You had a character-set? Damn you were lucky! Back in MY day all we had was a bunch of rocks, and we communicated by banging the rocks together. And what is this "programming" you talk about? All we could do wast to make a big pile of rocks, and smash it with even bigger rocks, hoping that something useful came from it. And we LIKED it that way!
"It exists in Windows too. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point."
No it doesn't. First of all, there are no "distributions" in Windows. Yes there are different versions but they are ALL provided by Microsoft. No other company provides the consumers with Windows-OS. So that strikes out the "distribution"-argument. Furthermore, ALL Windows'es ship hardwired with Microsoft's desktop which contaions Microsoft's apps. Yes you can afterwards replace the GUI with some third-party system through geekery, but fact remains that officially Windows does not support any other GUI that the one it ships with. Furthermore, you can't remove the GUI from the OS if you don't need it. And third, the HTML-component is hardwired to the desktop.
I haven't "demonstrated your point". If anything, you have demonstrated your total lack of knowledge when it comes to this matter.
"By "can't punish companies", I meant "can't rightfully punish companies"."
Yes they can, and they should. Just because something is good for some specific company, does not mean that it's good for people or society at large. You might feel that corporations should be allowed to do anything they wish. I and most of the people on this planet disagree with that.
"When the government came for the corporations, I remained silent"
Oh cut the bullshit! Corporations have NEVER before been more healthy and more powerful than they are today. Yet you act like those poor megacorporations are innocent victims that are being persecuted for no good reason. Like I said: cut the bullshit. Comapring the treatment of megacorporations (which are doing VERY WELL INDEED!) to treatment of jews during the Holocaust is so stupid that I'm really at a loss of words here.
"When they robbed the wealthy, I remained silent; I was not wealthy."
The "wealthy" people are doing VERY WELL as we speak. Didn't they just receive additional tax-cuts? Oh yes, those poor, persecuted multimillionares! I bet their lives are nothing but living hell because they are being "persecuted"!
Rarely have I seen as moronic posts on/. as yours. Congratulations!
"I don't consider monopolistic competition a monopoly"
Again: courts disagree with you. Your opinion on this matter is like farting in the wind: useless.
"but even if you do, you can't punish companies for it."
Yes you can, and it has been done several times.
"It is their goal to make money and that often involves dominating the market."
Whoop-de-fucking-do. And sometimes their quest for the almighty buck harms the society around the company. And because of that, those companies are punished.
Now, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or am I to expect more useless blathering?
"OSDL might say that "they represent the Linux community", yet OSDL isn't able to bring Linux to success"
Linux is already a humungous success, no matter how you look at it
"to increase its market share to a significant amount."
Huh? Soon after Linux started to appear in High-Performance Computing, it quickly dominated the entire field. Linux'es use on server continues to increase and it's the second most popular OS in servers, Linux'es use on embedded devices is increasing, we have major phone-manufacturers releasing phones that run Linux. And yes, Linux'es market-share on the desktops is also increasing. What do you expect? "It's been few years already, and Linux STILL doesn't dominate the desktop-market! OSDL is a failure!". Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to "dominate" a market, where the competitor is DEEPLY entrenched with about 95% market-share?
"To say it once more, without agreeing on a single set of application guidelines, guidelines which enhance the usability and the look&feel, there's no hope."
So, you feel that OSDL should spend it's time thinking about button-order on dialog-boxes and the like? I think that your viewpoint on this matter is very narrow and VERY superficial. And what if they came up with "single set of guidelines"? How do you suggest that they then enforce those guidelines? Answer: the can't.
"All one can say is "Yet another year without a Linux desktop"."
It's on my desktop. Hell, it's on my neighbours desktop as well!
Well, it's not IMO a "personal attack" if it's true. And looking at your "arguments", I think it's safe to say that you really have zero clue what you are talking about. Linux has no monopoly. Even if it were a monopoly, you would not be forced to use some specific Linux (there are several distros available). AFAIK, none of them ship with single browser that is hardwired to the system.
Any one of those arguments effectively destroy your "argument". And they are ALL true.
"What I'm trying (and obviously, failing...) to point out is that the hard-line distinction made by many (obviously not all) Linux zealots between "operating system", "distribution", and "windowing environment" tends to be conveniently forgotten when it comes time to take a cheap shot at Microsoft."
they make that "hard line distinction", because it really does exist! It might not exist in Windows, but it MOST CERTAINLY exists in Linux. Windows is different since there is no such separation there.
"They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al"
KHTML is not a part of the OS, and neither is the desktop itself, when you really think about it. And if you want to, you can remove all traces of KHTML if you want to.
"Another thing that rabid MS-bashers tend to conveniently ignore is that MS are not the only ones to include such a component - in fact I can't think of a single GUI desktop environment today that doesn't include one."
Difference here is that Microsoft is a monopoly, whereas those "others" are not. And while some desktops do include such a component, it's different from Windows. GNOME has such a component, but it's provided by Mozilla (which is not related to GNOME at all). XFCE doesn't (IIRC) have one.
The courts disagree with you. In fact, multiple courts in USA, Europe and rest of the world disagree with you. And they have said so multiple times.
I think it's safe to say that you are wrong. And besides, "monopoly" does not have to mean that there's only one company supplying the product. From Wikipedia:
"Industries which are dominated by a single firm may allow the firm to act as a near-monopoly or "de facto monopoly", a practice known in economics as monopolistic competition. Common historical examples arguably include corporations such as Microsoft and Standard Oil (Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup). Practices which these entities may be accused of include dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under antitrust law."
Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie. And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.
And I haven't seen new movies available for under 9.99. Older movies yes, but not new.
Or bane. The "old way" meant that the vanilla-kernel (kernel offered by kernel.org) was stable. But new features took a LONG time to appear in the vanilla-kernel. But users and distros still wanted those advanced features that were not part of the kernel (yet). What happened was that distros offered their own vendor-kernels, that were VERY different from vanilla-kernel. Distros then spent their time and energy fixing their own vendor-kernels, instead of vanilla-kernel.
This new system changes things so that new features are added to the vanilla-kernel, which means that the difference between vanilla and vendor-kernels is not that big. The distributors can focus on stabilizing the kernel, instead of adding new features to it. And porting those fixes to vanilla is a lot easier than porting changes in the old system. This means that if you want to use REALLY stable kernel, you should use the vendor-kernel.
In short: this new system means that things progress a lot faster for everyone, with new features appearing in the kernel. And we can still have the stability we want if we use the tested and patched vendor-kernels.
Well, to be honest, I don't find KDE to be "hard to use". Yes, GNOME is easy to use. So is KDE. People make it sound like using KDE is hard, that the user needs to do zillion things in order to carry out their tasks. But that is not so.
If you mix your text with bolded words it will sound more profound. Bolded words can make anyone seem like a real professional. Besides, bolded words are the new Microsoft standard of writing blog-posts
Have you tried KDE? It has a more Windows-y interface than Gnome, which IMO is closer to Mac OS X.
GNOME is OS X-like? I have heard this claim maybe zillion times, and I have yet to see any explanation why people think that this is the case. Now, I have used GNOME for several months now, and I don't see much "Macness" in the UI.
I think that the reason why people think GNOME is "maclike" is because it has bunch of menus in the top of the screen. And Macs have the menubar in top of the screen as well. Therefore GNOME == Mac. Well, having bunch of system-menus (as opposed to application-menus like in Mac OS) in top of the screen does NOT make the GUI "maclike". Ironically, if you really want to use Mac-like GUI on Linux, KDE is your only choice, since it really supports Mac-style menubar (where the apps menubar is in the top of the screen). GNOME does not support such menubars.
It seems to me that because Windows has a start-menu in bottom-left corner of the screen, and KDE has K-menu in the bottom-left as well, it somehow makes KDE "Windows-like". And since Macs have bunch of menus in the top of the screen, and GNOME has three system-menus ("Applications", "Places" and "System") in the top of the screen, GNOME is "maclike".
Maybe by "East" he was referring to mid-east and the like? Japan (for example) is VERY "western" in their lifestyle and society. Seen any scientific breakthroughs coming from Iran, Saudi-Arabia and the like?
RaLink 2500? I bought a PCMCIA-WiFI-card that apparently uses that chipset. I plugged the card in to a running OpenSUSE-installation, and I got working network maybe 5 seconds later. The card Just Worked (tm).
I made this comment on Ars Technica, and I'll just repeat it here as well.
I just can't see any future in this. There are few things working against MS here:
a) Price. In the large-scale, the price they are asking would mean lesser nodes. Instead of paying for Windows, the customers could just use Linux and add extra nodes to the cluster.
b) source. Yes it does matter. In markets like this, the people running the cluster do fiddle with things in order to make it go faster. They can't do that with Windows.
c) Ease of use. Well, the people who make clusters are usually not morons, so I don't really see any real need for "point 'n click" GUI for creating clusters. And maybe that GUI could impose a bit more overhead to the system? And creating Linux-clusters is relatively easy.
d) Momentum. Linux has companies like SGI, Cray, IBM and others using and improving it. And there are universities involved as well. Those companies really know Linux and they REALLY know HPC. Microsoft has no real know-how regarding HPC.
e) Familiarity. This time, people know Linux. MS is trying to beat an entrenched competitor. MS has succeeded in doing this before, but they did it by undercutting the competition. This time they are competing against something that is free. And their competitor has the advantages mentioned in A, B, C and D, all of which matter to the target-audience.
So basically, you think that size of the file (song, game etc.) should be the thing that determines it's price? A three-minute song should cost 0.5 dollars (more or less), and therefore "Tubular Bells" (20 minutes long) should cost 3.5 dollars? In short: "When there's more of the stuff, it's worth more!". So is Daikatana worth more to the end user than Bubble Bobble, since Daikatana is "bigger"?
This has got to be the most moronic thing I have heard in quite some time. Here's a clue: goods and services are not priced according to what they cost to make & distribute (although those expenses determine the bottom price they can be sold at profit). They are priced according to what consumers are willing to pay for them. Some of those retro-games might be tiny sizewise, when compared to the multi megabyte behemoths we have today, but I would be more than happy to pay for some of those old games, whereas I wouldn't touch some of those multi-megabyte games with a ten feet pole.
I would much rather have few hundred kilobytes of pure gold than one gigabyte of crap.
My phone is online 24x7. It has a constant GPRS-connection to the network, so it can receive email sent to me. And I can make phone-calls just fine. I can even make and receive phone-calls when I'm surfing the net with the phone.
Symbian is a multitasking OS, so having a webserver there is not an issue. And GPRS and the like do not prevent you from making phone-calls.
Sexuality is downplayed in our media because it's portrayal naturally incites sexual thinking (which leads to sexual behavior) in people to a far, far greater degree than violence. Our society has real and severe problems with people (especially kids/young people/whatever you want to call them) having sex and getting into trouble (diseases, teen pregnancies, damaged psyches, etc.).
I agree! I think that we should force women to wear something like this, that would be a good first step in eliminating those "sexual thoughts" from our society. Don't you agree?
Um, that's not a slogan. It's a short (very short) description of the version. With Eft, they are going to try out new things and technologies. The "suits" are NOT going to see nor care about some short comment regarding an unreleased beta-version of Ubuntu. What they ARE going to see is "Ubuntu Linux 6.06 LTS". Hell, it even has that all-important TLA in it!
If you are looking for the "slogan" of Ubuntu Linux, I would guess it's "Linux for Human Beings".
Slashdot Mirror
"The IE component is not part of the Windows kernel"
No, but it is a part of the OS. Have I ever claimed that it's part of the kernel?
"That's a fact, and none of the stuff you keep ranting about changes that fact."
So fucking what? It might not be part of the kernel, but it IS part of the OS.
You had a character-set? Damn you were lucky! Back in MY day all we had was a bunch of rocks, and we communicated by banging the rocks together. And what is this "programming" you talk about? All we could do wast to make a big pile of rocks, and smash it with even bigger rocks, hoping that something useful came from it. And we LIKED it that way!
"It exists in Windows too. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point."
No it doesn't. First of all, there are no "distributions" in Windows. Yes there are different versions but they are ALL provided by Microsoft. No other company provides the consumers with Windows-OS. So that strikes out the "distribution"-argument. Furthermore, ALL Windows'es ship hardwired with Microsoft's desktop which contaions Microsoft's apps. Yes you can afterwards replace the GUI with some third-party system through geekery, but fact remains that officially Windows does not support any other GUI that the one it ships with. Furthermore, you can't remove the GUI from the OS if you don't need it. And third, the HTML-component is hardwired to the desktop.
I haven't "demonstrated your point". If anything, you have demonstrated your total lack of knowledge when it comes to this matter.
"Roller coast ride" implies movement both up and down. So I don't think that the term applies to SCO. "Falling like a rock" is the term I had in mind.
"By "can't punish companies", I meant "can't rightfully punish companies"."
/. as yours. Congratulations!
Yes they can, and they should. Just because something is good for some specific company, does not mean that it's good for people or society at large. You might feel that corporations should be allowed to do anything they wish. I and most of the people on this planet disagree with that.
"When the government came for the corporations, I remained silent"
Oh cut the bullshit! Corporations have NEVER before been more healthy and more powerful than they are today. Yet you act like those poor megacorporations are innocent victims that are being persecuted for no good reason. Like I said: cut the bullshit. Comapring the treatment of megacorporations (which are doing VERY WELL INDEED!) to treatment of jews during the Holocaust is so stupid that I'm really at a loss of words here.
"When they robbed the wealthy, I remained silent; I was not wealthy."
The "wealthy" people are doing VERY WELL as we speak. Didn't they just receive additional tax-cuts? Oh yes, those poor, persecuted multimillionares! I bet their lives are nothing but living hell because they are being "persecuted"!
Rarely have I seen as moronic posts on
"I don't consider monopolistic competition a monopoly"
Again: courts disagree with you. Your opinion on this matter is like farting in the wind: useless.
"but even if you do, you can't punish companies for it."
Yes you can, and it has been done several times.
"It is their goal to make money and that often involves dominating the market."
Whoop-de-fucking-do. And sometimes their quest for the almighty buck harms the society around the company. And because of that, those companies are punished.
Now, do you have anything worthwhile to say, or am I to expect more useless blathering?
"OSDL might say that "they represent the Linux community", yet OSDL isn't able to bring Linux to success"
Linux is already a humungous success, no matter how you look at it
"to increase its market share to a significant amount."
Huh? Soon after Linux started to appear in High-Performance Computing, it quickly dominated the entire field. Linux'es use on server continues to increase and it's the second most popular OS in servers, Linux'es use on embedded devices is increasing, we have major phone-manufacturers releasing phones that run Linux. And yes, Linux'es market-share on the desktops is also increasing. What do you expect? "It's been few years already, and Linux STILL doesn't dominate the desktop-market! OSDL is a failure!". Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to "dominate" a market, where the competitor is DEEPLY entrenched with about 95% market-share?
"To say it once more, without agreeing on a single set of application guidelines, guidelines which enhance the usability and the look&feel, there's no hope."
So, you feel that OSDL should spend it's time thinking about button-order on dialog-boxes and the like? I think that your viewpoint on this matter is very narrow and VERY superficial. And what if they came up with "single set of guidelines"? How do you suggest that they then enforce those guidelines? Answer: the can't.
"All one can say is "Yet another year without a Linux desktop"."
It's on my desktop. Hell, it's on my neighbours desktop as well!
"And now come the predictable personal attacks."
Well, it's not IMO a "personal attack" if it's true. And looking at your "arguments", I think it's safe to say that you really have zero clue what you are talking about. Linux has no monopoly. Even if it were a monopoly, you would not be forced to use some specific Linux (there are several distros available). AFAIK, none of them ship with single browser that is hardwired to the system.
Any one of those arguments effectively destroy your "argument". And they are ALL true.
"What I'm trying (and obviously, failing...) to point out is that the hard-line distinction made by many (obviously not all) Linux zealots between "operating system", "distribution", and "windowing environment" tends to be conveniently forgotten when it comes time to take a cheap shot at Microsoft."
they make that "hard line distinction", because it really does exist! It might not exist in Windows, but it MOST CERTAINLY exists in Linux. Windows is different since there is no such separation there.
"They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al"
KHTML is not a part of the OS, and neither is the desktop itself, when you really think about it. And if you want to, you can remove all traces of KHTML if you want to.
"Another thing that rabid MS-bashers tend to conveniently ignore is that MS are not the only ones to include such a component - in fact I can't think of a single GUI desktop environment today that doesn't include one."
Difference here is that Microsoft is a monopoly, whereas those "others" are not. And while some desktops do include such a component, it's different from Windows. GNOME has such a component, but it's provided by Mozilla (which is not related to GNOME at all). XFCE doesn't (IIRC) have one.
"Microsoft is not a monopoly."
The courts disagree with you. In fact, multiple courts in USA, Europe and rest of the world disagree with you. And they have said so multiple times.
I think it's safe to say that you are wrong. And besides, "monopoly" does not have to mean that there's only one company supplying the product. From Wikipedia:
"Industries which are dominated by a single firm may allow the firm to act as a near-monopoly or "de facto monopoly", a practice known in economics as monopolistic competition. Common historical examples arguably include corporations such as Microsoft and Standard Oil (Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup). Practices which these entities may be accused of include dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under antitrust law."
Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie. And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.
And I haven't seen new movies available for under 9.99. Older movies yes, but not new.
"Microkernel anyone?"
Thanks, but to thanks.
Or bane. The "old way" meant that the vanilla-kernel (kernel offered by kernel.org) was stable. But new features took a LONG time to appear in the vanilla-kernel. But users and distros still wanted those advanced features that were not part of the kernel (yet). What happened was that distros offered their own vendor-kernels, that were VERY different from vanilla-kernel. Distros then spent their time and energy fixing their own vendor-kernels, instead of vanilla-kernel.
This new system changes things so that new features are added to the vanilla-kernel, which means that the difference between vanilla and vendor-kernels is not that big. The distributors can focus on stabilizing the kernel, instead of adding new features to it. And porting those fixes to vanilla is a lot easier than porting changes in the old system. This means that if you want to use REALLY stable kernel, you should use the vendor-kernel.
In short: this new system means that things progress a lot faster for everyone, with new features appearing in the kernel. And we can still have the stability we want if we use the tested and patched vendor-kernels.
Well, to be honest, I don't find KDE to be "hard to use". Yes, GNOME is easy to use. So is KDE. People make it sound like using KDE is hard, that the user needs to do zillion things in order to carry out their tasks. But that is not so.
If you mix your text with bolded words it will sound more profound. Bolded words can make anyone seem like a real professional. Besides, bolded words are the new Microsoft standard of writing blog-posts
GNOME is OS X-like? I have heard this claim maybe zillion times, and I have yet to see any explanation why people think that this is the case. Now, I have used GNOME for several months now, and I don't see much "Macness" in the UI.
I think that the reason why people think GNOME is "maclike" is because it has bunch of menus in the top of the screen. And Macs have the menubar in top of the screen as well. Therefore GNOME == Mac. Well, having bunch of system-menus (as opposed to application-menus like in Mac OS) in top of the screen does NOT make the GUI "maclike". Ironically, if you really want to use Mac-like GUI on Linux, KDE is your only choice, since it really supports Mac-style menubar (where the apps menubar is in the top of the screen). GNOME does not support such menubars.
It seems to me that because Windows has a start-menu in bottom-left corner of the screen, and KDE has K-menu in the bottom-left as well, it somehow makes KDE "Windows-like". And since Macs have bunch of menus in the top of the screen, and GNOME has three system-menus ("Applications", "Places" and "System") in the top of the screen, GNOME is "maclike".
So, is it covered with rich Corinthian leather?
Maybe by "East" he was referring to mid-east and the like? Japan (for example) is VERY "western" in their lifestyle and society. Seen any scientific breakthroughs coming from Iran, Saudi-Arabia and the like?
RaLink 2500? I bought a PCMCIA-WiFI-card that apparently uses that chipset. I plugged the card in to a running OpenSUSE-installation, and I got working network maybe 5 seconds later. The card Just Worked (tm).
I made this comment on Ars Technica, and I'll just repeat it here as well.
I just can't see any future in this. There are few things working against MS here:
a) Price. In the large-scale, the price they are asking would mean lesser nodes. Instead of paying for Windows, the customers could just use Linux and add extra nodes to the cluster.
b) source. Yes it does matter. In markets like this, the people running the cluster do fiddle with things in order to make it go faster. They can't do that with Windows.
c) Ease of use. Well, the people who make clusters are usually not morons, so I don't really see any real need for "point 'n click" GUI for creating clusters. And maybe that GUI could impose a bit more overhead to the system? And creating Linux-clusters is relatively easy.
d) Momentum. Linux has companies like SGI, Cray, IBM and others using and improving it. And there are universities involved as well. Those companies really know Linux and they REALLY know HPC. Microsoft has no real know-how regarding HPC.
e) Familiarity. This time, people know Linux. MS is trying to beat an entrenched competitor. MS has succeeded in doing this before, but they did it by undercutting the competition. This time they are competing against something that is free. And their competitor has the advantages mentioned in A, B, C and D, all of which matter to the target-audience.
So basically, you think that size of the file (song, game etc.) should be the thing that determines it's price? A three-minute song should cost 0.5 dollars (more or less), and therefore "Tubular Bells" (20 minutes long) should cost 3.5 dollars? In short: "When there's more of the stuff, it's worth more!". So is Daikatana worth more to the end user than Bubble Bobble, since Daikatana is "bigger"?
This has got to be the most moronic thing I have heard in quite some time. Here's a clue: goods and services are not priced according to what they cost to make & distribute (although those expenses determine the bottom price they can be sold at profit). They are priced according to what consumers are willing to pay for them. Some of those retro-games might be tiny sizewise, when compared to the multi megabyte behemoths we have today, but I would be more than happy to pay for some of those old games, whereas I wouldn't touch some of those multi-megabyte games with a ten feet pole.
I would much rather have few hundred kilobytes of pure gold than one gigabyte of crap.
My phone is online 24x7. It has a constant GPRS-connection to the network, so it can receive email sent to me. And I can make phone-calls just fine. I can even make and receive phone-calls when I'm surfing the net with the phone.
Symbian is a multitasking OS, so having a webserver there is not an issue. And GPRS and the like do not prevent you from making phone-calls.
"Just try and remove any application using their package manager."
I have removed apps several times on my Ubuntu-machine, and I haven't seen this problem you describe. Am I missing something here?
I agree! I think that we should force women to wear something like this, that would be a good first step in eliminating those "sexual thoughts" from our society. Don't you agree?
Maybe USA is stinking to their principles, it's just that the principles are changing?
Um, that's not a slogan. It's a short (very short) description of the version. With Eft, they are going to try out new things and technologies. The "suits" are NOT going to see nor care about some short comment regarding an unreleased beta-version of Ubuntu. What they ARE going to see is "Ubuntu Linux 6.06 LTS". Hell, it even has that all-important TLA in it!
If you are looking for the "slogan" of Ubuntu Linux, I would guess it's "Linux for Human Beings".