Yeah... I can boot Knoppix on it --- or Ubuntu live, or a host of other Live CDs (including, I believe, Windows). I can also load a dedicated program that runs my security system (or whatever).
Selling a computer without Windows wouldn't make it useless, it would, however, make it cheaper.
also: to have a computer that works, you also have to sell it with an OS that works... and that immediately disqualifies Windows /ducks
A flaming, violent neo-nazi who scrawls 'Heil Hitler' in his jail cell gets royally blitzed and kicks in the head of some poor schmuck, and you blame his run amok on the fact that he played a wrestling game?.
So what happens the next time The Summer Olympics come to Germany?
Open Office has (or, at least, had) a 'network install' option, You install it in a shared partition, and it's available for everybody who has access to the share. The hard part, at that point, would be setting OOWriter as the default application for opening.doc files --- but I'm sure you Windows gurus can figure out how to do that.
You probably also want to set up OO to save in.doc format as a default (or maybe not!).
This is actually really good timing for the OpenOffice group, as they've just released 2.1.0 this week. (conspiracy theorists, sharpen your pens!)
Also: SCO has been fighting to avoid releasing a bunch of info from the IBM/SCO case to Novell, so you really don't know precisely what the IBM case has that would get Novell's lawyers all giddy.
Also, IBM might be saving up their info on the (purported) SCO/MS collusion for later lawyering.
Up here in The Great White North, there is a second important feature (mostly for desktop and deskside systems) -- and that's efficiency as a space heater. When these boxes are running at full bore, how many BTUs do they generate, and how many BTUs/watt do they generate. How many Zeons or K7s would it take to heat the average house?
More importantly, how does that compare to a dedicated space-heater?
This is part of what people (in the know) hate Microsoft for. Now that they have such a strangle-hold on the market, nobody will release the specs to their products. Now you might say that it's just because they're lazy, I find it interesting when large market players make a big deal of the fact that the support for Linux is on an entirely different website (sometimes even run by another company).
Then again, there's the fact that they've browbeaten companies like DELL into not offering Linux other than under specific circumstances -- for example, a home user can get a Dell (but only a few models) with Linux installed, except that it gets delivered with Free-Dos and a service tech is dispatched to your front door to do the actual install..... Good luck explaining to me how that's a business efficiency issue.
There used to be oodles of hardware that sported a 'supported on RedHat' label --- but that was way back when Linux had a much smaller market share (and weren't a clear threat to Microsoft).
I've got no problem with them trying to out-innovate me, but when they make it almost impossible for me to get to the market with my innovative product, then I'm going to hate them.
-- and as for the 'every alternative' comment, I think that it would be far better to say that just about every MS product has an alternative (often the original into that market) that blows them away -- but microsoft is too good at making sure that customers have limited access to that better alternative.
It's not dominant that makes Microsoft bad, it's dominant, abusive and anti-competetive. -- that, and throw in the inability to get software anywhere near right on the first (and sometimes the second, third and fourth...)
-- that makes Microsoft bad.
Microsoft's (illegal) monopoly means that
They don't have to compete on quality (The emergence of Linux has finally forced them to put some effort there).
They can ignore community wishes (IE between the death of Netscape and emergence of Firefox is an example),
They can force absurd prices for their software.
They can prevent hardware manufacturers from releasing specs (that would allow Linux to build drivers)
They can ignore bugs, and know that you're not going to the (what?) competition.
They can do things like trying to force Israel to drop the Mac by not supporting Hebrew
they can completely change how the internals work and just assume that people are going to scramble to support the new system (Me -> XP, and even XP-SP2)
They'll sometimes break things just to trash their competition. The fact that it causes problems for customers is irrelevant.
They can cause your system to self destruct if they decide (retroactively!) that your activation code wasn't so good after all.
They can make it all but impossible for you to find a distributor that also sells competing products.
. . . .
It's not the name Microsoft that people hate, it's the nasty things that they do in the name of ever-increasing profit and widening monopoly (while mouthing platitudes about innovation, competition and customer care) that people hate.
There's nothing bad, per-se with dominance. At any given time there are likely to be a couple of dominant players. If those dominant players played fair and were dominant solely because of good products and service (which would probably also include interoperability), there would be no problem with them being dominant.
Back around 1981, Grace visited the University of Alberta. There was, of course, a big reception for her. At the reception she was talking to a group of people, and she mentioned that a number of professors at UofA had a hand in the early work on COBOL and why didn't they advertise it more?
One friend of mine (unaware of her hand in COBOL), piped up "Perhaps because they're ashamed of it."
Another friend quickly pulled him aside and explained the gaffe.
I'd kinda have to agree with the original article that the principles behind COBOL are good. My only (and really big) complaint about is that it's simply too damned verbose.
Over time (i.e. late 70's and early 80's) there were a number of attempts to develop a language that would keep the good parts of cobol but be a good bit less verbose. The attempts, however were entirely doomed, mostly because those languages would never get the kind of inerta that keeps COBOL moving.
He was talking about bad code, not ugly code. If it's ugly but stable, it's much more likely to last a long time than if it's pretty and bad.
Bad code will be replaced, over time out of simple necessity.
Good (stable) code may live forever -- no matter how ugly it may be to look at, or even work with.
One nice thing about butt-ugly code is that
(1) people aren't going to mess with it any more than absolutely necessary, and
(2) when they do, they're going to be very careful about it.
There's a groklaw comment from someone who noted that Coverity is using their automated bug-hunting software on Open Source code (for free!) and documenting the bugs that they find.
Why? Well, FLOSS code doesn't have NDA provisions, so Coverity can use the results that they get with FLOSS code in their marketing literature without having to worry about getting sued. As a result, everybody gains. Coverity gets a public testbed for their code, and the OS community gets free access to a tool that many proprietary companies can't afford.
This is the kind of synergy that you get from GPLing away your code.
If the authorities don't know when/where images are being taken they'll be a bit more careful. If nothing else, you have some hope of correction if you're doing your own documentation.
I can give an example from personal experience:
Back in 1994, I was asked to go along with some logging protesters to video the protest. I called this 'safety video' because the intention was to visibly document the protest to discourage loggers from engaging in vigilante violence. We never considered the possibility of violence on the part of the police.
There were actually two of us doing video. Two people had chained themselves into cement barrels, and a couple of other people. Apparently there was a 3 year old injunction discouraging people from blocking the logging, so the cops showed up with the rep from the logging company and held us on the bridge while the logging company guy read the injunction to us and handed us copies. The second video guy was actually eager to get off the bridge and left as soon as the police allowed him to. I moved a bit more slowly (dealing with power problems on my camera).
As I got off of the bridge, I heard a disturbance behind me. It turns out that the RCMP had arrested the other camera guy as he was leaving the bridge. I turned around to film him being stuffed into a police car as he protested "but I was trying to leave!". The lead officer (Sgt. Bruce Waite) turned around, saw me filming and challenged me "I thought I told you to to leave!".
"OK", I said. I shrugged, put down my camera (but did not turn it off) and turned to walk further down the road. As I was walking away, he ordered another police officer to arrest me. I turned around and protested that I was (a) off of the bridge and off the road, and (b) walking away, but after he insisted (3 or 4 times) that the other officer arrest me, I was finally arrested.
I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction).
In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
After me and the other cameraman were arrested, and out of the way, the Seargent Waite ) turned around and assaulted the two people who were chained into barrels. It turns out that he had a history of being sued for assaulting prisoners (mostly natives).
If it hadn't been for my video to put Sgt. Waite's testimony into question, the whole case would have probably turned out a whole lot different.
Have you considered the possibility that the people who voted against the proposal (or their political masters) got into place via a software-rigged vote?
A 300MEV beam signifies the energy of individual particles. Such a beam might have an very low intensity, or could be strong enough to be used as a weapon (that's a function of both wattage and diameter). A particle beam can cause either chemical or atomic changes in your lunch (i.e. it could conceivably make it radioactive).
A laser beam is only going to cook/burn your lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
Selling a computer without Windows wouldn't make it useless, it would, however, make it cheaper.
also: to have a computer that works, you also have to sell it with an OS that works ... and that immediately disqualifies Windows
/ducks
This isn't about what MS does that's illegal. It's about what they do to make people hate them. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Click here to reach The MS monopoly findings of fact.
So what happens the next time The Summer Olympics come to Germany?
(I really wanted to put that quote in all caps, then the lameness filter prevented me unless I added more text)
You probably also want to set up OO to save in .doc format as a default (or maybe not!).
This is actually really good timing for the OpenOffice group, as they've just released 2.1.0 this week. (conspiracy theorists, sharpen your pens!)
Also, IBM might be saving up their info on the (purported) SCO/MS collusion for later lawyering.
Up here in The Great White North, there is a second important feature (mostly for desktop and deskside systems) -- and that's efficiency as a space heater. When these boxes are running at full bore, how many BTUs do they generate, and how many BTUs/watt do they generate. How many Zeons or K7s would it take to heat the average house?
More importantly, how does that compare to a dedicated space-heater?
Then again, there's the fact that they've browbeaten companies like DELL into not offering Linux other than under specific circumstances -- for example, a home user can get a Dell (but only a few models) with Linux installed, except that it gets delivered with Free-Dos and a service tech is dispatched to your front door to do the actual install ..... Good luck explaining to me how that's a business efficiency issue.
There used to be oodles of hardware that sported a 'supported on RedHat' label --- but that was way back when Linux had a much smaller market share (and weren't a clear threat to Microsoft).
I've got no problem with them trying to out-innovate me, but when they make it almost impossible for me to get to the market with my innovative product, then I'm going to hate them.
-- and as for the 'every alternative' comment, I think that it would be far better to say that just about every MS product has an alternative (often the original into that market) that blows them away -- but microsoft is too good at making sure that customers have limited access to that better alternative.
Microsoft's (illegal) monopoly means that
- They don't have to compete on quality (The emergence of Linux has finally forced them to put some effort there).
- They can ignore community wishes (IE between the death of Netscape and emergence of Firefox is an example),
- They can force absurd prices for their software.
- They can prevent hardware manufacturers from releasing specs (that would allow Linux to build drivers)
- They can ignore bugs, and know that you're not going to the (what?) competition.
- They can do things like trying to force Israel to drop the Mac by not supporting Hebrew
- they can completely change how the internals work and just assume that people are going to scramble to support the new system (Me -> XP, and even XP-SP2)
- They'll sometimes break things just to trash their competition. The fact that it causes problems for customers is irrelevant.
- They can cause your system to self destruct if they decide (retroactively!) that your activation code wasn't so good after all.
- They can make it all but impossible for you to find a distributor that also sells competing products.
- . . . .
It's not the name Microsoft that people hate, it's the nasty things that they do in the name of ever-increasing profit and widening monopoly (while mouthing platitudes about innovation, competition and customer care) that people hate.There's nothing bad, per-se with dominance. At any given time there are likely to be a couple of dominant players. If those dominant players played fair and were dominant solely because of good products and service (which would probably also include interoperability), there would be no problem with them being dominant.
One friend of mine (unaware of her hand in COBOL), piped up "Perhaps because they're ashamed of it."
Another friend quickly pulled him aside and explained the gaffe.
Over time (i.e. late 70's and early 80's) there were a number of attempts to develop a language that would keep the good parts of cobol but be a good bit less verbose. The attempts, however were entirely doomed, mostly because those languages would never get the kind of inerta that keeps COBOL moving.
Bad code will be replaced, over time out of simple necessity.
Good (stable) code may live forever -- no matter how ugly it may be to look at, or even work with.
One nice thing about butt-ugly code is that
(1) people aren't going to mess with it any more than absolutely necessary, and
(2) when they do, they're going to be very careful about it.
Why? Well, FLOSS code doesn't have NDA provisions, so Coverity can use the results that they get with FLOSS code in their marketing literature without having to worry about getting sued. As a result, everybody gains. Coverity gets a public testbed for their code, and the OS community gets free access to a tool that many proprietary companies can't afford.
This is the kind of synergy that you get from GPLing away your code.
I can give an example from personal experience:
Back in 1994, I was asked to go along with some logging protesters to video the protest. I called this 'safety video' because the intention was to visibly document the protest to discourage loggers from engaging in vigilante violence. We never considered the possibility of violence on the part of the police.
There were actually two of us doing video. Two people had chained themselves into cement barrels, and a couple of other people. Apparently there was a 3 year old injunction discouraging people from blocking the logging, so the cops showed up with the rep from the logging company and held us on the bridge while the logging company guy read the injunction to us and handed us copies. The second video guy was actually eager to get off the bridge and left as soon as the police allowed him to. I moved a bit more slowly (dealing with power problems on my camera).
As I got off of the bridge, I heard a disturbance behind me. It turns out that the RCMP had arrested the other camera guy as he was leaving the bridge. I turned around to film him being stuffed into a police car as he protested "but I was trying to leave!". The lead officer (Sgt. Bruce Waite) turned around, saw me filming and challenged me "I thought I told you to to leave!".
"OK", I said. I shrugged, put down my camera (but did not turn it off) and turned to walk further down the road. As I was walking away, he ordered another police officer to arrest me. I turned around and protested that I was (a) off of the bridge and off the road, and (b) walking away, but after he insisted (3 or 4 times) that the other officer arrest me, I was finally arrested.
I was charged with contempt of court (violating an injunction). In his papers to the judge, the Seargent claimed that I had refused to leave the bridge. If I hadn't kept my camera running, I probably would have been convicted (his word against mine). Faced with my video, charges against me were dropped.
After me and the other cameraman were arrested, and out of the way, the Seargent Waite ) turned around and assaulted the two people who were chained into barrels. It turns out that he had a history of being sued for assaulting prisoners (mostly natives).
If it hadn't been for my video to put Sgt. Waite's testimony into question, the whole case would have probably turned out a whole lot different.
Have you considered the possibility that the people who voted against the proposal (or their political masters) got into place via a software-rigged vote?
This is one of those situations where knee-jerk moderating doesn't quite work.
It passed itself off as anti-spyware, but actually caused problems for users that installed it, was sold by spamming, etc., etc., etc.
No, but Apple did.
The difference, however, is that Apple's OS actually works.
Nice idea, but you're talking about Microsoft here.
A laser beam is only going to cook/burn your lunch.
Oh, nevermind....
N
How many statisticians does it take to change a light bulb?
3.415 +- 5% (95% of the time).
We're talking Starbucks here -- They'll find a way to market a mocha late any day now.
but it was a washout.