To boil it down, without any of my attitude (which was a little fierce last post. Sorry, must've had a bad morning):
The command-line IS more productive on common tasks, you're right. NT has a command-line, and it works OK. For repetitive tasks, it works. The GUI is integrated for a reason. It makes the OS easier to use. Anything you want to do in the GUI, you can do either in scripting, or with commands. If you don't want to use the GUI, don't. Fire up the command prompt right away, and forget the GUI. You're right that the GUI is more prevalent in NT. It is Windows NT, after all. It's the Windows GUI that has Windows on millions and millions of desktops worldwide. It's what makes it "better" not to integrate it that I don't get. If "better" means better preformance, than a visit to www.tpc.org should clear that up. If "better" means more productive, then that depends on the user. I know that %99 of computers out there would never have been bought if there wasn't Windows or MacOS on them when they were bought. Dealing with a GUI has got to be more productive than not using the machine at all. Also, what about older people, non-technical people, and kids? They can't use a command-line like you or I can. Should they be deprived of the personal power and confidence that computing allows them? I don't think they should.
Win2K isn't as bad as you think, which, from your posts, I can tell is pretty bad. It's really not. It's easy to develop for, reliable, scalable, and TCO is cheap. These are the things companies and people look for when choosing an OS, and 2K has all of that. It's hard to convince a CIO to choose a more expensive or risky solution because it's "better", because cheap and safe IS better to CIOs. (note: I don't mean cheap as in sticker price, I mean cheap as in training, development, database licensing, etc.). What ticks me off is when people bad-mouth a platform that I've been actually using to feed my kids for over 6 years, because of some esoterica like API elegance, or non-existant performance myths like filesystem performance.
Even Unix zealots admit Unix isn't for everyone. No matter which flavor you subscribe to, it's harder to use, harder to administer, and harder to shop for. That's probably why you like it, in fact. Keep in mind, though, that sometimes the easiest solution is the better solution. Microsoft makes its products, especially Windows, for a fickle base of consumers that will abandon them in a second if they don't like their products. Bob sucked, and nobody bought it. Microsoft is not a brand name, Windows is, and it got that way by being easy to use, and powerful. How powerful is relative. Powerful enough to run NASDAQ. Powerful enough to run Microsoft, the world's largest company. Maybe not powerful enough to cluster in a 186-node Beowulf QuakeIII Cluster, but powerful enough to make a lot of people a lot of money a lot easier.
IANOTVO (I am not a TV owner), but a lot of this misses the point of advertising, television or otherwise: branding. The fact that my mom knows what Microsoft is, even though she doesn't own a computer of any kind attests to this. Companies spend millions on branding, and "actionable" ads are a short-sighted solution. Seeing an ad for a Toyota when you're in the market for a new car might be good, but the only reason it'll get you to buy one is that you've been seeing Toyota ads since you were 4, way before you ever thought about buying a car. These ultra-targeted ads ignore branding for JIT marketing, and lose a lot of future customers. Also, seeing an ad for an outstanding product might make you want something you never thought you wanted.
I know you say you're done "argueing" [sic] with me, but since you once again, supplied absolutely no facts in your post, allow me:
NTFS is a propietery FS that is DOS based in structure(although, it is much more complex then the original fat12 fs)
OK, so NTFS is a worse filesystem because it's proprietary? Or because it's DOS-based? It is proprietary, I'll give you that. However, I don't care that it's proprietary. The world is filled with proprietary things. Your car is proprietary. Big deal. The fact that it's DOS-based is wrong. It's POSIX-based, if a filesystem can be OS-based anyway. You still think a filesystem and an OS are the same thing, or are interchangable. So, which filesystem is better? Ext2 isn't journaling, so for a lot of enterprise-level apps, it won't do. Maybe there's a better one out there, but I'll never know if I count on you for the facts.
You're idea is [wrong, stupid?] considering you can't take a boot disk and modify the sh*t out of it
I never said NT was open source, I just said it could fit on a floppy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Happens to me all the time (just not yet today). Besides, I never even said fitting on a floppy was any sort of benchmark for an OS' goodness. You did. And I still came up with how NT could do it. And you still can't admit you're wrong. Sheesh. I hope you're not married, or anybody's boss.
GUIs should not be integrated is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Nope. Still an opinion, unless you come up with actual evidence. That's what makes a fact. The only reason the GUI and the Posix kernel are integrated is because they can be in NT. There's only one desktop. It allows for the user to be in more control over the OS using a GUI, not less. It allows the OS to provide a more professional and integrated user experience, something everyone admits Linux lacks. Still, though, that's just my opinion, but at least I know to call it an opinion, and not a fact, because I showed up for a CS class in school. Nice job not being able to find any evidence to prove your study, but still mentioning it, like I'm going to take your word. That's funny.
Also, winnt does not boot without a GUI standardly [sic]. If it did, we would be in a whole different ballgame.
What, you'd be even wrong-er? You said it couldn't, I showed it could. I never said it did it by default. Red Hat doesn't either.
Here's how to create a window in Win32:
HWND CreateWindow(
LPCTSTR lpClassName,// registered class name
LPCTSTR lpWindowName,// window name
DWORD dwStyle,// window style
int x,// horizontal position of window
int y,// vertical position of window
int nWidth,// window width
int nHeight,// window height
HWND hWndParent,// handle to parent or owner window
HMENU hMenu,// menu handle or child identifier
HINSTANCE hInstance,// handle to application instance
LPVOID lpParam// window-creation data
);
That's ONE line (broken up into several with comments for simplicity, the same as QT. Get your facts straight. Notice the position and size parameters? That's that GUI/OS integration you don't like. It means I have more control over the display of my application than you do with QT:
QMainWindow::QMainWindow ( QWidget * parent = 0, const char * name = 0, WFlags f = WType_TopLevel )
It's a little harder that way, but that's what makes Windows ready for the desktop.
Oh, and here's how you make a connection using Win32. Notice no windows being created. That's because, yep, you're wrong! Again!. Now, I wouldn't be acting like such a jerk about all this if you weren't getting all high-and-mighty-cs-classes about your posts. You have to do research, because if the person replying to you does and you don't, you look dumb, no matter how smart you actually are (which I assume is pretty smart, actually).
OK.
NTFS sucks. Based on... benchmarks? research? security? anything?
The problem with Winnt, the files don't have ownership so anybody with any type of an account can modify them.
Like I already said, NT has file-level permissions, so that isn't true. And, not to reference the API you seem to hate, but here is proof that you can take ownership of objects (files and directories) in NT.
All OSes should have a command shell of some type, the more advanced the better, then later:If the actual OS is 5 megs, it'll be more useful then something that is 650 megs. So, advanced as possible, but also as small as possible... how does that work? One or the other, just like I tell marketing.
I like GUIs but they should never be integrated with the OS...
OK, but that's your opinion. Mac users would probably beg to differ, since they love that integration, and hate the CL. Nobody can really prove that GUI/OS integration is bad. It's really just an opinion.
(I should be able to boot directly to the command shell and be able to start the GUI as needed.)
I don't like the WIN32 api, anything but that. If it was more like an advanced QT api, it would be great.
OK, so in what ways is the QT API better than WIN32? You don't say in your post, so should I assume you don't know? Is it the mysterious "Miscellaneous" classes that add all the value?
OSes must also have seperate configuration files for individual programs. No stupid registry where an accidental crash can lead to all of your configuration being destroyed instead of a few.
Although MS has provided the registry, it is developers that store information there. They could just as easily use.cfg files or.ini files or whatever. I agree that the registry causes problems, but it's not meant to be accessed manually, only programatically, and if more "Power Users" took that advice, it wouldn't crash so much. Also, you are free to use whatever config system you want in anything you write for Windows.
The OS should be limited to controlling basic physical[...]That is it.
Once again, says you. What makes an OS differs from person to person. The DOJ said IE is a part of Windows, where as most don't think a window manager is a part of LINUX. It all depends on where you draw the line. The NT microkernel contained on the NT rescue disk fits on a floppy, and contains enough OS to manipulate the filesystem. Most wouldn't call this a full OS, although some might. You need facts to back up why you think your opinions are true. Also, a filesystem and an OS are two different things. Keep that in mind.
If it does more then this, it is inflated with unnecessary features that slow the computer and boot time down.
Since when is boot time the only measure of a system's functionality. Ever watch an HP3000 or '9000 boot up? Takes ages. No-one calls them bloated, they know the machine is just doing its job, and live with the boot time.
Anyway, come with more facts in hand, and we can really talk.
I don't know what the default configuration is on the Wintel boxes at your work, but that's your problem. Windows NT, or 2000 has file-level acess controls. If users can modify files as a "Guest" (which should be disabled, and is under Win2K, AFAIK), that means the files/directories are open to the EVERYONE group. Open up UNIX, and it'll lay down too.
Have you ever used Windows NT. [sic] It's basically a command shell and a GUI.
...and a kernel, and APIs, just like every other operating system ever worth anything (minus some embedded systems, which are only a kernel and some APIs). What are you even talking about? Should it not have a GUI or cmd? What's your idea for the perfect OS, genius? A kernel on a floppy locked in a safe?
appliance (-plns)
n.
A device or instrument designed to perform a specific function, especially an electrical device, such as a toaster, for household use.
Since PCs are multi-purpose, programmable devices, they are not appliances. A router would be more of an appliance than a PC, except that it's not really for household use.
It's actually called CEC Entertainment. It's located here in Dallas, TX. I went to a job interview for their systems dept., and as part of it, got the tour. They have a pizza R&D lab (no shit!), and a special stage where they develop all of the animatronics. Cool stuff. Their systems are ancient, and they have no real desire to change that, though. They have an IBM mainframe that they rent, and about 3 guys in the whole dept. supporting POS systems (Point of Sale, not Piece of Sh*t) in hundreds of stores. I said "no thanks".
Good point, and I almost agreed, until I realized that pushing crummy music 23.75 hours a day leaves a lot of undergraound music completely unheard, which is sad. Anyone who's had a friend browse their CD collection, and upon hearing non-radio music, get all excited knows the pleasure of helping someone else find some cool. Imagine if radio played some more obscure music once in a while instead of constantly repeating the same crap over and over? No-one would have to try any harder to find the good stuff. In fact, it would be easier, because the good stuff would actually be out there. There's a lot of music (Rocket From the Crypt, Chavez, Sunny Day Real Estate) that's radio-friendly as well as good. I'd like to hear more of it, and so would a lot of people, if they even knew about it.
You say that MS holds its position by the virtue of its product, but if you are willing to admit that Microsoft is a monopoly (which I don't see how you can't) then MS holds its position because the virtue of its product is that it is the ONLY product.
Here is a study of client and server market share.Ignoring sales figures (Linux is free), MS has a 87.7% share of the desktop OS market. A commanding lead, yes, but not quite a total monopoly. Look at the server market, and see a completely different story. NT holds 36% of that market, which is nowhere near a monopoly. In fact, Linux has a 24% share. Getting close! Keep in mind that this "monopoly" is held over computer operating systems, not exactly a survival item, or even a "necessary luxury", like cars. The Big Three held a %75 market share on new cars sold in the US, and nobody cried monopoly. Domestic cars were good cars, and nobody minded. It was considered patriotic to buy American. Now, Microsoft is "evil" because Outlook is programmable, and they made a game console?
Let's look at the facts:
When was the last time you heard of a strike at the MS factory? Microsoft treats their employees a hell of a lot better than American Airlines or UPS.
How do you think you got your shiny new ride, and your cool apt. during our last big ecomomic boom? On the back of Microsoft. Whether you used their products or not, they legitimized client/server and internet development. They provided a lot of the tools and infrastructure you whiners used to make big bucks. I don't want to hear "I never use MS products, I only use blah-blah-blah to write software". What do you think the users that buy from your e-commerce store use? What do the IT drones that use your intranet apps use? That's right, suckas: Microsoft products.
Apple, Sun, IBM, et al... these are not the "little guys". They had their chance, and still have a chance to innovate. They blew it, and they're still blowing it. They let their egos get in the way of making good (or at least popular) software, and it cost them the game.
Anyway, IMO, MS is NOT a monopoly. The U.S. justice department sees things differently, but then again, I don't see eye-to-eye with the government all that often.
Not harder at all. I read them on PAPER printed with INK. Making everyone pay for expanding a character set we all use in order to view the Dead Sea Scrolls is ridiculous. These documents can be preserved in antiquity in several dozen different ways, including taking pictures.
Yeah, you're all right. Americans are stupid and Amero-centric. Microsoft is stupid and Amero-centric. I think most of you claiming this are stupid and you-centric. The difference? My language, and character set are covered by Unicode. In fact, my language is covered in ASCII. This is not just because ASCII was invented by Americans, as might seem obvious. This is because the English language is an incredible language. We use 26 letters to express every concept imaginable. It takes the Chinese 50K+, and that's our fault? So that some obscure historical works can be digitized, I've got to increase storage space two-fold on all character strings that might be sent across the Internet? The total cost of this Unicode pissing match might be up in the Trillions of dollars, with re-coding, re-compiling, storage space and bandwidth. All because of several nations that, for the most part, couldn't have cared less when these decisions were being made. Now that there's money and power involved in computing, they want to break standards. Screw them! They can hump along in whatever system they are provided, and stop griping about unreadable 2000-year-old texts. There never seems to be a shortage of Chinese programmers, so it's obviously not hurting them. Maybe this will be an incentive to simplify their written language, because until they do they'll never really catch up. Not to mention that all programming languages are essentially in English anyway, so in order to write any software you have to speak English. This should allow for us patriots to continue to maintain our stranglehold on the world economy. This is not a troll. This is for real. It's called social darwinism. The freedom provided by democracy, along with the ease of encoding provided by the English language has allowed the US to invent computing as we know it, and excel in all aspects of it. Why shouldn't we continue to lead the world in the development of technology? Because of Confucious? I think not!
Then CD producers will go out of business and all the worry about what the RIAA may or may not do is irrelevent. I doubt that will happen so I think the RIAA actions are a problem, but feel free to dissagree.
I don't. If the industry doesn't figure out a way to add value back into recorded music, then what you're saying will happen. CD producers will make data discs and nothing more. I'd like to see stats on how many CDRs were sold last year versus how many pre-recorded CDs were sold. Then I'd like to check in with that statistic in about 5 years. You may know more than you think.
From your writing style I would guess I had a turntable and was buying vinyl before you were born.
Probably, if you're old, and you probably are. I've been buying records since about 1990. Unlike you, however, I have no records made before 1990, except for irony value. I buy new releases on LP instead of CD, and not a lot of people can say that. Speaking of writing style, according to the Chicago Guide, you're supposed to have a comma in that sentence right after the word "style".
And why would anyone download a crappy MP3 to make a CD of something they have on vinyl? I already have several CDs crated directly from LPs.
So do I, and it was a tremendous pain in the ass to do. Sitting by my record player, making sure each song turns into a seperate mp3 is not my favorite way to spend an afternoon. I know there's software to do this for me, but unless I can't find it, I'm downloading it. Yeah, it can take hours, but unattended hours.
Anyway, I thought/. readers could use the tip on buying vinyl.
You are 15. That says a lot about your position in this argument. While it's true that parents have the ultimate responsibility for the character of their children, that's only because the media has completely abandoned any responsibility it had 30+ years ago. Parents shouldn't have to protect their children from the media every time they leave the house. It's unrealistic, and unfair to parents. Putting an age restriction on a game doesn't keep kids from getting it if their parents approve, so it's not even censoring the game in the very limited sense that you imply. Games like this didn't used to even be availible at all to children, and if they were, were never marketed directly to them like they are now. I'm a parent of two girls, and a very good one, and my kids have stolen glimpses of Quake 3 when they "caught" me playing. I'm a gamer, and I grew up on games. Games like "Lemonade Stand" and "Sammy Lightfoot" and "Karate Champ". I don't know about kids now, but they don't seem to be any better equipped to deal with frightening levels of life-cheapening violence than I would have been, had it been availible. I say any efforts to alert parents to the levels of violence in these games, and keep them out of kids' hands is a good thing, as long as parents make the ultimate decision about what their kids are exposed to. We can't be expected to sit and watch our kids play games for hours to find out if these games are violent.
You'll find, as you grow up, that more often than not, parents do understand their kids all too well. In fact, I've discovered that as a child I didn't understand my parents well enough.
Re:Apples and oranges. Drugs do cause real physica
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
Some of the most insightful posts here are off-topic. My whole point was that laws to protect us from ourselves are common, and I don't disagree with them, in certain cases. If people were smart enough to know what was best for themselves, we wouldn't need government at all.
Ah hah! Now, all of the sudden, people are more willing to stare at a progress bar for 2+ hours (if they're stuck with a modem), weed through the partial downloads and low bitrate crap, and spend another 45 minutes putting it onto a CDR and labeling it than pony up $17 for a CD. That indicates to me that people are NOT willing to pay the record industry what it expects for music anymore. They don't think it's worth it. The RIAA, instead of charging a fair price for music ($9-$10, the cost of vinyl LPs, or Fugazi anything), have decided to use the money WE gave them to turn around and sue outlets for free music. Does anyone else see a problem with funding an organization that might end up suing US because THEIR business practices are unfair? Why doesn't the RIAA react to their creation by adding value back into purchasing music beyond the digital content itself? How about a free concert ticket, or at least a discount on merch? The RIAA was thrilled about CDs because it meant they could increase profit margins. Now their greed has come back to bite them in the ass. And this is whose fault?? Ours?? Bullshit! I buy vinyl because it puts the pride back into owning a peice of music, along with the chance to get a peice of history in its original analog format. Buy a turntable, and open yourself up to a world of indie shit you'd have never cared about otherwise. Then use the license you just bought to download and burn the same thing onto CD (if it's availible online yet). The RIAA get its fair share, you get a quality slab for less, and MP3 survives. Plus, you can hang with the cool kids. Everybody wins!
1. Good for you. I'm not talking about you, then. I'm talking about people that buy trucks to haul their asses and nothing more.
2. Picking on SUVs makes a lot of sense. Pontiac Gran Prix('?)s do not have near as much mass as SUVs, making the energy they deliver on impact MUCH LESS. Pontiac Gran Prixs also do not apply to the other complaints I have about SUVs, like the poor drivability or massive curb weight or excessive gas usage, etc. Science says SUVs are dangerous to others.
3. You're right that idiots drive all kinds of cars, except for Volvos and Subarus and hybrid (gas/electric) cars. These cars are by and large driven by smarter, more curteous people. Just ask anybody who drives them. My problem is when idiots get behind the wheel of a car that has a better chance of killing me. This problem is compounded by the fact that most responsible cars are not meant to take impact at the height that an SUV delivers it (about 12-16" higher up), or with the force that an SUV is capable of (unlike safer trucks, SUVs are often over-powered, and can hit 100mph easier than an F150)
4. You don't have to be very close to a vehicle not to be able to see around it if it's way too fucking big. Basically, driving behind an SUV makes you depend on that driver's sense of what's in front of him/her rather than being able to see over the truck, or through its windows to the cars in front of it. This is more dangerous than a responsible car no matter how far you drive from it's rear end. Note: I do not tailgate. Ever.
5. If it was only the vehicle owner that had to deal with his/her social responsibility then I wouldn't care as much (I still would bitch, just without all the self-rightous "responsibility" BS). The problem is that we all pay for SUVs in the form of higher gas prices due to greater demand, lower safety on the road, more frequent road repairs due to higher curb weight, higher insurance costs due to higher accident claims, and maybe worst of all, a harder time parking due to the greater amount of space these things take up in parking lots. I, too, wish I could get by without a car. I used to live in NJ, and didn't have one for almost two years. I live in Dallas, TX, now, and am forced to own one. I got a 1991 Volvo 240 sedan, which is about the safest, slowest, smallest little POS I could get away with. It get 20-something miles to the gallon, which isn't great, but it's not brand new, so I saved it from the junkyard, and feel good about that. Most importantly, though, I can protect myself and my family without endangering others, and if I ever need to haul anything, I can rent a pickup from Ryder for $20/day.
Re:Apples and oranges. Drugs do cause real physica
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
I can see both sides of this one, and you can tell which of the posters smokes dope. For the record: I smoke dope. OK, on to the post:
The argument that the argument that self-injuring practices are not illegal is stupid. Most states have helmet laws for bikers, and a little known fact is that suicide is illegal in many states, assisted or not. The State inacts laws to protect people from themselves all the time, this is no exception.
Pot is probably somewhat a gateway drug. My experience is that a lot of pot users have tried other drugs, at least once. I know I have. Has anyone ever gone straight from cigarettes to crack? Probably not. This might be because one illegal drug isn't much different than another in the eyes of the law, especially with the ridiculous "Zero Tolerance" policies a lot of states/communities/schools have.
However, pot dealers/users are a pretty tame bunch. You don't need to buy a gun to sell pot, unlike coke or heroin. Pot users don't get all ramped up and rob a liquor store after 2 days without sleep. They get hungry, then they take a nap.
Yes, pot is a drug. No, I don't think it should be legalized. I think possession should be summons-able, like public intoxication or speeding.
your work in patch form or whatever...
???
First: what does that mean, in software terms? Not a seperate DLL. A whole different executable, maybe. Besides, I didn't say the GPL always told you what you could do with your own code. In most cases, it will.
macro rant
Why SUVs are bad (subtitle:why I like lists)
Yes, they get better gas milage than some cars, but compared to other new cars, they suck.
Yes, their emissions are better than your old POS, but compared to other new cars, again, they suck. They compare favorably to a V6 truck because they are V6 trucks themselves, but with the bed covered for a lower CoD, thereby slightly increasing fuel efficiency. FYI, I have a problem with V6 truck drivers in urban areas, too.
You can not see around them, thereby causing a safety hazard due to the fact that you have to wait for their brake lights to come on to know that there's trouble ahead. You can't see around them to make a left turn either.
They crush into scrap any "normal" car that dares to get in their way, penalizing others for being socially responsible.
They are driven by people who do not know how to drive a truck. They are higher off the ground, changing the driver's field of vision, and have different handling than a car, requiring years of practice to get good at driving. Soccer moms don't have a lot of years behind the wheel of a truck.
They are faddy, which means they are produced faster than they should be by companies that have no business making them, like Acura, for Chrissakes. Although there haven't been a lot of problems yet, these cars are going to start failing terribly in a few years, like poorly bred dogs.
Last, but certainly not least, PEOPLE DO NOT NEED THEM. If you don't know why buying a multi-ton hunk of steel to drive around at 60+ mph when you don't need it is bad, then you suck.
If you SUV drivers want safety, buy a Volvo wagon. They haul all the stuff you want to haul, and are built like a tank, but don't make the roads a killing field for the rest of us.
Oh my God, the horror! Does anyone remember reading about any of this crap (high divorce rate, school shootings, rampant teen pregnancy) happening when one parent stayed home? I'm sure life wasn't peaches and cream back then either, but how about this: how many of your grandparents got divorced? Now, how many of your parents? And, lastly, how many of us are divorced? Only an idiot would refuse to admit there there are more problems with marriage and parenting now than there ever has been. I don't mean to point fingers (well, maybe a little), but when almost all of us were raised by day-care centers, and more than 1/2 of us had only one parent when we did get time at home, is there any wonder why this stuff happens? How is a boy supposed to learn to be a man when his father isn't around? How is a girl supposed to learn how a man is supposed to be without a good example?
My solution (ready?):
When used properly, spanking your kids is the best deterrent to bad behavior there is. Don't be afraid to hurt your kids a little so that they don't hurt themselves, or others a LOT in the future. Just make sure you don't do it when you're angry, and do it soon enough after the problem so that they remember why you're hitting them.
Women: it is not degrading to stay home and raise your children. You do not have to go out and work as hard as your husband does in order to make yourself feel important. Raising good children is about 20 times as important as meeting a deadline on some stupid project
Everybody: Be good. Don't try to screw other people over, or do what's best for you while ignoring what's best for others. This sets a good example for your kids. If you want to go really crazy, show up at church (or temple, or mosque, or whatever) once in a while. It won't kill you, and it doesn't mean you're a sucker.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Who ever said they wanted total freedom for their software? This whole thing is about control, right? The GPL offers the most control over his/her "baby" that a developer can get. No matter how you look at it, there are more ways source code can be used under the BSDL than the GPL. It may not be totally free, but it's free-er. I don't like the GPL because it tells me what I can and can't do with code I wrote, not just code I found. For those of you that might say "Then don't use GPL'ed code.", fine, I won't. But that doesn't mean I can't complain about something I don't like.
The BSD doesn't say you can't write more open source software with it, so there's no worries of anything perishing, unlike GPL'ed code, which is going to stop being used once someone wants to actually make money for their work.
...or maybe, like me, their time is more valuable than the small sum of money they might save if they shopped around. If the computer seems as if it's priced fairly, then that's all I care about. Why should I care that someone else got it cheaper? If it's within my budgeted amount, and it does what I want it to do, then I buy it. Possibly, the fact that I bought it at $2000 is the reason someone else could buy it for $1900. If it takes me 40 hours of research and 3 weeks of waiting to save $100, then it's not worth it. Everyone's time has a price. Otherwise convenience stores wouldn't exist. Noone would pay someone else to do their laundry. I myself think it's worth it to pay $35 to get my Saturday back.
Slashdot Mirror
- The command-line IS more productive on common tasks, you're right. NT has a command-line, and it works OK. For repetitive tasks, it works. The GUI is integrated for a reason. It makes the OS easier to use. Anything you want to do in the GUI, you can do either in scripting, or with commands. If you don't want to use the GUI, don't. Fire up the command prompt right away, and forget the GUI. You're right that the GUI is more prevalent in NT. It is Windows NT, after all. It's the Windows GUI that has Windows on millions and millions of desktops worldwide. It's what makes it "better" not to integrate it that I don't get. If "better" means better preformance, than a visit to www.tpc.org should clear that up. If "better" means more productive, then that depends on the user. I know that %99 of computers out there would never have been bought if there wasn't Windows or MacOS on them when they were bought. Dealing with a GUI has got to be more productive than not using the machine at all. Also, what about older people, non-technical people, and kids? They can't use a command-line like you or I can. Should they be deprived of the personal power and confidence that computing allows them? I don't think they should.
- Win2K isn't as bad as you think, which, from your posts, I can tell is pretty bad. It's really not. It's easy to develop for, reliable, scalable, and TCO is cheap. These are the things companies and people look for when choosing an OS, and 2K has all of that. It's hard to convince a CIO to choose a more expensive or risky solution because it's "better", because cheap and safe IS better to CIOs. (note: I don't mean cheap as in sticker price, I mean cheap as in training, development, database licensing, etc.). What ticks me off is when people bad-mouth a platform that I've been actually using to feed my kids for over 6 years, because of some esoterica like API elegance, or non-existant performance myths like filesystem performance.
- Even Unix zealots admit Unix isn't for everyone. No matter which flavor you subscribe to, it's harder to use, harder to administer, and harder to shop for. That's probably why you like it, in fact. Keep in mind, though, that sometimes the easiest solution is the better solution. Microsoft makes its products, especially Windows, for a fickle base of consumers that will abandon them in a second if they don't like their products. Bob sucked, and nobody bought it. Microsoft is not a brand name, Windows is, and it got that way by being easy to use, and powerful. How powerful is relative. Powerful enough to run NASDAQ. Powerful enough to run Microsoft, the world's largest company. Maybe not powerful enough to cluster in a 186-node Beowulf QuakeIII Cluster, but powerful enough to make a lot of people a lot of money a lot easier.
If that ain't better, I don't know what is.IANOTVO (I am not a TV owner), but a lot of this misses the point of advertising, television or otherwise: branding. The fact that my mom knows what Microsoft is, even though she doesn't own a computer of any kind attests to this. Companies spend millions on branding, and "actionable" ads are a short-sighted solution. Seeing an ad for a Toyota when you're in the market for a new car might be good, but the only reason it'll get you to buy one is that you've been seeing Toyota ads since you were 4, way before you ever thought about buying a car. These ultra-targeted ads ignore branding for JIT marketing, and lose a lot of future customers. Also, seeing an ad for an outstanding product might make you want something you never thought you wanted.
I know you say you're done "argueing" [sic] with me, but since you once again, supplied absolutely no facts in your post, allow me:
// registered class name // window name // window style // horizontal position of // vertical position of // window width // window height // handle to parent or // menu handle or child // handle to application // window-creation data
NTFS is a propietery FS that is DOS based in structure(although, it is much more complex then the original fat12 fs)
OK, so NTFS is a worse filesystem because it's proprietary? Or because it's DOS-based? It is proprietary, I'll give you that. However, I don't care that it's proprietary. The world is filled with proprietary things. Your car is proprietary. Big deal. The fact that it's DOS-based is wrong. It's POSIX-based, if a filesystem can be OS-based anyway. You still think a filesystem and an OS are the same thing, or are interchangable. So, which filesystem is better? Ext2 isn't journaling, so for a lot of enterprise-level apps, it won't do. Maybe there's a better one out there, but I'll never know if I count on you for the facts.
You're idea is [wrong, stupid?] considering you can't take a boot disk and modify the sh*t out of it
I never said NT was open source, I just said it could fit on a floppy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Happens to me all the time (just not yet today). Besides, I never even said fitting on a floppy was any sort of benchmark for an OS' goodness. You did. And I still came up with how NT could do it. And you still can't admit you're wrong. Sheesh. I hope you're not married, or anybody's boss.
GUIs should not be integrated is not an opinion, it is a fact. Nope. Still an opinion, unless you come up with actual evidence. That's what makes a fact. The only reason the GUI and the Posix kernel are integrated is because they can be in NT. There's only one desktop. It allows for the user to be in more control over the OS using a GUI, not less. It allows the OS to provide a more professional and integrated user experience, something everyone admits Linux lacks. Still, though, that's just my opinion, but at least I know to call it an opinion, and not a fact, because I showed up for a CS class in school. Nice job not being able to find any evidence to prove your study, but still mentioning it, like I'm going to take your word. That's funny.
Also, winnt does not boot without a GUI standardly [sic]. If it did, we would be in a whole different ballgame.
What, you'd be even wrong-er? You said it couldn't, I showed it could. I never said it did it by default. Red Hat doesn't either.
Here's how to create a window in Win32:
HWND CreateWindow(
LPCTSTR lpClassName,
LPCTSTR lpWindowName,
DWORD dwStyle,
int x,
window int y,
window int nWidth,
int nHeight,
HWND hWndParent,
owner window HMENU hMenu,
identifier HINSTANCE hInstance,
instance LPVOID lpParam
);
That's ONE line (broken up into several with comments for simplicity, the same as QT. Get your facts straight. Notice the position and size parameters? That's that GUI/OS integration you don't like. It means I have more control over the display of my application than you do with QT:
QMainWindow::QMainWindow ( QWidget * parent = 0, const char * name = 0, WFlags f = WType_TopLevel )
It's a little harder that way, but that's what makes Windows ready for the desktop.
Oh, and here's how you make a connection using Win32. Notice no windows being created. That's because, yep, you're wrong! Again!. Now, I wouldn't be acting like such a jerk about all this if you weren't getting all high-and-mighty-cs-classes about your posts. You have to do research, because if the person replying to you does and you don't, you look dumb, no matter how smart you actually are (which I assume is pretty smart, actually).
OK.
.cfg files or .ini files or whatever. I agree that the registry causes problems, but it's not meant to be accessed manually, only programatically, and if more "Power Users" took that advice, it wouldn't crash so much. Also, you are free to use whatever config system you want in anything you write for Windows.
NTFS sucks. Based on... benchmarks? research? security? anything?
The problem with Winnt, the files don't have ownership so anybody with any type of an account can modify them.
Like I already said, NT has file-level permissions, so that isn't true. And, not to reference the API you seem to hate, but here is proof that you can take ownership of objects (files and directories) in NT.
All OSes should have a command shell of some type, the more advanced the better, then later:If the actual OS is 5 megs, it'll be more useful then something that is 650 megs. So, advanced as possible, but also as small as possible... how does that work? One or the other, just like I tell marketing.
I like GUIs but they should never be integrated with the OS...
OK, but that's your opinion. Mac users would probably beg to differ, since they love that integration, and hate the CL. Nobody can really prove that GUI/OS integration is bad. It's really just an opinion.
(I should be able to boot directly to the command shell and be able to start the GUI as needed.)
You can, in Win2K. Ouch.
I don't like the WIN32 api, anything but that. If it was more like an advanced QT api, it would be great.
OK, so in what ways is the QT API better than WIN32? You don't say in your post, so should I assume you don't know? Is it the mysterious "Miscellaneous" classes that add all the value?
OSes must also have seperate configuration files for individual programs. No stupid registry where an accidental crash can lead to all of your configuration being destroyed instead of a few.
Although MS has provided the registry, it is developers that store information there. They could just as easily use
The OS should be limited to controlling basic physical[...]That is it.
Once again, says you. What makes an OS differs from person to person. The DOJ said IE is a part of Windows, where as most don't think a window manager is a part of LINUX. It all depends on where you draw the line. The NT microkernel contained on the NT rescue disk fits on a floppy, and contains enough OS to manipulate the filesystem. Most wouldn't call this a full OS, although some might. You need facts to back up why you think your opinions are true. Also, a filesystem and an OS are two different things. Keep that in mind.
If it does more then this, it is inflated with unnecessary features that slow the computer and boot time down.
Since when is boot time the only measure of a system's functionality. Ever watch an HP3000 or '9000 boot up? Takes ages. No-one calls them bloated, they know the machine is just doing its job, and live with the boot time.
Anyway, come with more facts in hand, and we can really talk.
I don't know what the default configuration is on the Wintel boxes at your work, but that's your problem. Windows NT, or 2000 has file-level acess controls. If users can modify files as a "Guest" (which should be disabled, and is under Win2K, AFAIK), that means the files/directories are open to the EVERYONE group. Open up UNIX, and it'll lay down too.
...and a kernel, and APIs, just like every other operating system ever worth anything (minus some embedded systems, which are only a kernel and some APIs). What are you even talking about? Should it not have a GUI or cmd? What's your idea for the perfect OS, genius? A kernel on a floppy locked in a safe?
Have you ever used Windows NT. [sic] It's basically a command shell and a GUI.
appliance (-plns)
n.
A device or instrument designed to perform a specific function, especially an electrical device, such as a toaster, for household use.
Since PCs are multi-purpose, programmable devices, they are not appliances. A router would be more of an appliance than a PC, except that it's not really for household use.
It's actually called CEC Entertainment. It's located here in Dallas, TX. I went to a job interview for their systems dept., and as part of it, got the tour. They have a pizza R&D lab (no shit!), and a special stage where they develop all of the animatronics. Cool stuff. Their systems are ancient, and they have no real desire to change that, though. They have an IBM mainframe that they rent, and about 3 guys in the whole dept. supporting POS systems (Point of Sale, not Piece of Sh*t) in hundreds of stores. I said "no thanks".
Good point, and I almost agreed, until I realized that pushing crummy music 23.75 hours a day leaves a lot of undergraound music completely unheard, which is sad. Anyone who's had a friend browse their CD collection, and upon hearing non-radio music, get all excited knows the pleasure of helping someone else find some cool. Imagine if radio played some more obscure music once in a while instead of constantly repeating the same crap over and over? No-one would have to try any harder to find the good stuff. In fact, it would be easier, because the good stuff would actually be out there. There's a lot of music (Rocket From the Crypt, Chavez, Sunny Day Real Estate) that's radio-friendly as well as good. I'd like to hear more of it, and so would a lot of people, if they even knew about it.
Here is a study of client and server market share.Ignoring sales figures (Linux is free), MS has a 87.7% share of the desktop OS market. A commanding lead, yes, but not quite a total monopoly. Look at the server market, and see a completely different story. NT holds 36% of that market, which is nowhere near a monopoly. In fact, Linux has a 24% share. Getting close! Keep in mind that this "monopoly" is held over computer operating systems, not exactly a survival item, or even a "necessary luxury", like cars. The Big Three held a %75 market share on new cars sold in the US, and nobody cried monopoly. Domestic cars were good cars, and nobody minded. It was considered patriotic to buy American. Now, Microsoft is "evil" because Outlook is programmable, and they made a game console?
Let's look at the facts:
- When was the last time you heard of a strike at the MS factory? Microsoft treats their employees a hell of a lot better than American Airlines or UPS.
- How do you think you got your shiny new ride, and your cool apt. during our last big ecomomic boom? On the back of Microsoft. Whether you used their products or not, they legitimized client/server and internet development. They provided a lot of the tools and infrastructure you whiners used to make big bucks. I don't want to hear "I never use MS products, I only use blah-blah-blah to write software". What do you think the users that buy from your e-commerce store use? What do the IT drones that use your intranet apps use? That's right, suckas: Microsoft products.
- Apple, Sun, IBM, et al... these are not the "little guys". They had their chance, and still have a chance to innovate. They blew it, and they're still blowing it. They let their egos get in the way of making good (or at least popular) software, and it cost them the game.
Anyway, IMO, MS is NOT a monopoly. The U.S. justice department sees things differently, but then again, I don't see eye-to-eye with the government all that often.Not harder at all. I read them on PAPER printed with INK. Making everyone pay for expanding a character set we all use in order to view the Dead Sea Scrolls is ridiculous. These documents can be preserved in antiquity in several dozen different ways, including taking pictures.
Yeah, you're all right. Americans are stupid and Amero-centric. Microsoft is stupid and Amero-centric. I think most of you claiming this are stupid and you-centric. The difference? My language, and character set are covered by Unicode. In fact, my language is covered in ASCII. This is not just because ASCII was invented by Americans, as might seem obvious. This is because the English language is an incredible language. We use 26 letters to express every concept imaginable. It takes the Chinese 50K+, and that's our fault? So that some obscure historical works can be digitized, I've got to increase storage space two-fold on all character strings that might be sent across the Internet? The total cost of this Unicode pissing match might be up in the Trillions of dollars, with re-coding, re-compiling, storage space and bandwidth. All because of several nations that, for the most part, couldn't have cared less when these decisions were being made. Now that there's money and power involved in computing, they want to break standards. Screw them! They can hump along in whatever system they are provided, and stop griping about unreadable 2000-year-old texts. There never seems to be a shortage of Chinese programmers, so it's obviously not hurting them. Maybe this will be an incentive to simplify their written language, because until they do they'll never really catch up. Not to mention that all programming languages are essentially in English anyway, so in order to write any software you have to speak English. This should allow for us patriots to continue to maintain our stranglehold on the world economy. This is not a troll. This is for real. It's called social darwinism. The freedom provided by democracy, along with the ease of encoding provided by the English language has allowed the US to invent computing as we know it, and excel in all aspects of it. Why shouldn't we continue to lead the world in the development of technology? Because of Confucious? I think not!
Then CD producers will go out of business and all the worry about what the RIAA may or may not do is irrelevent. I doubt that will happen so I think the RIAA actions are a problem, but feel free to dissagree.
/. readers could use the tip on buying vinyl.
I don't. If the industry doesn't figure out a way to add value back into recorded music, then what you're saying will happen. CD producers will make data discs and nothing more. I'd like to see stats on how many CDRs were sold last year versus how many pre-recorded CDs were sold. Then I'd like to check in with that statistic in about 5 years. You may know more than you think.
From your writing style I would guess I had a turntable and was buying vinyl before you were born.
Probably, if you're old, and you probably are. I've been buying records since about 1990. Unlike you, however, I have no records made before 1990, except for irony value. I buy new releases on LP instead of CD, and not a lot of people can say that. Speaking of writing style, according to the Chicago Guide, you're supposed to have a comma in that sentence right after the word "style".
And why would anyone download a crappy MP3 to make a CD of something they have on vinyl? I already have several CDs crated directly from LPs.
So do I, and it was a tremendous pain in the ass to do. Sitting by my record player, making sure each song turns into a seperate mp3 is not my favorite way to spend an afternoon. I know there's software to do this for me, but unless I can't find it, I'm downloading it. Yeah, it can take hours, but unattended hours.
Anyway, I thought
You are 15. That says a lot about your position in this argument. While it's true that parents have the ultimate responsibility for the character of their children, that's only because the media has completely abandoned any responsibility it had 30+ years ago. Parents shouldn't have to protect their children from the media every time they leave the house. It's unrealistic, and unfair to parents. Putting an age restriction on a game doesn't keep kids from getting it if their parents approve, so it's not even censoring the game in the very limited sense that you imply. Games like this didn't used to even be availible at all to children, and if they were, were never marketed directly to them like they are now. I'm a parent of two girls, and a very good one, and my kids have stolen glimpses of Quake 3 when they "caught" me playing. I'm a gamer, and I grew up on games. Games like "Lemonade Stand" and "Sammy Lightfoot" and "Karate Champ". I don't know about kids now, but they don't seem to be any better equipped to deal with frightening levels of life-cheapening violence than I would have been, had it been availible. I say any efforts to alert parents to the levels of violence in these games, and keep them out of kids' hands is a good thing, as long as parents make the ultimate decision about what their kids are exposed to. We can't be expected to sit and watch our kids play games for hours to find out if these games are violent.
You'll find, as you grow up, that more often than not, parents do understand their kids all too well. In fact, I've discovered that as a child I didn't understand my parents well enough.
Some of the most insightful posts here are off-topic. My whole point was that laws to protect us from ourselves are common, and I don't disagree with them, in certain cases. If people were smart enough to know what was best for themselves, we wouldn't need government at all.
Things are happening worldwide, not just the valley. Wake up!:
- New York
- Chicago
- Dallas
- Bombay, India
- Scotland
Etc, etc. The Valley just crashed the hardest, and started it all, but the cat's out of the bag, circa 1995.Ah hah! Now, all of the sudden, people are more willing to stare at a progress bar for 2+ hours (if they're stuck with a modem), weed through the partial downloads and low bitrate crap, and spend another 45 minutes putting it onto a CDR and labeling it than pony up $17 for a CD. That indicates to me that people are NOT willing to pay the record industry what it expects for music anymore. They don't think it's worth it. The RIAA, instead of charging a fair price for music ($9-$10, the cost of vinyl LPs, or Fugazi anything), have decided to use the money WE gave them to turn around and sue outlets for free music. Does anyone else see a problem with funding an organization that might end up suing US because THEIR business practices are unfair? Why doesn't the RIAA react to their creation by adding value back into purchasing music beyond the digital content itself? How about a free concert ticket, or at least a discount on merch? The RIAA was thrilled about CDs because it meant they could increase profit margins. Now their greed has come back to bite them in the ass. And this is whose fault?? Ours?? Bullshit! I buy vinyl because it puts the pride back into owning a peice of music, along with the chance to get a peice of history in its original analog format. Buy a turntable, and open yourself up to a world of indie shit you'd have never cared about otherwise. Then use the license you just bought to download and burn the same thing onto CD (if it's availible online yet). The RIAA get its fair share, you get a quality slab for less, and MP3 survives. Plus, you can hang with the cool kids. Everybody wins!
NB: This post is off-topic, but not off-thread.
1. Good for you. I'm not talking about you, then. I'm talking about people that buy trucks to haul their asses and nothing more.
2. Picking on SUVs makes a lot of sense. Pontiac Gran Prix('?)s do not have near as much mass as SUVs, making the energy they deliver on impact MUCH LESS. Pontiac Gran Prixs also do not apply to the other complaints I have about SUVs, like the poor drivability or massive curb weight or excessive gas usage, etc. Science says SUVs are dangerous to others.
3. You're right that idiots drive all kinds of cars, except for Volvos and Subarus and hybrid (gas/electric) cars. These cars are by and large driven by smarter, more curteous people. Just ask anybody who drives them. My problem is when idiots get behind the wheel of a car that has a better chance of killing me. This problem is compounded by the fact that most responsible cars are not meant to take impact at the height that an SUV delivers it (about 12-16" higher up), or with the force that an SUV is capable of (unlike safer trucks, SUVs are often over-powered, and can hit 100mph easier than an F150)
4. You don't have to be very close to a vehicle not to be able to see around it if it's way too fucking big. Basically, driving behind an SUV makes you depend on that driver's sense of what's in front of him/her rather than being able to see over the truck, or through its windows to the cars in front of it. This is more dangerous than a responsible car no matter how far you drive from it's rear end. Note: I do not tailgate. Ever.
5. If it was only the vehicle owner that had to deal with his/her social responsibility then I wouldn't care as much (I still would bitch, just without all the self-rightous "responsibility" BS). The problem is that we all pay for SUVs in the form of higher gas prices due to greater demand, lower safety on the road, more frequent road repairs due to higher curb weight, higher insurance costs due to higher accident claims, and maybe worst of all, a harder time parking due to the greater amount of space these things take up in parking lots. I, too, wish I could get by without a car. I used to live in NJ, and didn't have one for almost two years. I live in Dallas, TX, now, and am forced to own one. I got a 1991 Volvo 240 sedan, which is about the safest, slowest, smallest little POS I could get away with. It get 20-something miles to the gallon, which isn't great, but it's not brand new, so I saved it from the junkyard, and feel good about that. Most importantly, though, I can protect myself and my family without endangering others, and if I ever need to haul anything, I can rent a pickup from Ryder for $20/day.
I can see both sides of this one, and you can tell which of the posters smokes dope. For the record: I smoke dope. OK, on to the post:
The argument that the argument that self-injuring practices are not illegal is stupid. Most states have helmet laws for bikers, and a little known fact is that suicide is illegal in many states, assisted or not. The State inacts laws to protect people from themselves all the time, this is no exception.
Pot is probably somewhat a gateway drug. My experience is that a lot of pot users have tried other drugs, at least once. I know I have. Has anyone ever gone straight from cigarettes to crack? Probably not. This might be because one illegal drug isn't much different than another in the eyes of the law, especially with the ridiculous "Zero Tolerance" policies a lot of states/communities/schools have.
However, pot dealers/users are a pretty tame bunch. You don't need to buy a gun to sell pot, unlike coke or heroin. Pot users don't get all ramped up and rob a liquor store after 2 days without sleep. They get hungry, then they take a nap.
Yes, pot is a drug. No, I don't think it should be legalized. I think possession should be summons-able, like public intoxication or speeding.
your work in patch form or whatever...
???
First: what does that mean, in software terms? Not a seperate DLL. A whole different executable, maybe. Besides, I didn't say the GPL always told you what you could do with your own code. In most cases, it will.
Why SUVs are bad (subtitle:why I like lists)
If you SUV drivers want safety, buy a Volvo wagon. They haul all the stuff you want to haul, and are built like a tank, but don't make the roads a killing field for the rest of us.
My solution (ready?):
I guess that's enough flame-bait for now.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Who ever said they wanted total freedom for their software? This whole thing is about control, right? The GPL offers the most control over his/her "baby" that a developer can get. No matter how you look at it, there are more ways source code can be used under the BSDL than the GPL. It may not be totally free, but it's free-er. I don't like the GPL because it tells me what I can and can't do with code I wrote, not just code I found. For those of you that might say "Then don't use GPL'ed code.", fine, I won't. But that doesn't mean I can't complain about something I don't like.
The BSD doesn't say you can't write more open source software with it, so there's no worries of anything perishing, unlike GPL'ed code, which is going to stop being used once someone wants to actually make money for their work.
Finally, Open Source has a business model: the lawsuit!
...or maybe, like me, their time is more valuable than the small sum of money they might save if they shopped around. If the computer seems as if it's priced fairly, then that's all I care about. Why should I care that someone else got it cheaper? If it's within my budgeted amount, and it does what I want it to do, then I buy it. Possibly, the fact that I bought it at $2000 is the reason someone else could buy it for $1900. If it takes me 40 hours of research and 3 weeks of waiting to save $100, then it's not worth it. Everyone's time has a price. Otherwise convenience stores wouldn't exist. Noone would pay someone else to do their laundry. I myself think it's worth it to pay $35 to get my Saturday back.