Read at -1. Find out what THEY don't want you to know!
Reading at 0 does that. very few mods read there it seems, so that's where all the posts 'they' don't want you to see go. reading at -1 just lets you in on the ramblings of a bunch of perverts with too much time on their hands.
No it hasn't. Windows 98SE beats Windows ME on all fronts. I don't know why, but it does. It's faster, more stable, and generally better (and the lack of DOS support or the ability to manually set your IP address is maddening)
Speaking strictly as a guy who was forced to switch by the general crappiness of ME. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, whereas Windows 98SE is the best release since 95OSR2(the one MS didn't release because it made the original 98 look bad:) ).
um...You need to compile wine? I just use the codeweavers RPM. I think you can just double-click on them to install it, but I like to go rpm -i. The first is about as easy as installs get -- way easier than windows installs. Think about it. Click -- it's in? Whoah!
Of course, a lot of commercial vendors don't distribute in RPM form for some reason. They like to make things complicated apparantly. Has anybody else tried to get one of Suns IDEs to work with Suns JAVA? It just isn't worth the effort. Sun didn't even set it up with defaults set up, so you have to decipher a cryptic message just to run the IDE. That's all Suns fault right there.
Hello_World.c could be safe only if it did something like this(keep in mind It's been a long time since I've done hardware in C, so it's probably pretty wrong, but you get the idea.) Everything done is using your own code, so you can trust it to do the job you told it to do, rather than some other programmers stuff which may be insecure. Harder to debug to be sure, but it *does* do the trick.:
//notice no includes.Others' code is bad and I don't want to get sued.:)
#define textScreen 0xB8000000
int main() {
char far *charscreen;
int pos = 1;
char message[12] = 'hello world!';/*could be 13... It's been a while since I've used chars(or c).*/
while (*message) {
charscreen = textScreen + pos;//sets the pointer.
pos++;
*charscreen = *message ;//puts the letter on the screen
message++;//pushes the letter ahead one.
}
return (1);
}
Oddly enough, I didn't pay 200 dollars for Linux, though I would have paid that for any given 9x release of Windows. Also odd, I didn't pay thousands of dollars for the GIMP, whereas adobe photoshop has a price which is quite steep indeed. Still though, I didn't pay a penny for GCC, though several pennies (tens of thousands of pennies, even) for Visual Studio Enterprise edition.
The difference(in case you missed it), is that I put good money on the line for software, and I expect it to work. I also expect to be able to do something if the product I just forked over several hundred dollars for turns out to be faulty, and causes me to lose data, or in a worse case, lose millions of dollars because some kid was able to take my mission critical system down with a single malformed packet.
There *IS* a double standard, because Free software is given to you, whereas you must pay for your latest bugfix install of Windows.
Not ms bashing, some of their stuff is usable, but wasn't winXP supposed to be the most secure and stable ever?
They all were. That's the problem. Starting with Windows 95, every OS microsoft has released has claimed to be the most stable and secure ever.
They've also claimed to be faster -- a claim which has been consistently proven when such an OS is released to be false.
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
I think any corp which breaks the law should be demonized. Really, just because someone is doing something unethical is no excuse for an entire system based on it. Yeah, I'm a bit too idealistic, but when you get entities which don't have to play by the rules, what justification is there for you to? Perhaps I should start doing really evil things to get my thrills? All the evil people are doing it, it's all the rage in paris, why not?
There must be a point where you can draw a proverbial line in the sand, where you can say to corporations "This far. No further.". Otherwise, the market is nothing but anarchy with money.
I personally have no problem with an OS shootout, just pick the OS(or two) which you think is(or are) the best. Sometimes you can get a toolkit which lets you develop across platforms, and that makes it less of a lottery, but risk is, and always has been, a part of developing software for the PC.
Perhaps something like Linux is just what the industry needs. The OS is truly standard, it's documented well, and it isn't controlled by a company who will break it just to get some market share (think Windows and DR-Dos). People talk about how Linux isn't there yet, but I bet that with a ton of developers pushing mainstream software, it would take about 18 months to get there.:)
Niche products aren't the disease, they're the symptom. It's really easy to say "well, we'll just market an OS to the masses", and it's quite another to do it. MS in entrenched in their market, and nobody has ever gone head to head with them and won, regardless of the quality of the software involved(As a rule, MS makes crap, and that crap becomes slowly better until there isn't any more competiton).
OS/2, BeOS, DR-Dos, DR-GEM, and a dozen other OSs tried to compete head on with MS, and they're all dead. It's really sad (especially for people like me who bought them because we wanted to support choice and superior software), but in order to survive in this market, you have to market to the niche.
The problem I see is that the majority of the people he seems to be going for are really a niche market.
The reason for this is because someone will use a niche OS, while all the non-MS mainstream OSs have been taken out. Think of OS/2, BeOS, DR-DOS, DR-GEM, and all the other mainstream products, where some of them were incredible and innovative, but for whatever reason, failed against Microsoft. You see the niche as the disease, but in reality, it's just the symptom of living in a day where a monopoly in OSs (and much more frighteningly, a monopoly in software, where if MS sees a piece of software they want to make, it's an instant success, even if it sucks -- or did MS *really* need to make MSN messager or MSIE?)
Trust me, the goal of ANY company is to become a monopoly!!
No, the goal of most companies is to make money. The ones which want a monopoly are dangerous to the free market. The goal of other companies is to allow the founder to be his own boss.
I know some business owners, and a lot of them definitely aren't in it to get a monopoly. Many of them lament the power of corporations against small businesses, but that's another story altogether...
By the way, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bullshit. Every alternative standard to windows has been destroyed by Microsoft(usually by legal action, in it's birthing phase). Ditto for competition in other arenas. I honestly don't think that the bloated MS Office suite is the best choice for word processing, doing spreadsheets, or whatever, but the alternatives were driven out of the market -- which drives me to one conclusion:
It's pretentious to believe that Microsoft creates better software than the entire software industry combined, which it has slowly destroyed. Really, how many companies products have they cloned and re-released, just to become the standard? I know for a fact that IE2 was shit compared to Netscape 2.0, and Netscape 3.0 was better than IE3 in every respect. After that, Microsoft had used their monopoly in Operating Systems to get a larger market share in browsers, and Microsofts IE4 was (argueably) superior to Netscape 4.
By the way, the X standard is pretty close to what you are talking about -- running software for X under any OS is usually as simple as running the software, and in other cases, just as simple as a recompile.
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 1
Don't blame MS for playing by the rules and winning.
Shut up if you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Please. If you had the SLIGHTEST clue about Microsoft, and what they've done in the past decade, you'd be realizing how stupid this makes you look.
What if the national Highway system worked like the world YOU propose without Microsoft? You car will only drive on 15% of the roads. If you want to drive to California, you'll need a different car. Want to drive to the grocery store? Yet another car. Cars need roads that conform to a set of rules (width, grade, materials, common signals, etc.) or else you'll have chaos. Computers are the same way: without a common prevailing OS standard you'll only be able to run 10% of the apps on any given platform. That's simply rediculous.
You people make me sick. The sheer idea that we need a company to monopolize the OS market because you won't be able to use all the apps is insulting. Here's an idea, why not just buy software you want to buy, and ignore the software for other OSs? Why not dual, triple, or even quad boot? Why the hell do you facist "choice is evil" people think that somehow any of this makes a single company(which has proven in the past that compatibilty means nothing -- NOTHING -- to them, and will BREAK IT'S OWN APPLICATIONS TO BREAK COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPETITORS PRODUCTS (which, by the way, FYI, is against the "rules" you are so adamant in standing by, as is fraud, which MS has commited many times (such as when Bill Gates told IBM he had an OS ready, just two months away, when in reality he had to buy a cheap clone of CP/M using 50 grand of his mothers money after the fact, or when he told the public that the new Windows GUI was two months away when DRs GUI first came out, and then took an entire 18 month development cycle to release it, and did the same again when Windows 1.0 was a flop, or when they advertised Windows ME as being better than Windows 98SE, when in reality Windows ME is an abortion of an operating system even by Microsoft standards, or when Microsoft used a blue screen of death in their Windows 2k ad campaign, thus admitting what they had denied for 5 years, that Windows 9x was an unstable piece of shit, an action which in any other industry would have gotten so many ambulance chasers on it Microsoft would have to beat them off with a stick))
At the very least, I'll agree somewhat that a standard would be cool, but a commercial standard is not it. Microsoft perverts standards on a regular basis, and giving them praise for creating a standard is kind of like praising a serial killer for trying to promote world peace. There are standards out there today which would work nicely -- the X11 standard is a great example of a multiplatform standard, ported to OS/2, Windows, Linux, *BSD, BeOS, and a score of other OSs. Paired with POSIX, I see no real reason why Microsofts dominance in the industry can be percieved as a good thing.
On the other hand, I'm just a person who has seen a company run by a spoiled rich brat become hugely successful by lying and stealing. I'm just a person who is a little bitter about that same company ruining good OSs through illegal and unethical tactics. I'm just a person who has seen innovation stifled by one company who claims to be innovative. Nobody who finds computers as great as I do could be content to see such things happening.
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
Or rather, Bills company, Microsofts OS...damn ranting:)
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
IBM was so powerful at the time, perhaps we should just call it an "act of god".:)
Billions of IBM dollars went into microsoft, so the analogy breaks down. Any free enterprise system breaks down when stupid people do stupid things (like IBM subsidizing microsoft for so long, or choosing Microsofts company in the first place).
Re:You /. people really like the word "monopoly"
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
Monopolies are rarely such a good thing as you paint them. I know it's hard to believe, but competition kicks ass. Really. I know it's nice to think that every company with a monopoly got it through being by far better than the competition, but that's not how the market works.In reality, even good companies which have a monopoly end up screwing the consumer by their plodding nature or by greed.
Lets put it this way; no company with a monopoly is ethical enough to be trusted with one.
I run linux because I believe it's a better system. My computer doesn't crash, I don't have to upgrade my system every time a new version is released, and I have massive amounts of free (as in beer) software to play with. The fact that I agree with much of the ideology is a bonus, but wasn't enough to get me over to linux until I found that it suited my needs much better than Windows did.
I think that's why most linux-users use linux. I recall that the reason I first used it was because Windows 95 sucked really badly(crash, crash, crash. Even when I wasn't moving the mouse, even with a fresh, clean install. Call it hardware problems, but every other OS ran without any problems.)
Later I found out it was free and the code was available, and I thought "Cool! I legally own this software!", and it was a bonus.
The person above has apparantly never needed to pay for his software, nor does he have a problem with people being forced to buy redundant copies of software(I use lotus wordpro or Cetus WordPad -- why the hell should I be forced to pay for software I consider inferior, especially when it's so damn expensive?)
Re:Ask a grunt about drones.
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
Not even a lot of R2-D2 units with M-16s strapped to their sides.
...I have exactly what you're looking for...
...It's the tri-optimum way!...
:)
If you can understand this reference, you're one of the lucky few who got to see a masterpiece.
I'm suprised by the people who think just that. A lot of people, even(or especially...) on slashdot seem to think we hate and deride them because they are rich or something. It sort of scares me because they are also the ones who often carry the microsoft company line(cmon, notice how few people have counter arguements for our problems with MS until MS provides one?).
Are you 200 people who will be implementing.net(like the one person who tried to vote 200 times)? Are you an automated script(Like the one that was detected voting from the microsoft.com domain)? If ZDnet accuses microsoft of cheating, you'd better read the article and realize that they were actually cheating. The article wouldn't exist if every developer in the company had come in and voted once, but they didn't. They obviously cheated.
I don't think BeOS has OS nazis. People who used be used it because it was a really good OS, which was really cool to boot, and for that same reason, the first person to successfully clone BeOS (openbeos?) will have a large initial user base.
That's also why there aren't many sites out there which are denying that BeOS will lose a lot of users (okay, already have). Some can still use it fine, but a lot of people were waiting for the next revision, which was (reportedly) going to finally have hardware OpenGL, and a lot of other things as well.
Just a point, I've read that the Ozone Layer is no longer depleting, and although it will take a long time to recover it, the reduction of CFCs in most industrialized nations is contributing to that.
I've had several opportunities to use XP, and have found its dialogs have become more confusing and ill-designed than previous releases of Windows.
I find this to be a common theme with windows in general. They take something that makes sense and muck it up. Perfect example: In the Windows 95 setup, it gives you a choice to make a recovery disk. It has basically a dialog box saying "do you want a recovery disk?" and the buttons shown are "yes" and "no". In the Windows 98 setup, for some unknown reason, it has something like "Do you want a recovery disk? Press OK to make it, and Cancel to skip", and has the "OK" button and the "Cancel" button. What the hell? They replaced a straightforeward question with a convoluted one. Why?
Microsoft has also been removing functionality from windows in places. I beg you to try to manually set the IP address on a dialup adapter. Notice how the tabs which were in every other copy of windows since the 95 disk version which allow you to set important details about IP are missing! This was a pain since I generally use Direct Cable Connection, along with some gateway hacks, to play Quake 2 or UT multiplayer with 3 players, so I actually had to downgrade to Windows 98 SE to do what I wanted! The worst part is that I can't find any reason a sane individual would want to use ME(shouldn't there be, considering it's a *upgrade* to win98 which people paid for?). It's slower, It crashes more, and it includes software which has no purpose, since the hardware needed to utilize those things (eg. video camera for ASF editing) would come with superior software anyway... I'm not ever upgrading to windows XP (even if they cut off support for windows 9x) because I am offended by how Microsoft creates clones of cool, innovative products which have already been around for a while and have shown a market as profitable. I'm doubly offended by how they claim to be "innovative", despite the fact that no successful Microsoft product has ever been original. Don't believe me? Dos is a weak clone of CP/M. Windows is a cheap clone of the MAC, and was originally a cheap clone of GEM (a GUI created by Digital Research for the X86 platform long before Windows existed), Word is merely a cheap clone of WordPerfect, Excel is merely a cheap clone of Lotus 1-2-3. IIS is a cheap, insecure clone of Apache(I'm pretty sure Apache has been around way longer than IIS). Internet Explorer is a cheap clone of Netscape(and indirectly Mosaic, but it was designed to be a Netscape Clone, meant to compete directly with netscape)
Sorry about getting off on that rant there...My original point is still buried in there, in the first paragraph or so.:)
People sometimes need to understand that just b/c you paid $300 for something does not mean that it is going to work...
I've got some beach land in Florida to sell you.:)
Just joking. The only reason I'm reading this discussion is that Microsofts pain is my pleasure. Why? Because MS has caused so much pain to me over the years because of their bad software(Even Linux is easier to troubleshoot, and I don't have nearly as much experience with it!) and criminal monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Read at -1. Find out what THEY don't want you to know!
Reading at 0 does that. very few mods read there it seems, so that's where all the posts 'they' don't want you to see go. reading at -1 just lets you in on the ramblings of a bunch of perverts with too much time on their hands.
No it hasn't. Windows 98SE beats Windows ME on all fronts. I don't know why, but it does. It's faster, more stable, and generally better (and the lack of DOS support or the ability to manually set your IP address is maddening)
:) ).
Speaking strictly as a guy who was forced to switch by the general crappiness of ME. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, whereas Windows 98SE is the best release since 95OSR2(the one MS didn't release because it made the original 98 look bad
um...You need to compile wine? I just use the codeweavers RPM. I think you can just double-click on them to install it, but I like to go rpm -i. The first is about as easy as installs get -- way easier than windows installs. Think about it. Click -- it's in? Whoah!
Of course, a lot of commercial vendors don't distribute in RPM form for some reason. They like to make things complicated apparantly. Has anybody else tried to get one of Suns IDEs to work with Suns JAVA? It just isn't worth the effort. Sun didn't even set it up with defaults set up, so you have to decipher a cryptic message just to run the IDE. That's all Suns fault right there.
Nope, but Hello_World.asm would be.
:)
//sets the pointer.
//puts the letter on the screen
//pushes the letter ahead one.
Hello_World.c could be safe only if it did something like this(keep in mind It's been a long time since I've done hardware in C, so it's probably pretty wrong, but you get the idea.) Everything done is using your own code, so you can trust it to do the job you told it to do, rather than some other programmers stuff which may be insecure. Harder to debug to be sure, but it *does* do the trick.:
//notice no includes.Others' code is bad and I don't want to get sued.
#define textScreen 0xB8000000
int main() {
char far *charscreen;
int pos = 1;
char message[12] = 'hello world!';/*could be 13... It's been a while since I've used chars(or c).*/
while (*message) {
charscreen = textScreen + pos;
pos++;
*charscreen = *message ;
message++;
}
return (1);
}
Oddly enough, I didn't pay 200 dollars for Linux, though I would have paid that for any given 9x release of Windows. Also odd, I didn't pay thousands of dollars for the GIMP, whereas adobe photoshop has a price which is quite steep indeed. Still though, I didn't pay a penny for GCC, though several pennies (tens of thousands of pennies, even) for Visual Studio Enterprise edition.
The difference(in case you missed it), is that I put good money on the line for software, and I expect it to work. I also expect to be able to do something if the product I just forked over several hundred dollars for turns out to be faulty, and causes me to lose data, or in a worse case, lose millions of dollars because some kid was able to take my mission critical system down with a single malformed packet.
There *IS* a double standard, because Free software is given to you, whereas you must pay for your latest bugfix install of Windows.
Not ms bashing, some of their stuff is usable, but wasn't winXP supposed to be the most secure and stable ever?
They all were. That's the problem. Starting with Windows 95, every OS microsoft has released has claimed to be the most stable and secure ever.
They've also claimed to be faster -- a claim which has been consistently proven when such an OS is released to be false.
I think any corp which breaks the law should be demonized. Really, just because someone is doing something unethical is no excuse for an entire system based on it. Yeah, I'm a bit too idealistic, but when you get entities which don't have to play by the rules, what justification is there for you to? Perhaps I should start doing really evil things to get my thrills? All the evil people are doing it, it's all the rage in paris, why not?
:)
There must be a point where you can draw a proverbial line in the sand, where you can say to corporations "This far. No further.". Otherwise, the market is nothing but anarchy with money.
I personally have no problem with an OS shootout, just pick the OS(or two) which you think is(or are) the best. Sometimes you can get a toolkit which lets you develop across platforms, and that makes it less of a lottery, but risk is, and always has been, a part of developing software for the PC.
Perhaps something like Linux is just what the industry needs. The OS is truly standard, it's documented well, and it isn't controlled by a company who will break it just to get some market share (think Windows and DR-Dos). People talk about how Linux isn't there yet, but I bet that with a ton of developers pushing mainstream software, it would take about 18 months to get there.
Niche products aren't the disease, they're the symptom. It's really easy to say "well, we'll just market an OS to the masses", and it's quite another to do it. MS in entrenched in their market, and nobody has ever gone head to head with them and won, regardless of the quality of the software involved(As a rule, MS makes crap, and that crap becomes slowly better until there isn't any more competiton).
OS/2, BeOS, DR-Dos, DR-GEM, and a dozen other OSs tried to compete head on with MS, and they're all dead. It's really sad (especially for people like me who bought them because we wanted to support choice and superior software), but in order to survive in this market, you have to market to the niche.
The problem I see is that the majority of the people he seems to be going for are really a niche market.
The reason for this is because someone will use a niche OS, while all the non-MS mainstream OSs have been taken out. Think of OS/2, BeOS, DR-DOS, DR-GEM, and all the other mainstream products, where some of them were incredible and innovative, but for whatever reason, failed against Microsoft. You see the niche as the disease, but in reality, it's just the symptom of living in a day where a monopoly in OSs (and much more frighteningly, a monopoly in software, where if MS sees a piece of software they want to make, it's an instant success, even if it sucks -- or did MS *really* need to make MSN messager or MSIE?)
Trust me, the goal of ANY company is to become a monopoly!!
No, the goal of most companies is to make money. The ones which want a monopoly are dangerous to the free market. The goal of other companies is to allow the founder to be his own boss.
I know some business owners, and a lot of them definitely aren't in it to get a monopoly. Many of them lament the power of corporations against small businesses, but that's another story altogether...
By the way, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bullshit. Every alternative standard to windows has been destroyed by Microsoft(usually by legal action, in it's birthing phase). Ditto for competition in other arenas. I honestly don't think that the bloated MS Office suite is the best choice for word processing, doing spreadsheets, or whatever, but the alternatives were driven out of the market -- which drives me to one conclusion:
It's pretentious to believe that Microsoft creates better software than the entire software industry combined, which it has slowly destroyed. Really, how many companies products have they cloned and re-released, just to become the standard? I know for a fact that IE2 was shit compared to Netscape 2.0, and Netscape 3.0 was better than IE3 in every respect. After that, Microsoft had used their monopoly in Operating Systems to get a larger market share in browsers, and Microsofts IE4 was (argueably) superior to Netscape 4.
By the way, the X standard is pretty close to what you are talking about -- running software for X under any OS is usually as simple as running the software, and in other cases, just as simple as a recompile.
Don't blame MS for playing by the rules and winning.
Shut up if you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Please. If you had the SLIGHTEST clue about Microsoft, and what they've done in the past decade, you'd be realizing how stupid this makes you look.
What if the national Highway system worked like the world YOU propose without Microsoft? You car will only drive on 15% of the roads. If you want to drive to California, you'll need a different car. Want to drive to the grocery store? Yet another car. Cars need roads that conform to a set of rules (width, grade, materials, common signals, etc.) or else you'll have chaos. Computers are the same way: without a common prevailing OS standard you'll only be able to run 10% of the apps on any given platform. That's simply rediculous.
You people make me sick. The sheer idea that we need a company to monopolize the OS market because you won't be able to use all the apps is insulting. Here's an idea, why not just buy software you want to buy, and ignore the software for other OSs? Why not dual, triple, or even quad boot? Why the hell do you facist "choice is evil" people think that somehow any of this makes a single company(which has proven in the past that compatibilty means nothing -- NOTHING -- to them, and will BREAK IT'S OWN APPLICATIONS TO BREAK COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPETITORS PRODUCTS (which, by the way, FYI, is against the "rules" you are so adamant in standing by, as is fraud, which MS has commited many times (such as when Bill Gates told IBM he had an OS ready, just two months away, when in reality he had to buy a cheap clone of CP/M using 50 grand of his mothers money after the fact, or when he told the public that the new Windows GUI was two months away when DRs GUI first came out, and then took an entire 18 month development cycle to release it, and did the same again when Windows 1.0 was a flop, or when they advertised Windows ME as being better than Windows 98SE, when in reality Windows ME is an abortion of an operating system even by Microsoft standards, or when Microsoft used a blue screen of death in their Windows 2k ad campaign, thus admitting what they had denied for 5 years, that Windows 9x was an unstable piece of shit, an action which in any other industry would have gotten so many ambulance chasers on it Microsoft would have to beat them off with a stick))
At the very least, I'll agree somewhat that a standard would be cool, but a commercial standard is not it. Microsoft perverts standards on a regular basis, and giving them praise for creating a standard is kind of like praising a serial killer for trying to promote world peace. There are standards out there today which would work nicely -- the X11 standard is a great example of a multiplatform standard, ported to OS/2, Windows, Linux, *BSD, BeOS, and a score of other OSs. Paired with POSIX, I see no real reason why Microsofts dominance in the industry can be percieved as a good thing.
On the other hand, I'm just a person who has seen a company run by a spoiled rich brat become hugely successful by lying and stealing. I'm just a person who is a little bitter about that same company ruining good OSs through illegal and unethical tactics. I'm just a person who has seen innovation stifled by one company who claims to be innovative. Nobody who finds computers as great as I do could be content to see such things happening.
Or rather, Bills company, Microsofts OS...damn ranting :)
IBM was so powerful at the time, perhaps we should just call it an "act of god". :)
Billions of IBM dollars went into microsoft, so the analogy breaks down. Any free enterprise system breaks down when stupid people do stupid things (like IBM subsidizing microsoft for so long, or choosing Microsofts company in the first place).
Monopolies are rarely such a good thing as you paint them. I know it's hard to believe, but competition kicks ass. Really. I know it's nice to think that every company with a monopoly got it through being by far better than the competition, but that's not how the market works.In reality, even good companies which have a monopoly end up screwing the consumer by their plodding nature or by greed.
Lets put it this way; no company with a monopoly is ethical enough to be trusted with one.
I run linux because I believe it's a better system. My computer doesn't crash, I don't have to upgrade my system every time a new version is released, and I have massive amounts of free (as in beer) software to play with. The fact that I agree with much of the ideology is a bonus, but wasn't enough to get me over to linux until I found that it suited my needs much better than Windows did.
I think that's why most linux-users use linux. I recall that the reason I first used it was because Windows 95 sucked really badly(crash, crash, crash. Even when I wasn't moving the mouse, even with a fresh, clean install. Call it hardware problems, but every other OS ran without any problems.)
Later I found out it was free and the code was available, and I thought "Cool! I legally own this software!", and it was a bonus.
The person above has apparantly never needed to pay for his software, nor does he have a problem with people being forced to buy redundant copies of software(I use lotus wordpro or Cetus WordPad -- why the hell should I be forced to pay for software I consider inferior, especially when it's so damn expensive?)
Not even a lot of R2-D2 units with M-16s strapped to their sides.
:)
...I have exactly what you're looking for...
...It's the tri-optimum way!...
If you can understand this reference, you're one of the lucky few who got to see a masterpiece.
I'm suprised by the people who think just that. A lot of people, even(or especially...) on slashdot seem to think we hate and deride them because they are rich or something. It sort of scares me because they are also the ones who often carry the microsoft company line(cmon, notice how few people have counter arguements for our problems with MS until MS provides one?).
wow
:)
:).
the moderators really missed the boat on that one
+1 informative?
+1 interesting?
Yes...I finally understand why people think moderators are so crack addled.
Please, moderators, lay off the crack. Next thing you know, you'll be considering GWB 'insightful'.
Says the man who lost all his karma when he hit 'submit'
The vast majority of web applications I've seen out there are in CGI or PHP.
Are you 200 people who will be implementing .net(like the one person who tried to vote 200 times)? Are you an automated script(Like the one that was detected voting from the microsoft.com domain)? If ZDnet accuses microsoft of cheating, you'd better read the article and realize that they were actually cheating. The article wouldn't exist if every developer in the company had come in and voted once, but they didn't. They obviously cheated.
I don't think BeOS has OS nazis. People who used be used it because it was a really good OS, which was really cool to boot, and for that same reason, the first person to successfully clone BeOS (openbeos?) will have a large initial user base.
That's also why there aren't many sites out there which are denying that BeOS will lose a lot of users (okay, already have). Some can still use it fine, but a lot of people were waiting for the next revision, which was (reportedly) going to finally have hardware OpenGL, and a lot of other things as well.
Fool! Those telescreens worked *ALL THE TIME!*
:)
:)
One cannot effectively create a totalinarian police state when your telescreens keep crashing. DUH!
Just a point, I've read that the Ozone Layer is no longer depleting, and although it will take a long time to recover it, the reduction of CFCs in most industrialized nations is contributing to that.
Things are getting better.
I've had several opportunities to use XP, and have found its dialogs have become more confusing and ill-designed than previous releases of Windows.
:)
I find this to be a common theme with windows in general. They take something that makes sense and muck it up. Perfect example: In the Windows 95 setup, it gives you a choice to make a recovery disk. It has basically a dialog box saying "do you want a recovery disk?" and the buttons shown are "yes" and "no". In the Windows 98 setup, for some unknown reason, it has something like "Do you want a recovery disk? Press OK to make it, and Cancel to skip", and has the "OK" button and the "Cancel" button. What the hell? They replaced a straightforeward question with a convoluted one. Why?
Microsoft has also been removing functionality from windows in places. I beg you to try to manually set the IP address on a dialup adapter. Notice how the tabs which were in every other copy of windows since the 95 disk version which allow you to set important details about IP are missing! This was a pain since I generally use Direct Cable Connection, along with some gateway hacks, to play Quake 2 or UT multiplayer with 3 players, so I actually had to downgrade to Windows 98 SE to do what I wanted! The worst part is that I can't find any reason a sane individual would want to use ME(shouldn't there be, considering it's a *upgrade* to win98 which people paid for?). It's slower, It crashes more, and it includes software which has no purpose, since the hardware needed to utilize those things (eg. video camera for ASF editing) would come with superior software anyway... I'm not ever upgrading to windows XP (even if they cut off support for windows 9x) because I am offended by how Microsoft creates clones of cool, innovative products which have already been around for a while and have shown a market as profitable. I'm doubly offended by how they claim to be "innovative", despite the fact that no successful Microsoft product has ever been original. Don't believe me? Dos is a weak clone of CP/M. Windows is a cheap clone of the MAC, and was originally a cheap clone of GEM (a GUI created by Digital Research for the X86 platform long before Windows existed), Word is merely a cheap clone of WordPerfect, Excel is merely a cheap clone of Lotus 1-2-3. IIS is a cheap, insecure clone of Apache(I'm pretty sure Apache has been around way longer than IIS). Internet Explorer is a cheap clone of Netscape(and indirectly Mosaic, but it was designed to be a Netscape Clone, meant to compete directly with netscape)
Sorry about getting off on that rant there...My original point is still buried in there, in the first paragraph or so.
People sometimes need to understand that just b/c you paid $300 for something does not mean that it is going to work...
:)
I've got some beach land in Florida to sell you.
Just joking. The only reason I'm reading this discussion is that Microsofts pain is my pleasure. Why? Because MS has caused so much pain to me over the years because of their bad software(Even Linux is easier to troubleshoot, and I don't have nearly as much experience with it!) and criminal monopoly.