You do realize the Microsoft *does* have an embedded operating system: Windows CE. This is not to be confused with Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, Zune, or Windows Smartphones, all of which are built on top of Windows CE profiles. It's quite a versatile system, and has real-time capabilities, something which might be helpful in a telephony context.
If it was a usable OS for VoIP, there would be VoIP devices based on it.
The funny part is they have been on a crusade to discredit Linux for over 10 years now.
They were on a crusade to discredit Linux for as long as Linux existed (that is, more than 20 years now). And before that they were on crusade against all other Unix-like systems. The only time they weren't opposed to Unix-like systems was when they tried to do something with Xenix/SCO UNIX in 80's (when it was originally developed), but they turned themselves into the greatest enemy of all Unix-like systems immediately after that.
Sure, they do. They run on Windows like shit because Windows is an inferior OS. Windows users don't notice it because the rest of their software is shit.
When anyone cares about performance, security, configurability, manageability (not stupid active directory crap), wide range of hardware support, or anything else of importance, Windows is immediately out of the... window.
People like myself, want to destroy Windows because it's nothing but a distraction and burden for software developers -- no one but Microsoft benefits from its existence, it sucks away mindshare, and we waste our time on making our software work on Windows instead of spending the same time on making our software better. Whatever effort it will take to destroy Windows, is less than the amount of effort we (same people who want it gone) waste on supporting it.
And what they contributed is self-serving crap for running Linux under Windows (let call things by their real names, their virtualization onlu works with Windows acting as master and gatekeeper for everything) that no distribution ever compiled.
And "misspelled" sentence is from a humorous proposal of "simplifying" English. It even happens to be unambiguous and it follows a usable (but extremely ugly and pointless) set of rules from that "proposal".
Did the game, [that] Junior Seau loved, help take his life?
This is at the level of:
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
How difficult it would it be to write:
"Did football help Junior Seau to take his life?" "Did football, the game that Junior Seau loved, help him to take his life?" "Did footbal, the game that Junior Seau loved, contribute to his suicide?" "Was the game that Junior Seau loved among the causes of his suicide?" "Did Junior Seau kill himself because of the damage inflicted by the game he loved?"
Those are all (with varying degrees) readable English sentences that clearly convey the same meaning. The original sentence, even with your "expansion" is not.
Open source implementation has nothing to do with copyright or patents.
Open source implementation that was not opposed or hindered by whoever originated the project, and became the reference implementation, has everything to do with this.
The vast majority of opn source software is stolen on proprietary designs starting with linux.
Java was specifically developed as a closed language+infrastructure at Sun, and was distributed under very restrictive license. For a long time, the only Linux port didn't come from Sun but had to be maintained by Sun's licensee.
Regardless of validity of suing authors of re-implementation, it was clear that Java was intended to be under complete control of Sun (and then Oracle -- oracle bought Sun just for that).
Everything else that currently has open source implementation, except for things that really should've never been implemented, leave alone reimplemented (Win32,.Net), was originally intended to be open. There is no "owner" of languages, interfaces, protocols and formats -- at worst, some names are trademarked. It's a non-issue, and Slashdot should stop posting this kind of FUD-mongering.
"and now I need to find a new distro that actually works on the Macbook Air."
I have no idea why did he try to install OpenSUSE on Macbook Air, but I am sure, not because he expected it to be a good combination -- most likely out of curiosity.
That is not an acceptable answer for anyone who just wants to write an e-mail and browse the web and doesn't really know how to do anything else.
Then the answer is Kubuntu. Kubuntu was specifically built for "regular" users.
Please spare me the "of course, it's a Macbook Air. He'd be fine if he had machine X with distro Y" line - users don't have the knowledge, inclination or time to fiddle and match machines to distros.
Shut up, moron, and don't you dare placing your words into someone else's mouth ever again.
Differences between distributions are in purpose, not particular models of desktops/laptops supported. End-user who knows nothing about operating systems and wants to use consumer hardware, can randomly choose between approximately equally convenient Kubuntu and Mint, and will end with a usable system. A simple google search would show that for anyone who cares.
But you don't care for anything relevant. All you care is finding something -- anything -- that creates an impression that Microsoft's talking points have something in common with reality. You don't even think, there is such a thing as truth -- only opinions of people you recognize as your masters.
Seriously, kill all your friends, then yourself. That will be the first and the last decent thing you will do in your life.
PPAs are "special" in Ubuntu package manager -- they are reconized as ppa: in GUI.
No one can honestly complain about that -- the only thing "easier" is to click on a link to a web site (and install some malware from it because user doesn't know where does it go).
Those are instructions for people who don't want to use package managers, or want to do customization that requires optional components. Those components don't even exist on Windows.
Some of HOWTOs are actually package installation from the command line, however GUI tools would do exactly the same if the user just added PPA and selected the package.
I still didn't get it from the article -- is it about Nook device or DRM-ed Nook-branded software for Windows (that was not even compatible with Nook device itself last time I checked)?
It's probably the most disliked Linux distribution (if you count Slackware as not disliked but ignored).
Everything else uses Network Manager, a piece of software that handles networking in a very straightforward way and does not require user to enter root password.
There is a really old saying, "Linux is free if your time is worth noting."
There is no such "old saying". It's what Jamie Zawinski (then of Netscape) wrote, comparing Linux with, of all things, IRIX, many years ago. It was wrong then, it is most definitely wrong now. Though Jamie Zawinski usually has a clue when he writes software, his style of complaining about everything software-related did not change at all -- here is a recent example: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/
You are lying. All modern distributions come with a GUI frontend to a package manager. Of all things, it's Windows that has a problem -- unless you use something that comes on CD in a shiny box, it's usually easier to find a pirated version of the program than a legitimate one.
Look everyone, this is an example of things Microsoft astroturfers write -- completely baseless but repeated often. This is the version without "GIMP does not support CMYK!" and "drivers don't have stable ABI!".
Can we, please, stop posting fake "complaints" and "explanations" that come from Microsoft, and serve no purpose other than FUD-mongering and misdirecting the Linux development?
Should I remind everyone that Microsoft's settlement terms after (mostly toothless) antitrust lawsuit expired recently, and Microsoft is now free to continue their monopoly-maintenance practices such as "taxing" manufacturers' devices with non-Microsoft OS, without even trying to conceal them?
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize the Microsoft *does* have an embedded operating system: Windows CE. This is not to be confused with Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, Zune, or Windows Smartphones, all of which are built on top of Windows CE profiles. It's quite a versatile system, and has real-time capabilities, something which might be helpful in a telephony context.
If it was a usable OS for VoIP, there would be VoIP devices based on it.
The funny part is they have been on a crusade to discredit Linux for over 10 years now.
They were on a crusade to discredit Linux for as long as Linux existed (that is, more than 20 years now). And before that they were on crusade against all other Unix-like systems. The only time they weren't opposed to Unix-like systems was when they tried to do something with Xenix/SCO UNIX in 80's (when it was originally developed), but they turned themselves into the greatest enemy of all Unix-like systems immediately after that.
Most open source projects run on windows.
Sure, they do. They run on Windows like shit because Windows is an inferior OS. Windows users don't notice it because the rest of their software is shit.
When anyone cares about performance, security, configurability, manageability (not stupid active directory crap), wide range of hardware support, or anything else of importance, Windows is immediately out of the... window.
People like myself, want to destroy Windows because it's nothing but a distraction and burden for software developers -- no one but Microsoft benefits from its existence, it sucks away mindshare, and we waste our time on making our software work on Windows instead of spending the same time on making our software better. Whatever effort it will take to destroy Windows, is less than the amount of effort we (same people who want it gone) waste on supporting it.
For Microsoft to use Linux, they merely have to agree to the GPL -- if the use is purely internal, this basically imposes no restrictions on them.
No. To use GPL software, the user does not have to agree to GPL. GPL is a license for [re]distribution, not use.
And what they contributed is self-serving crap for running Linux under Windows (let call things by their real names, their virtualization onlu works with Windows acting as master and gatekeeper for everything) that no distribution ever compiled.
Don't worry, hairyfeet's friends at Microsoft marketing department have more accounts.
And "misspelled" sentence is from a humorous proposal of "simplifying" English. It even happens to be unambiguous and it follows a usable (but extremely ugly and pointless) set of rules from that "proposal".
Did the game, [that] Junior Seau loved, help take his life?
This is at the level of:
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
How difficult it would it be to write:
"Did football help Junior Seau to take his life?"
"Did football, the game that Junior Seau loved, help him to take his life?"
"Did footbal, the game that Junior Seau loved, contribute to his suicide?"
"Was the game that Junior Seau loved among the causes of his suicide?"
"Did Junior Seau kill himself because of the damage inflicted by the game he loved?"
Those are all (with varying degrees) readable English sentences that clearly convey the same meaning. The original sentence, even with your "expansion" is not.
Did the game Junior Seau loved help take his life?
Do you speak it?
Open source implementation has nothing to do with copyright or patents.
Open source implementation that was not opposed or hindered by whoever originated the project, and became the reference implementation, has everything to do with this.
The vast majority of opn source software is stolen on proprietary designs starting with linux.
Hi, Darl.
Java was specifically developed as a closed language+infrastructure at Sun, and was distributed under very restrictive license. For a long time, the only Linux port didn't come from Sun but had to be maintained by Sun's licensee.
Regardless of validity of suing authors of re-implementation, it was clear that Java was intended to be under complete control of Sun (and then Oracle -- oracle bought Sun just for that).
Everything else that currently has open source implementation, except for things that really should've never been implemented, leave alone reimplemented (Win32, .Net), was originally intended to be open. There is no "owner" of languages, interfaces, protocols and formats -- at worst, some names are trademarked. It's a non-issue, and Slashdot should stop posting this kind of FUD-mongering.
Wow! Talk about bitterness.
My assessment of your intellect was a statement of fact.
It is only Linux being discussed and you are advocating mass murder. Lunatic.
That's the only thing people like you are good for.
"and now I need to find a new distro that actually works on the Macbook Air."
I have no idea why did he try to install OpenSUSE on Macbook Air, but I am sure, not because he expected it to be a good combination -- most likely out of curiosity.
That is not an acceptable answer for anyone who just wants to write an e-mail and browse the web and doesn't really know how to do anything else.
Then the answer is Kubuntu. Kubuntu was specifically built for "regular" users.
Please spare me the "of course, it's a Macbook Air. He'd be fine if he had machine X with distro Y" line - users don't have the knowledge, inclination or time to fiddle and match machines to distros.
Shut up, moron, and don't you dare placing your words into someone else's mouth ever again.
Differences between distributions are in purpose, not particular models of desktops/laptops supported. End-user who knows nothing about operating systems and wants to use consumer hardware, can randomly choose between approximately equally convenient Kubuntu and Mint, and will end with a usable system. A simple google search would show that for anyone who cares.
But you don't care for anything relevant. All you care is finding something -- anything -- that creates an impression that Microsoft's talking points have something in common with reality. You don't even think, there is such a thing as truth -- only opinions of people you recognize as your masters.
Seriously, kill all your friends, then yourself. That will be the first and the last decent thing you will do in your life.
How convincing!
PPAs are "special" in Ubuntu package manager -- they are reconized as ppa: in GUI.
No one can honestly complain about that -- the only thing "easier" is to click on a link to a web site (and install some malware from it because user doesn't know where does it go).
Those are instructions for people who don't want to use package managers, or want to do customization that requires optional components. Those components don't even exist on Windows.
Some of HOWTOs are actually package installation from the command line, however GUI tools would do exactly the same if the user just added PPA and selected the package.
I still didn't get it from the article -- is it about Nook device or DRM-ed Nook-branded software for Windows (that was not even compatible with Nook device itself last time I checked)?
You used WHAT??? Kdenlive works just fine.
OpenSUSE is not mainstream.
It's probably the most disliked Linux distribution (if you count Slackware as not disliked but ignored).
Everything else uses Network Manager, a piece of software that handles networking in a very straightforward way and does not require user to enter root password.
Really?
Windows ME drivers for modern cards?
There is a really old saying, "Linux is free if your time is worth noting."
There is no such "old saying". It's what Jamie Zawinski (then of Netscape) wrote, comparing Linux with, of all things, IRIX, many years ago. It was wrong then, it is most definitely wrong now. Though Jamie Zawinski usually has a clue when he writes software, his style of complaining about everything software-related did not change at all -- here is a recent example: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/
Works fine for everyone but you.
And it doesn't work for you because you never used Linux in the first place.
Really?
You are lying. All modern distributions come with a GUI frontend to a package manager. Of all things, it's Windows that has a problem -- unless you use something that comes on CD in a shiny box, it's usually easier to find a pirated version of the program than a legitimate one.
Really?
Look everyone, this is an example of things Microsoft astroturfers write -- completely baseless but repeated often. This is the version without "GIMP does not support CMYK!" and "drivers don't have stable ABI!".
Can we, please, stop posting fake "complaints" and "explanations" that come from Microsoft, and serve no purpose other than FUD-mongering and misdirecting the Linux development?
Should I remind everyone that Microsoft's settlement terms after (mostly toothless) antitrust lawsuit expired recently, and Microsoft is now free to continue their monopoly-maintenance practices such as "taxing" manufacturers' devices with non-Microsoft OS, without even trying to conceal them?