They agree that noone will touch the lamb untill the someone comes in for a second time. (lets say someone comes for a second time at day 30 - if he can count the days, that means that 29 people have come otherwise, that counts as 1)
that person opens the lamp, and starts counting. once the lamp is on, if someone enters the room for the first time and finds the lamp on he turns it off. if he has entered before he does nothing. If he finds the lamp off, he leaves it off.
The next time the person that counts comes in, if the lamp is off, he adds one (at least one person has been there for the first time)... when he reaches 100 he can call it.
No, it wont. There is no real reason to have an antivirus, when you are already connected to the internet and keep your system updated. I don't understand why you believe that an AV company will succed where MS will fail. And anyway if you really feel that insecure, just go the easy way and install linux.. When you are riding a bicycle on the highway, a leather jacket won't help...
Everybody who has used internet explorer knows that it is not secure. The don't have to tell them that. They are talking to the people who (rightfully) think they are more secure with firefox, and they are trying to pass between the lines that you still need protection, no matter what browser you use, and anyway, changing the browser will not make you safe. (but a good antivirus/antispam/antiinternet/antiusingyourcompu te will)
>More and more often we're seeing Red Hat and IBM >employees tinkering with the code.
And it never occured to you that RH/IBM are *hiring* kernel developers?
>The reality might be however that an improved VM is >needed but all the Red Hat guys are busy working on >some scheduling code
Well, if a new VM is needed, i'm sure someone will work on it (at least the people who need it, right?) If you also get better scheduling code, i don't know seems like a good deal for me...
>since he's also a professional and getting paid >by Corporate if our priorities are straight.
There are no priorities. There are needs and people that are addressing them. If X company works hard on a new filesystem, that means they need it. If you need something else, start working on it.
It's not a moral obligation, it's one of the reasons you bought the programm. Who would buy an OS that doesn't offer updates for free? (the same is true for even simpler programs: who would buy an antivirus that doesn't update it's virus definitions?) Of course they are obligated, because it's part of the deal.
>if you had paid a maintenance fee
I would expect a lot more than being allowed to update some printer drivers and to patch a few security holes...
I did *not* say that it is illegal by definition. I said that a court might see it as an illegal practise.
>There is nothing which says MS has to sell AV >software which works with everything
They bought AV software that worked with everything and they changed it, so that it doesn't work with their main competitors in the server market. And they did it twice. The bottom line is that if you want to use linux for your email server, your antivirus offerings for the windows clients will be much more limited now.
>Besides if you are talking about its monopoly in >the PC OS market, this move hardly affects it one >way or another
It's not that simple: Their desktop operating system is a monopoly. Their desktop OS needs some kind of antivirus. If you can only find antivirus software for their own server OSes, effectively their server OS sales will be helped by their desktop monopoly. Such tactics can be found illegal by a court. Even not in US.
>Internet explorer is critical amongst these as it >is the foundation of the MS help system.
So, is this why MS will not allow IE to be removed? For the help system? BTW, why do they call a bunch of html files a "help system"?
>Media player is critical as consumers expect at >least a basic capability to view media locally and >online "out-of-the-box."
You know, there are computers without a dvd player, as there are computers without an internet connection. And there are computers that have both, but are never *ever* used for watching "locally and online" media Calling media player "critical" is quite extreme, don't you think?
>It doesn't come with MS Word?! I comes bundled with >WordPerfect
How could it come with MS word at $500 when the standard edition of office costs $399 ?!?!?!
>I want every product that Microsoft develops >installed on my computer when I purchase Windows
You can kiss those $500 computers buy buy then. I believe you can make a deal for that with MS for something like $10k/year (if you are a really good nagociator).
Keep in mind though, that when you get to a position where you really-really need/must have/can't live without something, you don't get to say much about its' price. Or whether it comes bundled with messenger or not...
Microsoft, under the pressure of EU, *did* unbundle media player. Granted, nobody is going to buy such a product, as there is absolutely no incentive. However, it will be really hard for microsoft to argue in the future that programs that provide "core functionality" cannot be removed from the OS.
> that can only be less functional and stable than >normal Windows
Why would it be less stable?
>Slashbots chime in with "Well, I'd want a version >of Windows with WMP torn out!"
It's true that people will not decide this. The ball is on the rivals: They now have to get some manufacturer to offer "media centers" or something with their products. A very hard thing to do, but easier than it was before this decision.
>there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel
technically no, but what will happen to all those ads showing that 970 is faster than Xeon? How are they going to explain why they are moving to an inferior (at least according to them!) platform? That said, a move to build and offer i386 MacOSX machines together with their power machines is propably a good idea. However, a complete move to i386 makes no sense, i wonder how CNET trusted whoever gave this information without some official verification.
>If i approach you on the street, and i offer you >drugs, and you say no, am i not distributing it?
Of course not. If i say yes, you might answer "hey, i was just joking, i don't sell drugs". That's why the transaction must be completed before the cops break in:)
>If you offer to share something but no one takes >it, it isn't considered distribution.
it's not considered distribution because it is not distribution. It might still be against the law, but it is different. You might call it "attempted distribution" (as in "attempted murder" vs actuall "murder":)
It's not "restricted material" like a credit card number. These are things you can get everywhere: you can buy them on the store, you can listen to them on the radio, and watch them on tv. By no means are they "banned from distribution", the quesstion is whether it's legal or not. A simple case.
In this case the judge simply pointed out the obvious: when you put a song on a web page for download, you are liable for putting a song on a web page for download. You are *not* liable for distributing it, unless someone actually downloads it.
To use your own example, shooting at people *is* a crime, but you cannot be charged with murder if you don't kill someone.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not that i disagree with you or anything, but i just can't resist :)
work();
if (cond){
work_more()
if (cond2) {
work_more()
etc...
It is hard to read without ident, i know, but it's ok in reality
Irrelevant, indeed.
A theory not able to actually predict something is in any case useless and there is no point in teaching it to students (what for ?!?).
No, *history* should be taught in schools, especially middle ages.
Fink can be configured to download source and compile packages. In that case you can have pretty much anything you want, in my case kile ;)
(No, i don't actually use mac osx, i just support it)
They agree that noone will touch the lamb untill the someone comes in for a second time.
... when he reaches 100 he can call it.
(lets say someone comes for a second time at day 30 - if he can count the days, that means that 29 people have come otherwise, that counts as 1)
that person opens the lamp, and starts counting. once the lamp is on, if someone enters the room for the first time and finds the lamp on he turns it off. if he has entered before he does nothing.
If he finds the lamp off, he leaves it off.
The next time the person that counts comes in, if the lamp is off, he adds one (at least one person has been there for the first time)
(there must be a faster way though...)
0^0 = 1, for sufficiently large values of 0, sufficiently small values of 0 and sufficiently real values of 1 :))
>Safer, at least.
No, it wont. There is no real reason to have an antivirus, when you are already connected to the internet and keep your system updated. I don't understand why you believe that an AV company will succed where MS will fail. And anyway if you really feel that insecure, just go the easy way and install linux.. When you are riding a bicycle on the highway, a leather jacket won't help...
>Firefox being open-source does give the vendors
>more of a chance to find holes more easily
you are obviously confusing "vendors" with "external security experts". IE is as open source as it can be for its "vendor" (Microsoft).
Everybody who has used internet explorer knows that it is not secure. The don't have to tell them that. They are talking to the people who (rightfully) think they are more secure with firefox, and they are trying to pass between the lines that you still need protection, no matter what browser you use, and anyway, changing the browser will not make you safe.u te will)
(but a good antivirus/antispam/antiinternet/antiusingyourcomp
>More and more often we're seeing Red Hat and IBM
>employees tinkering with the code.
And it never occured to you that RH/IBM are *hiring* kernel developers?
>The reality might be however that an improved VM is
>needed but all the Red Hat guys are busy working on
>some scheduling code
Well, if a new VM is needed, i'm sure someone will work on it (at least the people who need it, right?)
If you also get better scheduling code, i don't know seems like a good deal for me...
>since he's also a professional and getting paid
>by Corporate if our priorities are straight.
There are no priorities. There are needs and people that are addressing them. If X company works hard on a new filesystem, that means they need it.
If you need something else, start working on it.
>So why should you get free continued support?
It's not a moral obligation, it's one of the reasons you bought the programm. Who would buy an OS that doesn't offer updates for free? (the same is true for even simpler programs: who would buy an antivirus that doesn't update it's virus definitions?) Of course they are obligated, because it's part of the deal.
>if you had paid a maintenance fee
I would expect a lot more than being allowed to update some printer drivers and to patch a few security holes...
> What would be illegal is
I did *not* say that it is illegal by definition. I said that a court might see it as an illegal practise.
>There is nothing which says MS has to sell AV
>software which works with everything
They bought AV software that worked with everything and they changed it, so that it doesn't work with their main competitors in the server market. And they did it twice.
The bottom line is that if you want to use linux for your email server, your antivirus offerings for the windows clients will be much more limited now.
>Besides if you are talking about its monopoly in
>the PC OS market, this move hardly affects it one
>way or another
It's not that simple:
Their desktop operating system is a monopoly. Their desktop OS needs some kind of antivirus. If you can only find antivirus software for their own server OSes, effectively their server OS sales will be helped by their desktop monopoly. Such tactics can be found illegal by a court. Even not in US.
>Internet explorer is critical amongst these as it
>is the foundation of the MS help system.
So, is this why MS will not allow IE to be removed? For the help system? BTW, why do they call a bunch of html files a "help system"?
>Media player is critical as consumers expect at
>least a basic capability to view media locally and
>online "out-of-the-box."
You know, there are computers without a dvd player, as there are computers without an internet connection.
And there are computers that have both, but are never *ever* used for watching "locally and online" media
Calling media player "critical" is quite extreme, don't you think?
>It doesn't come with MS Word?! I comes bundled with
>WordPerfect
How could it come with MS word at $500 when the standard edition of office costs $399 ?!?!?!
>I want every product that Microsoft develops
>installed on my computer when I purchase Windows
You can kiss those $500 computers buy buy then. I believe you can make a deal for that with MS for something like $10k/year (if you are a really good nagociator).
Keep in mind though, that when you get to a position where you really-really need/must have/can't live without something, you don't get to say much about its' price. Or whether it comes bundled with messenger or not...
Microsoft, under the pressure of EU, *did* unbundle media player. Granted, nobody is going to buy such a product, as there is absolutely no incentive.
However, it will be really hard for microsoft to argue in the future that programs that provide "core functionality" cannot be removed from the OS.
> that can only be less functional and stable than
>normal Windows
Why would it be less stable?
>Slashbots chime in with "Well, I'd want a version
>of Windows with WMP torn out!"
It's true that people will not decide this. The ball is on the rivals: They now have to get some manufacturer to offer "media centers" or something with their products. A very hard thing to do, but easier than it was before this decision.
>there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel
technically no, but what will happen to all those ads showing that 970 is faster than Xeon? How are they going to explain why they are moving to an inferior (at least according to them!) platform?
That said, a move to build and offer i386 MacOSX machines together with their power machines is propably a good idea. However, a complete move to i386 makes no sense, i wonder how CNET trusted whoever gave this information without some official verification.
>Crossover Office won't help you.
No, but Crossover DEVELOPERS can.
>the opening that everybody is talking about is on
>the client, not on the server
The code that exploited that opening was on the server though. How did *that* happen?
>If i approach you on the street, and i offer you
:)
>drugs, and you say no, am i not distributing it?
Of course not. If i say yes, you might answer "hey, i was just joking, i don't sell drugs".
That's why the transaction must be completed before the cops break in
>If you offer to share something but no one takes
>it, it isn't considered distribution.
it's not considered distribution because it is not distribution. It might still be against the law, but it is different. You might call it "attempted distribution" (as in "attempted murder" vs actuall "murder":)
Indeed, but you wouldn't be accused of *selling* drugs if you never actually sold any.
>restricted material banned from distribution.
It's not "restricted material" like a credit card number. These are things you can get everywhere: you can buy them on the store, you can listen to them on the radio, and watch them on tv. By no means are they "banned from distribution", the quesstion is whether it's legal or not. A simple case.
In this case the judge simply pointed out the obvious:
when you put a song on a web page for download, you are liable for putting a song on a web page for download. You are *not* liable for distributing it, unless someone actually downloads it.
To use your own example, shooting at people *is* a crime, but you cannot be charged with murder if you don't kill someone.
It counts server machines sold by vendors. Your CheckPoint firewall is not counted, while your racks of windows are.
It cannot be IBM mainframes: IBM has an overall 28% revenue share or $3,4bn, most of which has to be mostly AIX ,Linux and Windows revenue.
$2,7bn is a big number. It has to be the revenue of OS-clean servers, which means that the real numbers would be quite different.