One thing Michael Robertson wanted to do with mp3.com is provide listeners with an alternative to mainstream garbage. One thing mp3.com has proven is that nobody buys such alternatives consistently.
As a musician myself, I find this as sad as I find it true.
We don't. Furthermore, in light of your insightful post, I've decided to give up Linux and start really using my PC. And that means running Microsoft Windows.
Click Caldera and you'll never have to bother with it again.
Umm, hello...FK didn't say he wanted to stop hearing about SCO. He said he wainted one story per day until something happens. That won't solve his problems at all.
Actually I was mistaken. I was thinking that if the company releases code under the GPL, trying to build a proprietary product with the GPL'ed codebase would be illegal under the GPL's terms.
Of course, the GPL only applies to the people that use the author's software and decide they want to distribute it, so I was completely off-base there.
Still, my point about the community fork is valid.
You won't be Bill G. (or Kenny G. for that matter)
That's a terrifying thought. I can't figure out which fate would be worse. Release a product that just plain sucks, yet somehow finds it's way into 90% of American homes, or be the guy that founded Microsoft...
It's so easy to break into most people's computers that this is also a bad idea. It's better to have your data in physical form, where someone needs to break in to your house to get to it.
I'd have a field day with that, but suffice it so say, the technology is available for plenty of other distributions, and the issue isn't "my distro can do X," but "I paid for service X until 2006, and RH is discontinuing the service now. What should I do?"
Today they can be your friend, but tomorrow the stockholders could vote to charge you $699 for the same product.
They could try, but they'd have to start over from scratch if they used the GPL, for example. At any rate, once they started charging, the source would be out there, and the community could continue development.
Let's put it this way. Ever see the option to ship with NO OS? Sometimes there's one for Linux too. I've seen it several times, I just looked through pricewatch to try and find one and it's hard enough to find systems that can be bought with no OS at all.
If you really don't want to admit that most pc retailers that give a choice between Windows and Linux on any given system will cost less if you choose Linux, then I don't really feel it worth my time to try and convince you otherwise. This is basic economics here. Windows costs a retailer x dollars, and Linux costs them zero. Are you insinuating that retailers are witholding the savings from the customers? Doing so doesn't make sense, considering virtually all of the customers looking to put Linux on the system are going to know that there should be some savings.
The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, not at the one that refutes it. If you really want to see a pc retailer that allows people to choose what operating system to put on any system, than I'll go find one, but I would think that no evidence would be necessary.
It makes sense that Linux boxes are cheaper, all things being equal.
But it's not like stable, consistent, functional GUI-driven operating systems didn't exist. Microsoft made an operating system that was arguably inferior to other OS'es of the day, but managed to make it the de facto standard. Surely you don't really think it was programmers being really dedicated to fixing bugs and building a stable core OS that lead to Windows 95's success.
Slashdot Mirror
As a musician myself, I find this as sad as I find it true.
Now they can get particulars from all sorts of kids. Yum.
We don't. Furthermore, in light of your insightful post, I've decided to give up Linux and start really using my PC. And that means running Microsoft Windows.
Were you underage at the time? That's a really amusing story.
Which is why you gotta wonder about those Age of Empires phreaks :)
You can test to see if the person has the skills to takeover a system, but the test wouldn't be witheld if the suspect were merely a "student."
Umm, hello...FK didn't say he wanted to stop hearing about SCO. He said he wainted one story per day until something happens. That won't solve his problems at all.
I was thinking of Windows machines moreso than Linux boxes.
RedHat isn't selling you just the product (but I bet you already knew that).
Of course, the GPL only applies to the people that use the author's software and decide they want to distribute it, so I was completely off-base there.
Still, my point about the community fork is valid.
That's a terrifying thought. I can't figure out which fate would be worse. Release a product that just plain sucks, yet somehow finds it's way into 90% of American homes, or be the guy that founded Microsoft...
It's so easy to break into most people's computers that this is also a bad idea. It's better to have your data in physical form, where someone needs to break in to your house to get to it.
Lord Ochu informed me that he will be appearing in FFXII as well.
I'd have a field day with that, but suffice it so say, the technology is available for plenty of other distributions, and the issue isn't "my distro can do X," but "I paid for service X until 2006, and RH is discontinuing the service now. What should I do?"
They could try, but they'd have to start over from scratch if they used the GPL, for example. At any rate, once they started charging, the source would be out there, and the community could continue development.
Of course, these are extensions, not "enhancements," so your point is just as valid.
1 GB/cm^3 isn't magnitudes greater than 300+GB hard drives; what's cool is that they can scale it down.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because of the older kernel?
Personal feelings aside, criticisms of this article should not exceed it's scope.
Let's put it this way. Ever see the option to ship with NO OS? Sometimes there's one for Linux too. I've seen it several times, I just looked through pricewatch to try and find one and it's hard enough to find systems that can be bought with no OS at all.
If you really don't want to admit that most pc retailers that give a choice between Windows and Linux on any given system will cost less if you choose Linux, then I don't really feel it worth my time to try and convince you otherwise. This is basic economics here. Windows costs a retailer x dollars, and Linux costs them zero. Are you insinuating that retailers are witholding the savings from the customers? Doing so doesn't make sense, considering virtually all of the customers looking to put Linux on the system are going to know that there should be some savings.
The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, not at the one that refutes it. If you really want to see a pc retailer that allows people to choose what operating system to put on any system, than I'll go find one, but I would think that no evidence would be necessary.
It makes sense that Linux boxes are cheaper, all things being equal.
That's how I read it at least.
I'll still never use their software though :)
I never understood why Microsoft continued working on 95's codebase. They should have done with 98 what they did with 2000.
But it's not like stable, consistent, functional GUI-driven operating systems didn't exist. Microsoft made an operating system that was arguably inferior to other OS'es of the day, but managed to make it the de facto standard. Surely you don't really think it was programmers being really dedicated to fixing bugs and building a stable core OS that lead to Windows 95's success.