OTOH, perhaps MS let linux get that way and has a plan to kill it after the hearings are over.
How on earth would Microsoft kill Linux? It's not like Linux is developed by some company or individual that they can just wipe out. Linux is developed by thousands of people all over the world; that's why it's becoming so strong. More and more people are getting on board, and there's no central location or organization that you can go to to prevent it. Frankly I would like to see Microsoft try to kill Linux directly in some way. It sure would be funny to see them try.
but I'm also betting plenty of people will drop bucks to have something new and shiny.
The problem being that they won't get something "new and shiny." An operating system isn't something you can hold in your hand or show off to your friends. People will lease cars instead of own because they can see, feel and drive their bright new car every time they trade in. An operating system isn't tangible, so there is a lot less incentive to upgrade. In fact, in my experience the only time people really *want* to upgrade is when things are acting shitty and they hope if they upgrade it will be fixed. Another reason is that a car is a big investment, which most people understand. They don't mind having to pay for it over time because it's so important. Most people don't think of an operating system as investment, and even though it is important, many people don't even understand what an operating system is. They certainly aren't going to be happy about having to essentially buy a new one every time Microsoft says so.
Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.
They're providing a good service for Linux with this new licensing scheme. Businesses are used to a licensing and upgrading schedule, of course, but Microsoft's new plan sounds much harsher than previous licensing. This will be an added incentive to switch to Linux. But think of the consumer. Consumers don't want to "license" something, they want to buy it. If Microsoft moves to a truly subscription based licensing program for consumers, it's going to kill them. I know people who haven't updated their Win95 boxes because they haven't felt they needed the "features." Think of what will happen when Microsoft literally forces consumers to buy an upgrade for their OS, even if they don't want it. People won't be so complacent then. One thing people don't like having played around with is their hard earned money. Consumers won't stand for a subscription based schedule for software, you watch. They want to own something, not rent it. I sincerely hope Microsoft goes through with these plans. It will be fun to watch them squirm when no one is buying their software.
1. Don't use vi, it's old and outdated. For a better editor, use vim. For a better do-everything-you-can-think-of-less-well-than-stan dalone-apps-with-editing-thrown-in, use Emacs.
2. Linux is better than Windows because the name isn't just feature it's built on. (Oh look, apps run in "windows" now. Let's call this operating system Windows.) If it was, Linux would probably have a name like Stability OS or something. (Hey, there's a great idea for a new OS name!)
3. I don't know. I've never had contact with *BSD. But BSD's mascot is definitely cooler.
In the end when all the mental patients said that the person on gurney was not Prot was a bit confusing, and the fact that Bess did disapear is interesting.
This was meant to give another indication that Prot was just borrowing Robert's body for his visit. The patients, who could look past the mere appearance and "psychosis," could tell that it wasn't Prot, even though the physical body was the same. They understood Prot on a slightly different level than the unbelievers (eg, the psychiatrists), and the movie gives that indication with the discussion about the sunglasses. When Prot leaves to go "up north," the patients know he's coming back because he took his sunglasses, which he wouldn't need on K-PAX. This is intended to be metaphor for the body he's using. He won't need that back on K-PAX, either. And even though it's left behind when he leaves in the end of the movie, the patients can tell it isn't him.
As to Bess's disappearance, it reinforces Prot's existance. The symptoms of Bess's illness (never talking, and hardly ever moving) do not lend much strength to the theory that she simply broke out of the hospital. Especially due to the statement made earlier by the high-up chairwoman figure when Prot took his short leave, that "people don't break out of this hospital," leading you to believe it has nice beefy security.
And the price is pretty damn cheap considering that MS will be hosting all the services *itself*
Yes, it is pretty cheap, because you get the risk thrown in for free.
I have an idea. Let's all depend on Microsoft's own IIS.NET servers for our service needs! What's that you say? Oh, of course it's secure! Microsoft has a strong reputation for only the highest security in their products. Don't let the hype fool you, all of those virus reports were just media concoctions dreamed up by the predatory-practicing, deep-pocketed Linux Corporation to slander Microsoft's good name. You won't have to worry a bit about Microsoft hosting all of the services for you. It will just make your life easier, I swear!
What they don't tell you is that once someone finds a hole, it will make it even easier for the blackhats to do even more destructive things than they can now. But at least admins won't have to worry about making sure their servers are updated anymore; they'll just have to hope Microsoft's admins are doing it.
How long do you think it'll be before someone finds a hole in.NET, that let's anyone hook into the services, regardless of if they've paid or not? Look at IIS with all of its security problems. I doubt this will really stop virus writers for very long. More likely it will just keep out the hobbyists that sometimes provide useful applications. And the fun thing about.NET is that, since all your personal data is connected to it, the people who find holes get to know everything about you. Can you spell "identity theft"? Have fun trying to convince your bank that someone who knew your name, social security number, address, phone number, wife's maiden name, yearly income, and car model wasn't really you.
The funny thing, that the entertainment industry must realize but doesn't acknowledge, is that the technology industry is a large part of what's keeping them afloat. How many movies and even TV shows nowadays have crazy computer generated graphics? I doubt most big music artists are recording in their garages with equipment from 10 years ago. And what is it that consumers are using to partake of all this entertainment? Flat screen liquid plasma TVs with surround sound stereo, smooth looking, high quality cd players and mp3 players, and more. So why does Entertainment seem so set on controlling Technology? Surely they don't think they can do it any better, they can barely even turn out a good movie more than once a year. They'll only be hurting themselves in the end.
I highly doubt you could get a home PC that will play all of Xbox's games for $300 or just a bit more.
Re:this is neither healthy nor a sign of life
on
Loki Goes Postal
·
· Score: 1
Actually it was principle. If you would perhaps read a post you reply to, you'd see that he said he went for Linux instead of Windows because he didn't want to support Microsoft, on principle. It may surprise you, but sometimes people care about what the company behind a product does and how it acts, and don't just take the products at face value.
Why would they have to write their own? They can just use the stuff that exists right now; it doesn't have backdoors in it. If a law like this passed, it would just make using it illegal. It wouldn't suddenly turn all existing crypto into backdoor-enabled, so that you'd have to come up with an entirely new encryption scheme. It would just make non-government-sactioned, swiss cheese crypto illegal. It doesn't mean that real encryption would cease to exist or cease to be available. Using it would just be illegal, and I doubt the terrorists are worried about that. Last time I checked, terrorists don't go out of their way to obey laws. So all this would do is decrease privacy for law-abiding citizens. But the government wants that too, because then they can abuse that information and do whatever the hell they want. Hello 1984.
On the contrary, the reason a military dictatorship would have helped prevent the attack is because no one would have total freedom. Guess what a dictatorship is? You get the "freedoms" you're given. If the dictator is smart, he knows what freedoms not to give, so that his state remains stable.
I know US citizens are very egotistical (and yes I am one), but a dictatorship really is a better government than a democracy if the person in charge knows what he's doing and cares for his people. The problem is that that usually doesn't happen with dictatorships.
The preferences option is located under the File menu instead of the Edit menu. This is a bad design choice.
How is this a bad design choice? I personally prefer having a menu bar option like Tools or Options with the preferences menu underneath. I always thought Netscape was silly to have the preferences under Edit. To me the Edit menu means you're editing whatever is currently opened, ie the webpage you're viewing. That's why you find the copy/paste options there, or the View Source option. Your browsing preferences have nothing to do with editing that webpage, so why put it under the Edit menu. And frankly, I can't think of any other apps that let you change your session configuration/preferences by going to the Edit menu. This guy obviously has a Netscape bias.
It's poorly written pages as well as pages that are "browser enhanced," meaning they are written with extensions that only a certain browser supports (usually IE nowadays, but also Netscape). Of course, in terms of the W3C, this is equivalent to a poorly written page, since it doesn't follow the standards. Opera does misrender some pages, but on the whole I like it best.
Regardless of whether or not he is a megalomaniac, I doubt his *only* motives are control and the forcing of opinions. Those probably are some of his motives, if small ones, but I think I can safely say that every single person alive has these as motives. (Maybe people that are dead, too.) I doubt that anyone wants to have entirely no control and cares so little about his own opinions as to not want to convince anyone else.
The GNU tools are a larger percentage in terms of sheer size, perhaps. But which part of the operating system is more important? Last time I checked, the libraries don't boot your computer. And I disagree that an interface is necessarily part of an operating system. Surely you can have an operating system (perhaps not for a PC) that doesn't involve user interaction.
Well my school just spent $50 million building a new library. Sometimes they do things like renovation, which costs money, or buying classroom equipment, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love coding in assembly too. The control you get is like a powertrip. The problem with assembly, obviously, is that it's architecture specific. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is nice to have the broadest possible user-base, which means cross-platform. That's why everyone's been infected with this Java disease. Of course, if you're not worried about that, more power to ya. I personally think programmers should be required to know some kind of assembly, so they have a concept of what their code actually gets turned into. "Look, this vector search only takes one line of code! That's way faster than trying to use this array that would take at least 5 lines." I'm not exaggerating here.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, perhaps MS let linux get that way and has a plan to kill it after the hearings are over.
How on earth would Microsoft kill Linux? It's not like Linux is developed by some company or individual that they can just wipe out. Linux is developed by thousands of people all over the world; that's why it's becoming so strong. More and more people are getting on board, and there's no central location or organization that you can go to to prevent it. Frankly I would like to see Microsoft try to kill Linux directly in some way. It sure would be funny to see them try.
but I'm also betting plenty of people will drop bucks to have something new and shiny.
The problem being that they won't get something "new and shiny." An operating system isn't something you can hold in your hand or show off to your friends. People will lease cars instead of own because they can see, feel and drive their bright new car every time they trade in. An operating system isn't tangible, so there is a lot less incentive to upgrade. In fact, in my experience the only time people really *want* to upgrade is when things are acting shitty and they hope if they upgrade it will be fixed. Another reason is that a car is a big investment, which most people understand. They don't mind having to pay for it over time because it's so important. Most people don't think of an operating system as investment, and even though it is important, many people don't even understand what an operating system is. They certainly aren't going to be happy about having to essentially buy a new one every time Microsoft says so.
Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.
They're providing a good service for Linux with this new licensing scheme. Businesses are used to a licensing and upgrading schedule, of course, but Microsoft's new plan sounds much harsher than previous licensing. This will be an added incentive to switch to Linux. But think of the consumer. Consumers don't want to "license" something, they want to buy it. If Microsoft moves to a truly subscription based licensing program for consumers, it's going to kill them. I know people who haven't updated their Win95 boxes because they haven't felt they needed the "features." Think of what will happen when Microsoft literally forces consumers to buy an upgrade for their OS, even if they don't want it. People won't be so complacent then. One thing people don't like having played around with is their hard earned money. Consumers won't stand for a subscription based schedule for software, you watch. They want to own something, not rent it. I sincerely hope Microsoft goes through with these plans. It will be fun to watch them squirm when no one is buying their software.
Very rarely is anything better than everything else is every single way.
Watermelon is better than every other fruit in every single way.
1. Don't use vi, it's old and outdated. For a better editor, use vim. For a better do-everything-you-can-think-of-less-well-than-stan dalone-apps-with-editing-thrown-in, use Emacs.
2. Linux is better than Windows because the name isn't just feature it's built on. (Oh look, apps run in "windows" now. Let's call this operating system Windows.) If it was, Linux would probably have a name like Stability OS or something. (Hey, there's a great idea for a new OS name!)
3. I don't know. I've never had contact with *BSD. But BSD's mascot is definitely cooler.
In the end when all the mental patients said that the person on gurney was not Prot was a bit confusing, and the fact that Bess did disapear is interesting.
This was meant to give another indication that Prot was just borrowing Robert's body for his visit. The patients, who could look past the mere appearance and "psychosis," could tell that it wasn't Prot, even though the physical body was the same. They understood Prot on a slightly different level than the unbelievers (eg, the psychiatrists), and the movie gives that indication with the discussion about the sunglasses. When Prot leaves to go "up north," the patients know he's coming back because he took his sunglasses, which he wouldn't need on K-PAX. This is intended to be metaphor for the body he's using. He won't need that back on K-PAX, either. And even though it's left behind when he leaves in the end of the movie, the patients can tell it isn't him.
As to Bess's disappearance, it reinforces Prot's existance. The symptoms of Bess's illness (never talking, and hardly ever moving) do not lend much strength to the theory that she simply broke out of the hospital. Especially due to the statement made earlier by the high-up chairwoman figure when Prot took his short leave, that "people don't break out of this hospital," leading you to believe it has nice beefy security.
Actually, you can customize the color.
And the price is pretty damn cheap considering that MS will be hosting all the services *itself*
Yes, it is pretty cheap, because you get the risk thrown in for free.
I have an idea. Let's all depend on Microsoft's own IIS.NET servers for our service needs! What's that you say? Oh, of course it's secure! Microsoft has a strong reputation for only the highest security in their products. Don't let the hype fool you, all of those virus reports were just media concoctions dreamed up by the predatory-practicing, deep-pocketed Linux Corporation to slander Microsoft's good name. You won't have to worry a bit about Microsoft hosting all of the services for you. It will just make your life easier, I swear!
What they don't tell you is that once someone finds a hole, it will make it even easier for the blackhats to do even more destructive things than they can now. But at least admins won't have to worry about making sure their servers are updated anymore; they'll just have to hope Microsoft's admins are doing it.
Keep hoping guys, keep hoping.
How long do you think it'll be before someone finds a hole in .NET, that let's anyone hook into the services, regardless of if they've paid or not? Look at IIS with all of its security problems. I doubt this will really stop virus writers for very long. More likely it will just keep out the hobbyists that sometimes provide useful applications. And the fun thing about .NET is that, since all your personal data is connected to it, the people who find holes get to know everything about you. Can you spell "identity theft"? Have fun trying to convince your bank that someone who knew your name, social security number, address, phone number, wife's maiden name, yearly income, and car model wasn't really you.
The funny thing, that the entertainment industry must realize but doesn't acknowledge, is that the technology industry is a large part of what's keeping them afloat. How many movies and even TV shows nowadays have crazy computer generated graphics? I doubt most big music artists are recording in their garages with equipment from 10 years ago. And what is it that consumers are using to partake of all this entertainment? Flat screen liquid plasma TVs with surround sound stereo, smooth looking, high quality cd players and mp3 players, and more. So why does Entertainment seem so set on controlling Technology? Surely they don't think they can do it any better, they can barely even turn out a good movie more than once a year. They'll only be hurting themselves in the end.
I highly doubt you could get a home PC that will play all of Xbox's games for $300 or just a bit more.
Actually it was principle. If you would perhaps read a post you reply to, you'd see that he said he went for Linux instead of Windows because he didn't want to support Microsoft, on principle. It may surprise you, but sometimes people care about what the company behind a product does and how it acts, and don't just take the products at face value.
Actually, you can.
Right, give up *before* you try!
Why would they have to write their own? They can just use the stuff that exists right now; it doesn't have backdoors in it. If a law like this passed, it would just make using it illegal. It wouldn't suddenly turn all existing crypto into backdoor-enabled, so that you'd have to come up with an entirely new encryption scheme. It would just make non-government-sactioned, swiss cheese crypto illegal. It doesn't mean that real encryption would cease to exist or cease to be available. Using it would just be illegal, and I doubt the terrorists are worried about that. Last time I checked, terrorists don't go out of their way to obey laws. So all this would do is decrease privacy for law-abiding citizens. But the government wants that too, because then they can abuse that information and do whatever the hell they want. Hello 1984.
On the contrary, the reason a military dictatorship would have helped prevent the attack is because no one would have total freedom. Guess what a dictatorship is? You get the "freedoms" you're given. If the dictator is smart, he knows what freedoms not to give, so that his state remains stable.
I know US citizens are very egotistical (and yes I am one), but a dictatorship really is a better government than a democracy if the person in charge knows what he's doing and cares for his people. The problem is that that usually doesn't happen with dictatorships.
The preferences option is located under the File menu instead of the Edit menu. This is a bad design choice.
How is this a bad design choice? I personally prefer having a menu bar option like Tools or Options with the preferences menu underneath. I always thought Netscape was silly to have the preferences under Edit. To me the Edit menu means you're editing whatever is currently opened, ie the webpage you're viewing. That's why you find the copy/paste options there, or the View Source option. Your browsing preferences have nothing to do with editing that webpage, so why put it under the Edit menu. And frankly, I can't think of any other apps that let you change your session configuration/preferences by going to the Edit menu. This guy obviously has a Netscape bias.
It's poorly written pages as well as pages that are "browser enhanced," meaning they are written with extensions that only a certain browser supports (usually IE nowadays, but also Netscape). Of course, in terms of the W3C, this is equivalent to a poorly written page, since it doesn't follow the standards. Opera does misrender some pages, but on the whole I like it best.
Regardless of whether or not he is a megalomaniac, I doubt his *only* motives are control and the forcing of opinions. Those probably are some of his motives, if small ones, but I think I can safely say that every single person alive has these as motives. (Maybe people that are dead, too.) I doubt that anyone wants to have entirely no control and cares so little about his own opinions as to not want to convince anyone else.
The GNU tools are a larger percentage in terms of sheer size, perhaps. But which part of the operating system is more important? Last time I checked, the libraries don't boot your computer. And I disagree that an interface is necessarily part of an operating system. Surely you can have an operating system (perhaps not for a PC) that doesn't involve user interaction.
Linus named the OS before it became big, at a time when he *had* done most of the work himself. It's not like he just named it a month ago.
Well my school just spent $50 million building a new library. Sometimes they do things like renovation, which costs money, or buying classroom equipment, etc.
We have a language that automatically documents itself! It's called COBOL! Write a thesis essay while trying to make a simple file sort. Woo!
Don't get me wrong, I love coding in assembly too. The control you get is like a powertrip. The problem with assembly, obviously, is that it's architecture specific. While that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is nice to have the broadest possible user-base, which means cross-platform. That's why everyone's been infected with this Java disease. Of course, if you're not worried about that, more power to ya. I personally think programmers should be required to know some kind of assembly, so they have a concept of what their code actually gets turned into. "Look, this vector search only takes one line of code! That's way faster than trying to use this array that would take at least 5 lines." I'm not exaggerating here.
I think you missed the subtley that your parent post was going for. Try reading it again, keeping in mind who produced it.