Boring, drab, dark graphics. Yet the gameplay was so amazing, it didn't matter. In fact, the graphics suddenly became part of the dark, paranoid atmosphere.
You do know they made a new model of NES that loads games through the top, right? Removes the faulty connector problem.
You can just as easily take apart your old NES, clean the connectors with a pencil eraser, bend them out or replace the part cheaply, and you have a brand new NES all over again.
...is because the speed at which technology replaces itself with something better happens at a faster rate than our desire for the games it puts out!
I never beat Link To The Past. I got really far, but by the time I did, N64 had come out, Ocarina of Time was coming out, and that whole thing hit so it was hard to divide my time. I never beat that game either. I eventually did beat Wind Waker, though...
Not to mention Tron 2.0. Even though that was a movie, they completely capture the trippy glowing 80s computer feel and applied it to today's computing world. I loved when I actually entered that PDA...
Only on Slashdot is a company holding onto a successful product it personally created, made money with, and decided to hang on to in order to re-release it later on "GREED."
It's called being a business and selling the product you have a right to sell. You need to get out of the college dorm room and get a real job someday and start making money--is that "greed?"
Those companies own those games. It's not like the games came out all that long ago--20 years is hardly a long time. The public domain doesn't have a "right" to these games. Get over yourself.
This page is the stuff Michael Moore has yet to address.
I've love to see him justify splicing two Heston speeches an entire year apart so that they seem like one speech happening right after the Littleton shootings. His suit even changes midway through!
Or how about how he claims the factory was making weapons of mass destruction, when really it was producing rockets for TV satellites? It's almost silly enough to make you think he was doing it on purpose.
If a conservative did that sort of truth-twisting in his "documentary," the media would be all over it, and it wouldn't have won an Oscar. Just something to think about.
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
SECTION FROM WASHINGTON'S FAREWALL ADDRESS:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
At the same time, neoliberals make sure that Hollywood pushes anti-Bush films in a polarized election year and call it "historic" that such a "documentary" opens in such wide release. Hello--it's Hollywood. Do you think a pro-Bush movie or an anti-Kerry movie would get that sort of support from the media and from a studio? Liberal Hollywood loves Michael Moore, even if most of the nation doesn't.
How people can point out bias on one side and ignore their own amazes me. Liberals have resorted to becoming incredibly radicalized since 2000, rallying behind people like Al Franken who cite innacurate news reports just to smear people they don't like (O'Reilly was even forced to show the deed to his house on his show, just to prove that he grew up in Levittown--Al Franken still doesn't believe it...he had cited an inaccurate newspaper article and that was enough for him).
But, hey, sorry to get off-topic. Let's get back to Moore--who actually said on the Daily Show that it's a "liberal nation" and vaguely cited unnamed polls as evidence. Meanwhile, actual polls show otherwise. If liberal policy was put up for public vote, it would be knocked down, which is why they resort to judges, lawyers, celebrities, and lawsuits to force their views across. As well as putting out propaganda films (Michael Moore himself has said it is a propaganda film) and rallying behind people like Al Franken who hosts Air America, the liberal radio network, for no salary because they're doing so poorly financially. Look at Comedy Central--they run a Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial EVERY THREE ADS. It's clear where people are trying to get their views across. I should note that this is the part where someone tells me FoxNews is biased, without citing an actual example. As a matter of fact, the head of FoxNews, when he ran a paper in Australia, was considered "socialist liberal" simply because he aired liberal viewpoints nobody else would air. Personally I believe liberals hate FoxNews because it actually airs both the "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints and lets them debate with each other on air. On CNN, all you get is the liberal viewpoint, and it's never labelled as liberal--but on the occasion a conservative is on, you better believe they'll be labeled as such.
Me? I'm voting for Nader again. I think political parties are like two organized religions. You all have your loopy messengers (Ann Coulter, Michael Moore) who don't give a shit about truth but about saying "I told you so!" to the opposite group on the playground. Meanwhile, independents are left out in the water and accused of "giving the election to Bush" by frustrated neoliberals who think the point of an election is to choose between two major controlling parties instead of VOTING FOR WHO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.
Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Michael Moore himself, is not a documentary. It's an opinion piece on the last four years of Bush's administration.
Now, see, this is what pisses people off about Moore, or his fans, rather. They accept his movies as "documentaries," which implies an objective truth. Moore himself says they're not documentaries. He even gave back his Oscar for Bowling For Columbine--few people seem to know about that (the liberal media didn't seem very interested in letting people know...).
I don't know where this "documentary" thing came from, but Moore doesn't make that type of film, and he is freely open about that in all his interviews.
Not to mention the fact that Moore started accusing Disney of "censoring" him days before Cannes, even though Disney told him LAST YEAR that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. Suddenly it became an issue right before Cannes...pretty convenient timing.
I agree that he is great at directing and editing an interesting picture. He even seems to make attempts at being independent (he voted for Nader in 2000). But even this time around he's not pretending it's a "documentary" anymore--just his opinion, a political pamphlet for Democrats that won't be changing anybody's minds. In other words, preaching to the choir. Hell, he thinks Kerry isn't left-wing ENOUGH. The guy is the Ann Coulter of the extreme left. For some reason, liberals have become completely radicalized since the 2000 election, and it's turning people off.
All those people who made the album #1 might disagree with you. Go back to listening to your Who vinyl LPs and wishing for Rush to put out another album, dork.
DRM is evil. It's an attempt to control when, where and how you can enjoy the content that you've paid to access.
And if you look on the flipside of that token, DRM is great. It's an attempt to enforce, empower, and maintain the rights of the content creators to prevent their rights being trampled on by freeloaders.
See how things look when you step outside of the Slashdot bubble and look at why they're doing this? If piracy weren't so rampant, this wouldn't be an issue. And blaming the RIAA is a baseless copout.
It's cool to be retro. The Beastie Boys have that old 80s rap vocal sound nailed. It almost feels done on purpose, a tongue-in-cheek style that sounds great.
Like you said, better than that absolute trash ghetto rap shit.
I'd like a copy of Velvet Revolver. But I won't buy it until I can find a copy on the used market. If the entire Slashdot world quit buying CDs, it would hardly make a dent (not that Slashdotters *always* pay for their music). But it's the principle of the whole thing.
Velvet Revolver's copy-protection consists of nothing more than a driver that's loaded when you click "I Agree" to the Autorun popup that installs a driver that detects when Velvet Revolver is the CD that's inserted and screws with the read operations.
Solutions? Just disable Autorun or hold Shift when you insert the CD. Presto. And if you've already accepted the license agreement and installed that driver, go to Device Manager, select Show Hidden Devices and Devices By Connection in the View menu, and stop the driver and set it to "Disabled." Presto.
For the record, the new Beastie Boys record kicks absolute ass. The grandparent post sounds like just some old fogie who things The Who is still a kick-ass, relevant band. The niche opinions of Slashdotters don't represent the majority of music opinion. Like you said, the record debuted at #1. Velvet Revolver did, too--knocking Avril Lavigne to #2. All bands I'm sure the grandparent just thinks are oh-so-shitty. Since his opinion is law and represents everyone, right?
As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement.
As opposed to the millions of dollars it costs movie studios when people pirate movies? You know, taxpayers are employed by movie studios, too...
I forgot, it should be legal to pirate absolutely everything under the sun so nobody gets paid for the fruits of their efforts. People who pirate music, movies, and software are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
As compared to the raving Windows fuckwits who've been claiming for years that Linux will never be able to compete with an MS OS, that it'll never 'be ready for the desktop', that MS software is somehow superior because, well, it's produced by MS? Have you forgotten about these stupid little shits?
Linux isn't competing with a MS OS (last check at Google Zeitgeist still shows 1% Linux usage), Linux is NOT ready for the desktop, and for the most part, Microsoft software like Office and Visual Studio is indeed better produced. So what?
There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the spectrum. It's rather clear you'd prefer to pretend that the vast majority of loser fanatics come from the Linux zealot camp, but anyone with half a brain and even the slightest bit of impartiality knows that MS has more than it's share of borg-like twats willing to run to its rescue.
Okay, look, you do realize you're on Slashdot, don't you? A pro-Linux site. There is a HUGE majority of Linux zealots as compared to anyone pro-Windows. If you're going to sit there and tell me Slashdot is some balanced place of 50/50 Windows versus Linux zealots, you're completely lying. Just look at the headlines Slashdot posts on its front page. "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China." It's ridiculous.
Try getting real. Zealots are assholes BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSHOLES. It doesn't matter what they peddling. Lumping Linux into the mix because that happens to be the bandwagon for one subset of zealots is not only ignorant, it's pathetic.
Where did I lump Linux into the mix? Oh, that's right, I didn't. But you felt that your religion, er, operating system was being threatened and so got all knee-jerk emotion and decided to post, because after all, attacking someone with a different opinion means you have a bigger penis.
Okay, so did Kerry NOT fly in his hairdresser for a $1,000 haircut before going on Meet The Press?
If you disagree with an opinion, fine, but my sig states a fact. The hairdresser was even flown in on Kerry's multi-million dollar private jet. If elected, he'll be one of the richest presidents in U.S. history. Just pointing out the double-standard when discussing those evil rich Republicans.
This is the second time I've seen someone cite a driver issue as evidence in disagreement with my post.
My point was that the fact something crashes doesn't make it more or less stable, as there are too many contributing factors--case in point, a shitty driver. It's quite likely the OSS guys happened to write a better driver for that modem than the one that was provided for Windows by the manufacturer. That doesn't mean anything for Windows or Linux.
Congratulations, canfirman, your witty use of the word "M$" has solidified you as a scholar and a gentleman. It has raised the intellectual level of your post beyond mere quip to insightful social commentary on the state of our world. You have therefore been chosen to receive the Official Zealot Buzzword Trophy! On its side are enscribed the words, "Trolling like it's still 1998," to point out that terms like "M$" got old in 1998. We are happy to give you this wonderful award, and congratulate you again.
, but since you claim they don't produce the WORST product in the market, and since Windows is such a large part of their revenue, I challenge you to find:
First of all, the question itself is ridiculous. I can quite genuinely say that Windows XP has never crashed for me or been broken into. However, Linux has frozen up on me several times, and it has had kernel exploits in the past. But that doesn't make Linux less secure or less stable.
The fact that Windows is used WAY more than Linux means you'll get a greater total sum of crashes and breaches, but that doesn't make Windows less secure or less stable. You're arguing a ridiculous premise.
* An OS that is less secure than Windows.
Remember that Slashdot article about how Linux was the most-breached OS on the net? I sure do. A Slashdot editor even modified the headline so it said "Linux Most Attacked OS On Net" instead of "Most Breached" so it didn't look as bad.
* An OS that crashes more frequently than Windows.
Windows never crashes for me. I haven't seen a BSOD since 1999. But, Slashdotters seem stuck in the late 80s and think Windows 98 still represents the stability of Windows today.
I had Gnome crash my laptop under Red Hat 9 the very first time I used it. So fucking what?
* An OS with a EULA more restrictive than Windows.
This is a silly question to throw in. Windows' EULA isn't much more restrictive than, say, IBM's EULAs or Apple's. As if the EULA has anything to do with the operating system itself. Complain about the legal department but not the software development department.
* Software which has slipped the scheduled release date more often and by a larger margin than Windows. IIRC, Microsoft hasn't released on OS on time in the last 10 years.
Yeah, and how late was 2.6 again? Oh, that's right, it shipped a year later than Torvalds said it would. Again, this is a completely ridiculous argument.
I know it's l33t to be a raving Linux zealot, but a lot of people are really getting tired of it, as evidenced by the posts I've been seeing lately that are getting upmodded. I'm very pleased to see more and more people approaching things rationally and fairly now--even if Slashdot editors don't. The very fact that Clippy jokes and BSOD jokes are still upmodded--two things 95% of Windows users haven't seen since 1999--shows you how stuck in the past zealots are and how they won't let go of their old Windows 98 experience. They're competing with old 9x versions of Windows when meanwhile everyone else moved on when the codebase unification to the NT kernel happened in late 1999, and we got Windows 2000.
But, I forgot. This is the "year of Linux on the desktop." Hey, remember that article Slashdot posted that said Linux desktop usage would overtake Apple's in a year? I even had one Slashdotter cite it to me as evidence for a point he was making, simply because Slashdot had reported it. So much for that.
If you're a Linux newbie and you're coming here for tech news, you're doing yourself a great injustice, as everything will be skewed and you will get a huge wrong impression about how the tech world is doing.
I don't know about you, but "issue" sounds even worse than "bug" to me.
Maybe a company just wants to use a more professional term like "issue" rather than "bug?" I see nothing neutral about the term. I think you just want SOMETHING to bitch at Microsoft for.
I could give you endless instances of double-speak in the OSS camp as well. Where's your bitching about that?
Slashdot Mirror
Boring, drab, dark graphics. Yet the gameplay was so amazing, it didn't matter. In fact, the graphics suddenly became part of the dark, paranoid atmosphere.
You do know they made a new model of NES that loads games through the top, right? Removes the faulty connector problem.
You can just as easily take apart your old NES, clean the connectors with a pencil eraser, bend them out or replace the part cheaply, and you have a brand new NES all over again.
...is because the speed at which technology replaces itself with something better happens at a faster rate than our desire for the games it puts out!
I never beat Link To The Past. I got really far, but by the time I did, N64 had come out, Ocarina of Time was coming out, and that whole thing hit so it was hard to divide my time. I never beat that game either. I eventually did beat Wind Waker, though...
Not to mention Tron 2.0. Even though that was a movie, they completely capture the trippy glowing 80s computer feel and applied it to today's computing world. I loved when I actually entered that PDA...
Only on Slashdot is a company holding onto a successful product it personally created, made money with, and decided to hang on to in order to re-release it later on "GREED."
It's called being a business and selling the product you have a right to sell. You need to get out of the college dorm room and get a real job someday and start making money--is that "greed?"
Those companies own those games. It's not like the games came out all that long ago--20 years is hardly a long time. The public domain doesn't have a "right" to these games. Get over yourself.
This page is the stuff Michael Moore has yet to address.
I've love to see him justify splicing two Heston speeches an entire year apart so that they seem like one speech happening right after the Littleton shootings. His suit even changes midway through!
Or how about how he claims the factory was making weapons of mass destruction, when really it was producing rockets for TV satellites? It's almost silly enough to make you think he was doing it on purpose.
If a conservative did that sort of truth-twisting in his "documentary," the media would be all over it, and it wouldn't have won an Oscar. Just something to think about.
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
SECTION FROM WASHINGTON'S FAREWALL ADDRESS:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
At the same time, neoliberals make sure that Hollywood pushes anti-Bush films in a polarized election year and call it "historic" that such a "documentary" opens in such wide release. Hello--it's Hollywood. Do you think a pro-Bush movie or an anti-Kerry movie would get that sort of support from the media and from a studio? Liberal Hollywood loves Michael Moore, even if most of the nation doesn't.
How people can point out bias on one side and ignore their own amazes me. Liberals have resorted to becoming incredibly radicalized since 2000, rallying behind people like Al Franken who cite innacurate news reports just to smear people they don't like (O'Reilly was even forced to show the deed to his house on his show, just to prove that he grew up in Levittown--Al Franken still doesn't believe it...he had cited an inaccurate newspaper article and that was enough for him).
But, hey, sorry to get off-topic. Let's get back to Moore--who actually said on the Daily Show that it's a "liberal nation" and vaguely cited unnamed polls as evidence. Meanwhile, actual polls show otherwise. If liberal policy was put up for public vote, it would be knocked down, which is why they resort to judges, lawyers, celebrities, and lawsuits to force their views across. As well as putting out propaganda films (Michael Moore himself has said it is a propaganda film) and rallying behind people like Al Franken who hosts Air America, the liberal radio network, for no salary because they're doing so poorly financially. Look at Comedy Central--they run a Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial EVERY THREE ADS. It's clear where people are trying to get their views across. I should note that this is the part where someone tells me FoxNews is biased, without citing an actual example. As a matter of fact, the head of FoxNews, when he ran a paper in Australia, was considered "socialist liberal" simply because he aired liberal viewpoints nobody else would air. Personally I believe liberals hate FoxNews because it actually airs both the "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints and lets them debate with each other on air. On CNN, all you get is the liberal viewpoint, and it's never labelled as liberal--but on the occasion a conservative is on, you better believe they'll be labeled as such.
Me? I'm voting for Nader again. I think political parties are like two organized religions. You all have your loopy messengers (Ann Coulter, Michael Moore) who don't give a shit about truth but about saying "I told you so!" to the opposite group on the playground. Meanwhile, independents are left out in the water and accused of "giving the election to Bush" by frustrated neoliberals who think the point of an election is to choose between two major controlling parties instead of VOTING FOR WHO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.
I have to disagree - that a DOCUMENTARY
Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Michael Moore himself, is not a documentary. It's an opinion piece on the last four years of Bush's administration.
Now, see, this is what pisses people off about Moore, or his fans, rather. They accept his movies as "documentaries," which implies an objective truth. Moore himself says they're not documentaries. He even gave back his Oscar for Bowling For Columbine--few people seem to know about that (the liberal media didn't seem very interested in letting people know...).
I don't know where this "documentary" thing came from, but Moore doesn't make that type of film, and he is freely open about that in all his interviews.
...everyone should know about Michael Moore's record for twisting facts.
Hardylaw's famous Bowling For Columbine critique.
Not to mention the fact that Moore started accusing Disney of "censoring" him days before Cannes, even though Disney told him LAST YEAR that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. Suddenly it became an issue right before Cannes...pretty convenient timing.
I agree that he is great at directing and editing an interesting picture. He even seems to make attempts at being independent (he voted for Nader in 2000). But even this time around he's not pretending it's a "documentary" anymore--just his opinion, a political pamphlet for Democrats that won't be changing anybody's minds. In other words, preaching to the choir. Hell, he thinks Kerry isn't left-wing ENOUGH. The guy is the Ann Coulter of the extreme left. For some reason, liberals have become completely radicalized since the 2000 election, and it's turning people off.
All those people who made the album #1 might disagree with you. Go back to listening to your Who vinyl LPs and wishing for Rush to put out another album, dork.
DRM is evil. It's an attempt to control when, where and how you can enjoy the content that you've paid to access.
And if you look on the flipside of that token, DRM is great. It's an attempt to enforce, empower, and maintain the rights of the content creators to prevent their rights being trampled on by freeloaders.
See how things look when you step outside of the Slashdot bubble and look at why they're doing this? If piracy weren't so rampant, this wouldn't be an issue. And blaming the RIAA is a baseless copout.
It's cool to be retro. The Beastie Boys have that old 80s rap vocal sound nailed. It almost feels done on purpose, a tongue-in-cheek style that sounds great.
Like you said, better than that absolute trash ghetto rap shit.
I'd like a copy of Velvet Revolver. But I won't buy it until I can find a copy on the used market. If the entire Slashdot world quit buying CDs, it would hardly make a dent (not that Slashdotters *always* pay for their music). But it's the principle of the whole thing.
Velvet Revolver's copy-protection consists of nothing more than a driver that's loaded when you click "I Agree" to the Autorun popup that installs a driver that detects when Velvet Revolver is the CD that's inserted and screws with the read operations.
Solutions? Just disable Autorun or hold Shift when you insert the CD. Presto. And if you've already accepted the license agreement and installed that driver, go to Device Manager, select Show Hidden Devices and Devices By Connection in the View menu, and stop the driver and set it to "Disabled." Presto.
For the record, the new Beastie Boys record kicks absolute ass. The grandparent post sounds like just some old fogie who things The Who is still a kick-ass, relevant band. The niche opinions of Slashdotters don't represent the majority of music opinion. Like you said, the record debuted at #1. Velvet Revolver did, too--knocking Avril Lavigne to #2. All bands I'm sure the grandparent just thinks are oh-so-shitty. Since his opinion is law and represents everyone, right?
"Undesired effect" is a subjective definition. Enforcement of DRM isn't inherently bad whatsoever. It's when the consumer isn't told about it.
Compare to Velvet Revolver's CD--there's a big silver sticker that tells you it's copy-protected for computers. You know going into it.
I think you're stretching it here to try to equate this to a bad buzzword like "trojan."
As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement.
As opposed to the millions of dollars it costs movie studios when people pirate movies? You know, taxpayers are employed by movie studios, too...
I forgot, it should be legal to pirate absolutely everything under the sun so nobody gets paid for the fruits of their efforts. People who pirate music, movies, and software are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
As compared to the raving Windows fuckwits who've been claiming for years that Linux will never be able to compete with an MS OS, that it'll never 'be ready for the desktop', that MS software is somehow superior because, well, it's produced by MS? Have you forgotten about these stupid little shits?
Linux isn't competing with a MS OS (last check at Google Zeitgeist still shows 1% Linux usage), Linux is NOT ready for the desktop, and for the most part, Microsoft software like Office and Visual Studio is indeed better produced. So what?
There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the spectrum. It's rather clear you'd prefer to pretend that the vast majority of loser fanatics come from the Linux zealot camp, but anyone with half a brain and even the slightest bit of impartiality knows that MS has more than it's share of borg-like twats willing to run to its rescue.
Okay, look, you do realize you're on Slashdot, don't you? A pro-Linux site. There is a HUGE majority of Linux zealots as compared to anyone pro-Windows. If you're going to sit there and tell me Slashdot is some balanced place of 50/50 Windows versus Linux zealots, you're completely lying. Just look at the headlines Slashdot posts on its front page. "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China." It's ridiculous.
Try getting real. Zealots are assholes BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSHOLES. It doesn't matter what they peddling. Lumping Linux into the mix because that happens to be the bandwagon for one subset of zealots is not only ignorant, it's pathetic.
Where did I lump Linux into the mix? Oh, that's right, I didn't. But you felt that your religion, er, operating system was being threatened and so got all knee-jerk emotion and decided to post, because after all, attacking someone with a different opinion means you have a bigger penis.
Plonk.
Okay, so did Kerry NOT fly in his hairdresser for a $1,000 haircut before going on Meet The Press?
If you disagree with an opinion, fine, but my sig states a fact. The hairdresser was even flown in on Kerry's multi-million dollar private jet. If elected, he'll be one of the richest presidents in U.S. history. Just pointing out the double-standard when discussing those evil rich Republicans.
Next.
That's not what I was talking about. I haven't had it automatically reboot either, on my home machine or any on the corporate network at work.
For your information, I unchecked the automatic restart the first day I installed XP on my home machine anyway.
This is the second time I've seen someone cite a driver issue as evidence in disagreement with my post.
:P
My point was that the fact something crashes doesn't make it more or less stable, as there are too many contributing factors--case in point, a shitty driver. It's quite likely the OSS guys happened to write a better driver for that modem than the one that was provided for Windows by the manufacturer. That doesn't mean anything for Windows or Linux.
Solution--buy a real modem anyway.
Sorry to hear about your broken hardware driver.
Congratulations, canfirman, your witty use of the word "M$" has solidified you as a scholar and a gentleman. It has raised the intellectual level of your post beyond mere quip to insightful social commentary on the state of our world. You have therefore been chosen to receive the Official Zealot Buzzword Trophy! On its side are enscribed the words, "Trolling like it's still 1998," to point out that terms like "M$" got old in 1998. We are happy to give you this wonderful award, and congratulate you again.
Don't call us, we'll call you.
I don't want to get into a flame fest
Right.
, but since you claim they don't produce the WORST product in the market, and since Windows is such a large part of their revenue, I challenge you to find:
First of all, the question itself is ridiculous. I can quite genuinely say that Windows XP has never crashed for me or been broken into. However, Linux has frozen up on me several times, and it has had kernel exploits in the past. But that doesn't make Linux less secure or less stable.
The fact that Windows is used WAY more than Linux means you'll get a greater total sum of crashes and breaches, but that doesn't make Windows less secure or less stable. You're arguing a ridiculous premise.
* An OS that is less secure than Windows.
Remember that Slashdot article about how Linux was the most-breached OS on the net? I sure do. A Slashdot editor even modified the headline so it said "Linux Most Attacked OS On Net" instead of "Most Breached" so it didn't look as bad.
* An OS that crashes more frequently than Windows.
Windows never crashes for me. I haven't seen a BSOD since 1999. But, Slashdotters seem stuck in the late 80s and think Windows 98 still represents the stability of Windows today.
I had Gnome crash my laptop under Red Hat 9 the very first time I used it. So fucking what?
* An OS with a EULA more restrictive than Windows.
This is a silly question to throw in. Windows' EULA isn't much more restrictive than, say, IBM's EULAs or Apple's. As if the EULA has anything to do with the operating system itself. Complain about the legal department but not the software development department.
* Software which has slipped the scheduled release date more often and by a larger margin than Windows. IIRC, Microsoft hasn't released on OS on time in the last 10 years.
Yeah, and how late was 2.6 again? Oh, that's right, it shipped a year later than Torvalds said it would. Again, this is a completely ridiculous argument.
I know it's l33t to be a raving Linux zealot, but a lot of people are really getting tired of it, as evidenced by the posts I've been seeing lately that are getting upmodded. I'm very pleased to see more and more people approaching things rationally and fairly now--even if Slashdot editors don't. The very fact that Clippy jokes and BSOD jokes are still upmodded--two things 95% of Windows users haven't seen since 1999--shows you how stuck in the past zealots are and how they won't let go of their old Windows 98 experience. They're competing with old 9x versions of Windows when meanwhile everyone else moved on when the codebase unification to the NT kernel happened in late 1999, and we got Windows 2000.
But, I forgot. This is the "year of Linux on the desktop." Hey, remember that article Slashdot posted that said Linux desktop usage would overtake Apple's in a year? I even had one Slashdotter cite it to me as evidence for a point he was making, simply because Slashdot had reported it. So much for that.
If you're a Linux newbie and you're coming here for tech news, you're doing yourself a great injustice, as everything will be skewed and you will get a huge wrong impression about how the tech world is doing.
I don't know about you, but "issue" sounds even worse than "bug" to me.
Maybe a company just wants to use a more professional term like "issue" rather than "bug?" I see nothing neutral about the term. I think you just want SOMETHING to bitch at Microsoft for.
I could give you endless instances of double-speak in the OSS camp as well. Where's your bitching about that?
Yeah. Thanks for the specific examples.