1. Use a Mac. Even then, IE is the default, but you aren't forced to run it, like in Windows. However, you do still have to pay for it.
Have you ever seen Mozilla on a Mac? Moz on windows is getting pretty usable, on Unix it's okay, but it's still pretty bad on a Mac. Considering IE on a Mac is superior to the windows version, I'd venture to say that IE is actually the better choice on a Mac. Personally I prefer Mozilla myself, but on Windows there's the integration thing... thus sort of hard to convince people that they should try something new.
Seems to me AOL doesn't really need money from this avenue. Personally I think this is just another stunt by AOL to poke Microsoft in the eye, and gather more bad PR against MS.
Now personally I use ogg/vorbis, but by this time there are more than enough posts supporting it. I'd just point out that maybe you should think ahead in terms of where the file format will be.
Why use an open format? Because in the end that's the only choice that makes sence. What program will you use down the road to play these things? With WMA MS owns the format, and thus can dictate who can play their files. What if they charge you a subscription fee just to use the program in the future? Who knows what they'll do, and they can do whatever they want - they have the rights to the format. You might also think about portability, and choice. If you don't like Winamp 7, you can use Sonique 5 or whatever. Chances are any player worth anything will have a plugin for ogg. With WMA, again it's up to Microsoft. What OS will you be using? It might not be MS or Linux. It may be something else entirely. Will you have to dump your collection because there isn't a player for that OS? I could go on and on, but you get the picture...
Sort of reminds me of Jamie Zawinski leaving Netscape a while after the AOL takeover... I'm not sure I disagree with Red hat being bought out, but it seems to me once a big time corporation takes over that they would probably lose focus. (On the other hand Winamp seems fine {unlike ICQ} so maybe things wouldn't be so bad).
Er... This movie seems to me more about real events. In reality people aren't characters they are simply themselves. And in times of war, single people generally do not rise above the rest to become a hero. And a "plot" to me would imply that they would try to construe a story which didn't really happen. What the movie is about is an event. "Here's what happened" (or our approximation of it), and that's it. I guess if you want more plot and character development you'd be better off seeing something more fictional. On the other hand, there are some movies about WWII that focus around a plot with characters, AND are fairly accurate - so maybe it's more about the situation.
Does this mean that the "BSD is dyeing" guy is going to finally update his message to include Linux?
Re:I support it as a server over debian linux
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure this guy should be moderated down as a troll since I find what he says to be somewhat true. I used Linux for a while before I switched to FreeBSD (which I'm much more happy with). The first thing to keep in mind is that of course BSD expects you to do your howework. No cute configureation utilities with BSD. But with that said, (as the post above states) there are gaping holes with certain parts of the install. My main gripe was also with Window Maker and bash. I mean if I choose bash for a shell, I would hope that the correct rc/profiles are copied (or even created) but they are not. Window Maker I found to be especially annoying. If I use Window Maker I would EXPECT that the X apps that I installed would be on the menu. Again this isn't the case. You instead end up with a generic config - much of which was a bunch of things on the menu for things I didn't even install (thus pointed off into lala land).
Now some people say FreeBSD isn't a desktop OS. To me FreeBSD is as much a desktop OS as Linux is for the most part. KDE is KDE as far as I'm concerned, reguardless of OS. But there are some people (such as myself) that like to use X on more serious machines in order to see more than one terminal window at once, for which a lower footprint WM like Window Maker or fvwm are perfect.
It's just a bit of nit-picking about BSD. If they are going to offer the option, then they need to pull their head out of their arse and CONFIGURE that option (not the half assed here you go, figure it out yourself).
I wonder why AOL would be interested in Red Hat over Mandrake? Red Hat seems like it has more of a serious buisness oriented approach for a distro, while Mandrake is more user/home oriented, and actually has some name recognition too. Guess I'd feel a little better if AOL bought an "everything but the kitchen sink" distro they probably couldn't bloat any farther.
Um, I think his point is that most people think that Red Hat IS Linux. A the few people I know that even know about Linux seem to think Linux is on version 7.2 (wonder where they got that idea). Sad to say, but I don't most people really GET the idea of a distro.
100 million? If they're lucky. Remember it's not just windows we're talking about here, it's the entire MS integration empire. Once again MS's buisness practices come back to haunt it. It's not just the OS, it's everything that is INTEGRATED into the OS, and that is just about every freaking MS application. If MS wouldn't be so bent on integrating everything, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near as hard to secure. Now they'd have to look at breaking many of their major applications just to seal off obvious gaping holes in the system.
To me it seems it isn't so much about Lisp education, as it is about having and aptitude to program in Lisp in the first place. Languages like Java and C++ concentrate on letting us model things in the real world and such - very strait foreward. By contrast Lisp is a language where you actually have to think differently. If you try to make a linear program with Lisp, you are probably missing the point. I guess I'd venture to say that you can't just take your run of the mill VB programmer and expect them to really grasp Lisp unless they can re-think the way they program. Some can; Most cannot.
sort of. Jupiter is called a gas giant because it's.. made out of gas. The deeper you get into the atmosphere, the higher the pressure. Assumably there is probably a few miles between the gas layer (atmosphere), and the liquid layer (forced under pressure) which is in a gray area, that isn't really either.
burning up the probe isn't even so much of an issue with Jupiter. Considering the intense gravitational field of the planet, it's pretty hard NOT to hit Jupiter. Aside from burning up, you can rest assured that whatever you toss into the planet, isn't going to come out - and will be sufficently crushed under a few billion pounds of pressure.
i doubt MS would do this. It seems to me that if.net was ported, that most of the development would happen on windows (no surprise), but the implementation would happen more often on BSD due to the fact that BSD is, in most respects; superior to any windows version (and far easier to secure). And what would you use to serve these web services on FreeBSD? IIS? (har har), no Apache of course - And to me that would be like MS almost admitting that IIS is a heap of crap..net will be tied to IIS, IIS will be tied to Windows[insert version here]. In the end it's vaporware to piss of Linux advocates.
And MS Office on BSD? I don't THINK so! I'm sure bill gates would rather use a flaming x-box as a hat while riding around on a penguin on the front yard of AOL headquarters before that happens.
Yeah, I find it rather odd that Samsung gave them the shaft. I mean Tom's is a fairly respectable site. I find it hard to believe that sending out an LCD for a review is a lot more expensive than a TV add. And at least on a hardware review page you have people that are actually interested in purchasing one (or at least want to know more about it), as opposed to prime time TV ads that get shown to people like joe-bob in the trailer park who doesn't even own a computer. Samsung needs to get with the program. From what I've seen, most people into computer stuff do not read magazines for their information. I know I don't. Most computer magazines that I get at work, have week old information I've already read up on many times over on the web. I don't like sifting through magazines that are 80% microsoft ads, nor do I think it's worth paying for them. To me, I can probably visit 5 or 6 hardware sites and get a much better picture of what's going on, than reading a magazine.
Re:Server != production server; other reasons
on
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
·
· Score: 1
If FreeBSD doesn't support your network card, your video card, or your sound card, what are you supposed to run on your workstation?
What if Win2k/XP doesn't support your sound/video card? Do you switch to Linux? Probably not - you get a different card, or try something else. It's a valid point, but that sword cuts both ways.
if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff
As pure speculation, I'd venture to say they couldn't do as well as Apache. Microsoft making something, clean, efficent, extensable and open would be a feat within itself. In my opinion MS would have a hard time dealing with two things. 1) Not integrating with the entire OS or some other half related application. 2) Security mindset - running nothing with root permissions (unless absolutely neccesary). I mean if the only people that used Apache used it because it was free, it would probably only have the same marketshare as Linux...
well that's not entirely true. If the place that I worked suddenly switched to Linux, I'd get a call every 2 minutes asking how to do something.
By contrast most people are already somewhat familiar with windows. When they call me, I tell them to keep rebooting until it works. After about 3 times they figure this out for themselves. Assuming that only one in 10 computers (totaly un-verifiable claim) has a critical problem that means windows can't boot anymore, or the program is corrupted - I can support around 30 desktops. =P
Slashdot Mirror
I guess this is for; as they say, "enthusiests". I think pretty much all modern UNIX archetecutes have surpassed any code in what has been released.
And to my dismay it doesn't include Xenix. Would have been nice to finally have an open source Microsoft product =P
This is slashdot. If you're over 50 you only get respect if you have long hair, a beard, use ed, and still write everything in assembly.
1. Use a Mac. Even then, IE is the default, but you aren't forced to run it, like in Windows. However, you do still have to pay for it.
Have you ever seen Mozilla on a Mac? Moz on windows is getting pretty usable, on Unix it's okay, but it's still pretty bad on a Mac. Considering IE on a Mac is superior to the windows version, I'd venture to say that IE is actually the better choice on a Mac. Personally I prefer Mozilla myself, but on Windows there's the integration thing... thus sort of hard to convince people that they should try something new.
Seems to me AOL doesn't really need money from this avenue. Personally I think this is just another stunt by AOL to poke Microsoft in the eye, and gather more bad PR against MS.
Now personally I use ogg/vorbis, but by this time there are more than enough posts supporting it. I'd just point out that maybe you should think ahead in terms of where the file format will be.
Why use an open format? Because in the end that's the only choice that makes sence. What program will you use down the road to play these things? With WMA MS owns the format, and thus can dictate who can play their files. What if they charge you a subscription fee just to use the program in the future? Who knows what they'll do, and they can do whatever they want - they have the rights to the format. You might also think about portability, and choice. If you don't like Winamp 7, you can use Sonique 5 or whatever. Chances are any player worth anything will have a plugin for ogg. With WMA, again it's up to Microsoft. What OS will you be using? It might not be MS or Linux. It may be something else entirely. Will you have to dump your collection because there isn't a player for that OS? I could go on and on, but you get the picture...
AOL-only OS
Surely this would be the ultamate horror unto itself. I'm getting visions of Mac OS on crack with annoying "You've got mail" type messeges everywhere.
Tech support nightmare
"This is tech support, what OS do you have"
"Uh... I have that AOL Operating system, my thingy doesn't work"
"Noooooooo!"
Maybe you should try an open source alternative first like Miranda ICQ. Which is in my opinion, superior to any other IM client I've seen.
Sort of reminds me of Jamie Zawinski leaving Netscape a while after the AOL takeover... I'm not sure I disagree with Red hat being bought out, but it seems to me once a big time corporation takes over that they would probably lose focus. (On the other hand Winamp seems fine {unlike ICQ} so maybe things wouldn't be so bad).
What next, a plot spoilage warning on the History Channel?
Considering the education level of kids now days - that could be a valid concern...
Er... This movie seems to me more about real events. In reality people aren't characters they are simply themselves. And in times of war, single people generally do not rise above the rest to become a hero. And a "plot" to me would imply that they would try to construe a story which didn't really happen. What the movie is about is an event. "Here's what happened" (or our approximation of it), and that's it. I guess if you want more plot and character development you'd be better off seeing something more fictional. On the other hand, there are some movies about WWII that focus around a plot with characters, AND are fairly accurate - so maybe it's more about the situation.
Does this mean that the "BSD is dyeing" guy is going to finally update his message to include Linux?
I'm not sure this guy should be moderated down as a troll since I find what he says to be somewhat true. I used Linux for a while before I switched to FreeBSD (which I'm much more happy with). The first thing to keep in mind is that of course BSD expects you to do your howework. No cute configureation utilities with BSD. But with that said, (as the post above states) there are gaping holes with certain parts of the install. My main gripe was also with Window Maker and bash. I mean if I choose bash for a shell, I would hope that the correct rc/profiles are copied (or even created) but they are not. Window Maker I found to be especially annoying. If I use Window Maker I would EXPECT that the X apps that I installed would be on the menu. Again this isn't the case. You instead end up with a generic config - much of which was a bunch of things on the menu for things I didn't even install (thus pointed off into lala land).
Now some people say FreeBSD isn't a desktop OS. To me FreeBSD is as much a desktop OS as Linux is for the most part. KDE is KDE as far as I'm concerned, reguardless of OS. But there are some people (such as myself) that like to use X on more serious machines in order to see more than one terminal window at once, for which a lower footprint WM like Window Maker or fvwm are perfect.
It's just a bit of nit-picking about BSD. If they are going to offer the option, then they need to pull their head out of their arse and CONFIGURE that option (not the half assed here you go, figure it out yourself).
comming soon, an X emulator for Linux.
You're goign to emulate WHAT?
I wonder why AOL would be interested in Red Hat over Mandrake? Red Hat seems like it has more of a serious buisness oriented approach for a distro, while Mandrake is more user/home oriented, and actually has some name recognition too. Guess I'd feel a little better if AOL bought an "everything but the kitchen sink" distro they probably couldn't bloat any farther.
Um, I think his point is that most people think that Red Hat IS Linux. A the few people I know that even know about Linux seem to think Linux is on version 7.2 (wonder where they got that idea). Sad to say, but I don't most people really GET the idea of a distro.
100 million? If they're lucky. Remember it's not just windows we're talking about here, it's the entire MS integration empire. Once again MS's buisness practices come back to haunt it. It's not just the OS, it's everything that is INTEGRATED into the OS, and that is just about every freaking MS application. If MS wouldn't be so bent on integrating everything, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near as hard to secure. Now they'd have to look at breaking many of their major applications just to seal off obvious gaping holes in the system.
To me it seems it isn't so much about Lisp education, as it is about having and aptitude to program in Lisp in the first place. Languages like Java and C++ concentrate on letting us model things in the real world and such - very strait foreward. By contrast Lisp is a language where you actually have to think differently. If you try to make a linear program with Lisp, you are probably missing the point. I guess I'd venture to say that you can't just take your run of the mill VB programmer and expect them to really grasp Lisp unless they can re-think the way they program. Some can; Most cannot.
sort of. Jupiter is called a gas giant because it's.. made out of gas. The deeper you get into the atmosphere, the higher the pressure. Assumably there is probably a few miles between the gas layer (atmosphere), and the liquid layer (forced under pressure) which is in a gray area, that isn't really either.
burning up the probe isn't even so much of an issue with Jupiter. Considering the intense gravitational field of the planet, it's pretty hard NOT to hit Jupiter. Aside from burning up, you can rest assured that whatever you toss into the planet, isn't going to come out - and will be sufficently crushed under a few billion pounds of pressure.
i doubt MS would do this. It seems to me that if .net was ported, that most of the development would happen on windows (no surprise), but the implementation would happen more often on BSD due to the fact that BSD is, in most respects; superior to any windows version (and far easier to secure). And what would you use to serve these web services on FreeBSD? IIS? (har har), no Apache of course - And to me that would be like MS almost admitting that IIS is a heap of crap. .net will be tied to IIS, IIS will be tied to Windows[insert version here]. In the end it's vaporware to piss of Linux advocates.
And MS Office on BSD? I don't THINK so! I'm sure bill gates would rather use a flaming x-box as a hat while riding around on a penguin on the front yard of AOL headquarters before that happens.
A nice jewl case with an insert that doesn't look like a crappy inkjet printout.
Yeah, I find it rather odd that Samsung gave them the shaft. I mean Tom's is a fairly respectable site. I find it hard to believe that sending out an LCD for a review is a lot more expensive than a TV add. And at least on a hardware review page you have people that are actually interested in purchasing one (or at least want to know more about it), as opposed to prime time TV ads that get shown to people like joe-bob in the trailer park who doesn't even own a computer. Samsung needs to get with the program. From what I've seen, most people into computer stuff do not read magazines for their information. I know I don't. Most computer magazines that I get at work, have week old information I've already read up on many times over on the web. I don't like sifting through magazines that are 80% microsoft ads, nor do I think it's worth paying for them. To me, I can probably visit 5 or 6 hardware sites and get a much better picture of what's going on, than reading a magazine.
If FreeBSD doesn't support your network card, your video card, or your sound card, what are you supposed to run on your workstation?
What if Win2k/XP doesn't support your sound/video card? Do you switch to Linux? Probably not - you get a different card, or try something else. It's a valid point, but that sword cuts both ways.
if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff
As pure speculation, I'd venture to say they couldn't do as well as Apache. Microsoft making something, clean, efficent, extensable and open would be a feat within itself. In my opinion MS would have a hard time dealing with two things. 1) Not integrating with the entire OS or some other half related application. 2) Security mindset - running nothing with root permissions (unless absolutely neccesary). I mean if the only people that used Apache used it because it was free, it would probably only have the same marketshare as Linux...
well that's not entirely true. If the place that I worked suddenly switched to Linux, I'd get a call every 2 minutes asking how to do something.
By contrast most people are already somewhat familiar with windows. When they call me, I tell them to keep rebooting until it works. After about 3 times they figure this out for themselves. Assuming that only one in 10 computers (totaly un-verifiable claim) has a critical problem that means windows can't boot anymore, or the program is corrupted - I can support around 30 desktops. =P