How the fuck did my comment get marked as 'flamebait'? LOL. I suggested that SCO is biting off far more than it can chew. Idiots who moderate posts need to READ THEM. Go on, mark this one flamebait too, morons...
Because his aptitude for alienating countries appears to have infected SCO...
Their greed borders on the suicidal. I mean, they have already bitten off FAR MORE than they could ever chew and are beginning to feel backlash from the courts; so what do they do, they start fomenting trouble in the South Land... Idiots.
How is it news that a new virus copies what some
on
Nasty New Virus Variants
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
virii did last year, and then M$ patched the hole, and now it's alarming and new?
Sort of pathetic that this made Slashdot's front page.
'Scale the number triangles to...' 'use a sine wave instead of...', game development 101 my friend.
That doesn't mean that game developers have the time to support such a broad range of hardware, the Q&A and testing expansion associated, et cetera...
Nearly every game developed in the past 5 years attempts to embrace this approach, I can't believe that this is news. I mean, most games pipeline out over 2 years AT LEAST, so by virtue of the machines they develop upon there is a 2 year coverage of hardware support (and often games ship without support or scalable performance options for the 'latest and greatest' out there.)
Maybe he's under the impression that they don't support the PII because they just don't realize that there's money in them thar hills; however, that is incredibly naive thinking. They do not usually support the large PII base (just as an example) because their research has shown that people with PIIs are not very interested in the 'latest games.' (Game Dev magazine had a survey's results published 2 or so years ago that covered this.) Simultaneously, development teams are of a generally 'limited' size. They have 'limited' time to produce a game with a particular 'window' or 'target' for shipping. Each iteration backwards in performance that you wish to support requires a serious commitment of resources. Some games which make use of (relatively) new innovations (such as pixel or vertex shaders, or new processor instruction sets) may find it inordinately difficult supporting a long back history of machine performance. Ironically, engineering a (for example) 'rendering path' which supports much older hardware can preclude your game from taking advantage of newer capabilities.
It's funny. I have been using both Linux and NT since the early nineties and while there's plenty of crap software on NT, there's plenty of crap software on Linux as well. LOL.
Maybe everybody should just use the phrase "IIS is a total piece of crap" and then I won't have to cringe when they say "pitiful quality of ms products" especially since many (eek, tough to admit) MS products are superior to those I can find on Linux.
No, this is not a pro-MS post, this is a "let's stop deluding ourselves into feeling superior." We are better, but not by the margin most Linux users would have you believe.
Win in the context of pervasive dominance in an engineering sense. What will the majority of people be writing software on? For? Supporting? Learning? Innovating? Writing hardware drivers for first? Et cetera.
As for a "fairly unrealistic threat", and sounding ignorant to "those of us who know better", I'd be interested to know how you do know this and I don't seeing how I've been building software on both *nix and Win32 for 10+ years, actually worked for the MS Research Group for 2 years, and know first hand what they are capable of...
You didn't perchance hold onto your Netscape stock during the late 1990's while laboring under the same delusions, did you?
Actually, depending upon which version you are referring to it is usually less than 100 people. Most of their engineers are on products for the OS, not the OS.
You people really don't understand what M$ is capable of, do you. You sound like a Netscape investor circa 1996.
5 years? How long do you think it took for a single person to bring Linux from nothing and then a small group to get it to the XFree86 stage?
Also, why would you assume that M$ would have to re-invent the wheel? Why do you assume it would be *nix like. It certainly could be, and that would likely be easiest for them.
I'm sorry but you're simply showing your ignorance of the IT market here. Hobbyists are NOT in charge of the data center. I'm a CTO and none of the 20+ CTO I know personally are linux advocates besides myself for reasons that I can disagree with but respect at the same time. They're slowly coming round and looking for ways to introduce Linux but none of them will risk their careers by sticking their necks out for Linux. Now, before you call that cowardice, consider that they do not live to promote Linux.
BTW, Microsoft is not a joke in IT organizations by a long stretch. Maybe if you're referring to companies who operate as ISPs, but not in the corporations I'm familiar with (quite a few in varied vertical and not so vertical markets.)
You've managed to delude yourself about the IT world and M$' and Linux's place in it.
Micro$oft WILL become secure and WILL own the desktop and servers simply through two factors: (1)They decide that is their mission and (2)we act as if they could never pull it off.
Why the hell are people so irritated that I say "Watch out"? It isn't a slight on Linux, it is a warning that we don't go the way of Apple, Netscape, and Oracle.
LOL, my bad, I was thinking of he and Bill Paxton in Aliens when typing out his name.
The problem is, most of us Linux users/lovers want to see it in our workplaces, in the products and services we are using, et cetera. This means commercial viability, to quote you, don't be dense. Of course there's (almost) no chance Linux would die away, there'd always (at absolute worst) be the hobbyist group (and I could be lauded for using my old Slackware 2.3, hehe.)
What you don't realize is that Linux is growing as fast as it is now NOT because of hobbyists but because of people using it commercially, using it professionally, using it to compete directly with Microsoft in the arena of the almighty dollar.
Granted, Linux will never go away because of Microsoft, but I for one would like to see much more of the world using it for all purposes; however, unless we stop underestimating M$, it will not happen.
I'm saying that M$ hasn't produced a secure operating system BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO. FFS people, can't you see that they are catching on?
There is only ONE threat to Microsoft in the world, and that is US. If you don't think that Bill Gates, and crew, don't take Linux seriously right now - you're insane.
Dear God, we're going to lose because people seriously think that M$ hasn't learned anything about WHY Linux is gaining marketshare. Not to sound like Bill Biehn, but they're a friggin' terminator and they'll "never stop."
Do NOT underestimate them.
Do you really think that the 22000+ software engineers at Microsoft are INCAPABLE of learning to write secure code?
Do you really think that only Linux developers can learn to write secure code?
Actually I have been involved at the 100+ level. BTW, I know for certain that at one point (for IE 4) M$ had 4000+ engineers working on it. They know how to manage large groups of engineers, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THEM. Apple did that. Oracle did that. Netscape did that. Let's not let Linux do that.
Either IBM/SUN/Other serious development companies step in and totally embrace Linux and commit to an acceptable Open Source policy that makes everyone happy, or Micro$oft can quite literally re-invent themselves to be Linux killers.
For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.
This is a REAL possibility. Sadly, I think Apple is the one who showed them the possibilities. OSX was a huge slap in Redmond's face and I bet many of them said "Why don't we have something like that."
Can you imagine a (borg like) future were Microsoft has (like it does now) two product lines, the client line and the server line. The server line is Unix based, the client line is (who knows what) based.
Linux in all this? Gets marginalized.
In essenece what I'm trying to say is "Do not count on Micro$oft letting us slowly chew away at their business. They will come out with guns blazing and the only way to beat them is to do it with their own game, the throwing of literally billions of dollars and tens of thousands of HIGHLY organized engineers at a problem."
Look how quickly they crushed Netscape when they really put an effort into it. It's, quite frankly, terrifying. 40 billion in cash, tens of thousands of (despite what many of you think) quality software engineers, a first class research group. They're some scary mothers.
I sure wish SUN and Oracle would just suddenly go ALL LINUX. That'd scare the piss out of old Bill;).
..he should have zero difficulty understanding why he creates distance between himself and 'other' children.
Re:I really wish QT would reconsider their terms
on
Is Windows Worth $45?
·
· Score: 1
Remember though, Qt is FREE as long as you either release your code under the GPL or you're not using it as a product. I'm not sure of the license regarding using it internally for tool making, but just make your tools GPL compliant and you do not have to pay for any license...
Dood, you are COMPLETELY missing the point of the comparison. My company pays TrollTech for a commercial license each time we install onto a dev's machine (and our royalty schema), now next year if TrollTech hasn't made major improvements the COST IS THE SAME.
It is funny, if this was a troll against Linux instead of M$, it would have been marked as flamebait; however, since Slashdot is no longer home to open minded forums, it is marked 'informative', hehe... (Here comes the 'flamebait' marker;).) Give it to me!
"I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar."
Having been involved, personally, with the finances of a few startups, I can assure you that there are a myriad of legitimate (as in 'morally acceptable') reasons why that quote could exist in that memo.
Now, of course, M$ may be dirty; however, I prefer that we take the high road and I'd like to hear Microsoft's explanation.
Technically it is; however, I don't think we'll see too many secret service raids on Coney Island anytime soon (unless they get REALLY hard up.);)
This is from the U.S. Code:
Defacement of Currency
Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service. Their mailing address is:
United States Secret Service 950 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20223.
Slashdot Mirror
How the fuck did my comment get marked as 'flamebait'? LOL. I suggested that SCO is biting off far more than it can chew. Idiots who moderate posts need to READ THEM. Go on, mark this one flamebait too, morons...
Because his aptitude for alienating countries appears to have infected SCO...
Their greed borders on the suicidal. I mean, they have already bitten off FAR MORE than they could ever chew and are beginning to feel backlash from the courts; so what do they do, they start fomenting trouble in the South Land... Idiots.
virii did last year, and then M$ patched the hole, and now it's alarming and new?
Sort of pathetic that this made Slashdot's front page.
'Scale the number triangles to...' 'use a sine wave instead of...', game development 101 my friend.
That doesn't mean that game developers have the time to support such a broad range of hardware, the Q&A and testing expansion associated, et cetera...
Nearly every game developed in the past 5 years attempts to embrace this approach, I can't believe that this is news. I mean, most games pipeline out over 2 years AT LEAST, so by virtue of the machines they develop upon there is a 2 year coverage of hardware support (and often games ship without support or scalable performance options for the 'latest and greatest' out there.)
Maybe he's under the impression that they don't support the PII because they just don't realize that there's money in them thar hills; however, that is incredibly naive thinking. They do not usually support the large PII base (just as an example) because their research has shown that people with PIIs are not very interested in the 'latest games.' (Game Dev magazine had a survey's results published 2 or so years ago that covered this.) Simultaneously, development teams are of a generally 'limited' size. They have 'limited' time to produce a game with a particular 'window' or 'target' for shipping. Each iteration backwards in performance that you wish to support requires a serious commitment of resources. Some games which make use of (relatively) new innovations (such as pixel or vertex shaders, or new processor instruction sets) may find it inordinately difficult supporting a long back history of machine performance. Ironically, engineering a (for example) 'rendering path' which supports much older hardware can preclude your game from taking advantage of newer capabilities.
It's funny. I have been using both Linux and NT since the early nineties and while there's plenty of crap software on NT, there's plenty of crap software on Linux as well. LOL.
Maybe everybody should just use the phrase "IIS is a total piece of crap" and then I won't have to cringe when they say "pitiful quality of ms products" especially since many (eek, tough to admit) MS products are superior to those I can find on Linux.
No, this is not a pro-MS post, this is a "let's stop deluding ourselves into feeling superior." We are better, but not by the margin most Linux users would have you believe.
Do you really not understand what I've been trying to say?
Win in the context of pervasive dominance in an engineering sense. What will the majority of people be writing software on? For? Supporting? Learning? Innovating? Writing hardware drivers for first? Et cetera.
As for a "fairly unrealistic threat", and sounding ignorant to "those of us who know better", I'd be interested to know how you do know this and I don't seeing how I've been building software on both *nix and Win32 for 10+ years, actually worked for the MS Research Group for 2 years, and know first hand what they are capable of...
You didn't perchance hold onto your Netscape stock during the late 1990's while laboring under the same delusions, did you?
Actually, depending upon which version you are referring to it is usually less than 100 people. Most of their engineers are on products for the OS, not the OS.
You people really don't understand what M$ is capable of, do you. You sound like a Netscape investor circa 1996.
5 years? How long do you think it took for a single person to bring Linux from nothing and then a small group to get it to the XFree86 stage?
Also, why would you assume that M$ would have to re-invent the wheel? Why do you assume it would be *nix like. It certainly could be, and that would likely be easiest for them.
I'm sorry but you're simply showing your ignorance of the IT market here. Hobbyists are NOT in charge of the data center. I'm a CTO and none of the 20+ CTO I know personally are linux advocates besides myself for reasons that I can disagree with but respect at the same time. They're slowly coming round and looking for ways to introduce Linux but none of them will risk their careers by sticking their necks out for Linux. Now, before you call that cowardice, consider that they do not live to promote Linux.
BTW, Microsoft is not a joke in IT organizations by a long stretch. Maybe if you're referring to companies who operate as ISPs, but not in the corporations I'm familiar with (quite a few in varied vertical and not so vertical markets.)
You've managed to delude yourself about the IT world and M$' and Linux's place in it.
Micro$oft WILL become secure and WILL own the desktop and servers simply through two factors: (1)They decide that is their mission and (2)we act as if they could never pull it off.
Why the hell are people so irritated that I say "Watch out"? It isn't a slight on Linux, it is a warning that we don't go the way of Apple, Netscape, and Oracle.
LOL, my bad, I was thinking of he and Bill Paxton in Aliens when typing out his name.
The problem is, most of us Linux users/lovers want to see it in our workplaces, in the products and services we are using, et cetera. This means commercial viability, to quote you, don't be dense. Of course there's (almost) no chance Linux would die away, there'd always (at absolute worst) be the hobbyist group (and I could be lauded for using my old Slackware 2.3, hehe.)
What you don't realize is that Linux is growing as fast as it is now NOT because of hobbyists but because of people using it commercially, using it professionally, using it to compete directly with Microsoft in the arena of the almighty dollar.
Granted, Linux will never go away because of Microsoft, but I for one would like to see much more of the world using it for all purposes; however, unless we stop underestimating M$, it will not happen.
You people are incredibly naive.
I'm saying that M$ hasn't produced a secure operating system BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO. FFS people, can't you see that they are catching on?
There is only ONE threat to Microsoft in the world, and that is US. If you don't think that Bill Gates, and crew, don't take Linux seriously right now - you're insane.
Dear God, we're going to lose because people seriously think that M$ hasn't learned anything about WHY Linux is gaining marketshare. Not to sound like Bill Biehn, but they're a friggin' terminator and they'll "never stop."
Do NOT underestimate them.
Do you really think that the 22000+ software engineers at Microsoft are INCAPABLE of learning to write secure code?
Do you really think that only Linux developers can learn to write secure code?
People like you are going to cost us this war.
Actually I have been involved at the 100+ level. BTW, I know for certain that at one point (for IE 4) M$ had 4000+ engineers working on it. They know how to manage large groups of engineers, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THEM. Apple did that. Oracle did that. Netscape did that. Let's not let Linux do that.
...the reality of the situation is thus:
;).
Either IBM/SUN/Other serious development companies step in and totally embrace Linux and commit to an acceptable Open Source policy that makes everyone happy, or Micro$oft can quite literally re-invent themselves to be Linux killers.
For example, and this is horrifying, imagine that M$ purchases SCO's 'rights' (whatever the hell those actually are) and produces a Unix clone and puts 20 THOUSAND engineers on it. Imagine they do it right. Everything written to be secure, everything modularized, the ultimate desktop, et cetera.
This is a REAL possibility. Sadly, I think Apple is the one who showed them the possibilities. OSX was a huge slap in Redmond's face and I bet many of them said "Why don't we have something like that."
Can you imagine a (borg like) future were Microsoft has (like it does now) two product lines, the client line and the server line. The server line is Unix based, the client line is (who knows what) based.
Linux in all this? Gets marginalized.
In essenece what I'm trying to say is "Do not count on Micro$oft letting us slowly chew away at their business. They will come out with guns blazing and the only way to beat them is to do it with their own game, the throwing of literally billions of dollars and tens of thousands of HIGHLY organized engineers at a problem."
Look how quickly they crushed Netscape when they really put an effort into it. It's, quite frankly, terrifying. 40 billion in cash, tens of thousands of (despite what many of you think) quality software engineers, a first class research group. They're some scary mothers.
I sure wish SUN and Oracle would just suddenly go ALL LINUX. That'd scare the piss out of old Bill
Sadly virtually nobody would ever do that (especially in a public company, lol.)
..he should have zero difficulty understanding why he creates distance between himself and 'other' children.
Remember though, Qt is FREE as long as you either release your code under the GPL or you're not using it as a product. I'm not sure of the license regarding using it internally for tool making, but just make your tools GPL compliant and you do not have to pay for any license...
Dood, you are COMPLETELY missing the point of the comparison. My company pays TrollTech for a commercial license each time we install onto a dev's machine (and our royalty schema), now next year if TrollTech hasn't made major improvements the COST IS THE SAME.
Do you understand the reason I mentioned Qt?
It is funny, if this was a troll against Linux instead of M$, it would have been marked as flamebait; however, since Slashdot is no longer home to open minded forums, it is marked 'informative', hehe... (Here comes the 'flamebait' marker ;).) Give it to me!
You MUST pay if you use if for commercial purposes which are proprietary and do not fall under the GPL.
...does that mean I should pay less money each year for a QT license if they don't release a bunch of new features? ;)
It says:
"I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will
have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar."
Having been involved, personally, with the finances of a few startups, I can assure you that there are a myriad of legitimate (as in 'morally acceptable') reasons why that quote could exist in that memo.
Now, of course, M$ may be dirty; however, I prefer that we take the high road and I'd like to hear Microsoft's explanation.
Technically it is; however, I don't think we'll see too many secret service raids on Coney Island anytime soon (unless they get REALLY hard up.) ;)
This is from the U.S. Code:
Defacement of Currency
Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service. Their mailing address is:
United States Secret Service
950 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20223.
http://www.moneyfactory.com/document.cfm/18/104