... is a fine piece of work for its time, but we are capable of making much more powerful space telescopes now, it might be best that we DON'T put mroe money into the Hubble.
We're thinking of sending someone to mars, but that Hubble thing--WAY too dangerous!
Re:If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck
on
BSD For Linux Users
·
· Score: 1
I wanted to make up a clever response like "posix compliant" but that isn't exactly true. If I made my own OS that looked, acted, even smelled like Windows, it still wouldn't be windows. The codebase is the thing. A clone is a clone. It's still different.
I did a quick look and saw that Athlon has a 1 MB cache. Is this enough? Maybe cache is expensive, but I have a feeling performance of these chips could be greatly enchanced with more cache... I only say this because of the Centrino "chip/chipset/network card" thing that has come out. Apparently the centrino chip is a pentium running at about 600 MHz that performs as a 1.2 GHz chip because they have 1 MB cache.
So for a 64-bit, 2+ GHz processor, is 1 MB enough?
I'm sure this is A-OK with MS. Most people cannot/won't do this. This has the effect of legitimizing the idea that MS took off the restrictions because you can still do it, while at the same time making the reality that almost no one will use anything but IE.
We make a deal. SCO submits their code to the gov, and this evidence and ONLY this evidence can be used. Then others can reveal their code, and SCO has no chance of putting it in their own code as "proof."
EXACTLY. Some people just don't get it. Linux is a UNIX clone to be exact. UNIX is anything based (as in inherited code from) the Bell Labs project. End of story. Linux doesn't claim to be UNIX, it claims to be UNIX-like, as it should. Otherwise the GPL would be in violation. We don't want to give SCO the wrong idea do we?
I think there's a practical reason why they make "ugly code"... the more crap they add to the code the fewer people they have figuring it out. Sure in the world of those who know this is stupid, but if the common user opened a FrontPage created html file with notepad, he would forever give up actually trying to write html himself and stick with programs that do this forever.
And as per the comment about people who use HTML make pages that are ugly:
1) Often people who use html make really excellent pages... which are functional too. In fact the best dreamweaver pages I've seen have been made with simplicity in mind and could easily have been written by hand. Just because maybe pages like gnu.org and my own are kind of ugly doesn't mean that HTML by hand = ugly pages.
2) HTML pages made by hand are often best viewed on "any browser" including lynx.
No kidding! Even if judges were computer gurus, the whole legal system is WAY too slow for the fast pace of technology. Things can be too far gone for real justice by the time it even goes to court!
Microsoft's monopoly came largely in part due to agreements with computer manufacturers to ship their operating system pre-installed (even today most computers come with windows).
So the question is, if Microsoft DIDN'T have this agreement would they be able to charge aprox $200 for the "home" edition of their software? Can you imagine buying a computer first, then going out and choosing the excellence of Windows for just a low $200?
Personally I think the whole "there could have been damages" idea is totally messed up. Making copies (like many have said) isn't like stealing a car or any other "tangible" where you actually take the use away from another person. The only way "the other side" has been able to call this stealing is because you're essentially stealing their profits. So logically it follows that if they don't profit from the _thing_ anymore, then it's not stealing. What EXACTLY is anyone stealing at that point?
I definitely see your point, and I can understand that maybe it would be very very hard... I guess I'm just upset with Microsoft for not doing a better job with the DOS emulation when I think they could have. Even if it wasn't perfected.
Anyway thanks for not getting pissed just because someone ad something to say remotely contradictory... that happens too often on slashdot anymore.;)
It's apparent that he was talking about free as in beer... what I wish he would have added was the fact that people actually PAY for software they COULD have had for free because it's so good they want to support it VOLUNTARILY! Now that's enough proff that Linux is a superior operating system.
Compare that to Windows which most people have only because it was bought by the computer manufacturers and came with the hardware;)
I'm sorry but I just don't believe this. I'm not saying that your facts aren't true, but considering a completely different company (vmware) can allow you run DOS on top of Linux who didn't even have any of the inside resources that Microsoft had, I certainly think Microsoft could have achieved compatibility with DOS without allowing these "restrictions" even if only to emulate DOS. And even now, they can't emulate their own old operating system on systems like XP as well as vmware can do via virtual machine. And frankly who cares if it would be slow--it's not like any of the old DOS programs ran on something faster than a 486 anyway.
Anyway, MAYBE I'm mistaken but it will take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that Microsoft's poor backward compatibility was "necessary" and not the result of just not caring enough.
"I remember telling people that sun servers often stayed up for years without reboots -- no one believed it. Computers crashed, that's what computers do. Microsoft, and to a lesser extent apple, convinced most casual users that's the way computers worked."
I'm still wondering at how they accomplished this...
But for all intensive purposes, doesn't it basically operate this way? I mean don't they have to prove damages... and if they are not producing the product, are there any damages?
Not only that but small businesses are going to be MORE scared of SCO than big companies. I mean come on, a small company doesn't have much to lose means that it also can't handle any kind of legal attacks at all... they'll gladly pay $699 in order to save themselves that trouble.
Not only that but small companies have it hard enough already. They don't need to be labelled "thieves" to the public eye.
Slashdot Mirror
... is a fine piece of work for its time, but we are capable of making much more powerful space telescopes now, it might be best that we DON'T put mroe money into the Hubble.
We're thinking of sending someone to mars, but that Hubble thing--WAY too dangerous!
I wanted to make up a clever response like "posix compliant" but that isn't exactly true. If I made my own OS that looked, acted, even smelled like Windows, it still wouldn't be windows. The codebase is the thing. A clone is a clone. It's still different.
I thought SCO's case against BSD was already dismissed?
I did a quick look and saw that Athlon has a 1 MB cache. Is this enough? Maybe cache is expensive, but I have a feeling performance of these chips could be greatly enchanced with more cache... I only say this because of the Centrino "chip/chipset/network card" thing that has come out. Apparently the centrino chip is a pentium running at about 600 MHz that performs as a 1.2 GHz chip because they have 1 MB cache.
So for a 64-bit, 2+ GHz processor, is 1 MB enough?
Well I think anyone would say that if you're willing to use hotmail, you should be willing to use IE ;)
I suspect the music industry probably put some pressure on MS to make sure everyone was happy about buying music online.
I'm sure this is A-OK with MS. Most people cannot/won't do this. This has the effect of legitimizing the idea that MS took off the restrictions because you can still do it, while at the same time making the reality that almost no one will use anything but IE.
We make a deal. SCO submits their code to the gov, and this evidence and ONLY this evidence can be used. Then others can reveal their code, and SCO has no chance of putting it in their own code as "proof."
Or... SCO can just keep stalling.
Why would anybody want to run it all in one process space? Because... you can keep common parts of the program loaded into memory for faster startup.
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. DNS can store any sort of data. It's just a system for distributing keys and values...
EXACTLY. Some people just don't get it. Linux is a UNIX clone to be exact. UNIX is anything based (as in inherited code from) the Bell Labs project. End of story. Linux doesn't claim to be UNIX, it claims to be UNIX-like, as it should. Otherwise the GPL would be in violation. We don't want to give SCO the wrong idea do we?
No kidding. Let's make that -f option more useful, at least in theory.
I think there's a practical reason why they make "ugly code" ... the more crap they add to the code the fewer people they have figuring it out. Sure in the world of those who know this is stupid, but if the common user opened a FrontPage created html file with notepad, he would forever give up actually trying to write html himself and stick with programs that do this forever.
And as per the comment about people who use HTML make pages that are ugly:
1) Often people who use html make really excellent pages... which are functional too. In fact the best dreamweaver pages I've seen have been made with simplicity in mind and could easily have been written by hand. Just because maybe pages like gnu.org and my own are kind of ugly doesn't mean that HTML by hand = ugly pages.
2) HTML pages made by hand are often best viewed on "any browser" including lynx.
No kidding! Even if judges were computer gurus, the whole legal system is WAY too slow for the fast pace of technology. Things can be too far gone for real justice by the time it even goes to court!
Microsoft's monopoly came largely in part due to agreements with computer manufacturers to ship their operating system pre-installed (even today most computers come with windows).
So the question is, if Microsoft DIDN'T have this agreement would they be able to charge aprox $200 for the "home" edition of their software? Can you imagine buying a computer first, then going out and choosing the excellence of Windows for just a low $200?
Basically, is Windows true market value $200?
Personally I think the whole "there could have been damages" idea is totally messed up. Making copies (like many have said) isn't like stealing a car or any other "tangible" where you actually take the use away from another person. The only way "the other side" has been able to call this stealing is because you're essentially stealing their profits. So logically it follows that if they don't profit from the _thing_ anymore, then it's not stealing. What EXACTLY is anyone stealing at that point?
I definitely see your point, and I can understand that maybe it would be very very hard... I guess I'm just upset with Microsoft for not doing a better job with the DOS emulation when I think they could have. Even if it wasn't perfected.
;)
Anyway thanks for not getting pissed just because someone ad something to say remotely contradictory... that happens too often on slashdot anymore.
It's apparent that he was talking about free as in beer... what I wish he would have added was the fact that people actually PAY for software they COULD have had for free because it's so good they want to support it VOLUNTARILY! Now that's enough proff that Linux is a superior operating system.
;)
Compare that to Windows which most people have only because it was bought by the computer manufacturers and came with the hardware
I'm sorry but I just don't believe this. I'm not saying that your facts aren't true, but considering a completely different company (vmware) can allow you run DOS on top of Linux who didn't even have any of the inside resources that Microsoft had, I certainly think Microsoft could have achieved compatibility with DOS without allowing these "restrictions" even if only to emulate DOS. And even now, they can't emulate their own old operating system on systems like XP as well as vmware can do via virtual machine. And frankly who cares if it would be slow--it's not like any of the old DOS programs ran on something faster than a 486 anyway.
Anyway, MAYBE I'm mistaken but it will take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that Microsoft's poor backward compatibility was "necessary" and not the result of just not caring enough.
"I remember telling people that sun servers often stayed up for years without reboots -- no one believed it. Computers crashed, that's what computers do. Microsoft, and to a lesser extent apple, convinced most casual users that's the way computers worked."
I'm still wondering at how they accomplished this...
But for all intensive purposes, doesn't it basically operate this way? I mean don't they have to prove damages... and if they are not producing the product, are there any damages?
Well it says...
"Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) 1993-2003 Denis Howe"
A definition that seems to have a lot of opinion in it...
As far as clean and effecient fuels for transportation go, can anyone comment on natural gas in comparison to electricity?
Not only that but small businesses are going to be MORE scared of SCO than big companies. I mean come on, a small company doesn't have much to lose means that it also can't handle any kind of legal attacks at all... they'll gladly pay $699 in order to save themselves that trouble.
Not only that but small companies have it hard enough already. They don't need to be labelled "thieves" to the public eye.