They don't need to convince the unauthorized users, they just have to convince their client companies to pay for this. Just like spammers don't need spam to be an effective advertisement method, they just have to convince their clients to pay for sending it.
then you gotta ask... why the hell would any of these big corporations stick with low-GM products when they could mop up the revenue selling high-GM software and support?
Solution: let's all sell drugs to each other.
Why would anyone care about margins anyway? It's not like it costs anything to pump a predictable flow of hardware parts from their manufacturers to your consumers, the value the company produces is still what it is being paid for, it just is attached to huge amount of work done by others.
Living totally apart from civilized society should not be a requirement for having personal liberty.
I see it the opposite way -- a sane idea of "personal liberty" should be implementable without throwing a person out of civilized society. I reject your idea of "personal liberty" if it doesn't fit into any society that does not sacrifice all its functions just to accommodate such an idea. This kind of single-issue society would be unlivable nightmare if it was ever implemented.
What really annoys fellow humans is when you try to tell consenting adults what they may do in their own homes, or with their own bodies, or what they may read, think, and believe.
And what annoys me, is that just to allow some "adults" to destroy their bodies with drugs, Libertarians along with the worst kind of Social Conservatives, deny people the right to ask the rest of society for medical help whenever they are sick (because then any public healthcare system would be overwhelmed with dying crackheads).
Relative self-sufficiency means that if I am able to take care of my own affairs and avoid becoming a burden to others, then I should do that.
This is impossible, so it is completely irrelevant. Everyone is in some way "a burden" to everyone else around him, he just may not be able to recognize it.
They're about as tired as I am of the nanny-state and the downtrodden society of people who cannot think and act for themselves it produces. That does not mean I look to any group or organization to tell me what I should believe and why I should believe it, it means I learn what I can from whomever I can learn it. During this process I can't be concerned with whether you personally find them distasteful.
I understand your point. I just find it stupid and completely incompatible with my system of values. Life is full of compromises. Would I want to have more freedom, in general? Probably. Would I want to have more freedom if the same freedom will be given my enemies? That depends what "freedom" it is, as I wouldn't trust my enemies with things I trust governments with.
For example, for me freedom of speech means being able to post comments on Slashdot and read crappy editorials that pass for journalism, but can occasionally inform me about things happening in the world. But for Philip Morris it means advertising addictive substance that makes people lives shorter and less healthy, for Fox News it means rallying uneducated people to support corporate lackeys in the government, for Microsoft it means spreading lies about everything that competes with their software.
Would I give up some of my freedom of speech to make them shut up? I would. Would I trust government to handle it right? Nor always. But since government handles everything that mass distribution of speech depends on, anyway, it is not going to be more corrupt or more abusive. No one would be any worse if intentional lying to the public, or exploitation of known psychological weaknesses with clear profit motive was banned -- and the only reason not to do it is "freedom of speech" dogma. In this example I see some set of restrictions on speech as a perfectly valid tradeoff. It somewhat hurts everyone (we assume that government is corrupt and occasionally such a law would be misused) but it prevents harm that is far greater than one it causes. Even better, the more people care about electing honest people into the government, the less it would be abused, and crooks would be still kept away from mass media. And don't tell me that "First they came for Fox News and 419 scammers..." -- for a person who is not infected with this freedom-worship this sounds about as stupid as "first they came for serial killers", and the whole thing is a slippery slope fallacy to begin with.
Sure, this position is unimaginable for Libertarians, it rejects the sacred slogan of "liberty", and worse yet, the most enshrined form of liberty -- free
But US had a civil war once. With US government attacking US citizens all over the place, and those citizens doing likewise. Would it not be an act of war if foreign military attacked North on behalf of the South? Libyan "rebels" have less legitimacy now than Confederation had then.
This does not mean that you are not spouting typical Libertarian talking points.
Relative self-sufficiency and a willingness to take responsibility for one's own choices was a high ideal long before the word "libertarian" existed.
And for most of history such an idea would get a person killed, usually by wild animals, long before he will have a chance to annoy his fellow humans with it.
Given two developers of equal talent the developer using.NET or Java is likely to outproduce the developer using C/++ in nearly every meaningful measurement to a business.
A person stupid enough to use.Net or Java for the task that can be implemented in C or C++ would be indeed more productive using.Net or Java than in C or C++. That's because he is fucking stupid. What also guarantees that all his applications, regardless of language, are fundamentally wrong. He will never actually complete his task, it can only asymptotically approach a working state as fucking stupid programmer will be messing with it.
Better developers (ones who wouldn't even think of touching.Net at all, or Java for something that can be made without it) would write superior software in C or C++, in time less than it would take them to fix the product of the above mentioned fucking stupid programmer.
"N00b" is a misspelling of "newb", that is in its turn an abbreviation of "newbie". "Noob", on the other hand, is a misspelling of "n00b" that no one ever used before those self-proclaimed lords and masters of English language.
Well, I've been using Unix-like OSs since the late 80's, including Solaris, HPUX, and even Linux when it first entered the scene, so apparently I was right after all.
If you actually used them then, you would know better than praising Microsoft. It would be also quite difficult to use Solaris in late 80's considering that the name "Solaris" appeared in mid-90's after Sun shifted development from BSD-based SunOS 4 to SysV-based SunOS 5. SunOS 5 was branded "Solaris 2" and SunOS 4 line got retroactively applied moniker "Solaris 1.1". Solaris 2 became usable somewhere between versions 2.5.1 and 2.6 when BSD compatibility was re-introduced along with massive amount of bugfixing.
HP-UX is widely known as the most un-Unix'y Unix among mainstream operating systems. If you knew it, you wouldn't stick it into the list of "Unix-like OSs" list as the only commercial Unix other than "Solaris" as some kind of proof of familiarity with the subject.
Therefore you are a fraud, idiot or both.
And yet you have accomplished none of this, the virtualization works fine, it's efficiency is higher, and it works quite well.
By standards of Windows fanboy a dead rat works fine. This is not something to be proud of. You still have not mentioned what the Hell you are using it for. My guess is, to become sufficiently familiar with OS to convincingly slander it on behalf of your employer. For that purpose VMs are great, indeed.
However there is a solution for this for me. I can mark you a foe, and all your utterly worthless comments will be modded to -5, an appropriate level for the inane comments you spew out, and I won't have to be bothered reading your vile worthless vitriol ever again.
You seem to have a serious case of unwarranted self importance disease.
Yeah, right. Right, indeed, considering that Xbox hardware still has shit reliability, and it isn't likely to produce profit within any sane expectation of Microsoft's lifetime as a company.
HP already has Palm with its WebOS. Not to mention that over the history of the company and its acquisitions it had three(!) lines of handheld hardware -- Itsy (Digital), iPAQ (Compaq, arguably Windows-CE-ified Itsy) and Jornada (HP, presumably dead or rolled into iPAQ).
Last time I checked, for years and years Sangoma is successfully building hardware that is used almost exclusively with Asterisk, an open source PBX developed and maintained by its main competitor Digium.
It is a separate and distinct case, because it is specific to one country in one historical period. Everyone else either had people openly acting in blatantly immoral manner, hid harmful actions as still being shameful, did not have the harmful nature of some traditions and activities widely recognized, or invented excuses downplaying harm and emphasizing supposed virtues and benefits provided by wrongdoers.
Modern US ideology is the first (and I hope, the last) case in the history of mankind when desire to something widely accepted as harmful and immoral is used as an excuse. Greed is not even alone in this list -- for example, look at how popular culture lionizes pimps.
In all seriousness, the Playboy issues I've read really do have some good articles, it's just kinda odd to have that kind of material and the pictures of nekkid women int he same magazine.
I post under my real name, and I still agree wholeheartedly with his statement.
Except, of course, I do not believe in Hell, so in my opinion Hell would have to be built for those people to rot in it. I am not sure such a massive project would be justified, so I have another proposal: in Redmond, in place of current Microsoft campus build a monument to Windows. It will be a river of blood, flowing between hills made of crushed bones of all Microsoft employees, topped with skulls of Gates and Ballmer. Much less resource-consuming than a massive structure dedicated to eternal punishment, and conveys the same message.
Same applied to DOS (and DR-DOS). Same applied to DesqView. Same applied to CP-M. Same applied to *BSD. Same applied to OS/2. (everything above was on x86 PC)
Same applied to each and every Unix, VMS and other operating systems from mid-80's and further.
By the time Windows was released, open platform interface was the rule, not an exception.
DOS was merely the first sufficiently open OS that was both endorsed by a very large hardware vendor, and designed for individual use -- CP-M is exactly the same minus "large hardware vendor" part, it ran on numerous cheap 8080 and Z80 personal computers (!) before it was ported to 8086. Yes, my little (or amnesiac) friends, it's true, personal computers that were both based around Intel processors and used DOS predecessors as its main OS, existed in 70's, long before IBM appropriated the term.
First mover advantage. iPhone sales started 3 years before the first WP7 phone went on sale;
Moar liek iPhone wiped the floor with Windows Mobile that was then common in over-expensive "business" smartphones because this it was "what the handset makers are using on the handsets". And somewhat damaged RIM.
Now Android (hardly a great OS but certainly superior to all common alternatives) is in the process of wiping the floor with RIM (whose product is not atrociously bad but lacks flexibility) and competing with iPhone (slick UI, less substance, single idiosyncratic vendor).
Seeing that, Microsoft taken over Nokia, with a goal to sacrifice the company in its attempt to re-establish Windows Phone (formerly Mobile, formerly CE) as a legitimate choice of a platform.
Not when it comes to decisions that clearly sabotage the company's business -- what in case of Microsoft would be anything other than blatantly predatory behavior.
There are plenty of things that "work quite well" despite being extremely stupid. Most of them involve Windows.
I can assure you, you have not.
I can assure you, I have.
I have used Linux since 1994, and worked exclusively with Unix-like operating systems since approximately the same time. Also I have demonstrated knowledge and familiarity with systems that goes that far while you have absolutely nothing but your idiotic claims to back up this ridiculous assertion.
Before that I used various other operating systems, including Windows. After that I had to regularly deal with Windows and its software when it invariably acted as an obstacle to productive work. I had to tolerate that monstrosity recently when I had to fix a product that had idiotic build environment, involving an unholy mix of 16-bit and 32-bit Windows executables, something that can not be run properly under either DOS emulator or Wine. Dealing with that horrible thing was the only reason why I had to use VirtualBox and VMWare on a desktop -- and this is the reason why I have such an extensive knowledge of those things, that otherwise I would avoid like the plague. Whatever you "know", or ever will know, about operating systems, virtualization, software performance, and CS as a whole, amounts to the things I have accidentally forgot yesterday because I didn't use them even once over the last 20 years.
Right from the mind of a 4yr old. Don't worry, you've fully demonstrated your complete ignorance of both virtualization as it's used all around these days and the specific Virtualbox software described in the thread.
You believe that your ridiculously overpowered hardware justifies useless and idiotic configurations, as long as they are based around Windows. Your decisions are based on nothing but your firm belief that Windows must be your primary OS, and Linux should run in a crippled environment, lest you will get a glimpse of something that can hurt your belief in your Microsoft masters. You are trying to spread this, so others will only see Linux in this horrible state, so it will look to them as an inferior OS, compared to Windows, that you insist on letting run free on their hardware.
Go back to your anti-Microsoft raging bullshit, I'm done arguing with your idiocy.
No, you are not. I am not arguing with you to convince you -- for me, your opinion amounts to about as much as an opinion of an average ant. I am doing it to discredit you, to demonstrate to others how wrong you are, how your opinion is worthless, and your insults are pointless, and how everything you recommend is likely a bad idea. I have succeeded in this -- not as much backed by my arguments in this thread but by your own defense of blatantly idiotic setup you have made out of your love of Windows. If you claimed that you intentionally sacrificed performance for something used entirely for testing and development purpose, you would created some impression of legitimacy, but you didn't -- and you can't because you are not a developer, your knowledge is limited to things one can find in marketing brochures.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need to convince the unauthorized users, they just have to convince their client companies to pay for this.
Just like spammers don't need spam to be an effective advertisement method, they just have to convince their clients to pay for sending it.
Not really. They print those options on their inkjet printers.
then you gotta ask... why the hell would any of these big corporations stick with low-GM products when they could mop up the revenue selling high-GM software and support?
Solution: let's all sell drugs to each other.
Why would anyone care about margins anyway? It's not like it costs anything to pump a predictable flow of hardware parts from their manufacturers to your consumers, the value the company produces is still what it is being paid for, it just is attached to huge amount of work done by others.
Living totally apart from civilized society should not be a requirement for having personal liberty.
I see it the opposite way -- a sane idea of "personal liberty" should be implementable without throwing a person out of civilized society. I reject your idea of "personal liberty" if it doesn't fit into any society that does not sacrifice all its functions just to accommodate such an idea. This kind of single-issue society would be unlivable nightmare if it was ever implemented.
What really annoys fellow humans is when you try to tell consenting adults what they may do in their own homes, or with their own bodies, or what they may read, think, and believe.
And what annoys me, is that just to allow some "adults" to destroy their bodies with drugs, Libertarians along with the worst kind of Social Conservatives, deny people the right to ask the rest of society for medical help whenever they are sick (because then any public healthcare system would be overwhelmed with dying crackheads).
Relative self-sufficiency means that if I am able to take care of my own affairs and avoid becoming a burden to others, then I should do that.
This is impossible, so it is completely irrelevant. Everyone is in some way "a burden" to everyone else around him, he just may not be able to recognize it.
They're about as tired as I am of the nanny-state and the downtrodden society of people who cannot think and act for themselves it produces. That does not mean I look to any group or organization to tell me what I should believe and why I should believe it, it means I learn what I can from whomever I can learn it. During this process I can't be concerned with whether you personally find them distasteful.
I understand your point. I just find it stupid and completely incompatible with my system of values. Life is full of compromises. Would I want to have more freedom, in general? Probably. Would I want to have more freedom if the same freedom will be given my enemies? That depends what "freedom" it is, as I wouldn't trust my enemies with things I trust governments with.
For example, for me freedom of speech means being able to post comments on Slashdot and read crappy editorials that pass for journalism, but can occasionally inform me about things happening in the world. But for Philip Morris it means advertising addictive substance that makes people lives shorter and less healthy, for Fox News it means rallying uneducated people to support corporate lackeys in the government, for Microsoft it means spreading lies about everything that competes with their software.
Would I give up some of my freedom of speech to make them shut up? I would. Would I trust government to handle it right? Nor always. But since government handles everything that mass distribution of speech depends on, anyway, it is not going to be more corrupt or more abusive. No one would be any worse if intentional lying to the public, or exploitation of known psychological weaknesses with clear profit motive was banned -- and the only reason not to do it is "freedom of speech" dogma. In this example I see some set of restrictions on speech as a perfectly valid tradeoff. It somewhat hurts everyone (we assume that government is corrupt and occasionally such a law would be misused) but it prevents harm that is far greater than one it causes. Even better, the more people care about electing honest people into the government, the less it would be abused, and crooks would be still kept away from mass media. And don't tell me that "First they came for Fox News and 419 scammers..." -- for a person who is not infected with this freedom-worship this sounds about as stupid as "first they came for serial killers", and the whole thing is a slippery slope fallacy to begin with.
Sure, this position is unimaginable for Libertarians, it rejects the sacred slogan of "liberty", and worse yet, the most enshrined form of liberty -- free
But US had a civil war once. With US government attacking US citizens all over the place, and those citizens doing likewise. Would it not be an act of war if foreign military attacked North on behalf of the South? Libyan "rebels" have less legitimacy now than Confederation had then.
Welcome back, GNAA, I missed you. Now all trolls here are either Microsoft astroturfers, randroids or occasional /b/ exiles.
This does not mean that you are not spouting typical Libertarian talking points.
Relative self-sufficiency and a willingness to take responsibility for one's own choices was a high ideal long before the word "libertarian" existed.
And for most of history such an idea would get a person killed, usually by wild animals, long before he will have a chance to annoy his fellow humans with it.
lol Libertarians.
Well, I can see a message in it. "I feel screwed by society, so I won't play by its rules".
Strange... What I read, looked like:
i'm a chav!!! i'm a CHAAAAV!
suck my diiiiick!! I'M A CHAV!!
Given two developers of equal talent the developer using .NET or Java is likely to outproduce the developer using C/++ in nearly every meaningful measurement to a business.
A person stupid enough to use .Net or Java for the task that can be implemented in C or C++ would be indeed more productive using .Net or Java than in C or C++. That's because he is fucking stupid. What also guarantees that all his applications, regardless of language, are fundamentally wrong. He will never actually complete his task, it can only asymptotically approach a working state as fucking stupid programmer will be messing with it.
Better developers (ones who wouldn't even think of touching .Net at all, or Java for something that can be made without it) would write superior software in C or C++, in time less than it would take them to fix the product of the above mentioned fucking stupid programmer.
"N00b" is a misspelling of "newb", that is in its turn an abbreviation of "newbie". "Noob", on the other hand, is a misspelling of "n00b" that no one ever used before those self-proclaimed lords and masters of English language.
Well, I've been using Unix-like OSs since the late 80's, including Solaris, HPUX, and even Linux when it first entered the scene, so apparently I was right after all.
If you actually used them then, you would know better than praising Microsoft.
It would be also quite difficult to use Solaris in late 80's considering that the name "Solaris" appeared in mid-90's after Sun shifted development from BSD-based SunOS 4 to SysV-based SunOS 5. SunOS 5 was branded "Solaris 2" and SunOS 4 line got retroactively applied moniker "Solaris 1.1". Solaris 2 became usable somewhere between versions 2.5.1 and 2.6 when BSD compatibility was re-introduced along with massive amount of bugfixing.
HP-UX is widely known as the most un-Unix'y Unix among mainstream operating systems. If you knew it, you wouldn't stick it into the list of "Unix-like OSs" list as the only commercial Unix other than "Solaris" as some kind of proof of familiarity with the subject.
Therefore you are a fraud, idiot or both.
And yet you have accomplished none of this, the virtualization works fine, it's efficiency is higher, and it works quite well.
By standards of Windows fanboy a dead rat works fine. This is not something to be proud of. You still have not mentioned what the Hell you are using it for. My guess is, to become sufficiently familiar with OS to convincingly slander it on behalf of your employer. For that purpose VMs are great, indeed.
However there is a solution for this for me. I can mark you a foe, and all your utterly worthless comments will be modded to -5, an appropriate level for the inane comments you spew out, and I won't have to be bothered reading your vile worthless vitriol ever again.
You seem to have a serious case of unwarranted self importance disease.
Yeah, right. Right, indeed, considering that Xbox hardware still has shit reliability, and it isn't likely to produce profit within any sane expectation of Microsoft's lifetime as a company.
HP already has Palm with its WebOS. Not to mention that over the history of the company and its acquisitions it had three(!) lines of handheld hardware -- Itsy (Digital), iPAQ (Compaq, arguably Windows-CE-ified Itsy) and Jornada (HP, presumably dead or rolled into iPAQ).
Last time I checked, for years and years Sangoma is successfully building hardware that is used almost exclusively with Asterisk, an open source PBX developed and maintained by its main competitor Digium.
Shut up, moron! Microsoft astroturfers should be refuted and ridiculed in the most public manner possible.
It is a separate and distinct case, because it is specific to one country in one historical period. Everyone else either had people openly acting in blatantly immoral manner, hid harmful actions as still being shameful, did not have the harmful nature of some traditions and activities widely recognized, or invented excuses downplaying harm and emphasizing supposed virtues and benefits provided by wrongdoers.
Modern US ideology is the first (and I hope, the last) case in the history of mankind when desire to something widely accepted as harmful and immoral is used as an excuse. Greed is not even alone in this list -- for example, look at how popular culture lionizes pimps.
In all seriousness, the Playboy issues I've read really do have some good articles, it's just kinda odd to have that kind of material and the pictures of nekkid women int he same magazine.
That's nothing compared to 4chan.
*Nothing* Apple does outside of Webkit is open source anymore.
CUPS is.
I post under my real name, and I still agree wholeheartedly with his statement.
Except, of course, I do not believe in Hell, so in my opinion Hell would have to be built for those people to rot in it. I am not sure such a massive project would be justified, so I have another proposal: in Redmond, in place of current Microsoft campus build a monument to Windows. It will be a river of blood, flowing between hills made of crushed bones of all Microsoft employees, topped with skulls of Gates and Ballmer. Much less resource-consuming than a massive structure dedicated to eternal punishment, and conveys the same message.
Same applied to DOS (and DR-DOS).
Same applied to DesqView.
Same applied to CP-M.
Same applied to *BSD.
Same applied to OS/2.
(everything above was on x86 PC)
Same applied to each and every Unix, VMS and other operating systems from mid-80's and further.
By the time Windows was released, open platform interface was the rule, not an exception.
DOS was merely the first sufficiently open OS that was both endorsed by a very large hardware vendor, and designed for individual use -- CP-M is exactly the same minus "large hardware vendor" part, it ran on numerous cheap 8080 and Z80 personal computers (!) before it was ported to 8086. Yes, my little (or amnesiac) friends, it's true, personal computers that were both based around Intel processors and used DOS predecessors as its main OS, existed in 70's, long before IBM appropriated the term.
First mover advantage. iPhone sales started 3 years before the first WP7 phone went on sale;
Moar liek iPhone wiped the floor with Windows Mobile that was then common in over-expensive "business" smartphones because this it was "what the handset makers are using on the handsets". And somewhat damaged RIM.
Now Android (hardly a great OS but certainly superior to all common alternatives) is in the process of wiping the floor with RIM (whose product is not atrociously bad but lacks flexibility) and competing with iPhone (slick UI, less substance, single idiosyncratic vendor).
Seeing that, Microsoft taken over Nokia, with a goal to sacrifice the company in its attempt to re-establish Windows Phone (formerly Mobile, formerly CE) as a legitimate choice of a platform.
gg Microsoft.
Not when it comes to decisions that clearly sabotage the company's business -- what in case of Microsoft would be anything other than blatantly predatory behavior.
Yes, and it works quite well.
There are plenty of things that "work quite well" despite being extremely stupid. Most of them involve Windows.
I can assure you, you have not.
I can assure you, I have.
I have used Linux since 1994, and worked exclusively with Unix-like operating systems since approximately the same time. Also I have demonstrated knowledge and familiarity with systems that goes that far while you have absolutely nothing but your idiotic claims to back up this ridiculous assertion.
Before that I used various other operating systems, including Windows. After that I had to regularly deal with Windows and its software when it invariably acted as an obstacle to productive work. I had to tolerate that monstrosity recently when I had to fix a product that had idiotic build environment, involving an unholy mix of 16-bit and 32-bit Windows executables, something that can not be run properly under either DOS emulator or Wine. Dealing with that horrible thing was the only reason why I had to use VirtualBox and VMWare on a desktop -- and this is the reason why I have such an extensive knowledge of those things, that otherwise I would avoid like the plague. Whatever you "know", or ever will know, about operating systems, virtualization, software performance, and CS as a whole, amounts to the things I have accidentally forgot yesterday because I didn't use them even once over the last 20 years.
Right from the mind of a 4yr old. Don't worry, you've fully demonstrated your complete ignorance of both virtualization as it's used all around these days and the specific Virtualbox software described in the thread.
You believe that your ridiculously overpowered hardware justifies useless and idiotic configurations, as long as they are based around Windows. Your decisions are based on nothing but your firm belief that Windows must be your primary OS, and Linux should run in a crippled environment, lest you will get a glimpse of something that can hurt your belief in your Microsoft masters. You are trying to spread this, so others will only see Linux in this horrible state, so it will look to them as an inferior OS, compared to Windows, that you insist on letting run free on their hardware.
Go back to your anti-Microsoft raging bullshit, I'm done arguing with your idiocy.
No, you are not. I am not arguing with you to convince you -- for me, your opinion amounts to about as much as an opinion of an average ant. I am doing it to discredit you, to demonstrate to others how wrong you are, how your opinion is worthless, and your insults are pointless, and how everything you recommend is likely a bad idea. I have succeeded in this -- not as much backed by my arguments in this thread but by your own defense of blatantly idiotic setup you have made out of your love of Windows. If you claimed that you intentionally sacrificed performance for something used entirely for testing and development purpose, you would created some impression of legitimacy, but you didn't -- and you can't because you are not a developer, your knowledge is limited to things one can find in marketing brochures.
You can't leave it at that, can you?
Yes, but that doesn't prevent them to extort "licensing fees" for bullshit patents from Android phones' manufacturers.