not a response. If you disagree with my logic, say why.
What logic ? You're basically saying; "I don't think anyone could possibly like Vista, therefore you are lying". That's not logic, it's biased opinion.
In other words, DOT is already paying for Vista, even if they're not using it. Remember how Microsoft enterprise-level "software assurance" works. You pay by the year, upgrade or not.
IE: it's exactly the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
See above for my comments on stability and usability. Also, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and to a lesser extent, AIX are all very real competition.
Now you're just trolling. In what market of any consequence (or inconsequence for that matter) are Solaris and AIX (AIX, for fuck's sake) competitors for Windows Vista ?
Think about this for a moment: Sun Microsystems banned word processors and presentation programs in many of their divisions in 2000. They told employees to use text editors and use HTML if they needed formatting. They saw a 30% rise in productivity. Office suites reduce productivity because the users are fooling around with presentation when they should be tinking about content.
Windows Update offers an auto-update option that reads: "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I selected that option, I anticipated that the installer would tell me: "I have the following six updates:... Which ones would you like to install now?" Instead, it tells me: "I'm going to install a bunch of updates now - that's OK, right?"... Not nearly enough granularity or detail to let me make an informed decision. And, of course, that's the point - MS can shoehorn whatever patches they want into your box, right under your nose and with your (un)informed consent.
If you select "Custom", you can pick and choose the updates you want installed.
I don't understand the mentality. I mean, if you're a software dev company, what makes you think you should be able to take GPL code, build a product out of it, and sell it closed source?
Because - at least with regards to a large proportion of it (shared libraries) - that's what they can do with closed source code.
The GPL is NOT limiting anyones rights beyond copyright law, you might say its more limiting than the LGPL or modified BSD, but you can't say its more restrictive than no license at all.
Can we have a show of hands to see who thinks linking to a library violates the copyright of the creator of that library ?
Ironic that you don't need to follow any special agreements to write software that links to the libraries included with, say, Windows...
They are probably right. They are using web applications. Linux training would be pretty much;
If they're using web apps, the "retraining" on Vista would be zero.
I _really_ don't understand the whole kerfuffle about how "different" Vista is. It's not. The basic UI constructs (Desktop, "Start" Menu, "My Documents", Explorer, etc) are not significantly changed from XP (or Windows 95, for that matter). People who get confused by the changes in Vista are highly likely to be people who spend their whole day inside one or two applications - in which case what the rest of the UI is doing is irrelevant, because only the app UI matters.
A great deal of noise about a relatively insignificant issue, methinks. Even the hardware requirements - another non-issue, really - are more noteworthy than the UI changes.
The reality of that little ten year waiting period descended from MS being caught red-handed with their hand in the Quicktime cookie jar codebase.
Of course, the frequently unreported facts accompanying this assertion is that said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.
It doesn't matter if they want to help a competitor once they're declared a monopoly. Here's my (admittedly amateur)understanding of it. When the government said MS was a monopoly, they're basically saying that the owned the office software market. The office software market is important enough to the functioning of our economy/government/etc. that a monopoly company in it needs to be controlled by government regulation.
Microsoft were never even found to be a monopoly in the "Office software" market, let alone found to have abused such a position.
Furthermore, in the market they *were* found to be a monopoly in - desktop OSes for x86-based computers - Apple wasn't a competitor, so no matter what happened to Apple it would have had _zero_ bearing on Microsoft's monopoly position (from a legal sense).
Just so y'all know - because I'm sure no-one will actually read the thing - the submitter has picked a couple of quotes, utterly out of context, buried in an email exchange that is pretty much 100% positive about Mac Office and its continuation as a product.
Why can't come with a system with a single desktop cpu, desktop ram, desk top video card in a pci-e slot, and a desktop hd?
Primarily because it would slaughter high-profitability Mac Pro sales. A secondary issue is that Apple probably wouldn't be able to keep up with demand for such a machine.
Let me try again. As an educator, I believe everyone is trainable. All Mac portables have a left and a right click built into the track pad. There is no need for a button really, except that many people are used to having a button.
And that trackpad-tapping for "click" is an annoying abortion of usability.
If you really do have a girlfriend, go get her Macbook, hover the mouse over an icon, and tap the mouse pad with your finger twice. Don't touch the button below it. Amazingly, you just opened something. Now do the same thing, except, instead of tapping twice with your finger, tap once and hold your index finger on the pad, then tap with your middle finger. You just executed a right mouse button click.
Wow. You really are stupid. Right after I tell you I know how to use it, you try and tell me how to use it. Which part of "I know how it works" did you have trouble comprehending ?
I've been using Macs long enough such that my office "clock" is an original Mac Plus. I've been using "OS X" since it was still called Rhapsody. I have a rough idea how they work.
If you want to debate the lack of a physical right mouse button, that is a different topic.
Had you been paying attention instead of of trying to be an obnoxious fuckwit, you would have noticed that the discussion I started *was* about a physical mouse button.
I am merely debunking the myth that Macs don't right click, which is really just an ignorant 10 year old argument. It wasn't true 10 years ago, and it still isn't today.
OS X has context menus, but - like MacOS before it - they're so bare as to be essentially worthless. They add basically nothing to the interface and may as well not exist.
Buttons are so 90s. Mac portables have right click functionality. You place one finger on the track pad, then click the track pad with your "right click" finger and you get a contextual menu, just as if you were to click the right mouse button.
My fiance has a MBP. I know how they work.
I don't really remember the last time I used the button below the track pad, even for left click functionality.
Good on you. That doesn't mean a second button has magically appeared there.
If you are going to rip something, get your facts straight first.
And according to the Google study, heat doesn't lead to a significantly increased risk of failure till you get above 45 C or so.
The hard disk in the average small, poorly ventilated PC would hit 40 degrees fairly easily. Heck, my mum's iMac reports the drive sitting around 50 degrees at idle.
Most hard disks are't living in well ventilated machines sitting in climate-controlled data centres.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. With RedHat I just pay for a server. I can have 5000 clients accessing that server without paying a dime for each client accessing the server not to mention being able to use something cheap or even free on the clients.
Completely and utterly irrelevant. The criticism is that Microsoft has a yearly charge, "regardless of whether or not you upgrade". Most commercial OSS follows - indeed, pretty much has to follow - the same model. Presumably OP feels the same way about them, so why single out Microsoft for criticism ?
Oh, and I can switch to Suse or Ubuntu without have to completely rebuild all my information systems and apps from scratch.
Clearly you've never had anything remotely important to do in a "5000 client" network, if you think it's that easy to change.
Simple fact is "CAL costs" fade into insignificance, taken against the overall cost of managing a large (or small, for that matter) network. Which is why the "but Linux is free" argument carries little weight for decision makers. _Buying_ commodity software like Windows and Office is so cheap it barely even registers on the books. Running the network is what's expensive.
Red Hat isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, so what's your point?
The OP is groundlessly criticising a quite common and reasonable - especially for commercial OSS - practice.
As I suspected. Your "evidence" is basically the equvalent of Bill Gates saying "piracy is down 30% since we rolled out WGA".
That's not a response. If you disagree with my logic, say why.
What logic ? You're basically saying; "I don't think anyone could possibly like Vista, therefore you are lying". That's not logic, it's biased opinion.
In other words, DOT is already paying for Vista, even if they're not using it. Remember how Microsoft enterprise-level "software assurance" works. You pay by the year, upgrade or not.
IE: it's exactly the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
in isolation could be a fair comment, but given the unequivocal praise for Vista, I smell the polymers of thick green Made-in-Seattle Astroturf.
Sadly, this sort of closed-mindedness is fairly typical of Slashdot posters.
See above for my comments on stability and usability. Also, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and to a lesser extent, AIX are all very real competition.
Now you're just trolling. In what market of any consequence (or inconsequence for that matter) are Solaris and AIX (AIX, for fuck's sake) competitors for Windows Vista ?
Think about this for a moment: Sun Microsystems banned word processors and presentation programs in many of their divisions in 2000. They told employees to use text editors and use HTML if they needed formatting. They saw a 30% rise in productivity. Office suites reduce productivity because the users are fooling around with presentation when they should be tinking about content.
Link ?
Windows Update offers an auto-update option that reads: "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them." When I selected that option, I anticipated that the installer would tell me: "I have the following six updates: ... Which ones would you like to install now?" Instead, it tells me: "I'm going to install a bunch of updates now - that's OK, right?" ... Not nearly enough granularity or detail to let me make an informed decision. And, of course, that's the point - MS can shoehorn whatever patches they want into your box, right under your nose and with your (un)informed consent.
If you select "Custom", you can pick and choose the updates you want installed.
I don't understand the mentality. I mean, if you're a software dev company, what makes you think you should be able to take GPL code, build a product out of it, and sell it closed source?
Because - at least with regards to a large proportion of it (shared libraries) - that's what they can do with closed source code.
The GPL is NOT limiting anyones rights beyond copyright law, you might say its more limiting than the LGPL or modified BSD, but you can't say its more restrictive than no license at all.
Can we have a show of hands to see who thinks linking to a library violates the copyright of the creator of that library ?
Ironic that you don't need to follow any special agreements to write software that links to the libraries included with, say, Windows...
They are probably right. They are using web applications. Linux training would be pretty much;
If they're using web apps, the "retraining" on Vista would be zero.
I _really_ don't understand the whole kerfuffle about how "different" Vista is. It's not. The basic UI constructs (Desktop, "Start" Menu, "My Documents", Explorer, etc) are not significantly changed from XP (or Windows 95, for that matter). People who get confused by the changes in Vista are highly likely to be people who spend their whole day inside one or two applications - in which case what the rest of the UI is doing is irrelevant, because only the app UI matters.
A great deal of noise about a relatively insignificant issue, methinks. Even the hardware requirements - another non-issue, really - are more noteworthy than the UI changes.
If MS 'bought' code from intel that intel had no rights to sell, Apple would have gone after intel, not MS.
They did. Apple's lawsuit targeted the third party (can't remember the name, it was way too long ago).
So what? It doesn't matter who the fence was - Microsoft knowingly infringed upon trade secrets.
So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?
Or do you actually believe Microsoft thought it had the right to use that code?
No. I am, however, prepared to consider the possibility they didn't know they had been sold a product that had some illegally obtained code in it.
The major selling point of MS Office is: Outlook + Exchange.
No, it's not, because every Exchange CAL includes an Outlook license. You don't need Office to get Outlook, if you have Exchange.
(This has been true since at least Exchange 2000.)
About the only reason Bill sucked up to Steve ten years ago was to help deflect a lot of DOJ anti-trust heat.
How could that have helped, when Microsoft were charged with monopolising a market Apple had(/has) no presence in ?
Not to be an ass, but this is just one of those things that really peeves me.
Bald-faced is incorrect. The proper idiom is bold-faced.
Either is correct, although they have slightly different roots.
The reality of that little ten year waiting period descended from MS being caught red-handed with their hand in the Quicktime cookie jar codebase.
Of course, the frequently unreported facts accompanying this assertion is that said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.
It doesn't matter if they want to help a competitor once they're declared a monopoly. Here's my (admittedly amateur)understanding of it. When the government said MS was a monopoly, they're basically saying that the owned the office software market. The office software market is important enough to the functioning of our economy/government/etc. that a monopoly company in it needs to be controlled by government regulation.
Microsoft were never even found to be a monopoly in the "Office software" market, let alone found to have abused such a position.
Furthermore, in the market they *were* found to be a monopoly in - desktop OSes for x86-based computers - Apple wasn't a competitor, so no matter what happened to Apple it would have had _zero_ bearing on Microsoft's monopoly position (from a legal sense).
Just so y'all know - because I'm sure no-one will actually read the thing - the submitter has picked a couple of quotes, utterly out of context, buried in an email exchange that is pretty much 100% positive about Mac Office and its continuation as a product.
Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free.
Because then they'd have to use OpenOffice.
If I have discontent about how much I'm paid, I either show my employer I am worth more money, or I look for other employment.
In your job, objectively determining competence and job performance is probably fairly trivial.
Why can't come with a system with a single desktop cpu, desktop ram, desk top video card in a pci-e slot, and a desktop hd?
Primarily because it would slaughter high-profitability Mac Pro sales. A secondary issue is that Apple probably wouldn't be able to keep up with demand for such a machine.
So then you are saying you can't read?
No, I'm saying you're stupid.
Let me try again. As an educator, I believe everyone is trainable. All Mac portables have a left and a right click built into the track pad. There is no need for a button really, except that many people are used to having a button.
And that trackpad-tapping for "click" is an annoying abortion of usability.
If you really do have a girlfriend, go get her Macbook, hover the mouse over an icon, and tap the mouse pad with your finger twice. Don't touch the button below it. Amazingly, you just opened something. Now do the same thing, except, instead of tapping twice with your finger, tap once and hold your index finger on the pad, then tap with your middle finger. You just executed a right mouse button click.
Wow. You really are stupid. Right after I tell you I know how to use it, you try and tell me how to use it. Which part of "I know how it works" did you have trouble comprehending ?
I've been using Macs long enough such that my office "clock" is an original Mac Plus. I've been using "OS X" since it was still called Rhapsody. I have a rough idea how they work.
If you want to debate the lack of a physical right mouse button, that is a different topic.
Had you been paying attention instead of of trying to be an obnoxious fuckwit, you would have noticed that the discussion I started *was* about a physical mouse button.
I am merely debunking the myth that Macs don't right click, which is really just an ignorant 10 year old argument. It wasn't true 10 years ago, and it still isn't today.
OS X has context menus, but - like MacOS before it - they're so bare as to be essentially worthless. They add basically nothing to the interface and may as well not exist.
Buttons are so 90s. Mac portables have right click functionality. You place one finger on the track pad, then click the track pad with your "right click" finger and you get a contextual menu, just as if you were to click the right mouse button.
My fiance has a MBP. I know how they work.
I don't really remember the last time I used the button below the track pad, even for left click functionality.
Good on you. That doesn't mean a second button has magically appeared there.
If you are going to rip something, get your facts straight first.
I have. Mac laptops don't have multiple buttons.
And according to the Google study, heat doesn't lead to a significantly increased risk of failure till you get above 45 C or so.
The hard disk in the average small, poorly ventilated PC would hit 40 degrees fairly easily. Heck, my mum's iMac reports the drive sitting around 50 degrees at idle.
Most hard disks are't living in well ventilated machines sitting in climate-controlled data centres.