illiterate (in particular subject) people exist and will exist; and there will be much more of them because nobody can know everything and there is still more and more things man can know;
so maybe there will be more able people in future (in handling computers) but for example how much people realy know (understand, etc.) how engine in the car works and therefore how to correctly and efficiently use it? how much people know how TV set, CD player,... works? how to use it?
we can argue about that; we can flame about that but facts are plain
on the other hand, i'm not advocating lamers: i realy do not like people doing something they do not understand and i hate when they are arguing with experts (in that particular subject) like "common" PC users argue about how Windows are stable and efficient and...
that Documentation/Changes note about libc5 i understand as: if you have libc5, upgrade libc5, if you have glibc2, upgrade glibc2 i think that's all; i'm running 2.2.0 since pre6 (now 2.2.1) and i have glibc-2.0.109-0.990112 (previously glibc-2.0.7-29) and i encounter no problem (relating to kernel and glibc)
M$ is monopoly in OS market for so called "common" people. "common" people are almost monopoly in so called highly developed countries high developed countries are near monopoly to the whole planet
almost evety monopoly is for no good (or more precisely: monopoly causes less good than bad)
I'm programming under Linux even when I'm making software for NT because I'm making Java servlets and because under Linux my work is faster and better and above all I have good feeling from my work. NT is maybe user friendly, but not to me as I'm not common MS customer. Windows makes me angry realy fast even when I'm trying not to get angry. Windows are for idiots and I'm not feeling like one (at leas in computer are - if someone want to argue with me about that:) and idiots and idiot-things in action makes me angry.
And I'm still wondering why are people risking theire valueable work using Windows (risk: Word crash, Windows crash, other user make mistake and delete everything,...). For animated cursors? Using Windows is like driving nice car through nice country on nice road but with deadly collision every few kilometers/miles.
if we have fine crypto system with keys exchange then every piece of software could be signed by author/packager/producer/... and we should be able to authenticate the person and then trust him or download software from someone else
our slogan should be: sign what you produce (i will... soon:)
few months ago some guy warned about such a posibility
but i agree with Effugas: it's not that bad to have such a thing in open source software than in some closed source one; first one (open) can be handled for example by viewing source or choosing carefuly download site; but protect ourselves agains bugs/viruses/trojans distributed in closed source software is far more harder
other's engeneering point of view: MS stuff is junk (no chance for MS)
otjer's marketing point of view: MS is expensive (no chance for MS)
butcommon user's point of view: "MS is such a good company, it wants us good; windows are that cute, those animated icons, those themes,..." (prepare for armagedon brought to you by MS:)
but MS' marketing point of view (based on common users' point of view: kill 'em all (prepare for armagedon brought to you by MS)
common MS strategy: see what others are doing and if it has some potential for getting a lot of money and/or a lot of control over customers, announce same thing but with "little improvements" and with support of "powerful coalition"
maybe it is accident, but training and support are still needed for MS products and this support and training is not for free (i suspect it is not accidend but another market dominated by MS, but who knows:) so i do not agree about that $20B savings for training
and even in case it's true, what are the loses (in billions of US$) caused by crashes, damages,... caused just by bugs in MS software? you can't efectively work wile saving and backuping every minute
... should US government buy MS from bill? or take MS from bill? second is better while existing in kapitalism society. and why to perform that? because regulating something which is not yours is denying right of the owner (as MS shouts it) - except by make some new law, but that's hard because with aproach you mentioned (It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to violate anti-trust laws.) someone still can find some hole in law
and after adoption of MS by USA, what should do other countries? buy MS from USA?
so at the end, it looks to me like the best solution to ensure competition in that market, not to try to establish legal (maybe regulated, and by whom?) monopoly
so maybe i again missunderstand you but i can think only one other solution: Open Source Society: only in such a society we can function well will just one or two OS, one or two HW platforms, one or two car makers, etc. because anyone can freely alter those products and if he make it right others will adopt that change
natural monopoly can be water and elektricity supply, railroad transportation in small countries... BUT computer software is not candidate for natural monopoly! as long as there are no natural superior programmers in the world and they can not change employer
yours too, because when talking for example about minimalisation of porting effort there are more ways to do that than just make ONE dominant platform. examples? java and source code compatibility (like on UNIXes). even those two methods (theire principles) are better than your one desktop concept because they do not remove competition. and as you surely know, competition is esential for quality! (and for posibility to choose as well, for low prices too, etc. etc.)
while talking about browsers, there rules same principles I mention above. while having cometiotion, we get a lot good browsers with a lot good features with minimum of bugs and with CORRECT html implementation. without competition? a lot of html tags no one knows what they are for, a lot of features nobody know what they are for and how to use them, a lot of bugs, little choises, etc.
do I state esentials of competition clearly enought? do you understand that MS' ways of "achieving users's benefits" are fundamentaly wrong?
let MS rest in peace ... after fingting them out of dominant position
by the way, while i'm saying "fight them out of dominant position" I mean push them out by group of competitors (competing with each other at the same time) not replace it by something other (even Linux)
who cares what browser people use in the first place?
for example me. as you told, competion in browsers market broght us a lot of good features. and that's why i care what browser is used by most of people. why? because as you can see in OS maret, same way it can end with browsers. a lot of features nobody wantsd for a lot of money. all because of there is no (to be more precise: there WAS no) competitor
i care for which browser is mostly used because i prefer no browser got real majority. to ensure quality.
Slashdot Mirror
so maybe there will be more able people in future (in handling computers) but for example how much people realy know (understand, etc.) how engine in the car works and therefore how to correctly and efficiently use it? how much people know how TV set, CD player, ... works? how to use it?
we can argue about that; we can flame about that but facts are plain
on the other hand, i'm not advocating lamers: i realy do not like people doing something they do not understand and i hate when they are arguing with experts (in that particular subject) ...
like "common" PC users argue about how Windows are stable and efficient and
other can be dissapointed, can disagree, ...
because this topic is clenaly about personal opinion
:>
who? guys who enjoy such a work
this is incopetence in practise
that Documentation/Changes note about libc5 i understand as: if you have libc5, upgrade libc5, if you have glibc2, upgrade glibc2
i think that's all; i'm running 2.2.0 since pre6 (now 2.2.1) and i have glibc-2.0.109-0.990112 (previously glibc-2.0.7-29) and i encounter no problem (relating to kernel and glibc)
"common" people are almost monopoly in so called highly developed countries
high developed countries are near monopoly to the whole planet
almost evety monopoly is for no good (or more precisely: monopoly causes less good than bad)
so i agree with you that this war is not good (for users)
btw, such a people are perfect example of impotent criticism
I fully agree with you
And I'm still wondering why are people risking theire valueable work using Windows (risk: Word crash, Windows crash, other user make mistake and delete everything, ...). For animated cursors? Using Windows is like driving nice car through nice country on nice road but with deadly collision every few kilometers/miles.
if we have fine crypto system with keys exchange then every piece of software could be signed by author/packager/producer/... and we should be able to authenticate the person and then trust him or download software from someone else
our slogan should be: sign what you produce ... soon :)
(i will
but i agree with Effugas: it's not that bad to have such a thing in open source software than in some closed source one; first one (open) can be handled for example by viewing source or choosing carefuly download site; but protect ourselves agains bugs/viruses/trojans distributed in closed source software is far more harder
answer: the best of OSes which are not controled by single company, person, government and/or small intrerest group, coalition, ...
and even in case it's true, what are the loses (in billions of US$) caused by crashes, damages, ... caused just by bugs in MS software? you can't efectively work wile saving and backuping every minute
and after adoption of MS by USA, what should do other countries? buy MS from USA?
so at the end, it looks to me like the best solution to ensure competition in that market, not to try to establish legal (maybe regulated, and by whom?) monopoly
so maybe i again missunderstand you but i can think only one other solution: Open Source Society: only in such a society we can function well will just one or two OS, one or two HW platforms, one or two car makers, etc. because anyone can freely alter those products and if he make it right others will adopt that change
while talking about browsers, there rules same principles I mention above. while having cometiotion, we get a lot good browsers with a lot good features with minimum of bugs and with CORRECT html implementation. without competition? a lot of html tags no one knows what they are for, a lot of features nobody know what they are for and how to use them, a lot of bugs, little choises, etc.
do I state esentials of competition clearly enought? do you understand that MS' ways of "achieving users's benefits" are fundamentaly wrong?
by the way, while i'm saying "fight them out of dominant position" I mean push them out by group of competitors (competing with each other at the same time) not replace it by something other (even Linux)
for example me. as you told, competion in browsers market broght us a lot of good features. and that's why i care what browser is used by most of people. why? because as you can see in OS maret, same way it can end with browsers. a lot of features nobody wantsd for a lot of money. all because of there is no (to be more precise: there WAS no) competitor
i care for which browser is mostly used because i prefer no browser got real majority. to ensure quality.