Try Mandrake for a simple user hardware setup/modification "with no command line". It autoprobes better than any other Linux I've tried. I'm not sure what you mean by a "universal software installer", but windows isn't as good as debian's package management, or apt-get. If debian had mandrakes autoprobing, we'd be there. Seriously.
You just negated your entire post with that single sentence.
Sounds like gaming is all that matters...and if that is so, then I can understand running windows. However, for people in Math, Physics, Chemistry, Econ, or any other discipline requiring advanced computational software, I'd recommend Linux. For gamers, its a whole different ballgame, for sure.
Compare Linux with old Windows versions? Ok, the stability is similar (and in some cases better depending on various issues) to what Windows offers today in 2000/XP (and no my uptime on XP blows my uptime on Linux away so don't even go there).
Based on our labs' experience, as well as my own, I have to suspect your BS-ing. 2000/XP is more stable than win9x, without doubt. It still tanks significantly more than our Redhat or Fedora stations.
Let me know when it is and when there is sufficient general application support that is acceptable for 90%+ of users and I will agree. That will include being able to view web pages that are IE bug dependent, interoperating 100% with other Office users, and being able to play games.
Let me know when MS decides that screwing standards sideways isn't necessary. If they ever clean up their "nonstandard standards-extensions", give *me* a call. Until then, with all due respect, fuck off.
Come on. When MS Windows is open like Linux is open, then we can start "equating open source" with MS Windows as we do with Linux. The fact that FOSS will run on MS Windows doesn't mean MS Windows is FOSS.
"running a product in a context it was not designed for"
Yet the context was designed to run the product...
"something that requires the platform that the software was intended to run on"
These is the crux of the matter. These are two separate, orthoganal concepts: "requires", "intended for".
"stepped out of bounds"
It is exactly the appropriateness (if not the legality) of the setting of such bounds. The outrage is "how dare they *artifically* create boundaries".
The use of "entitlement" seems to be flamebait. The rest of your post is well worded enough that I don't believe you would accidently mischoose a word. Which leads me to believe you could be trolling. Troll that well and I don't minding biting the bait, though:-)
Well I'm pretty good with my thumb, index finger, and middle finger. My ring finger and little finger are much less agile. Doing double duty with my index finger, I could use an extra button by my thumb. Four buttons would be sufficent.
Both forms of "sampling" (quotes and remixing) are intended to create a new work...but your point regarding attribution is interesting. That does seem to be the essential difference.
"I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to
maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to
maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for
shareholders than simply maximizing profits)."
Well I've just started an MBA program this semester, and I keep hearing "maximize shareholder wealth" as the corporate prime directive. Company profit is just a means to that end.
I think it has to do with the number of fingers on your hand. Work arounds could be done for windows as they've been done for the Mac, but it would just deny the number of fingers sitting there at that mouse. Just as there really is no *need* for a mouse, but in some circumstances it makes things easier, there is no *need* for three-button scroll mice, but they make things *easier*.
Please clarify your stated difference between the sampling of text and the sampling of other media forms. The major differences I see are monetary value, and historical precedents (for text), rather than any qualitative difference.
Also, is there an implied limit to "re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts", which would in your opinion prevent direct quotes? If I can use direct quotes from the State of the Union in a report, why can't I use "quotes"/samples in a report comparing/contrasting, for instance, banjo picking styles in bluegrass vs. country music? Or tracing the evolution of musical styles in american folk music?
When material is presented as text, then quoting means the use of text. When material is presented in another media format, then doesn't "quoting" of necessity imply sampling?
Actually what right do they have to even take notice of what OS you are running Office under? The "System Requirements" is a suggestion, not part of a contract or EULA. You can't possibly think that if I used my Office CDs to balance a short leg of my coffee table the BSA would find it actionable? The "Systems Requirements" is *not* magic.
The concern is that they are discriminating between two sets of customers who both bought the same product. It would be more obvious if they said, for instance, we'll autoupdate all customers who live in states with Republican governors. Or if you had to prove you were caucasian. Or if you had to prove you were male.
Well but you have to have a copy of WinXP to install under VMWare. At that point you really are running MS Windows. If you can't even use IE, on top of WinXP (which happens to be on top of VMWare on top of *nix) to autoupdate, then it would be even more obviously wrong.
I'll agree with you that I'm "leasing" the right to use the software when MS replaces a scratched CD. What? I need to purchase another? But I already own a "license", did that get damaged when the CD was scratched?
I think the problem is that "trademarks", "patents", and "trade secrets" are well defined terms, whereas "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. If they called it "intellectual psuedo-property" it would be more clear. Besides, IPP is cooler anyway because all the really *cool* acronyms are three lettered.
"They sold you the game to run on a Nintendo didn't they?"
That is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that things are sold for a specific use, rather than sold to be put to use as the owner sees fit. This denies the utility attribute of possession. It denies fundamental property rights. This concept is fundamentally wrong and *should* be legislated against...
"Using words like "good" and "evil" to describe what's happening misses why MS is successful and really doesn't help you change the situation."
Yes! Its not about "good" or "evil", its about marketing, and markets, and "criminal abuse of a monopoly". Its also perhaps about abuses that lead to said position of monopoly.
So "good" and "evil" are inappropriate. I'd suggest "criminal" is sufficent.
PalmSource already has a smart phone OS, but it believes CMS code will allow it to extend its reach further downmarket into more basic voice-oriented models. CMS has built a phone platform, mfone, on the back of a home-brewed, ARM- and MIPs-oriented embedded version of Linux, mLinux, and a selection of the usual comms and PIM apps. All these components will be the Palm OS look and feel - and, crucially, data compatibility - over time. What's planned is no mere GUI swap - more the replacement with PalmSource code of CMS' application and that part of the OS sitting above the Linux kernel. Some CMS technology, particularly in the telephony area, may well find its way into the Palm OS.
Linux is intensely popular among electronics companies, especially in Asia, which is becoming the center of mobile device manufacturing. We think providing a Palm OS® solution for Linux can help bring in more licensees.
* The rate of innovation in Linux is faster than anything a proprietary operating system company can do on its own; in the future, we think getting things like device drivers and support for new chips and components will be much easier. This change won't be directly visible to Palm OS users, but over time we think it should mean faster development of new types of devices.
* Providing solutions for Linux will allow our engineers to focus on improving the Palm OS interface, PalmSource(TM) PIM applications, and advanced software frameworks -- exactly the sort of user-visible innovation that many of you have been asking us for.
* Many corporations broadly deploy Linux on servers. Palm OS for Linux will let companies leverage that investment to support and deploy Palm Powered products to their employees.
Overall, by teaming up with the Linux community, we think we can build a mobile alliance with the scale and resources to compete globally against even the biggest mobile operating system companies.
but by allowing one class of license owners to upgrade for free (those with MS-Windows licenses) and another to *not* upgrade for free (Wine users)
It is worse, because these two categories of users have the same class of license, the license that came with the product they bought. So MS is discriminating on whether they respect this license based on how they charactorize the user. Its the *same* license. Yet Joe Black doesn't get updates while Joe White does get updates.
"sort-of legitimate" reason? It *was* implemented in a nasty way, and I don't see how it could possibly have been anything but FUD aimed at eliminating what was acknowledged at the time to be a better product. DOS was losing ground. This destroyed their competition. End of story. Larry's excuses are pathetic rationalizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Games and watching DVDs. Really thats it. Ain't nothing else.
Try Mandrake for a simple user hardware setup/modification "with no command line". It autoprobes better than any other Linux I've tried. I'm not sure what you mean by a "universal software installer", but windows isn't as good as debian's package management, or apt-get. If debian had mandrakes autoprobing, we'd be there. Seriously.
You just negated your entire post with that single sentence.
Sounds like gaming is all that matters...and if that is so, then I can understand running windows. However, for people in Math, Physics, Chemistry, Econ, or any other discipline requiring advanced computational software, I'd recommend Linux. For gamers, its a whole different ballgame, for sure.
Come on. When MS Windows is open like Linux is open, then we can start "equating open source" with MS Windows as we do with Linux. The fact that FOSS will run on MS Windows doesn't mean MS Windows is FOSS.
"running a product in a context it was not designed for"
:-)
Yet the context was designed to run the product...
"something that requires the platform that the software was intended to run on"
These is the crux of the matter. These are two separate, orthoganal concepts: "requires", "intended for".
"stepped out of bounds"
It is exactly the appropriateness (if not the legality) of the setting of such bounds. The outrage is "how dare they *artifically* create boundaries".
The use of "entitlement" seems to be flamebait. The rest of your post is well worded enough that I don't believe you would accidently mischoose a word. Which leads me to believe you could be trolling. Troll that well and I don't minding biting the bait, though
Well I'm pretty good with my thumb, index finger, and middle finger. My ring finger and little finger are much less agile. Doing double duty with my index finger, I could use an extra button by my thumb. Four buttons would be sufficent.
Both forms of "sampling" (quotes and remixing) are intended to create a new work...but your point regarding attribution is interesting. That does seem to be the essential difference.
"I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for shareholders than simply maximizing profits)."
Well I've just started an MBA program this semester, and I keep hearing "maximize shareholder wealth" as the corporate prime directive. Company profit is just a means to that end.
I think it has to do with the number of fingers on your hand. Work arounds could be done for windows as they've been done for the Mac, but it would just deny the number of fingers sitting there at that mouse. Just as there really is no *need* for a mouse, but in some circumstances it makes things easier, there is no *need* for three-button scroll mice, but they make things *easier*.
Please clarify your stated difference between the sampling of text and the sampling of other media forms. The major differences I see are monetary value, and historical precedents (for text), rather than any qualitative difference.
Also, is there an implied limit to "re-interpreting pre-existing creative-thoughts", which would in your opinion prevent direct quotes? If I can use direct quotes from the State of the Union in a report, why can't I use "quotes"/samples in a report comparing/contrasting, for instance, banjo picking styles in bluegrass vs. country music? Or tracing the evolution of musical styles in american folk music?
When material is presented as text, then quoting means the use of text. When material is presented in another media format, then doesn't "quoting" of necessity imply sampling?
Actually what right do they have to even take notice of what OS you are running Office under? The "System Requirements" is a suggestion, not part of a contract or EULA. You can't possibly think that if I used my Office CDs to balance a short leg of my coffee table the BSA would find it actionable? The "Systems Requirements" is *not* magic.
The concern is that they are discriminating between two sets of customers who both bought the same product. It would be more obvious if they said, for instance, we'll autoupdate all customers who live in states with Republican governors. Or if you had to prove you were caucasian. Or if you had to prove you were male.
Well but you have to have a copy of WinXP to install under VMWare. At that point you really are running MS Windows. If you can't even use IE, on top of WinXP (which happens to be on top of VMWare on top of *nix) to autoupdate, then it would be even more obviously wrong.
I'll agree with you that I'm "leasing" the right to use the software when MS replaces a scratched CD. What? I need to purchase another? But I already own a "license", did that get damaged when the CD was scratched?
I think the problem is that "trademarks", "patents", and "trade secrets" are well defined terms, whereas "intellectual property" is an oxymoron. If they called it "intellectual psuedo-property" it would be more clear. Besides, IPP is cooler anyway because all the really *cool* acronyms are three lettered.
"They sold you the game to run on a Nintendo didn't they?"
That is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that things are sold for a specific use, rather than sold to be put to use as the owner sees fit. This denies the utility attribute of possession. It denies fundamental property rights. This concept is fundamentally wrong and *should* be legislated against...
Actually, MS calls it, "Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) programme".
Hehehe...Thats always been my favorite darwin award.
Cool. How did you know this? I suspect there are many such shortcuts "hiding" in Firefox...
"Using words like "good" and "evil" to describe what's happening misses why MS is successful and really doesn't help you change the situation."
Yes! Its not about "good" or "evil", its about marketing, and markets, and "criminal abuse of a monopoly". Its also perhaps about abuses that lead to said position of monopoly.
So "good" and "evil" are inappropriate. I'd suggest "criminal" is sufficent.
I guess that I and the other programmers I know that choose to use Windows just don't exist then, huh?
Nope. Ya'll just aren't hackers. Most programmers arent'.
It is worse, because these two categories of users have the same class of license, the license that came with the product they bought. So MS is discriminating on whether they respect this license based on how they charactorize the user. Its the *same* license. Yet Joe Black doesn't get updates while Joe White does get updates.
"sort-of legitimate" reason? It *was* implemented in a nasty way, and I don't see how it could possibly have been anything but FUD aimed at eliminating what was acknowledged at the time to be a better product. DOS was losing ground. This destroyed their competition. End of story. Larry's excuses are pathetic rationalizations.