[...] Windows did a fantastic job of getting the PC into the lives of average people.
That is not because of Windows. People do not get a computer to use Windows. Windows was just there when the hardware evolution made computers useful to average people (i.e. the Internet, digital music, digital photos).
No, the reason is that there is competition in the hardware area. Really? And this competition arises because of the size of the market, correct? Not correct. Competetion does not come with volume. It comes from the open design that the PC is, which gives a low barrier to entry and low margins.
The first "real" PC I ever had was a souped-up Zeos Pantera 486 with 16MB of RAM, a Diamond Stealth64 sporting an amazing 4MB of VRAM, a SCSI card with a 105MB HDD on top and - get this - a gynormous 17-inch monitor. I paid close to $6K back then for that. Today I can put together something that is for all purposes a super computer compared to that, for about $600. The reason for that is and always has been Microsoft Windows.
No, the reason is that there is competition in the hardware area.
Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, costs pretty much the same today as it did back when you got your first PC.
Rather that a source code level system I'd prefer a way of replacing loadable kernel modules without a reboot. Then push more code into modules -- eg file system. (Hey sounds like a micro-kernel).
It does not sound like a microkernel at all, it sounds like dynamic linking. A microkernel would have the modules in separate address spaces.
"there" would be "they're". "or" would be "are". "your" would be "you're" (twice). "RAID... of HDD" would be redundant.
I know you know this, since you spelled "can't" right, and even "you're" right twice. So stick to your highest standards. Your message gets stuck in the poor presentation, which is a shame. You could of done better. And I am not even a native speaker.
P.S. Please elaborate on Intel going out to buy the best stuff and overclocking that, only to learn that it never was the best stuff anyway, since Intel had the best stuff all along.
So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux. But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.
Uhm, neither. Did you follow the monopoly talk during the last decade? That is what "being a Microsoft" is about. And it will never happen with Linux, because with Open Source you have to be worth your pay, or we will just pick a better provider. Woo-hoo, customer is always right!
I have an MSDN Universal Subscription! And I read/.! I guess that makes me a masochist or something, but I like seeing how misinformed, short sighted, and downright stupid some people are.
If you did rtfa, you would see this: Nokia, therefore, issues the legally binding Patent Statement, which has been posted on its website at www.nokia.com/iprstatements.
... which, in turn, says this: Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005.
So it is irrevocable, but only covers the kernel as of today.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not because of Windows. People do not get a computer to use Windows. Windows was just there when the hardware evolution made computers useful to average people (i.e. the Internet, digital music, digital photos).
No, the reason is that there is competition in the hardware area.
Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, costs pretty much the same today as it did back when you got your first PC.
There seems to be an error in the supplied ppm.c library file:
p.rgb[i] = z.pixel[y][(x+i)*3*z.bpp];
This only ever gets the R component, as all offsets are multiples of 3. I think the right code is:
p.rgb[i] = z.pixel[y][(x*3+i)*z.bpp];
Maybe this is part of the assignment :-).
It does not sound like a microkernel at all, it sounds like dynamic linking. A microkernel would have the modules in separate address spaces.
Besides, file systems are modules already.
Personally, I like the scrolling, and you aren't positing any better suggestions.
Everybody loves vertical tabs.
I'm not sure if X apps are told when they are "minimized"
They are, I think it is called "mapped" (or, "unmapped" for minimizing).
smarter users won't open attachments from people they don't know.
He he.
The dumb ones generally dont know a word doc from an EXE so hopefully they are also avoiding most attachments.
HAHAHA!
Seriously, if you really believe what you said, you must be the dumb one.
Read the link to learn that Nokia will ship WM DRM.
This future DRM-ed device is in a market that is a subset of a subset.
So Nokia is a tiny provider of mobile devices?
Even grammar nazis make mistakes. :)
... and to think that I was ashamed of using such an obvious pun.
Hi.
"there" would be "they're". "or" would be "are". "your" would be "you're" (twice). "RAID ... of HDD" would be redundant.
I know you know this, since you spelled "can't" right, and even "you're" right twice. So stick to your highest standards. Your message gets stuck in the poor presentation, which is a shame. You could of done better. And I am not even a native speaker.
P.S. Please elaborate on Intel going out to buy the best stuff and overclocking that, only to learn that it never was the best stuff anyway, since Intel had the best stuff all along.
So if $5000 PCs beat the PS 3 now, a $1500 PC will beat a PS 3 pretty soon.
No $1500 PC is getting into my living room anytime soon.
So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux. But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.
Uhm, neither. Did you follow the monopoly talk during the last decade? That is what "being a Microsoft" is about. And it will never happen with Linux, because with Open Source you have to be worth your pay, or we will just pick a better provider. Woo-hoo, customer is always right!
I find unaliased text to look extremely ugly on flat panels.
What is the difference between unaliased and antialiased texts? Apparantly one is pretty and the other one ugly?
The first version of Windows to have a built-in web browser was Windows 98, which incorporated Internet Explorer 4.
IE2 was included in Windows 95 OSR1 in 1996.
Customize Google does that and a lot more.
[...] how do you pronounce Bjarne Stroustrup?
This is the first question in his FAQ. Includes a .wav file.
I've never had a friendlier experience using/running Linus.
Depending on how you use him, I can see why Linus would not usually be friendly to you.
Wow, I actually was able to correct someones spelling.
Seems to me that you corrected the grammar more than the spelling ;-).
It's my understanding that you can link a GPL library w/o the requirement to release your source.
Your understanding is wrong.
by keeping SSL 2.0, you maintain backward compatability for virtually zero-cost
The problem is that SSL 2.0 servers will hang on a 3.0 handshake. So the 2.0 handshake is tried first.
Meaning that for servers configured to respond to both 2.0 and 3.0, you end up using the worst one. So that is the non-zero cost they try to avoid.
I have an MSDN Universal Subscription! And I read /.! I guess that makes me a masochist or something, but I like seeing how misinformed, short sighted, and downright stupid some people are.
So that was why you got the MSDN subscription? ;-)
however make sure that the allowed_host was found at the end of the host being checked (in typicall terse "C").
I think that
would be terser, not to mention easier to read and more efficient.(and I probably goofed up so it does not do the same :-).
yet to rtfa
If you did rtfa, you would see this: Nokia, therefore, issues the legally binding Patent Statement, which has been posted on its website at www.nokia.com/iprstatements.
... which, in turn, says this: Nokia hereby commits not to assert any of its Patents (as defined herein below) against any Linux Kernel (as defined herein below) existing as of 25 May 2005.
So it is irrevocable, but only covers the kernel as of today.