I have to concur. Every study of dire predictions in the last 30 years have been proved wrong.
And the greenies who publish this propoganda don't let truth get in the way of their politics or their pushing of 'pro-green' policies.
Re:Nothing untrue in the article at all. /. howeve
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
I think that MS has a monopoly on a concept that may well be outmoded in a few years. With Linux so widely available, the movement could well be towards diskless clients, which could make the desktop the sole paradigm of Linux/Unix, especially for small businesses.
I learned from hard experience that backing up files using a windows file system is a losing proposition. Users are warned in my tiny shop, anything not in documents directory on the server will be zapped and/or not backed up; in fact anything other than database tables in many server directories will be scrubbed within minutes of the file being written.
Redhat is making some real strides in business deployments and along come other companies with some weird socialist vision of evening out the market?
I think they need to pull their collective
heads out of their asses and see what is going on. Redhat isn't that strong a company, and now this collusive attempt to wreck what little market power Linux has I hope will fail. For my part I will be telling others to disregard these fools. Redhat is the way to go.
I prefer Redhat for its ease of installment and configuration, and the numerous features which come bundled with their distro, not to mention their first rate support offerings on purchase, their database, their server, their community spirit, etc.
These companies have a loooong way to go to catch up with Redhat( http://www.redhat.com ), yet I think it is a waste of resources to combine to take away Redhat's strength on the questionable premise that what little market share they have is too much.
I guess that is their nerdy right, but I bet Microsoft is laughing their asses off, and may even help.
Guess I must be the only one...
on
Review: U-571
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
who enjoyed the review, even of an old movie. It was sort of like MST 3000, but without the commercals. I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Well done!
I agree that hardware being built not to run open source software is a bad thing, but I also believe that the internet has scared hollywood shitless and they would like nothing more than to control it for their own purposes. I think the digital rights management thing is a chimera/ghost to kill independant film producers from using the internet to distribute their films.
Let's face it 90 percent+ of what Hollwood produces is crap so bad most people wouldn't want to keep a copy on their machines let alone watch it. This new law would make dead certain that this same crap and its hellspawn is the only thing we get to see. And much if not most of independant films being produced are of such quality they would blow Holywood's garbage away were they distributed with the same recklessness that Hollywood is famous for. The internet is a the death knell for the way Hollywood wants to do business and killing off the possibility that independant films can be released worldwide through the internet is entirely in their own, and only thei own interests
I think how this will all play out is that Hollywood will get its way for hard wiring DRM chips, but it will open a new market for non-DRM hardware. We may see $300 mainboards which do not qualify for 'legal status' or which do not have DRM hardwired in it, but hey there is as much action on the downside as up.
I say fight it and then laugh our collective asses off when Hollywood realizes the payoff from that ever-present law of unintended consequences. Hell it may even inject some sanity into their commie politics.
For me the issue at the moment is that MS is messing with SMB using patents. Our tiny office runs two Linux servers with four MS boxen and a Linux one. I trust the good people at http://samba.org when they say there is nothing wrong, but it is moving me towards a full Linux solution. I have NO intention of moving past Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP mostly becuase of the cost and the hassle of registration, compatibility problems, security, the rather poor filesystem, the weak shell programming tools for WIndows, the BSA and so on and so forth.
Not I. We are slowly moving from MS towards Linux and part of that strategy is using StarOffice 6.0. It business sense to spend $76USD for the priviledge of reading/editing XP documents. I bought 5.2 and was impressed and have been looking forward to 6.0 since then.
Think of all those young minds inventing Linux applications for graphing calculators, from their learning experience using perl or python. Brings a happy tear to my eye.
The EU simply can't force US based companies to collect its taxes for it, neither for download nor for hard purchases. Its a simple matter of soverignity of the US. It can intercept purchases and impose a 'duty' on material physically shipped, but the only way it can tax downloads is to regulate the ftps; but the technical implications are staggering and really do butt up against our right to sell goods without having to help EU collect its cut.
Eudora is very much still around.
I myself was tired of all the Outlook Express virii and I bought a copy of Eudora. It has defeated every infected email I have received.
Another GOOD option is Mozilla which has an email client.
I don't think the World Trade Organization wants to tangle with open source software. It's about free speech. MS wants to protect its product by denying the source sode, that is their perfect right. But they have no right to restrict the use of computer code that is available even if it does affect their business. MS needs to grab their ankles on this market and learn to enjoy the experience.
I bought a box from a small reseller and I told them specifically I didn't want Windows 98 on the computer, that I would be installing Linux 7.2. Well they removed it becuase they wanted the sale of the box. I would have gone to a competitor had they not.
Now if they kept close records or whatever then MS knows (presumably) that I bought an OS-less computer and so makes me suspect, right?
Well if the computer I bought boots up to Redhat 7.2 and NO executables exist on the local drive, then where is the violation of a EULA? The OS (Win98) which holds me in violation of the EULA does not exist on the hard drive, nor do any Windows or even SMB shares; ultimately is a judge liable to find that 1) I am in substantial violation of the EULA if I never received the OS in the first place and 2) Where the hell is the OS that would make me liable?
I realize that MS wants to lock their hold on computers, but there is such a thing as common sense. If the HD is scrubbed of ALL MS products and re-partitioned with Linux, the hardware is now a Linux machine, not a MS machine.
I am a fan of slashdot and I don't care for MS products and have been in fact getting moving away from MS products steadily, but some of the observations on EULA (i.e. can't sell the computer without the OS, what utter bullshit!) are just over the top.
To re-cap: If the OS is NOT on the HD: has been scrubbed totally, it just doesn't exist and no liability of ANY kind, whether criminal or civil, exists simply because I converted (read: saved) a computer from a lifetime of MS misery to a wholesome life as a Linux box.
We're the US to stop buying oil from the Saudis, I would suspect things would get worse for the citizens. As it is we may be moving from buying oil from the AyRabs to buying it from Russia and countries in the western hemisphere; the percentages have changed signifigantly from 10 years ago and if Bush can come to an agreement, we may be buying most of our oil from Russia.
The idea of a free internet in countries where tiny percentages of the populace can actually afford computers and/or all the attendent services (let alone who are even literate to read anything other than the Koran) is fatuous, and that is putting a kind spin on it.
Most countries in Asia/North Africa that are likely to use internet/computers, deny those things to all its people except for a tiny elite, simply by virtue of its cost in relation to the average income.
Rather than complain about blocking software, why not work cooperatively to develop software which can break blocking technology instead, if you think it is worth it and you can overcome the economics of technology use in Asia.
I have been running a Linux server in a small (7 boxes inclusing the server) shop. Microsoft in my opinion has only one thing going for it in marketing their products and that is ease of use. Things like cost, that elusive TCO, the hostile licensing rules are strong reasons for going to Linux in the server market, but the biggest reason for not going to Microsoft is the data itself. I have read that once a shop switches to a MS solution, their data is owned from that point on by MS, i.e. you can't move the data to another application, other than another newer MS application. Linux on the other hand you can move between applications, and if there is no provision for that in your application, you can hack one. Can't do that with Microsoft.
I wouldnt worry too much about MS going after large accounts and large headlines. It's the small businesses which create jobs in this country and they are always on the lookout for better, more cost effective solutions. Let them have the big boys. Once they realize the kind of corner they are getting into you will see migration towards Linux. As it is I have no real vested interest in either MS or Linux; it is just that I was horrified at their tactics using the BSA and all the other techonological means they are using to enhance their position. I have convinced my family's company that we should be moving towards chucking WIndows, and we are slowly moving towards a MS-free office.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to concur. Every study of dire predictions in the last 30 years have been proved wrong. And the greenies who publish this propoganda don't let truth get in the way of their politics or their pushing of 'pro-green' policies.
I think that MS has a monopoly on a concept that may well be outmoded in a few years. With Linux so widely available, the movement could well be towards diskless clients, which could make the desktop the sole paradigm of Linux/Unix, especially for small businesses.
http://www.computersurplusoutlet.com
I learned from hard experience that backing up files using a windows file system is a losing proposition. Users are warned in my tiny shop, anything not in documents directory on the server will be zapped and/or not backed up; in fact anything other than database tables in many server directories will be scrubbed within minutes of the file being written.
Redhat is making some real strides in business deployments and along come other companies with some weird socialist vision of evening out the market? I think they need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and see what is going on. Redhat isn't that strong a company, and now this collusive attempt to wreck what little market power Linux has I hope will fail. For my part I will be telling others to disregard these fools. Redhat is the way to go. I prefer Redhat for its ease of installment and configuration, and the numerous features which come bundled with their distro, not to mention their first rate support offerings on purchase, their database, their server, their community spirit, etc. These companies have a loooong way to go to catch up with Redhat( http://www.redhat.com ), yet I think it is a waste of resources to combine to take away Redhat's strength on the questionable premise that what little market share they have is too much. I guess that is their nerdy right, but I bet Microsoft is laughing their asses off, and may even help.
who enjoyed the review, even of an old movie. It was sort of like MST 3000, but without the commercals. I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Well done!
I agree that hardware being built not to run open source software is a bad thing, but I also believe that the internet has scared hollywood shitless and they would like nothing more than to control it for their own purposes. I think the digital rights management thing is a chimera/ghost to kill independant film producers from using the internet to distribute their films. Let's face it 90 percent+ of what Hollwood produces is crap so bad most people wouldn't want to keep a copy on their machines let alone watch it. This new law would make dead certain that this same crap and its hellspawn is the only thing we get to see. And much if not most of independant films being produced are of such quality they would blow Holywood's garbage away were they distributed with the same recklessness that Hollywood is famous for. The internet is a the death knell for the way Hollywood wants to do business and killing off the possibility that independant films can be released worldwide through the internet is entirely in their own, and only thei own interests I think how this will all play out is that Hollywood will get its way for hard wiring DRM chips, but it will open a new market for non-DRM hardware. We may see $300 mainboards which do not qualify for 'legal status' or which do not have DRM hardwired in it, but hey there is as much action on the downside as up. I say fight it and then laugh our collective asses off when Hollywood realizes the payoff from that ever-present law of unintended consequences. Hell it may even inject some sanity into their commie politics.
For me the issue at the moment is that MS is messing with SMB using patents. Our tiny office runs two Linux servers with four MS boxen and a Linux one. I trust the good people at http://samba.org when they say there is nothing wrong, but it is moving me towards a full Linux solution. I have NO intention of moving past Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP mostly becuase of the cost and the hassle of registration, compatibility problems, security, the rather poor filesystem, the weak shell programming tools for WIndows, the BSA and so on and so forth.
Not I. We are slowly moving from MS towards Linux and part of that strategy is using StarOffice 6.0. It business sense to spend $76USD for the priviledge of reading/editing XP documents. I bought 5.2 and was impressed and have been looking forward to 6.0 since then.
A deal is a deal. They couldn't give MS the money they agreed to, so they folded.
Wrong. You can't be sued for providing a free service in the USA if you do not believe it could cause greivous harm..
Think of all those young minds inventing Linux applications for graphing calculators, from their learning experience using perl or python. Brings a happy tear to my eye.
The EU simply can't force US based companies to collect its taxes for it, neither for download nor for hard purchases. Its a simple matter of soverignity of the US. It can intercept purchases and impose a 'duty' on material physically shipped, but the only way it can tax downloads is to regulate the ftps; but the technical implications are staggering and really do butt up against our right to sell goods without having to help EU collect its cut.
Eudora is very much still around. I myself was tired of all the Outlook Express virii and I bought a copy of Eudora. It has defeated every infected email I have received. Another GOOD option is Mozilla which has an email client.
I don't think the World Trade Organization wants to tangle with open source software. It's about free speech. MS wants to protect its product by denying the source sode, that is their perfect right. But they have no right to restrict the use of computer code that is available even if it does affect their business. MS needs to grab their ankles on this market and learn to enjoy the experience.
I bought a box from a small reseller and I told them specifically I didn't want Windows 98 on the computer, that I would be installing Linux 7.2. Well they removed it becuase they wanted the sale of the box. I would have gone to a competitor had they not. Now if they kept close records or whatever then MS knows (presumably) that I bought an OS-less computer and so makes me suspect, right? Well if the computer I bought boots up to Redhat 7.2 and NO executables exist on the local drive, then where is the violation of a EULA? The OS (Win98) which holds me in violation of the EULA does not exist on the hard drive, nor do any Windows or even SMB shares; ultimately is a judge liable to find that 1) I am in substantial violation of the EULA if I never received the OS in the first place and 2) Where the hell is the OS that would make me liable? I realize that MS wants to lock their hold on computers, but there is such a thing as common sense. If the HD is scrubbed of ALL MS products and re-partitioned with Linux, the hardware is now a Linux machine, not a MS machine. I am a fan of slashdot and I don't care for MS products and have been in fact getting moving away from MS products steadily, but some of the observations on EULA (i.e. can't sell the computer without the OS, what utter bullshit!) are just over the top. To re-cap: If the OS is NOT on the HD: has been scrubbed totally, it just doesn't exist and no liability of ANY kind, whether criminal or civil, exists simply because I converted (read: saved) a computer from a lifetime of MS misery to a wholesome life as a Linux box.
We're the US to stop buying oil from the Saudis, I would suspect things would get worse for the citizens. As it is we may be moving from buying oil from the AyRabs to buying it from Russia and countries in the western hemisphere; the percentages have changed signifigantly from 10 years ago and if Bush can come to an agreement, we may be buying most of our oil from Russia. The idea of a free internet in countries where tiny percentages of the populace can actually afford computers and/or all the attendent services (let alone who are even literate to read anything other than the Koran) is fatuous, and that is putting a kind spin on it. Most countries in Asia/North Africa that are likely to use internet/computers, deny those things to all its people except for a tiny elite, simply by virtue of its cost in relation to the average income. Rather than complain about blocking software, why not work cooperatively to develop software which can break blocking technology instead, if you think it is worth it and you can overcome the economics of technology use in Asia.
I have been running a Linux server in a small (7 boxes inclusing the server) shop. Microsoft in my opinion has only one thing going for it in marketing their products and that is ease of use. Things like cost, that elusive TCO, the hostile licensing rules are strong reasons for going to Linux in the server market, but the biggest reason for not going to Microsoft is the data itself. I have read that once a shop switches to a MS solution, their data is owned from that point on by MS, i.e. you can't move the data to another application, other than another newer MS application. Linux on the other hand you can move between applications, and if there is no provision for that in your application, you can hack one. Can't do that with Microsoft. I wouldnt worry too much about MS going after large accounts and large headlines. It's the small businesses which create jobs in this country and they are always on the lookout for better, more cost effective solutions. Let them have the big boys. Once they realize the kind of corner they are getting into you will see migration towards Linux. As it is I have no real vested interest in either MS or Linux; it is just that I was horrified at their tactics using the BSA and all the other techonological means they are using to enhance their position. I have convinced my family's company that we should be moving towards chucking WIndows, and we are slowly moving towards a MS-free office.