How many times have we seen edited versions on planes? If they don't whine about those, why whine about consumers buying them? It would make more sense just to put the airline versions up for sale.
Almost any tool can be used unsafely if you try hard enough. No language is going to be perfect. Hell, C++ makes C# look like Underwriters' Laboratory for safety and yet most commercial software is written using it.
We as developers are (as usual) the unsafe element in any program. Cars are not unsafe in themselves just because they kill people. It's the drivers.
Good programming practices is the key to good code. If we expect to rely on a language or environment to protect us from writing unsafe code we are shirking our responsibility to become good developers and instead breeding a whole new generation of lazy ones.
What legal basis do they have to assume that you even have any copies of their software anyway? Is it because Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the desktop that they are able to use that to be probable cause that you have their software and extend that to permit the convoluted interpretation of the license agreement?
Won't someone think about the mob?
on
Transparent Concrete
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
This is terrible news! Do you realize how hard it is to dispose of a body using transparent concrete?
It's the wrong idea...
on
Wired Talks Wine
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
...if the aim is to get converts. How many people converted to the mac because of softPC? I personally don't know any.
Remember OS/2? One of their claims was "it's a better DOS than DOS" and it was true. OS/2 could run DOS with multiple versions and multiple configurations. But did it take off? No. And one of the reasons is that it didn't have the software support. People don't want emulators, they want native applications.
Emulators are good for that application or two that you still need to run aside from your main software. The key is to make that "main software" Linux software and get the users to like them better than the Windows software.
If people want to run Windows apps, they'll run Windows.
I don't disagree that there are different requirements. However, it is the very nature of the differences that lead to instability.
The difference is "variables". The desktop has so many more variables because it is actively being fiddled with and changed by a user. No server is designed to put up with that kind of pounding.
The only way you will get a similarity between the desktop is if you let non-savvy users reconfigure your servers every day. That's exactly what happens on a desktop.
Just because a desktop doesn't get even a thousandth of the transactions as a server doesn't mean it needs to be less robust. Nor does a kernel or piece of software that can withstand a lot of pounding indicate that it is any more stable. It only means that it has passed a single measure of stability.
Users, by and large, are stupid. The biggest problem that I continue to see on the Linux desktop is that it can't withstand common user stupidity, at least not without someone very expert to restrict things to that degree.
I reject the notion that stability is something reserved for high end systems. Curse Microsoft if you will, but perception is reality as far as desktops are concerned. If people THINK something is stable, it'll succeed on the desktop. People seem to think XP is stable (why, is beyond me) and so it succeeds.
Every time I see the phrase "stable enough" with regards to Linux, I just have to cringe. I understand completely that high end systems require a different level of reliability, but when you accept something as "stable enough" then you've admitted to accepting bugs as reality. And isn't that just what Microsoft does? (as an example, Microsoft rarely classifies "bugs" and calls most bugs "issues")
AOL requires you to use their software to check mail on their systems.
Big shock. Why should anyone care if Microsoft requires you to use their products when you use their ISP? Where are the articles about AOL requiring you to use their client software to get mail?
Look, there is plenty to get irritated about with Microsoft. They are very predatory with their licensing and the way they bully their partners. Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the things that are almost universally decried rather than attacking everything MS does and look "anti-microsoft"?
People shouldn't hate microsoft because of who they are but rather hate the specific things they do are wrong. It's counterproductive to seek out issues that will detract from the primary point that Microsoft uses licensing, bundling, and bullying to keep its suppliers in line and crush the competitors.
I'm sorry, I was being relative. I meant cheap compared to having to pay for them separately, such as buying Visual Studio, Microsoft Office Premium, Windows 2000 Server and Professional, SQL Server 2000, and so on. Yes, $2000 isn't cheap compared to other platforms, but they are cheap compared to having to buy them outside of the MSDN program.
Microsoft is licensing VERY CHEAPLY their development and office tools and a huge database of technical information. Of COURSE they have a right to know the information about the person to whom they are sending this software.
But as for the reference tools, that IS all available free, without having to log on via passport, over the web.
What isn't told is that if you are a subscriber of MSDN, you already have given them your information when you sent them your check. As for employees having to divulge your information, big deal. I have to do that all the time. I give my company address and company phone number and nothing else.
Let's keep this in perspective please and not have "the sky is falling" rants just because the person doing it is microsoft. There is no effective difference between logging in via Passport or directly to their websites. They could share the information either way. Again, let's keep perspective. Try downloading something from Oracle, Sun, or Sybase. Each time I've downloaded from one of these companies they've wanted information.
There is no flamebait there. That's what happened. Read the history of how SQL Server came to be. It's not an indictment of microsoft at all. The fact is that Microsoft and Sybase had different visions for the products and over years of trying to work together, they decided to go their seperate ways. Microsoft wanted features that could best be obtained through a single OS optimized product and Sybase wanted cross-platform compatibility to be a primary feature.
All I ask is that you look at what was said before labelling something as flamebait. You'll see that I said nothing even remotely critical of any company. I would recommend anyone curious doing a little research on the history behind SQL Server. It's quite interesting and merely shows two companies can have very different ideas of product direction without one of them being wrong. It's all a matter of focus and priorities.
I find this to be remarkably similar to what Microsoft did with Sybase and SQL Server. Eventually, you're likely to see RH with literally their own product such that it's unrecognizable as being postgres.
...is caffeine. Lots and lots of caffeine. I don't care if you're a programmer, a system administrator, or a homebrew hacker (in the old and true sense of the word). Without the readily available supply of that wonderful drug called caffeine, who would say that Linux would be even 1/4 the phenomenon that it is today? Hmm?
Yeah it does and while I agree that by itself it is of limited use, I'm more referring to its potential in underlying technology implementation.
Technology advances in small steps, not giant leaps. Unfortunately, to get to what appears to be those leaps, the small steps in between can often seem rather silly. But if we look beyond things as they exactly are and use something like this to say, "It's not quite right but if I added this one little thing..." then the technology advances.
My major point was that this type of technology has some good use, even if the actually application still has kinks.
I see a potential use in cases where you can connect to an ISP of some kind via line-of-sight but in an area that is environmentally sensitive such that you don't want to introduce power or where the interference of running power would be harmful to the conditions of an experiment. What this could do is allow a machine to do data sampling and serve it immediately rather than have it uploaded and then served. It essentially takes out a middleman.
The more innovative technologies we can have, the more the inventive minds can implement those technologies is useful and beneficial ways.
Slashdot Mirror
How many times have we seen edited versions on planes? If they don't whine about those, why whine about consumers buying them? It would make more sense just to put the airline versions up for sale.
Almost any tool can be used unsafely if you try hard enough. No language is going to be perfect. Hell, C++ makes C# look like Underwriters' Laboratory for safety and yet most commercial software is written using it.
We as developers are (as usual) the unsafe element in any program. Cars are not unsafe in themselves just because they kill people. It's the drivers.
Good programming practices is the key to good code. If we expect to rely on a language or environment to protect us from writing unsafe code we are shirking our responsibility to become good developers and instead breeding a whole new generation of lazy ones.
What legal basis do they have to assume that you even have any copies of their software anyway? Is it because Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the desktop that they are able to use that to be probable cause that you have their software and extend that to permit the convoluted interpretation of the license agreement?
Does this mean I now owe royalties?
This is terrible news! Do you realize how hard it is to dispose of a body using transparent concrete?
...if the aim is to get converts. How many people converted to the mac because of softPC? I personally don't know any.
Remember OS/2? One of their claims was "it's a better DOS than DOS" and it was true. OS/2 could run DOS with multiple versions and multiple configurations. But did it take off? No. And one of the reasons is that it didn't have the software support. People don't want emulators, they want native applications.
Emulators are good for that application or two that you still need to run aside from your main software. The key is to make that "main software" Linux software and get the users to like them better than the Windows software.
If people want to run Windows apps, they'll run Windows.
I don't disagree that there are different requirements. However, it is the very nature of the differences that lead to instability.
The difference is "variables". The desktop has so many more variables because it is actively being fiddled with and changed by a user. No server is designed to put up with that kind of pounding.
The only way you will get a similarity between the desktop is if you let non-savvy users reconfigure your servers every day. That's exactly what happens on a desktop.
Just because a desktop doesn't get even a thousandth of the transactions as a server doesn't mean it needs to be less robust. Nor does a kernel or piece of software that can withstand a lot of pounding indicate that it is any more stable. It only means that it has passed a single measure of stability.
Users, by and large, are stupid. The biggest problem that I continue to see on the Linux desktop is that it can't withstand common user stupidity, at least not without someone very expert to restrict things to that degree.
I reject the notion that stability is something reserved for high end systems. Curse Microsoft if you will, but perception is reality as far as desktops are concerned. If people THINK something is stable, it'll succeed on the desktop. People seem to think XP is stable (why, is beyond me) and so it succeeds.
Every time I see the phrase "stable enough" with regards to Linux, I just have to cringe. I understand completely that high end systems require a different level of reliability, but when you accept something as "stable enough" then you've admitted to accepting bugs as reality. And isn't that just what Microsoft does? (as an example, Microsoft rarely classifies "bugs" and calls most bugs "issues")
the Supreme Court also ruled that Satan is evil.
Of course they rejected it. Thank you very much Chief Justice Obvious!
sigh
Friends don't let friends buy Rit dye.
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful...
but for Bill Gates it would be:
Don't hate me because I'm evil. Hate me because I want to squash you like a bug.
We're talking PoP mail. You can do the same thing with Hotmail.
Big shock. Why should anyone care if Microsoft requires you to use their products when you use their ISP? Where are the articles about AOL requiring you to use their client software to get mail?
Look, there is plenty to get irritated about with Microsoft. They are very predatory with their licensing and the way they bully their partners. Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the things that are almost universally decried rather than attacking everything MS does and look "anti-microsoft"?
People shouldn't hate microsoft because of who they are but rather hate the specific things they do are wrong. It's counterproductive to seek out issues that will detract from the primary point that Microsoft uses licensing, bundling, and bullying to keep its suppliers in line and crush the competitors.
Again, this is no different than what AOL does.
I apologize for the confusion.
But as for the reference tools, that IS all available free, without having to log on via passport, over the web.
What isn't told is that if you are a subscriber of MSDN, you already have given them your information when you sent them your check. As for employees having to divulge your information, big deal. I have to do that all the time. I give my company address and company phone number and nothing else.
Let's keep this in perspective please and not have "the sky is falling" rants just because the person doing it is microsoft. There is no effective difference between logging in via Passport or directly to their websites. They could share the information either way. Again, let's keep perspective. Try downloading something from Oracle, Sun, or Sybase. Each time I've downloaded from one of these companies they've wanted information.
Transmeta perhaps?
All I ask is that you look at what was said before labelling something as flamebait. You'll see that I said nothing even remotely critical of any company. I would recommend anyone curious doing a little research on the history behind SQL Server. It's quite interesting and merely shows two companies can have very different ideas of product direction without one of them being wrong. It's all a matter of focus and priorities.
I find this to be remarkably similar to what Microsoft did with Sybase and SQL Server. Eventually, you're likely to see RH with literally their own product such that it's unrecognizable as being postgres.
because then I could say, "Shouldn't they spend more time trying to determine if there's any life in the Oval Office?"
Isn't that like getting the Apostles together and asking them what they think of Jesus?
...is caffeine. Lots and lots of caffeine. I don't care if you're a programmer, a system administrator, or a homebrew hacker (in the old and true sense of the word). Without the readily available supply of that wonderful drug called caffeine, who would say that Linux would be even 1/4 the phenomenon that it is today? Hmm?
:)
Technology advances in small steps, not giant leaps. Unfortunately, to get to what appears to be those leaps, the small steps in between can often seem rather silly. But if we look beyond things as they exactly are and use something like this to say, "It's not quite right but if I added this one little thing..." then the technology advances.
My major point was that this type of technology has some good use, even if the actually application still has kinks.
The more innovative technologies we can have, the more the inventive minds can implement those technologies is useful and beneficial ways.