I think the line is "They might be dumb, but they ain't stupid". Meaning MS isn't thinking "Doy, wotsa permission?" like some folks seem to be implying.
The real difficulty in editing is determining what to cut, and you're basically saying that Wikipedia can take a pass on this. Regardless of interest level, Wikipedia is still an encycopedia and not a complete reference work on everything that ever existed.
When one can find Wikipedia articles that discuss Starship Enterprise as if it were real, or every single aspect of a WWE plotline, one realizes that certain groups are basically using Wikipedia as their personal fanboy dumping grounds.
I'm not really blaming Wikipedia itself, only pointing out that it's unfortuante there are not more editors with the attitude of "too long", "who cares", and "take it to your blog" that are actively going around taking a big axe to certain areas.
Since those closest to you on the network are likely to give you the highest speeds, indirectly it already does what you ask of it.
Unfortuantely, that's not true of most residential connections. Even though someone is next door to me, their DSL still only uploads at 128kbps.
Maybe the argument is that ISPs should support uncapped in-network transfers to reduce bandwidth costs, but I think from their perspective they would rather not encourage any sort of P2P.
I'm sure this has really nothing to do with BSD TCP/IP and everything to do with some programmer thinking "DUH, let's add a etc directory". Since they had to recode the thing, they could have put these files whereever they wanted.
why not just type "unlimited bandwidth" into google
I see a bunch of hosting providers, where the payment model is totally different than home broadband and therefore irrelvant to the discussion.
an alternate reality where Bush won the election,
OK, you're the second weirdo in row who made the bizarre illogical jump from "apolitical statement about the technology industry" to "Bush supporter". As a leftie, I think it's pretty sad that Democrats are so used to being rhetorically bitchslapped that they automatically associate any winning argument with the GOP.
I disagree quite strongly. There's very little argument that general Internet users want more than "a megabit or two", and wireless access will be massively appealing to the consumer (50% laptop sales), rather than waiting for Google to put a few thousand 802.11 hotspots in your town.
Just from a capitalist perspective, wireless has phenomononly lower infrastructure costs than Wireline. Look at the massive debt taken on by the Cable companies, and that's for something that everyone wants (television) -- what investor would replicate that when they can just throw up some cheap towers?
I suspect you'll be waiting a long time for gigabit ethernet to come into your house, and, if it does, the high bandwidth will be tied to a closed service (like AT&T VOD) and you won't have more than "a megabit or two" available for general internet access/P2P.
> If you think wireless poses any threat to cable or telephone companies, you are very wrong.
AT&T/Cingular and Verizon are the phone compaines.
I also question if this is a "problem". Look -- if the ISPs came and offered a 10mbps service for $80/month, how many people would take them up on it?
Joe Websufer doesn't need anything faster than standard broadband, and even most P2Pers leech by on a standard connection -- you'd have to be pretty hardcore to pay big $ for a "business" SDSL connection, just so you can pirate stuff. It's counter-intuitive.
Furthermore, no sane company is going to make a multi-billion dollar investment in something that really only has piracy applications. Not to mention the whole "wire coming into your house" is going to be obsolete at some point as wirelesss broadband services get rolled out.
Which is why you have AT&T talking about establishing their own VOD services and so on. There's simply very little justification for opening the bandwidth floodgates otherwise.
The problem with that is the big boys (such as Comcast) advertise always-on unlimited service.
Maybe back in the 1990s they did use the word "unlimited", but I think you'd have trouble finding any sort of recent examples of advertisements with this term.
And if you are claiming that "most people" bought broadband to use P2P, that is clearly wrong. (And iTMS is not P2P either.) ISPs might have allowed this behavior during the early-adoptor phase, but that was a long long time ago now. Even customers that hop on Kazaa and download a few songs are small potatos compared to the real P2Pers.
It seems like you believe that you somehow deserve to use massive bandwidth for a flat fee, using a raft of paperthin justifications and imaginary promises of "unlimited" bandwidth. I agree that it would be nice if it were true.
Actually, there's an anti-spyware available from Windows Update called "Malicous Software Removal Tool". I think it only targets the most common and popular types of hacks,
In unix, security and permissions are the foundation, on top of which everything is built. In windows, security is a hack that was added on later with no due consideration during the initial design phase of windows. It's no wonder it's next to impossible to get it to work the way you want it to.
In Unix, "root process can change the hosts file" would be rejected as NOTABUG, and the user would be told to use better security practices.
In Windows where Microsoft is in the awkward position of trying to protect the system against administrative users. For years they said the same thing, but the cold reality of millions of trojaned systems slapped them in the face and forced them to do the "wrong" thing.
I'm sure they're not stupid, it's an unwinnable game until people use good security practices. But the shortterm cost/benefit is there -- by mucking with the IP stack, they can maybe break some stupid trojans and get a few million people to clean up their systems? It's ugly but maybe it works.
Well, as it says in the link, it wasn't really GA, you had to get it through special channels.
OS/2-PPC was interesting in that it was a total rewrite of the OS/2 kernel to put it on the same level as NT. However by 1996, IBM was backing away from OS/2, so there really was no point.
>First, MS transformed the game from producing a web browser to producing a programmable application front end.
Netscape was the "first mover" on that with Java and DHTML. Netscape's founder even bragged about making Win32 unncecessary.
>Second, MS created an excessively forgiving browser. This allowed management to promote the creation of malformed content that would still work.
The early philosophy of HTML was to be forgiving, almost everyone supported that idea. Nutscrape's browsers were extremely forgiving (and buggy), and almost all existing HTML was malformed. This forced MS to create a browser that was even more forgiving than Netscape for compaibility. As Mozilla discovered, being strict about compatibility is not the way to marketshare glory.
>However, way too often I see managment created employee resources, resources that employees are expected to access from anywhere and often critical to the job, only run in IE
Having been involved in some of this, I can explain. Internet Explorer was at least 5 years ahead in terms of technology. Netscape hadn't released a new browser since 1996. There was simply no way to build an advanced website without leveraging IE. The assumption was that others would catch up, but when they did, they were not made fully compatible with IE.
OS/2 & WinNT & AIX already had a perfectly good PowerPC hardware spec called PReP. The problem was that nobody wanted WinNT-PPC and OS/2-PPC never shipped past beta (and nobody wanted it either). And the main reason for that is that PPC offered practically no advantage over Intel -- it was not really faster and it was much more expensive.
So PowerPC ended up in a situation where Apple was moving 99% of the desktop units. The idea that Apple was somehow going to drive WinNT or OS/2 adoption through CHRP was kind of silly. CHRP had nerd-appeal, but there really was no business case for it.
Lets see: * CHRP was an attempt to replicate PC-Clone economics for PowerPC * CHRP cratered * PowerPC became uneconomic * Apple belatedly switches to PC-Clones * You claim that Apple PC-Clones are reincarnation of CHRP.
No, that doesn't add up.
(I will agree that Apple will sell a lot of dual-boot boxes, espciallally when they start bundling Windows.)
Sort of. AFAIK, 32-bit Vista will still run Win16, but 64-bit does not due to changes in the CPU. Most consumer Vista systems are expected to be 64-bit.
In addition, some versions of Vista will ship with VirtualPC.
Interesting -- This used to be the default behavior of Firefox. They disabled it because they're allocating memory in some wierd way that causes massive swapping when you restore a minimized window. See bug 76831. Most Windows apps seem to "trim on minimize".
Installing Windows after Linux/BSD is really not very difficult. All you need to do is run four or five obscure Unix commands, which is situation normal for Linux/BSD users.
You gotta remember that Apple spent 15 years telling their customers how commandlines were EVIL and every feature should be behind a nice looking button. Unfortnately for Apple some of these customers actually believed them.
Yes -- The term "OEM" is misused, and "System Builder" is probably a better fit.
"System builder" means an original equipment manufacturer, or an assembler, reassembler, or installer of software on computer systems.
So, there appears to be no problem with buying Macs from Apple, installing OEM Windows, and reselling the WinMacs, as long as you are providing support for Windows.
IIRC, file locking is a feature implemented only by Windows
BS. File-locking is an old DOS feature that's been implemented in almost every NOS used, including OS/2 and Netware.
Unix's versoin of file-locking is a kludge IMO. Not that it matters, because at this point almost every "PC" application expects it to work a certain way and it's not a philosophical question about how to implement it. (However Windows could come with better tools to deal with locked files.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the line is "They might be dumb, but they ain't stupid". Meaning MS isn't thinking "Doy, wotsa permission?" like some folks seem to be implying.
The real difficulty in editing is determining what to cut, and you're basically saying that Wikipedia can take a pass on this. Regardless of interest level, Wikipedia is still an encycopedia and not a complete reference work on everything that ever existed.
When one can find Wikipedia articles that discuss Starship Enterprise as if it were real, or every single aspect of a WWE plotline, one realizes that certain groups are basically using Wikipedia as their personal fanboy dumping grounds.
I'm not really blaming Wikipedia itself, only pointing out that it's unfortuante there are not more editors with the attitude of "too long", "who cares", and "take it to your blog" that are actively going around taking a big axe to certain areas.
Since those closest to you on the network are likely to give you the highest speeds, indirectly it already does what you ask of it.
Unfortuantely, that's not true of most residential connections. Even though someone is next door to me, their DSL still only uploads at 128kbps.
Maybe the argument is that ISPs should support uncapped in-network transfers to reduce bandwidth costs, but I think from their perspective they would rather not encourage any sort of P2P.
I'm sure this has really nothing to do with BSD TCP/IP and everything to do with some programmer thinking "DUH, let's add a etc directory". Since they had to recode the thing, they could have put these files whereever they wanted.
why not just type "unlimited bandwidth" into google
I see a bunch of hosting providers, where the payment model is totally different than home broadband and therefore irrelvant to the discussion.
an alternate reality where Bush won the election,
OK, you're the second weirdo in row who made the bizarre illogical jump from "apolitical statement about the technology industry" to "Bush supporter". As a leftie, I think it's pretty sad that Democrats are so used to being rhetorically bitchslapped that they automatically associate any winning argument with the GOP.
I disagree quite strongly. There's very little argument that general Internet users want more than "a megabit or two", and wireless access will be massively appealing to the consumer (50% laptop sales), rather than waiting for Google to put a few thousand 802.11 hotspots in your town.
Just from a capitalist perspective, wireless has phenomononly lower infrastructure costs than Wireline. Look at the massive debt taken on by the Cable companies, and that's for something that everyone wants (television) -- what investor would replicate that when they can just throw up some cheap towers?
I suspect you'll be waiting a long time for gigabit ethernet to come into your house, and, if it does, the high bandwidth will be tied to a closed service (like AT&T VOD) and you won't have more than "a megabit or two" available for general internet access/P2P.
> If you think wireless poses any threat to cable or telephone companies, you are very wrong.
AT&T/Cingular and Verizon are the phone compaines.
No, you're wrong about that too. Maybe if you can't get a single fact right, you should stop posting.
You claimed there is no advantage except to MS Antispyware. That's factually wrong.
I also question if this is a "problem". Look -- if the ISPs came and offered a 10mbps service for $80/month, how many people would take them up on it?
Joe Websufer doesn't need anything faster than standard broadband, and even most P2Pers leech by on a standard connection -- you'd have to be pretty hardcore to pay big $ for a "business" SDSL connection, just so you can pirate stuff. It's counter-intuitive.
Furthermore, no sane company is going to make a multi-billion dollar investment in something that really only has piracy applications. Not to mention the whole "wire coming into your house" is going to be obsolete at some point as wirelesss broadband services get rolled out.
Which is why you have AT&T talking about establishing their own VOD services and so on. There's simply very little justification for opening the bandwidth floodgates otherwise.
The problem with that is the big boys (such as Comcast) advertise always-on unlimited service.
Maybe back in the 1990s they did use the word "unlimited", but I think you'd have trouble finding any sort of recent examples of advertisements with this term.
And if you are claiming that "most people" bought broadband to use P2P, that is clearly wrong. (And iTMS is not P2P either.) ISPs might have allowed this behavior during the early-adoptor phase, but that was a long long time ago now. Even customers that hop on Kazaa and download a few songs are small potatos compared to the real P2Pers.
It seems like you believe that you somehow deserve to use massive bandwidth for a flat fee, using a raft of paperthin justifications and imaginary promises of "unlimited" bandwidth. I agree that it would be nice if it were true.
Actually, there's an anti-spyware available from Windows Update called "Malicous Software Removal Tool". I think it only targets the most common and popular types of hacks,
In unix, security and permissions are the foundation, on top of which everything is built. In windows, security is a hack that was added on later with no due consideration during the initial design phase of windows. It's no wonder it's next to impossible to get it to work the way you want it to.
In Unix, "root process can change the hosts file" would be rejected as NOTABUG, and the user would be told to use better security practices.
In Windows where Microsoft is in the awkward position of trying to protect the system against administrative users. For years they said the same thing, but the cold reality of millions of trojaned systems slapped them in the face and forced them to do the "wrong" thing.
I'm sure they're not stupid, it's an unwinnable game until people use good security practices. But the shortterm cost/benefit is there -- by mucking with the IP stack, they can maybe break some stupid trojans and get a few million people to clean up their systems? It's ugly but maybe it works.
Well, as it says in the link, it wasn't really GA, you had to get it through special channels.
OS/2-PPC was interesting in that it was a total rewrite of the OS/2 kernel to put it on the same level as NT. However by 1996, IBM was backing away from OS/2, so there really was no point.
>First, MS transformed the game from producing a web browser to producing a programmable application front end.
Netscape was the "first mover" on that with Java and DHTML. Netscape's founder even bragged about making Win32 unncecessary.
>Second, MS created an excessively forgiving browser. This allowed management to promote the creation of malformed content that would still work.
The early philosophy of HTML was to be forgiving, almost everyone supported that idea. Nutscrape's browsers were extremely forgiving (and buggy), and almost all existing HTML was malformed. This forced MS to create a browser that was even more forgiving than Netscape for compaibility. As Mozilla discovered, being strict about compatibility is not the way to marketshare glory.
>However, way too often I see managment created employee resources, resources that employees are expected to access from anywhere and often critical to the job, only run in IE
Having been involved in some of this, I can explain. Internet Explorer was at least 5 years ahead in terms of technology. Netscape hadn't released a new browser since 1996. There was simply no way to build an advanced website without leveraging IE. The assumption was that others would catch up, but when they did, they were not made fully compatible with IE.
That was the non-production beta I alluded to. Real thing never shipped.
See here for more info.
OS/2 & WinNT & AIX already had a perfectly good PowerPC hardware spec called PReP. The problem was that nobody wanted WinNT-PPC and OS/2-PPC never shipped past beta (and nobody wanted it either). And the main reason for that is that PPC offered practically no advantage over Intel -- it was not really faster and it was much more expensive.
So PowerPC ended up in a situation where Apple was moving 99% of the desktop units. The idea that Apple was somehow going to drive WinNT or OS/2 adoption through CHRP was kind of silly. CHRP had nerd-appeal, but there really was no business case for it.
Lets see:
* CHRP was an attempt to replicate PC-Clone economics for PowerPC
* CHRP cratered
* PowerPC became uneconomic
* Apple belatedly switches to PC-Clones
* You claim that Apple PC-Clones are reincarnation of CHRP.
No, that doesn't add up.
(I will agree that Apple will sell a lot of dual-boot boxes, espciallally when they start bundling Windows.)
Sort of. AFAIK, 32-bit Vista will still run Win16, but 64-bit does not due to changes in the CPU. Most consumer Vista systems are expected to be 64-bit.
In addition, some versions of Vista will ship with VirtualPC.
Interesting -- This used to be the default behavior of Firefox. They disabled it because they're allocating memory in some wierd way that causes massive swapping when you restore a minimized window. See bug 76831. Most Windows apps seem to "trim on minimize".
Anyways, thanks for the tip.
Installing Windows after Linux/BSD is really not very difficult. All you need to do is run four or five obscure Unix commands, which is situation normal for Linux/BSD users.
You gotta remember that Apple spent 15 years telling their customers how commandlines were EVIL and every feature should be behind a nice looking button. Unfortnately for Apple some of these customers actually believed them.
You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. The original Castle Wolfenstien was for the Apple II.
So, there appears to be no problem with buying Macs from Apple, installing OEM Windows, and reselling the WinMacs, as long as you are providing support for Windows.
Most games have forgotten the original Castle Wolfenstein game, apparently including you.
IIRC, file locking is a feature implemented only by Windows
BS. File-locking is an old DOS feature that's been implemented in almost every NOS used, including OS/2 and Netware.
Unix's versoin of file-locking is a kludge IMO. Not that it matters, because at this point almost every "PC" application expects it to work a certain way and it's not a philosophical question about how to implement it. (However Windows could come with better tools to deal with locked files.)