You would find that I do indeed "bitch" about Linux as well. I am only suggesting that perhaps, this is a socio-political reason.
That is really why I choose to never own a Mac. I do indeed like the hardware. The first computer with a hard drive in my household was a Mac.
As for your presumption that I believe that Linux is the answer to everything. Get off of your high horse. I believe that there is a solution for every situation and it isn't always the same solution for every thing.
You would also notice that I mentioned that with WINDOWS AND LINUX, you can change the appearance of the desktop numorous ways.
I have also been involved in putting together a number of higher end workstations for everything from CAD, video editing and music creation. Of course, those clients asked for Windows and that was their choice.
What is important isn't necesarily what is the best for the job. It is what the client asks for. As they would be the one using the solution and they need to use the one that they are most comfortable with.
While I do advocate the use of Linux, it is best to advocate for areas and people that are open to looking at Linux. To do otherwise would simply be a waste of time. That is one thing that took me some considerable time to learn.
...it is the "Think Diferent" marketing thing they have, while it is really more like Henry Ford and the Model-T.
"You can have one in any color as long as it is black." - Henry Ford
Steve Jobs does have diferent colored cutesy boxes, but you are very limited as to what you can do with the OS. Just look at the legal action against groups that think diferent and came up with a way to alter their desktop theme. I suppose there are also countless other things that Apple has proclaimed as evil, whenever a user or group of users wanted to "Think Diferent" than the Apple groupthink.
That is why I will personally never own a Mac. Sure, they make good hardware, sure the OS is pretty easy to use and functional. The thing that sucks, is you really can't think diferently than the Apple party line. It makes it sound a little like a dictatorship.
At least with Linux and Windows, there is nothing wrong with you changing the entire layout of the desktop and you have nearly limitless choices of what you can do with your system.
People just don't like Dictators.. Don't ask me why...
I just find it terribly frustrating that I am forced to buy the latest and greatest version of Caligari's TrueSpace, simply to be able to create some, nifty to me, 3D rendered objects.
I am not made of money. So, I have taken one of my old extra HDs and tossed an older version of Windows. Simply to be able to run that application and create some art. It is not a pretty fix, but it is one that does function for me.
To get back to the point. Backward compatibility is an incredibly important aspect of an Operating System and even a hardware architecture. To simply put it, for every person that has the money to buy all the latest and "greatest" whiz-bang programs, operating systems and hardware. There are at least a thousand that are unable to afford all of those whiz-bang new toys.
If you have package management, this is easy. rpm -e kde1-compat kde1-compat-devel. Done.
Wonderful, now go and tell that to the barely computer literate masses that GNOME and even KDE are being designed for. They will look at you with a "What the heck did you just say? RP..What?"
Sure, you can just blow them off and say that they need to get back to running Windows. The only thing is, they have the same trouble with Windows. It is mostly that computers, in general, are still to dificult to use for the average person.
I know what I am saying, because I have family. They are also very technically illiterate and have very little wish to really learn how to do anything technical with a computer system.
As for having prior DirectX versions in the latest release. That I doubt. I have more than a few apps and games that fail to run under newer releases of DirectX. Some that fail to run even under the "Compatibility Feature" in 2000 and XP.
These apps and games are also not very old either. About 3 years for one and about 5 years for another one of the first DirectX 2.0 Games.
Recompiling the app would be great. If you still had the source laying about. Typical users will more than likely only download pre-compiled binaries for their platform. Unless I am mistaken, I am not a programmer, there is next to no possibility of getting the source out of that precompiled app.
It is also no big deal to technically inclined folks. However, it is not an easy thing to ask end-users. People that KDE and GNOME are being designed to be used by.
Only thing is that "feature" fails to work with several... I guess you don't call them applications... games. For one, I am a mechwarrior fan and wanted to play Mechwarrior2:Merceanaries on my Windows 2000 running laptop, which has that "feature" as well.
When it failed, I gave it a go on one of the XP Home machines at work. It failed there as well.
I also have an easy to use CAD application that I love to play with. Unfortunately, it will never run on any version of Windows after installing the latest release of DirectX, or Windows NT after installing DirectX 3.0 on it.
Sure, I am pissed about that. It sucks, but that is life.
The download for that Compatibility feature to be added to Windows 2000 Professional was also very tiny. I recall it was less than a few megabytes. I could be wrong on its size though.
I would have to agree with the primary poster here. I do think that it is good to keep that backward compatibility. It is also good to see that the GNOME team is working on a backward compatibility feature...
However, I have to be a stinker and say this... How many diferent revisions are you going to need to keep on your hard drive to be able to run that really old 1.x GNOME app when there is no GNOME 8.x version available? Does this mean that we will have all the versions of the GNOME stuff on our hard drives at the same time? Of course that would be if GNOME stays GNOME up to a version 8.0.
Of course, with hard drives getting as big as they are... it really shouldn't matter... Of course since all the apps will be looking for these things in similiar or close to similiar areas that can get to be one helluva large directory.
What do you do when you get rid of your 1.x legacy apps? Hunt down all the 1.x GNOME Libraries?
I agree about group jargon being used to program and deprogram people. However, in Corporate America many of the higher ups have been so brainwashed into believing most everything that comes out of Microsoft representatives mouths that it only serves to play into Microsoft's hands by using such terminology.
Microsoft tells the CTO and CIO that those Open Source people are a bunch of immature, unclean geeks. Then someone spouts off, "Micro$oft, Microserf, Windoze, Wintendo" and a host of other incorrect names for their products. The Microsoft rep then simply says, "I told you so..."
So, in America, it is important to advocate in an intelligent fashion that appears mature to the heads of corporate IT departments. That would have a great deal to do with the Puritan values that, unfortunately, pervade much of American society.
A new bill sponsored by Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL has been put forward that will allow these companies to enter your home and install their own software and bill you for the privilage.
Dubbed the "Anti-OSS-Cancerous-Terrorist-Bill" by its detractors, the SSSCA appears to have bi-partisan support. Quoted one senator, "Who wants this cancerous open sores nonsense? We are protecting Americans from the dangers of terrorism, as well as giving our friends the protections they desperately need to survive in this tough economy. I mean look at how terrible things are for Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL!"
Long time consumer advocate Ralph Nader responded by saying, "Windows acts like Pintos and now there will be legislation making Pintos the only car people can drive? What farcical nonsense is this? This crap never would have happened if more people had voted their conscience rather than simply voting for the guy that thought would win. I am writing a new book about it called 'Unsafe at any Megahertz'."
Those same PR psychologists also apparently know how to make Linux Advocates look like a bunch of immature, unwashed freaks. Which is what we all look like when people go about spouting "Mickeyshaft" and other inane false names.
When Microsoft execs do it. They are simply looked upon as visionaries that are making valid comparisons that the "common" man is able to understand. So, there is a diference and you aare simply feeding into what they want us to look like.
You sir, or madame, are making me look bad. I advocate Linux. So, I look like an unwashed, immature social retard that is unable to clearly and concisely get across my points. The second I open up my mouth and mention Linux. People think in their heads, "Not another one of those immature morons."
Of course, if I started downplaying Linux and using Microsoft's words. I suddenly look like a genius! Why is that? Well, it has a little to do with PR. Something that Linux users, advocates and contributors really need to learn how to do.
Once we learn how to look like we are suits. Then we can say all the "truths" we want to say. People will then take notice and say, "Those people that use Linux, they are so awesome." Until then, mention Linux to most people and you look like a unclean heathen.
As for hearing Linux Torvalds talk. I have never had the chance to be anywhere near him. I have been far to busy learning all I can about IT, working 2 jobs and hunting for a home to be able to attend any conventions.
Hopefully, one I have completed my training and certification tests. I will be able to take some time and really work on properly advocating Linux. If I had the time, I would do my very best to become a vocal leader in advocating Linux the best I can.
In the meantime, I will do my best to battle immaturity in the ranks.
So, I spelled a few things wrong. It happens when you are tired. My mistake, I really must apologize for the improper spelling of the acronym for Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, which is the correct title.
Unlike you, who go and incorrectly correct someone. Then you use such disdainful language.
How am I the pot calling the kettle black? That makes absolutely no sense in this situation. As I was far from being childish. If I was being what you suggest, I would have written "MC$E" of "Monkey-C". So, your logic escapes reason.
I run a Linux users group and I also advocate Linux for what it is good for. I personally believe that every platform has its use.
However, I have a problem with insipid people like yourself that need to show how immature they are by using "M$" or "Wintendo" instead of calling the products by their real names. Personally, I am not fond of Celeron Processors, but I don't go about calling them "Celery" processors. I am also not incredibly fond of Microsoft's business practices, but that doesn't mean that I need to refer to them as "Micro$oft"
The OS Windows, is not personally the best choice for all jobs, calling it "Windoze" or "Wintendo" simply shows that you are closed-minded about things.
If you wish to advocate or intelligently discuss the merits of your OS of choice, which is my OS of choice, you must do so in a mature fashion. Going into the offices of any business, to sell your wares or skills talking like that. May not only get you laughed out of their offices, but will surely keep you from getting their business or that job.
Furthermore, to call something, that you have admitted to not using, "Wintendo" simply shows your lack of mental width. As for myself, I am studying to become a Linux+, RHCE professional. I am also training to become and MSCE. Why would I do that? So that I can properly determine what is indeed the best solution for my clients or job to get their work done. If the client asks for Windows, they get Windows. If they ask for Solaris, guess what? They get Solaris. If they ask for Linux, they get Linux.
I am also becoming an MSCE so that I know the shortfalls of the Windows platform. The same holds true for learning all I can about the Unix and Linux in general. One thing is unable to be all the things to all the people. That is why you need to know all the things or enough that you can properly explain the benefits and the shortfalls of those systems.
I can agree with that truth. However, if Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CompUSA and any other retailer doesn't sell Mandrake or any other distro. Then the likelihood of them carrying Linux Applications will decrease.
They will think to themselves... "Why should we carry this Linux Application? We never sell that damn Operating System. Obviously, nobody anywhere wants to use the crap. Take it all off the shelves. We do better selling that Microsoft OS and all those THOUSANDS of applications that are out for it."
As for making money off of selling software. It is nearly negligable. The mark-up on most software packages is next to nothing. The publishing house makes the biggest piece of the profit. The retail store typically has only a few dollars, as in two to three bucks, on many software packages. A few have a slightly larger mark-up, typically never much better than a good 5 to 8 percent though.
As a for instance, the computer retail store that I work for has good distribution channels and is unable to get Norton System works for any less than a few bucks beneath the MSRP. After looking into it, the only way to increase our mark-up is to order something along the lines of 10,000 copies. We would be sitting on that for years.
Then the small guy that makes a sweet little Linux app. finds that nobody will sell his software on their shelves. Joe Computer-User never gets a chance to see any other Operating Systems, ever.
I can't wait until Mandrake 8.1 hits the shelves. While I have downloaded the latest version and have the 3 CD set and have also installed it. I would like to support Mandrake Financially.
I used to be unable to afford that. With my current job, I now can afford to support Linux companies. I have been happy with Mandrake's previous releases and would like to see that OS taken more seriously in the corporate and home user markets.
One way for this to happen is to generate real sales figures that give software houses the idea that there are enough installed Linux desktops that they could make a few bucks selling their wares.
Now, many of you believe that Linux doesn't need commercial apps. While that is true, Linux needs no commercial apps. Unless, Linux-users want their OS of choice to be taken seriously. The average PC user (Home or Corporate), will only take Linux as a serious operating system if there are readily available commercial applications.
I do my best to advocate Linux to as many people as possible and that is the one wall that I regularly run into. Where are the commercial apps? Where is the software on the shelves of [Insert_software_vendor_name_here]?
If you like Linux, love Linux and use Linux. Then support Linux, by buying your distros. Not only will it be good for the state of Linux companies, it will also help raise awarness of Linux in the minds of corporate [Insert_Country_Name_Here].
I am aware that NT had run on the Alpha processor. However, Windows was never designed to be an easily ported OS. Linux and several other operating systems, have been designed to be easily ported to other architectures and thus would have easily adapted to the newer 64-bit technologies.
Yes, there is an "innovation" issue with the Windows OS. The paper that I read mentioned that Intel was WAITING for Microsoft to be ready because they were having trouble with getting a Win64 OS to function. If Windows had been developed to be a portable OS, then we would, more than likely, be using 64-bit machines today and would be able to buy those from everywhere.
I am also aware that I can run the beta XP on the IA-64 and several versions of Linux. However, the price is way outside of my range, as I mentioned above.
Actually, I know of not a single mainframe running on Intel anythings. However, the programmers in the R&D team at my office program on PC desktops. Currently they are using Pentium III processors and are using a COBOL IDE.
I am all for moving forward with technology. I would also like to see what is being used for the forseeable future to be supported.
About a year and a half ago, I read a piece regarding Intel's soon to be launched 64-bit processor. An Intel engineer/marketing person(?) said that they were simply waiting for Microsoft to launch their Win64 Operating System.
At the time, the Linux kernel and at least a few other operating systems were ready to go on the new IA-64 processor. Unfortunately, it didn't get launched. I believe that if Intel had launched the CPU then many of us would be posting to Slashdot with a 64-bit Linux/*BSD or other OS. As quick as possible Microsoft would then have released their Win64! product, which would have been buggy and filled with BSODs. After a few months patches would be released and things would begin to stabilize.
Instead, we are still here sitting on our 32-bit systems waiting for the day when we can have true 64-bit power for our desktops. I for one, would love to see the 3D worlds that could be created with such a system. The amount of RAM that could be supported, the hard drive sizes and the impressive speed at which 3D renderings could be done would be beyond impressive.
So, is Microsoft hurting the consumer? You could say that. I am a consumer, I would love to have my hands on an Intel IA-64 or an AMD Sledgehammer processor. In a way Microsoft is hurting me by keeping the 64-bit technology outside of my grasp. Of course, I could buy a "Developer's" workstation, only thing is, I don't have that kind of money.
Then there is the idea of choice. I should be able to choose which components I want to run on the operating system I run. Of course, this option should be a choice available for power users. What if I want to rid my system of using Explorer for file management? What if I wanted to completly remove Internet Explorer? There are to many What-if's to put in here. Suffice to say, if Windows had more customizable features/services, similiar to Linux many people would be happier with the OS.
If I recall correctly the original specs for the P4 stated a much larger cache and higher FPU. Then Intel found out that they would have to sell them for some insane price, like 1200 bucks, to make any kind of profit.
So, what did they do?
They clipped the FPU down to practically nothing, cut down the cache. Broke the JIT functionality and made the chip only able to really churn out specially optimized C code with any kind of speed.
Sorry, but MANY companies still use and program in COBOL, FORTRAN and PASCAL. Before any of you claim those are "dead" languages, remember that these languages run programs that have been in use on mainframes, companies spent millions/billions on, for more than 20 years. COBOL recently had some WWW extensions started or discussed a year or two ago as well.
I honestly have to question Intel's future processor roadmaps and production products when they show off things that are really to pricey for them to mass produce. It would be awesome if Intel was able to release the P4 like the original specs were. I would have one right now. The only thing is they didn't and the chip just ramps up the megaherts, but doesn't really do all that much more.
How do you know that IIS isn't already based on Apache codebase? Isn't Apache based on something slightly older than IIS? (I am unsure, but I feel that the answer is yes.)
What you did is highly illegal. There is no backing out of it by saying, "I was just testing a theory."
What will end up happening is you are going to found out one day, if it is a smaller city that performs yearly audits and then you will find a FEDERAL WARRANT out for your arrest. This is because you performed a FEDERALLY PUNISHABLE CRIME. The only thing you can hope to get is a light sentence if you bring yourself down to the courthouse and get in touch with the right people.
You might get real lucky and have a slap on the wrist. However, the longer you wait the more likely you will go down in flames.
What you did sucks and I have no sympathy for you.
I believe that it would be a wrong decision to allow Gassee to provide business planning efforts or Palm. Don't get me wrong the BeOS was and partially still is a vrey remarkable operating system. I really enjoyed playing about with it.
It is just my opinion that Gassee should have taken Apple up on the offer back in the day. Of course we, more than likely, never would have seen BeOS on the x86 platform if that happened. At least the BeOS could be in greater general use than it is today.
While I do use Linux and I am far from afraid of the CLI. I really enjoy a very crisp, clean and attractive GUI environment. BeOS provided that and also gave me the CLI that I actually enjoy. I really hoped that BeOS would have taken more market share and continued to be a viable desktop platform.
Going into your local Best Buy, you will find a copy of Mandrake 7.2 or Mandrake 8.0. Both of these Linux Distros can be put into the drive of a Windows running machine. You can then proceed to install Lin4Win. This is a virtual ext2fs in a large file on a Fat32 partition.
This will allow you to install Linux using a Windows splash screen. The Mandrake install is also very easy to follow. While this does run slower than being on a native ext2fs or Reiserfs partition, it is an excellent introduction to the Linux operating system.
The type of watermarking that is under discussion here is digital sound recordings. This protection can be made to cause the CD-ROMs laser eye to skip all over the CD and do other little things.
When making a digital copy, that is without playing the sound through a set of speakers, this watermarking technology is effective. If this watermarking signal from simply playing the original was to be reproduced at an inaudible to human ears, how would a microphone pick it up? Better yet, if the human ear is unable to hear it. Whose ear is?
I suppose that would be one for PETA, once they find out that some form of animal life is harmed by the piercing sound that only they can hear.
Slashdot Mirror
You would find that I do indeed "bitch" about Linux as well. I am only suggesting that perhaps, this is a socio-political reason.
That is really why I choose to never own a Mac. I do indeed like the hardware. The first computer with a hard drive in my household was a Mac.
As for your presumption that I believe that Linux is the answer to everything. Get off of your high horse. I believe that there is a solution for every situation and it isn't always the same solution for every thing.
You would also notice that I mentioned that with WINDOWS AND LINUX, you can change the appearance of the desktop numorous ways.
I have also been involved in putting together a number of higher end workstations for everything from CAD, video editing and music creation. Of course, those clients asked for Windows and that was their choice.
What is important isn't necesarily what is the best for the job. It is what the client asks for. As they would be the one using the solution and they need to use the one that they are most comfortable with.
While I do advocate the use of Linux, it is best to advocate for areas and people that are open to looking at Linux. To do otherwise would simply be a waste of time. That is one thing that took me some considerable time to learn.
--
.sig seperator
--
"You can have one in any color as long as it is black." - Henry Ford
Steve Jobs does have diferent colored cutesy boxes, but you are very limited as to what you can do with the OS. Just look at the legal action against groups that think diferent and came up with a way to alter their desktop theme. I suppose there are also countless other things that Apple has proclaimed as evil, whenever a user or group of users wanted to "Think Diferent" than the Apple groupthink.
That is why I will personally never own a Mac. Sure, they make good hardware, sure the OS is pretty easy to use and functional. The thing that sucks, is you really can't think diferently than the Apple party line. It makes it sound a little like a dictatorship.
At least with Linux and Windows, there is nothing wrong with you changing the entire layout of the desktop and you have nearly limitless choices of what you can do with your system.
People just don't like Dictators.. Don't ask me why...
--
.sig seperator
--
I just find it terribly frustrating that I am forced to buy the latest and greatest version of Caligari's TrueSpace, simply to be able to create some, nifty to me, 3D rendered objects.
I am not made of money. So, I have taken one of my old extra HDs and tossed an older version of Windows. Simply to be able to run that application and create some art. It is not a pretty fix, but it is one that does function for me.
To get back to the point. Backward compatibility is an incredibly important aspect of an Operating System and even a hardware architecture. To simply put it, for every person that has the money to buy all the latest and "greatest" whiz-bang programs, operating systems and hardware. There are at least a thousand that are unable to afford all of those whiz-bang new toys.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you have package management, this is easy. rpm -e kde1-compat kde1-compat-devel. Done.
Wonderful, now go and tell that to the barely computer literate masses that GNOME and even KDE are being designed for. They will look at you with a "What the heck did you just say? RP..What?"
Sure, you can just blow them off and say that they need to get back to running Windows. The only thing is, they have the same trouble with Windows. It is mostly that computers, in general, are still to dificult to use for the average person.
I know what I am saying, because I have family. They are also very technically illiterate and have very little wish to really learn how to do anything technical with a computer system.
As for having prior DirectX versions in the latest release. That I doubt. I have more than a few apps and games that fail to run under newer releases of DirectX. Some that fail to run even under the "Compatibility Feature" in 2000 and XP.
These apps and games are also not very old either. About 3 years for one and about 5 years for another one of the first DirectX 2.0 Games.
--
.sig seperator
--
Recompiling the app would be great. If you still had the source laying about. Typical users will more than likely only download pre-compiled binaries for their platform. Unless I am mistaken, I am not a programmer, there is next to no possibility of getting the source out of that precompiled app.
It is also no big deal to technically inclined folks. However, it is not an easy thing to ask end-users. People that KDE and GNOME are being designed to be used by.
--
.sig seperator
--
Only thing is that "feature" fails to work with several... I guess you don't call them applications... games. For one, I am a mechwarrior fan and wanted to play Mechwarrior2:Merceanaries on my Windows 2000 running laptop, which has that "feature" as well.
When it failed, I gave it a go on one of the XP Home machines at work. It failed there as well.
I also have an easy to use CAD application that I love to play with. Unfortunately, it will never run on any version of Windows after installing the latest release of DirectX, or Windows NT after installing DirectX 3.0 on it.
Sure, I am pissed about that. It sucks, but that is life.
The download for that Compatibility feature to be added to Windows 2000 Professional was also very tiny. I recall it was less than a few megabytes. I could be wrong on its size though.
--
.sig seperator
--
I would have to agree with the primary poster here. I do think that it is good to keep that backward compatibility. It is also good to see that the GNOME team is working on a backward compatibility feature...
However, I have to be a stinker and say this... How many diferent revisions are you going to need to keep on your hard drive to be able to run that really old 1.x GNOME app when there is no GNOME 8.x version available? Does this mean that we will have all the versions of the GNOME stuff on our hard drives at the same time? Of course that would be if GNOME stays GNOME up to a version 8.0.
Of course, with hard drives getting as big as they are... it really shouldn't matter... Of course since all the apps will be looking for these things in similiar or close to similiar areas that can get to be one helluva large directory.
What do you do when you get rid of your 1.x legacy apps? Hunt down all the 1.x GNOME Libraries?
--
.sig seperator
--
I agree about group jargon being used to program and deprogram people. However, in Corporate America many of the higher ups have been so brainwashed into believing most everything that comes out of Microsoft representatives mouths that it only serves to play into Microsoft's hands by using such terminology.
Microsoft tells the CTO and CIO that those Open Source people are a bunch of immature, unclean geeks. Then someone spouts off, "Micro$oft, Microserf, Windoze, Wintendo" and a host of other incorrect names for their products. The Microsoft rep then simply says, "I told you so..."
So, in America, it is important to advocate in an intelligent fashion that appears mature to the heads of corporate IT departments. That would have a great deal to do with the Puritan values that, unfortunately, pervade much of American society.
--
.sig seperator
--
A new bill sponsored by Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL has been put forward that will allow these companies to enter your home and install their own software and bill you for the privilage.
Dubbed the "Anti-OSS-Cancerous-Terrorist-Bill" by its detractors, the SSSCA appears to have bi-partisan support. Quoted one senator, "Who wants this cancerous open sores nonsense? We are protecting Americans from the dangers of terrorism, as well as giving our friends the protections they desperately need to survive in this tough economy. I mean look at how terrible things are for Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and AOL!"
Long time consumer advocate Ralph Nader responded by saying, "Windows acts like Pintos and now there will be legislation making Pintos the only car people can drive? What farcical nonsense is this? This crap never would have happened if more people had voted their conscience rather than simply voting for the guy that thought would win. I am writing a new book about it called 'Unsafe at any Megahertz'."
--
.sig seperator
--
Those same PR psychologists also apparently know how to make Linux Advocates look like a bunch of immature, unwashed freaks. Which is what we all look like when people go about spouting "Mickeyshaft" and other inane false names.
When Microsoft execs do it. They are simply looked upon as visionaries that are making valid comparisons that the "common" man is able to understand. So, there is a diference and you aare simply feeding into what they want us to look like.
You sir, or madame, are making me look bad. I advocate Linux. So, I look like an unwashed, immature social retard that is unable to clearly and concisely get across my points. The second I open up my mouth and mention Linux. People think in their heads, "Not another one of those immature morons."
Of course, if I started downplaying Linux and using Microsoft's words. I suddenly look like a genius! Why is that? Well, it has a little to do with PR. Something that Linux users, advocates and contributors really need to learn how to do.
Once we learn how to look like we are suits. Then we can say all the "truths" we want to say. People will then take notice and say, "Those people that use Linux, they are so awesome." Until then, mention Linux to most people and you look like a unclean heathen.
--
.sig seperator
--
Let the MS execs make fools of themselves.
As for hearing Linux Torvalds talk. I have never had the chance to be anywhere near him. I have been far to busy learning all I can about IT, working 2 jobs and hunting for a home to be able to attend any conventions.
Hopefully, one I have completed my training and certification tests. I will be able to take some time and really work on properly advocating Linux. If I had the time, I would do my very best to become a vocal leader in advocating Linux the best I can.
In the meantime, I will do my best to battle immaturity in the ranks.
--
.sig seperato
--
So, I spelled a few things wrong. It happens when you are tired. My mistake, I really must apologize for the improper spelling of the acronym for Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, which is the correct title.
Unlike you, who go and incorrectly correct someone. Then you use such disdainful language.
How am I the pot calling the kettle black? That makes absolutely no sense in this situation. As I was far from being childish. If I was being what you suggest, I would have written "MC$E" of "Monkey-C". So, your logic escapes reason.
--
.sig seperator
--
I run a Linux users group and I also advocate Linux for what it is good for. I personally believe that every platform has its use.
However, I have a problem with insipid people like yourself that need to show how immature they are by using "M$" or "Wintendo" instead of calling the products by their real names. Personally, I am not fond of Celeron Processors, but I don't go about calling them "Celery" processors. I am also not incredibly fond of Microsoft's business practices, but that doesn't mean that I need to refer to them as "Micro$oft"
The OS Windows, is not personally the best choice for all jobs, calling it "Windoze" or "Wintendo" simply shows that you are closed-minded about things.
If you wish to advocate or intelligently discuss the merits of your OS of choice, which is my OS of choice, you must do so in a mature fashion. Going into the offices of any business, to sell your wares or skills talking like that. May not only get you laughed out of their offices, but will surely keep you from getting their business or that job.
Furthermore, to call something, that you have admitted to not using, "Wintendo" simply shows your lack of mental width. As for myself, I am studying to become a Linux+, RHCE professional. I am also training to become and MSCE. Why would I do that? So that I can properly determine what is indeed the best solution for my clients or job to get their work done. If the client asks for Windows, they get Windows. If they ask for Solaris, guess what? They get Solaris. If they ask for Linux, they get Linux.
I am also becoming an MSCE so that I know the shortfalls of the Windows platform. The same holds true for learning all I can about the Unix and Linux in general. One thing is unable to be all the things to all the people. That is why you need to know all the things or enough that you can properly explain the benefits and the shortfalls of those systems.
--
.sig seperator
--
I can agree with that truth. However, if Wal-Mart, Best Buy, CompUSA and any other retailer doesn't sell Mandrake or any other distro. Then the likelihood of them carrying Linux Applications will decrease.
They will think to themselves... "Why should we carry this Linux Application? We never sell that damn Operating System. Obviously, nobody anywhere wants to use the crap. Take it all off the shelves. We do better selling that Microsoft OS and all those THOUSANDS of applications that are out for it."
As for making money off of selling software. It is nearly negligable. The mark-up on most software packages is next to nothing. The publishing house makes the biggest piece of the profit. The retail store typically has only a few dollars, as in two to three bucks, on many software packages. A few have a slightly larger mark-up, typically never much better than a good 5 to 8 percent though.
As a for instance, the computer retail store that I work for has good distribution channels and is unable to get Norton System works for any less than a few bucks beneath the MSRP. After looking into it, the only way to increase our mark-up is to order something along the lines of 10,000 copies. We would be sitting on that for years.
Then the small guy that makes a sweet little Linux app. finds that nobody will sell his software on their shelves. Joe Computer-User never gets a chance to see any other Operating Systems, ever.
There is my 2 cents.
--
.sig seperator
--
I can't wait until Mandrake 8.1 hits the shelves. While I have downloaded the latest version and have the 3 CD set and have also installed it. I would like to support Mandrake Financially.
I used to be unable to afford that. With my current job, I now can afford to support Linux companies. I have been happy with Mandrake's previous releases and would like to see that OS taken more seriously in the corporate and home user markets.
One way for this to happen is to generate real sales figures that give software houses the idea that there are enough installed Linux desktops that they could make a few bucks selling their wares.
Now, many of you believe that Linux doesn't need commercial apps. While that is true, Linux needs no commercial apps. Unless, Linux-users want their OS of choice to be taken seriously. The average PC user (Home or Corporate), will only take Linux as a serious operating system if there are readily available commercial applications.
I do my best to advocate Linux to as many people as possible and that is the one wall that I regularly run into. Where are the commercial apps? Where is the software on the shelves of [Insert_software_vendor_name_here]?
If you like Linux, love Linux and use Linux. Then support Linux, by buying your distros. Not only will it be good for the state of Linux companies, it will also help raise awarness of Linux in the minds of corporate [Insert_Country_Name_Here].
--
.sig seperator
--
I am aware that NT had run on the Alpha processor. However, Windows was never designed to be an easily ported OS. Linux and several other operating systems, have been designed to be easily ported to other architectures and thus would have easily adapted to the newer 64-bit technologies.
Yes, there is an "innovation" issue with the Windows OS. The paper that I read mentioned that Intel was WAITING for Microsoft to be ready because they were having trouble with getting a Win64 OS to function. If Windows had been developed to be a portable OS, then we would, more than likely, be using 64-bit machines today and would be able to buy those from everywhere.
I am also aware that I can run the beta XP on the IA-64 and several versions of Linux. However, the price is way outside of my range, as I mentioned above.
--
.sig seperator
--
Actually, I know of not a single mainframe running on Intel anythings. However, the programmers in the R&D team at my office program on PC desktops. Currently they are using Pentium III processors and are using a COBOL IDE.
I am all for moving forward with technology. I would also like to see what is being used for the forseeable future to be supported.
--
.sig seperator
--
About a year and a half ago, I read a piece regarding Intel's soon to be launched 64-bit processor. An Intel engineer/marketing person(?) said that they were simply waiting for Microsoft to launch their Win64 Operating System.
At the time, the Linux kernel and at least a few other operating systems were ready to go on the new IA-64 processor. Unfortunately, it didn't get launched. I believe that if Intel had launched the CPU then many of us would be posting to Slashdot with a 64-bit Linux/*BSD or other OS. As quick as possible Microsoft would then have released their Win64! product, which would have been buggy and filled with BSODs. After a few months patches would be released and things would begin to stabilize.
Instead, we are still here sitting on our 32-bit systems waiting for the day when we can have true 64-bit power for our desktops. I for one, would love to see the 3D worlds that could be created with such a system. The amount of RAM that could be supported, the hard drive sizes and the impressive speed at which 3D renderings could be done would be beyond impressive.
So, is Microsoft hurting the consumer? You could say that. I am a consumer, I would love to have my hands on an Intel IA-64 or an AMD Sledgehammer processor. In a way Microsoft is hurting me by keeping the 64-bit technology outside of my grasp. Of course, I could buy a "Developer's" workstation, only thing is, I don't have that kind of money.
Then there is the idea of choice. I should be able to choose which components I want to run on the operating system I run. Of course, this option should be a choice available for power users. What if I want to rid my system of using Explorer for file management? What if I wanted to completly remove Internet Explorer? There are to many What-if's to put in here. Suffice to say, if Windows had more customizable features/services, similiar to Linux many people would be happier with the OS.
--
.sig seperator
--
If I recall correctly the original specs for the P4 stated a much larger cache and higher FPU. Then Intel found out that they would have to sell them for some insane price, like 1200 bucks, to make any kind of profit.
So, what did they do?
They clipped the FPU down to practically nothing, cut down the cache. Broke the JIT functionality and made the chip only able to really churn out specially optimized C code with any kind of speed.
Sorry, but MANY companies still use and program in COBOL, FORTRAN and PASCAL. Before any of you claim those are "dead" languages, remember that these languages run programs that have been in use on mainframes, companies spent millions/billions on, for more than 20 years. COBOL recently had some WWW extensions started or discussed a year or two ago as well.
I honestly have to question Intel's future processor roadmaps and production products when they show off things that are really to pricey for them to mass produce. It would be awesome if Intel was able to release the P4 like the original specs were. I would have one right now. The only thing is they didn't and the chip just ramps up the megaherts, but doesn't really do all that much more.
--
. sig seperator
--
How do you know that IIS isn't already based on Apache codebase? Isn't Apache based on something slightly older than IIS? (I am unsure, but I feel that the answer is yes.)
--
.sig seperator
--
What you did is highly illegal. There is no backing out of it by saying, "I was just testing a theory."
What will end up happening is you are going to found out one day, if it is a smaller city that performs yearly audits and then you will find a FEDERAL WARRANT out for your arrest. This is because you performed a FEDERALLY PUNISHABLE CRIME. The only thing you can hope to get is a light sentence if you bring yourself down to the courthouse and get in touch with the right people.
You might get real lucky and have a slap on the wrist. However, the longer you wait the more likely you will go down in flames.
What you did sucks and I have no sympathy for you.
--
.sig seperator
--
I believe that it would be a wrong decision to allow Gassee to provide business planning efforts or Palm. Don't get me wrong the BeOS was and partially still is a vrey remarkable operating system. I really enjoyed playing about with it.
It is just my opinion that Gassee should have taken Apple up on the offer back in the day. Of course we, more than likely, never would have seen BeOS on the x86 platform if that happened. At least the BeOS could be in greater general use than it is today.
While I do use Linux and I am far from afraid of the CLI. I really enjoy a very crisp, clean and attractive GUI environment. BeOS provided that and also gave me the CLI that I actually enjoy. I really hoped that BeOS would have taken more market share and continued to be a viable desktop platform.
--
.sig seperator
--
Going into your local Best Buy, you will find a copy of Mandrake 7.2 or Mandrake 8.0. Both of these Linux Distros can be put into the drive of a Windows running machine. You can then proceed to install Lin4Win. This is a virtual ext2fs in a large file on a Fat32 partition.
This will allow you to install Linux using a Windows splash screen. The Mandrake install is also very easy to follow. While this does run slower than being on a native ext2fs or Reiserfs partition, it is an excellent introduction to the Linux operating system.
--
.sig seperator
--
start Lumberg
Umm... the correct reports I need... are the TPS reports... Umm, yeah that would be grrreat.
end Lumberg
Sorry, I just saw the movie the other night...
--
.sig seperator
--
The type of watermarking that is under discussion here is digital sound recordings. This protection can be made to cause the CD-ROMs laser eye to skip all over the CD and do other little things.
When making a digital copy, that is without playing the sound through a set of speakers, this watermarking technology is effective. If this watermarking signal from simply playing the original was to be reproduced at an inaudible to human ears, how would a microphone pick it up? Better yet, if the human ear is unable to hear it. Whose ear is?
I suppose that would be one for PETA, once they find out that some form of animal life is harmed by the piercing sound that only they can hear.
--
.sig seperator
--