you can't TM a word and claim domain over all uses of it.
Actually you can, if it's a made-up word. Now that Phillip-Morris is "Altria" or whatever, I can't go and start "Altria Lumber Concern" even though lumber isn't related to their cancer creation service.
But, since neither party made up the word "Fedora", you may have a point. However, the "field" is generally recognized to be rather broad, for example, "software". If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them even though telephony and CD recording are ostensibly different fields.
hat improves their botto line, and therefore their stock values, which equals economic recovery.
What cracksmoking mod rated that "insightful"?
Stock values do not "equal" economic recovery. Stock values rarely even reflect economic recovery. Come to think of it, stock values (and unearned income in general) inhibit economic recovery. Economic recovery occurs when real wages increase. So, there hasn't been a recovery from the recession of 1981-1983 yet.
Say "fucks" but with a Highland or Liverpudlian accent, "fooks" (ie, like Groundskeeper Willie, Ringo Starr, or Lister from "Red Dwarf").
I used to teach music theory, and one of the few great classical introductions to counterpoint was by a guy named "Fuchs". All my students called him "fuks". Hilarity would ensue.
Slate and MSNBC haven't been particularly pro-Microsoft (other than the generic pro-corporate bias all mainstream media have). I don't see this is a huge worry, personally.
Compare MSNBC's reporting on Microsoft with ABC's (explicit and candidly admitted) refusal to report anything bad about Disney, or indeed to do much of anything except hype Disney-owned "artists" like Britney Spears. That's a much bigger worry to me.
the only software that the author would like in his "ideal" desktop that I use myself is apt. (Which arguably has nothing to do with the user experience, anyway -- as long as package management is done right, the user shouldn't care.)
It's weird, isn't it? Distros like Debian and Gentoo are known as "hard", but only because of the installation. Using portage or apt is exactly the kind of simplicity "average" users are looking for. In my case, if I want to install or update an application, it's just a matter of clicking on it in kportage and telling it to install (though I understand YAST is moving towards that). I wonder what it would take to get an installation program like RH's or SuSE's along with a really simple package management system like apt or (IMO even better) portage? I guess that's what UserLinux is aiming for.
A win is 1 point for the winner and 0 for the loser. A draw is.5 points for both contestants. Kasparov and Fritz each have one win, one loss, and two draws, or 1.5 + 0.5 = 2.
I was being euphemistic when I said Oracle was as good as or better than Postgres. It's not entirely a fair comparison, though: I know lots of shops that run Oracle right out of the "box" (well, "large envelope" in most cases I've seen) and are happy with it; the postgres shops I know all run their custom version of postgres with their own bag of tricks in it, something that's not as easy to do with 9i.
So, yes, a default Oracle tends to be better than a default postgres, but I don't know many people who use the vanilla postgres.
Yes, I meant an unmanned vehicle towing/pushing it out into space.
Sibling post points out the difficulties of that (and I agree it would be difficult), but I think that would be mitigated by the fact that we don't really care whether or not we damage the telescope in the process. So, as long as we slam into it hard enough we should be fine.
And, isn't Oracle to
Postgres as Windows to Linux?
Not really; Oracle is actually a viable alternative to Postgres. I certainly don't find Windows to be a viable alternative to Linux (though I know 95% of users disagree with me on that).
The Microsoft jab aside, Oracle's products in my experience are up to the level that the best-of-breed open-source competitors are at, and in some cases beyond. They're marketed towards a more sophisticated userbase so I assume they have to be. While they aren't the dynamos of innovation that they were, say, 10 years ago, they are contributing meaningful development to the RDBMS and ORDBMS world. Why Windows isn't viable for me is that it hasn't really changed anything but chrome and stability in the past ~5 years. So I don't think Oracle:Postgres::Windows:Linux really works in that sense.
Hubble is not the debris problem. The debris problem is the millions of tiny bits of rocket and sattelite detritus that are whizzing around earth. If the hubble is coming towards you it's pretty easy to see and dodge. If something the size of a saltshaker is coming towards you, it's not so easy to see and dodge, but it can kill you just as dead.
Personally, I'm all for nudging hubble out away from the plane of earth's orbit and just letting it float away and keep observing until it totally dies.
I've only played against Fritz, not studied it, but I've always wondered how the same moves can beat a program one day and lose to it the next.
I mean, presumably if K. used the same opening in his next match, Fritz would respond differently, right? (otherwise once you've beaten a program you could always beat it.) What changes between the two matches? Does Fritz recall its earlier losses and try to avoid similar traps? Is there some amount of randmoness in the early move selections? Is it just a question of which positions it has time to analyze?
No open sourced "Licensed Implementation" seems possible. I don't see any reason why you can't write a system that conforms to the published specifications without including the notice or becoming a "licensed implementation", since that would involve no reproduction of any Microsoft IP.
...until the US gov't gets pressured to treat these "move towards open source" campaigns by various countries as a tariff against US software. That could be interesting.
It's important to remember there's no silver bullet for library versioning problems; I happen to like Linux's solution better than Windows' but neither is perfect.
Why aren't more applications staticly linked? I don't think storage or even bandwidth are the expensive commodities they used to be. More staticly linked applications might be a good idea.
No, that's the entire install. You're thinking of that "configure wizard" that happens after you reboot. The OS is already installed at that point; you're just configuring the timezone, networking, etc.
You have mentioned that there would be a sort of quid pro quo between Fedora and your Enterprise line: in return for the community support for Fedora as a "testing ground" for Enterprise Linux, Fedora will get some engineering and management support from Red Hat. It's not that I doubt your honesty, but I'm worried that if I were to contribute to Fedora, those contributions might get sucked into an enterprise distribution I could never afford while Fedora support ends up falling by the wayside. How two-way will the street be, and are there any assurances that it will keep being two-way?
instlal something manually and everything goes to hell with rpms and apt
I hear this all the time I just have never seen it personally. Maybe I've been lucky. If I've installed libwhatever manually I just emerge (or apt, or rpm, or whatever) with the relevent nodep option and it works fine.
Plus I seem to have encountered the need for multiple versions of the same friggin library, which is something i've never come accross in win.
Actually you probably have; the biggest part of "DLL hell" is that you need two different versions of the same library (a.dll and a.so have analogous roles). The Linux solution is to have libfoo.so.6 and libfoo.so.5 in/usr/lib with libfoo.so as a link to the newest one; that way you can run applications that require both libraries. Windows does offer a similar solution but FAR too in most cases vendors simply overwrite foo.dll with their version of foo.dll, so that whatever apps relied on the earlier version are now completely hosed.
The other big part of DLL hell comes from Windows not having many graphical toolkits except for MFC (which simply is not enough for most developers). So, instead of having something like GTK or QT people end up writing all sorts of custom controls as libraries (which is how DLL hell quickly became ActiveX hell once Microsoft decided COM components should be self-registering... shudder...). When a new application overwrites an old library for a control, every older app that used that control breaks. In contrast, no Linux program that I know of tries to give you a new GTK or QT.
Easier installation than what? Windows? Fine, except for Debian and Gentoo all the major distros are already easier to install than Windows. Next?
(Have you actually installed Windows lately? It's a TEXT MODE installation for Christ's sake! How can I expect my grandmother to deal with a text mode installation? Windows installation is only "easy" for the user in that somebody did it for them at the factory.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you can, if it's a made-up word. Now that Phillip-Morris is "Altria" or whatever, I can't go and start "Altria Lumber Concern" even though lumber isn't related to their cancer creation service.
But, since neither party made up the word "Fedora", you may have a point. However, the "field" is generally recognized to be rather broad, for example, "software". If some company decided to call its telephony software suite "Nero Burning ROM", Ahead could still stop them even though telephony and CD recording are ostensibly different fields.
Don't bother. Raw milk is safer.
What cracksmoking mod rated that "insightful"?
Stock values do not "equal" economic recovery. Stock values rarely even reflect economic recovery. Come to think of it, stock values (and unearned income in general) inhibit economic recovery. Economic recovery occurs when real wages increase. So, there hasn't been a recovery from the recession of 1981-1983 yet.
What kind of cheap-ass robots do you have? An amortized cost that winds up as less than $5.15/hr?
Say "fucks" but with a Highland or Liverpudlian accent, "fooks" (ie, like Groundskeeper Willie, Ringo Starr, or Lister from "Red Dwarf").
I used to teach music theory, and one of the few great classical introductions to counterpoint was by a guy named "Fuchs". All my students called him "fuks". Hilarity would ensue.
Slate and MSNBC haven't been particularly pro-Microsoft (other than the generic pro-corporate bias all mainstream media have). I don't see this is a huge worry, personally.
Compare MSNBC's reporting on Microsoft with ABC's (explicit and candidly admitted) refusal to report anything bad about Disney, or indeed to do much of anything except hype Disney-owned "artists" like Britney Spears. That's a much bigger worry to me.
It's weird, isn't it? Distros like Debian and Gentoo are known as "hard", but only because of the installation. Using portage or apt is exactly the kind of simplicity "average" users are looking for. In my case, if I want to install or update an application, it's just a matter of clicking on it in kportage and telling it to install (though I understand YAST is moving towards that). I wonder what it would take to get an installation program like RH's or SuSE's along with a really simple package management system like apt or (IMO even better) portage? I guess that's what UserLinux is aiming for.
A win is 1 point for the winner and 0 for the loser. A draw is .5 points for both contestants. Kasparov and Fritz each have one win, one loss, and two draws, or 1.5 + 0.5 = 2.
...ever heard of a game called "Go"? I'm amazed it's never discussed when we talk about computers playing chess.
I was being euphemistic when I said Oracle was as good as or better than Postgres. It's not entirely a fair comparison, though: I know lots of shops that run Oracle right out of the "box" (well, "large envelope" in most cases I've seen) and are happy with it; the postgres shops I know all run their custom version of postgres with their own bag of tricks in it, something that's not as easy to do with 9i.
So, yes, a default Oracle tends to be better than a default postgres, but I don't know many people who use the vanilla postgres.
Yes, I meant an unmanned vehicle towing/pushing it out into space.
Sibling post points out the difficulties of that (and I agree it would be difficult), but I think that would be mitigated by the fact that we don't really care whether or not we damage the telescope in the process. So, as long as we slam into it hard enough we should be fine.
Not really; Oracle is actually a viable alternative to Postgres. I certainly don't find Windows to be a viable alternative to Linux (though I know 95% of users disagree with me on that).
The Microsoft jab aside, Oracle's products in my experience are up to the level that the best-of-breed open-source competitors are at, and in some cases beyond. They're marketed towards a more sophisticated userbase so I assume they have to be. While they aren't the dynamos of innovation that they were, say, 10 years ago, they are contributing meaningful development to the RDBMS and ORDBMS world. Why Windows isn't viable for me is that it hasn't really changed anything but chrome and stability in the past ~5 years. So I don't think Oracle:Postgres::Windows:Linux really works in that sense.
Hubble is not the debris problem. The debris problem is the millions of tiny bits of rocket and sattelite detritus that are whizzing around earth. If the hubble is coming towards you it's pretty easy to see and dodge. If something the size of a saltshaker is coming towards you, it's not so easy to see and dodge, but it can kill you just as dead.
Personally, I'm all for nudging hubble out away from the plane of earth's orbit and just letting it float away and keep observing until it totally dies.
I guess that's "free as in speech" shipping, not "free as in beer" shipping?
I've only played against Fritz, not studied it, but I've always wondered how the same moves can beat a program one day and lose to it the next.
I mean, presumably if K. used the same opening in his next match, Fritz would respond differently, right? (otherwise once you've beaten a program you could always beat it.) What changes between the two matches? Does Fritz recall its earlier losses and try to avoid similar traps? Is there some amount of randmoness in the early move selections? Is it just a question of which positions it has time to analyze?
No open sourced "Licensed Implementation" seems possible. I don't see any reason why you can't write a system that conforms to the published specifications without including the notice or becoming a "licensed implementation", since that would involve no reproduction of any Microsoft IP.
...until the US gov't gets pressured to treat these "move towards open source" campaigns by various countries as a tariff against US software. That could be interesting.
Aren't our mitochondria pretty much viruses?
It's important to remember there's no silver bullet for library versioning problems; I happen to like Linux's solution better than Windows' but neither is perfect.
Why aren't more applications staticly linked? I don't think storage or even bandwidth are the expensive commodities they used to be. More staticly linked applications might be a good idea.
No, that's the entire install. You're thinking of that "configure wizard" that happens after you reboot. The OS is already installed at that point; you're just configuring the timezone, networking, etc.
You have mentioned that there would be a sort of quid pro quo between Fedora and your Enterprise line: in return for the community support for Fedora as a "testing ground" for Enterprise Linux, Fedora will get some engineering and management support from Red Hat. It's not that I doubt your honesty, but I'm worried that if I were to contribute to Fedora, those contributions might get sucked into an enterprise distribution I could never afford while Fedora support ends up falling by the wayside. How two-way will the street be, and are there any assurances that it will keep being two-way?
I hear this all the time I just have never seen it personally. Maybe I've been lucky. If I've installed libwhatever manually I just emerge (or apt, or rpm, or whatever) with the relevent nodep option and it works fine.
Actually you probably have; the biggest part of "DLL hell" is that you need two different versions of the same library (a .dll and a .so have analogous roles). The Linux solution is to have libfoo.so.6 and libfoo.so.5 in /usr/lib with libfoo.so as a link to the newest one; that way you can run applications that require both libraries. Windows does offer a similar solution but FAR too in most cases vendors simply overwrite foo.dll with their version of foo.dll, so that whatever apps relied on the earlier version are now completely hosed.
The other big part of DLL hell comes from Windows not having many graphical toolkits except for MFC (which simply is not enough for most developers). So, instead of having something like GTK or QT people end up writing all sorts of custom controls as libraries (which is how DLL hell quickly became ActiveX hell once Microsoft decided COM components should be self-registering... shudder...). When a new application overwrites an old library for a control, every older app that used that control breaks. In contrast, no Linux program that I know of tries to give you a new GTK or QT.
Easier installation than what? Windows? Fine, except for Debian and Gentoo all the major distros are already easier to install than Windows. Next?
(Have you actually installed Windows lately? It's a TEXT MODE installation for Christ's sake! How can I expect my grandmother to deal with a text mode installation? Windows installation is only "easy" for the user in that somebody did it for them at the factory.)
I call meta-bullshit. Happens all the time on the non-NT line (and occasionally on the NT/2k/XP line).
WTF do you think the phrase "DLL hell" was invented to describe?