"This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it. "... "I wish you Mac people would quit making a bunch of shit up instead of talking about the strong points of the Mac like you should be."
Heh. It's a funny thing, really. It's even more complex than the IPC/MHZ debate.
At home I had a 486 33 mhz with 8 meg of RAM. At school I had access to a Mac that was running at 75mhz with 16 meg of RAM. In theory, that thing should have mopped the floor with my 486, right?
Nope.
I was far more productive on my 486. I think I was running Windows 3.1 (it might have been 95, but I'm not 100% sure of that) with PhotoStyler. The Mac was running whatever OS was popular at the time and Photoshop. It took like half an hour to print to the printer on that thing. At home, I'd hit print and moments later it was going.
So wtf, why was the Mac so slow compared to my piddly 486? Well, I'm not 100% certain, but I think it had to do with the apps more than the hardware. Whatever OS I was running, the Mac OS was significantly more sophisticated. Photoshop was multi-layered, vs. Photostyler was more like "Paint and forget about undoing it". On top of that, I think one of the students overloaded the Mac with Fonts. (sadly, Apple had the philosophy of "we'll load everything at once instead of only loading what we need right now".) My PC was tuned specifically for what I wanted to do, and it ran circles around the Mac. I definitely did not have a very high opinion of Mac back then.
Today, Mac OSX is a little processor heavy with its UI. A friend of mine bought one of their notebooks about a year ago. It was pretty and all, but it got a little lagged while drawing the fancy flashy stuff on the bottom. I have no idea what that does to overall system performance, but it makes me wonder if it'd eat into rendering times in Lightwave, for example. Maybe it's all FUD, I dunno.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how many IPCs it does or how fast it is. I want benchmarks. I'm sure that processors can have all kinds of advantages and disadvantages to each other, but real world conditions always change everything. In the case of the Mac and 486 I mentioned earlier, technical superiority meant nothing. Whatever speed advantage the Mac had was lost with the apps it was running.
Well, parent poster's tone is a little harsh, but he makes a good point.
So what if the movie sucks? What's the worst that'll happen? It's not like the original movie will suddenly become a crappy movie. It's not like people will watch the live action one and then criticize you for liking the original. Heck, it's not like you're going to be strapped into a chair and forced to watch it.
If the movie tanks, the MPAA will learn yet another harsh lesson about trying to fix something that ain't broken.
If the movie is a success, it means that the director was able to add something of value to the movie, this giving you and the rest of the viewers something new to be entertained with.
So, yeah, I agree with the parent poster: LIGHTEN UP!
"good point. in the same vain, i want to point out that we really have no right to criticize hitler and stalin. everyone has a biased opinion of these two (that they were bad people), therefore we cannot make any sort of judgement on them.
in addition, AIDS is not necessairly a bad thing. it may be, but we have no way to be sure, since everyone considers them to be bad, we have no unbiased source on them. "
I make the point that/. is biased against MS, and your rebuttal is an indirect comparison if Microsoft to AIDS, Hitler, and Stalin?
That was a bit of a self destructive point there, don'tcha think? That's kind of like saying "Yo mama's ugly. I know this because mine's even uglier!"
So, to summarize your post: "I could use my anti-MS zealotry to find things wrong with them and their software."
Sorry, your post reinforces my point: Slashdot loves to find problems with anything that touches MS. Never mind that Linux is busy trying to make their usabability as good as Windows'.
Focus that kind of energy on Linux, and a bunch of bad stuff will appear there too.
"A new study shows that the average productive Linux user knows 63 poorly spelt commands. Of course, Windows users don't have to worry about this since the functionality is available and easy to find in the UI. The names even have vowels in them!"
"Redhat 8 is out, and KDE still is slow to redraw filewindows. Fortunately, Windows users don't have to worry about this because window updates are hardware accellerated."
"The new round of PDAs are out, and they still don't synch up well with Linux and the Office-style apps that run with it."
"Konqueror has funny ideas about how the clipboard should work, of course Windows users..."
All hypothetical, but should adequately describe my point. If you wanna play the 'I bet I can go find problems with whatever you prefer' game, you'll get singed in the process.
The Slashdot Community should consider something: MS didn't get big by making something that wasn't useful to people. Windows works. It's usable. It'll run on your machine. It's well supported. Heck, it's hard to buy a computer that doesn't come with it. Gee, there must be something there.
"I counter that "windows != IIS" and yet "IIS == windows". Windows can exist without IIS (even if it's installed and you don't know it), but IIS cannot exist without Windows."
Heh nice bending of word definitions to sugar- coat a point there. IIS is a service. IIS is not Windows, it's not a feature of Windows, it's a service that runs on top of Windows in much the same way that Apache runs on top of whatever OS it's running on. MS could port it to other OS's if they wanted to. We all know they won't. And no, just because it's on the install CD doesn't mean that it's Windows.
Let's apply your logic (or lack of) to some other examples:
Gnome == Linux because it's installed with it. KDE == Linux because it's installed with it. Apache != Linux because it can be installed on Windows Emacs == Linux because it's installed with it.
And so on...
Sorry, but your argument does little for me but show ya hate MS, but don't really know what you're talking about.
"Recall that there was a trojaned version of SSH going around that got plenty of attention. Maybe these "hacks" don't get as much press because there aren't so many of them. "
Um, no. I can recall one week (3-4 weeks ago?) where the front page of Slashdot had a couple of anti-MS rantings. Go a level or two deep in Slashdot (not the main page), and there was a pretty nasty Linux worm or something floating around. Wish I had the details on me. I just remember somebody's post with a +5 moderation asking why it didn't make the front page like the similar MS stuff.
The fact is that/. finds MS stories juicy. The more the details are twisted and bent, the more contraversial the story is. This means more people commenting, and co-incidentally, more banner ads getting exposed.
It's gotten to the point that one cannot rely on the article summaries. Anybody remember the 'Microsoft kicks Sony out of Ce-Bit' article last... March or April I think? Microsoft didn't throw Sony out of a Tradeshow. Sony was breaking tradeshow rules and MS reported them. Compromises were offered, but instead Sony packed up all their PS2s and stormed out like a little kid throwing a tantrum. Despite that Sony broke the rules and refused to play because they weren't allowed to do things other trade show attendees couldn't do, MS is the one that got the bad press for it on Slashdot. Sony cheats, MS gets bad press out of it. Yeah, that's fair.
Sorry, but the Linux Community here on Slashdot has no right to complain about that comment. Stop dishing the shit out if you can't handle some of it getting thrown back.
"Isnt a little strange do some bashing while complaining about the "usual bashing"?"
No it's not unusual. If somebody takes a poke at MS, you're not going to care. But when somebody takes a painful poke at Linux, suddenly you understand what your pokes at MS feel like.
It's not hypocracy, it's illustration. A very effective one at that since it got a reaction out of you. A lot of the anti-MS shit that flies around Slashdot (and usually ends up as +1 Funny) is every bit as ill-founded as the Sendmail/Linux relationship. Yet, it still flies around and people pat themselves on the back. What reason would they have to tone it down if they don't know what it feels like?
You can dismiss his comment as hypocracy if you like. I wouldn't, though. You should see it as a reflection of what the GNU/Linux community puts out. If that kind of comment bothers you, you lose your right to complain once you start making Windows insecurity jokes.
Better explanation, but I still disagree. Instead of getting into details, though, I think it's more productive to point out that we are from two different schools of thought.
Would I be correct in assuming that you feel the machine should be limited to only what the user should need to perform their job? Personally, I think that's a mistake. I believe that a computer at an office setting should be treated as though the user owns it.
Are there risks? Yep. Somebody could install something stupid and muck up their computer. I ran across an unused copy of VB early on when I started working here. When I uninstalled it, it wiped out a bunch of DLLs that Windows needed to do basic tasks. After some troubleshooting, the sysadmin had to reinstall Windows for me.
Are there benfits? Surprisingly, yes. Not only have I written quick little apps to help people out, but I also springboarded from that into programming of our website. We hired a company to do our site, but they overdid it a bit. They used Active Server Pages and SQL (the expensive one, not the free one). We couldn't figure out how to move the SQL database from one server to another, and we didn't want to pay ridiculous rates to have this company do it for us. So, my VB use came to the rescue. ASP uses a similar dialect to VB, so I was able to program-out the need for an SQL database. That saved the company both time and money. If that had happened sooner, we could have saved ourselves the 7k pricetag of SQL. That easiliy outweighed the sysadmin's time to reinstall Windows for me. (Damn MS for writing the uninstaller that way, though.)
I do see your point, but I also disagree with it. The company I work for is small and it has embraced the idea that the computers we use here belong to us. We evolved out of the need for a full-time sysadmin. We've had people perform tasks that they were not 'classically trained' to do. (For example, I'm not a programmer yet I picked up both ASP and PHP in little-to-no time.) We've even come up with creative solutions to problems that were out of our price range.
Could larger businesses support this? I personally think so, mainly because I don't think people are at the level of stupidity that most computer geeks assume they are. However, larger companies are more pessimistic and penny-pinching than they need to be. If they'd just give people a chance and not treat them like their computer is the company car that cannot be scratched, then the computer becomes their own personal tool and not just an appliance. It'd start off a bit rocky, but over time what'd happen is problems would heal themselves instead of having a single point of failure: The sysadmin.
"Ugh. You're letting your *users* install drivers from websites? How many PCs do you manage??? "
I wrote that long ass thing and that is your rebuttal? heh. What's the matter? Don't like what I have to say so you have to pick on a detail in a vain hope to discredit me?
"Sorry Mr. Troll, but the T in TCO stands for Total - it doesn't matter if someone other than the sysadmin does it, the employees still have to be paid to do it, so thereforo you must count the time they spend in the Total Cost of Ownership. "
Heh, dumb argument. It works against you. Let's say you have a printing problem. The sysadmin has to walk all the way over to your computer just to assess the situation. That, in a lot of cases, will take a heck of a lot more time than the fix for the problem alone. If the problem is that the new driver needs to be installed, that only takes a few minutes to do. No reboot even.
But, if the user is familiar with the OS, then they'll fix their problem long before the sysadmin even arrives. Thus, saving the total time involved. I won't even bother getting into the problem if two or more people have a problem at the same time.
It is widely known that Windows is the most used desktop OS out there. Indisputable. Linux has hardly scratched that. Few people are very familiar with it in an office environment. In the case of the same printing problem with Linux, what is anybody to do? A lot more people are going to have to call the sysadmin to get it fixed. They're not just going to go to HP's site and find the Linux driver, no no no, they're going to have to have their hand-held through the whole thing.
Thus, both the user and the sysadmin are tied up, including the time it takes for him to get his butt over to the computer in question.
So, using your own example, Linux is definitely going to cost more money to maintain. (at least in the hypothetical example I provided, your mileage may vary.)
Now one could easily argue with me about whether that'd really happen. Just stop there. For every time you'll tell me why Linux is more sysadmin friendly, I'll counter with a point as to why Windows is more user friendly. Unfortunately, the question "Is it better for something to be sysadmin fixable or user fixable?" will never be answered to anybody's satisfaction, so just drop it.
... but this post doesn't excite me as much as it might have a year ago. The problem is that I fear laptops will sooner or later be banned from airplanes due to wireless interference concerns.
I've been looking at laptops lately, a lot of them have built in 802.11 and bluetooth. Problem is: how do you know if they are on or off? The average business user who has no idea what his/her laptop is capable of is expected to know to turn the wireless stuff off. Because of this there has been chatter about banning laptops all together.
It seems to me that air-travel should be a larger concern for mobile devices these days. My cell phone that has all these organizer and game features doesn't have an 'airplane' profile that shuts down the transmitters on it. Should laptops have 'Airplane' profiles too?
In any case, I know it's a little off topic. It's nice to see a company saying "we'll get this approved for use in the air", but arguably air travel is their target market. Personally, I wouldn't invest in them until I knew more about what the future holds for computing devices in the air.
...with a Linux PDA that cannot be done on a PocketPC or Palm?
Just curious. The main reason that the Palm Pilot kicked the Newton's butt (in the marketplace that is) is because it focused on business uses rather than trying to make it a computer. Linux PDAs could fall into the same trap if they don't focus in a similar way.
Microsoft realized this, that's why the PocketPC interface no longer acts like a Windows desktop like CE 3.0 did. If there's no compelling reason to use the Linux OS vs. PocketPC or Palm, this type of PDA could suffer a bad fate.
Doh, I forgot to log out. My friend was using my computer earlier.
I was trying to be funny. I guess I sounded too serious. I was poking fun at the way people seriously use illogical extremes to make a point. I thought your post was obvious enough in trying to make a joke that I could get away with it.
Did you consider not giving him a half-assed question? Not only is your debate style "Take it to an illogical extreme!", but you also use an entirely different industry as a model.
Ever hear of something called copyright? The mod chips bypass copy protection schemes, that's what MS is miffed about. It has nothing to do with trying to run Linux on the stupid machines.
"It's hard for me to rationalize music downloading as stealing when the RIAA is happy to take my money without guaranteeing my satisfaction. Frankly, I think they're stealing my money when they sucker me into buying a CD. "
I think somebody was inspired by my sig. *G*
"sig: If it's theft to listen to music before buying it, then it's theft to refuse returns on albums that suck. "
Slashdot Mirror
"This "megahertz myth" crap was around when I had a 33 MHz 68040 Performa 640, and my 486/DX2 66 blew the shit out of it.
"... "I wish you Mac people would quit making a bunch of shit up instead of talking about the strong points of the Mac like you should be."
Heh. It's a funny thing, really. It's even more complex than the IPC/MHZ debate.
At home I had a 486 33 mhz with 8 meg of RAM. At school I had access to a Mac that was running at 75mhz with 16 meg of RAM. In theory, that thing should have mopped the floor with my 486, right?
Nope.
I was far more productive on my 486. I think I was running Windows 3.1 (it might have been 95, but I'm not 100% sure of that) with PhotoStyler. The Mac was running whatever OS was popular at the time and Photoshop. It took like half an hour to print to the printer on that thing. At home, I'd hit print and moments later it was going.
So wtf, why was the Mac so slow compared to my piddly 486? Well, I'm not 100% certain, but I think it had to do with the apps more than the hardware. Whatever OS I was running, the Mac OS was significantly more sophisticated. Photoshop was multi-layered, vs. Photostyler was more like "Paint and forget about undoing it". On top of that, I think one of the students overloaded the Mac with Fonts. (sadly, Apple had the philosophy of "we'll load everything at once instead of only loading what we need right now".) My PC was tuned specifically for what I wanted to do, and it ran circles around the Mac. I definitely did not have a very high opinion of Mac back then.
Today, Mac OSX is a little processor heavy with its UI. A friend of mine bought one of their notebooks about a year ago. It was pretty and all, but it got a little lagged while drawing the fancy flashy stuff on the bottom. I have no idea what that does to overall system performance, but it makes me wonder if it'd eat into rendering times in Lightwave, for example. Maybe it's all FUD, I dunno.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how many IPCs it does or how fast it is. I want benchmarks. I'm sure that processors can have all kinds of advantages and disadvantages to each other, but real world conditions always change everything. In the case of the Mac and 486 I mentioned earlier, technical superiority meant nothing. Whatever speed advantage the Mac had was lost with the apps it was running.
"If I had a some bucks and gumption to start a business, that's exactly what I would do. A z800, the fattest pipes I could buy, and some disk. "
I must be tired, I thought you said "dicks" and not "disk". Given the lack of context, that made for an amusing sentence. Heh.
Well, parent poster's tone is a little harsh, but he makes a good point.
So what if the movie sucks? What's the worst that'll happen? It's not like the original movie will suddenly become a crappy movie. It's not like people will watch the live action one and then criticize you for liking the original. Heck, it's not like you're going to be strapped into a chair and forced to watch it.
If the movie tanks, the MPAA will learn yet another harsh lesson about trying to fix something that ain't broken.
If the movie is a success, it means that the director was able to add something of value to the movie, this giving you and the rest of the viewers something new to be entertained with.
So, yeah, I agree with the parent poster: LIGHTEN UP!
"no way this can ever be as good as the anime. there's something about anime that just can't be done right with live-action and real actors. "
You're right. Nothing could top the South Park remake of Akira.
I make the point that
That was a bit of a self destructive point there, don'tcha think? That's kind of like saying "Yo mama's ugly. I know this because mine's even uglier!"
Hehe. Thanks for the laugh!
So, to summarize your post: "I could use my anti-MS zealotry to find things wrong with them and their software."
Sorry, your post reinforces my point: Slashdot loves to find problems with anything that touches MS. Never mind that Linux is busy trying to make their usabability as good as Windows'.
Focus that kind of energy on Linux, and a bunch of bad stuff will appear there too.
"A new study shows that the average productive Linux user knows 63 poorly spelt commands. Of course, Windows users don't have to worry about this since the functionality is available and easy to find in the UI. The names even have vowels in them!"
"Redhat 8 is out, and KDE still is slow to redraw filewindows. Fortunately, Windows users don't have to worry about this because window updates are hardware accellerated."
"The new round of PDAs are out, and they still don't synch up well with Linux and the Office-style apps that run with it."
"Konqueror has funny ideas about how the clipboard should work, of course Windows users..."
All hypothetical, but should adequately describe my point. If you wanna play the 'I bet I can go find problems with whatever you prefer' game, you'll get singed in the process.
The Slashdot Community should consider something: MS didn't get big by making something that wasn't useful to people. Windows works. It's usable. It'll run on your machine. It's well supported. Heck, it's hard to buy a computer that doesn't come with it. Gee, there must be something there.
"I counter that "windows != IIS" and yet "IIS == windows". Windows can exist without IIS (even if it's installed and you don't know it), but IIS cannot exist without Windows."
Heh nice bending of word definitions to sugar- coat a point there.
IIS is a service. IIS is not Windows, it's not a feature of Windows, it's a service that runs on top of Windows in much the same way that Apache runs on top of whatever OS it's running on. MS could port it to other OS's if they wanted to. We all know they won't. And no, just because it's on the install CD doesn't mean that it's Windows.
Let's apply your logic (or lack of) to some other examples:
Gnome == Linux because it's installed with it.
KDE == Linux because it's installed with it.
Apache != Linux because it can be installed on Windows
Emacs == Linux because it's installed with it.
And so on...
Sorry, but your argument does little for me but show ya hate MS, but don't really know what you're talking about.
"Recall that there was a trojaned version of SSH going around that got plenty of attention. Maybe these "hacks" don't get as much press because there aren't so many of them. "
/. finds MS stories juicy. The more the details are twisted and bent, the more contraversial the story is. This means more people commenting, and co-incidentally, more banner ads getting exposed.
Um, no. I can recall one week (3-4 weeks ago?) where the front page of Slashdot had a couple of anti-MS rantings. Go a level or two deep in Slashdot (not the main page), and there was a pretty nasty Linux worm or something floating around. Wish I had the details on me. I just remember somebody's post with a +5 moderation asking why it didn't make the front page like the similar MS stuff.
The fact is that
It's gotten to the point that one cannot rely on the article summaries. Anybody remember the 'Microsoft kicks Sony out of Ce-Bit' article last... March or April I think? Microsoft didn't throw Sony out of a Tradeshow. Sony was breaking tradeshow rules and MS reported them. Compromises were offered, but instead Sony packed up all their PS2s and stormed out like a little kid throwing a tantrum. Despite that Sony broke the rules and refused to play because they weren't allowed to do things other trade show attendees couldn't do, MS is the one that got the bad press for it on Slashdot. Sony cheats, MS gets bad press out of it. Yeah, that's fair.
Sorry, but the Linux Community here on Slashdot has no right to complain about that comment. Stop dishing the shit out if you can't handle some of it getting thrown back.
"Isnt a little strange do some bashing while complaining about the "usual bashing"?"
No it's not unusual. If somebody takes a poke at MS, you're not going to care. But when somebody takes a painful poke at Linux, suddenly you understand what your pokes at MS feel like.
It's not hypocracy, it's illustration. A very effective one at that since it got a reaction out of you. A lot of the anti-MS shit that flies around Slashdot (and usually ends up as +1 Funny) is every bit as ill-founded as the Sendmail/Linux relationship. Yet, it still flies around and people pat themselves on the back. What reason would they have to tone it down if they don't know what it feels like?
You can dismiss his comment as hypocracy if you like. I wouldn't, though. You should see it as a reflection of what the GNU/Linux community puts out. If that kind of comment bothers you, you lose your right to complain once you start making Windows insecurity jokes.
Better explanation, but I still disagree. Instead of getting into details, though, I think it's more productive to point out that we are from two different schools of thought.
Would I be correct in assuming that you feel the machine should be limited to only what the user should need to perform their job? Personally, I think that's a mistake. I believe that a computer at an office setting should be treated as though the user owns it.
Are there risks? Yep. Somebody could install something stupid and muck up their computer. I ran across an unused copy of VB early on when I started working here. When I uninstalled it, it wiped out a bunch of DLLs that Windows needed to do basic tasks. After some troubleshooting, the sysadmin had to reinstall Windows for me.
Are there benfits? Surprisingly, yes. Not only have I written quick little apps to help people out, but I also springboarded from that into programming of our website. We hired a company to do our site, but they overdid it a bit. They used Active Server Pages and SQL (the expensive one, not the free one). We couldn't figure out how to move the SQL database from one server to another, and we didn't want to pay ridiculous rates to have this company do it for us. So, my VB use came to the rescue. ASP uses a similar dialect to VB, so I was able to program-out the need for an SQL database. That saved the company both time and money. If that had happened sooner, we could have saved ourselves the 7k pricetag of SQL. That easiliy outweighed the sysadmin's time to reinstall Windows for me. (Damn MS for writing the uninstaller that way, though.)
I do see your point, but I also disagree with it. The company I work for is small and it has embraced the idea that the computers we use here belong to us. We evolved out of the need for a full-time sysadmin. We've had people perform tasks that they were not 'classically trained' to do. (For example, I'm not a programmer yet I picked up both ASP and PHP in little-to-no time.) We've even come up with creative solutions to problems that were out of our price range.
Could larger businesses support this? I personally think so, mainly because I don't think people are at the level of stupidity that most computer geeks assume they are. However, larger companies are more pessimistic and penny-pinching than they need to be. If they'd just give people a chance and not treat them like their computer is the company car that cannot be scratched, then the computer becomes their own personal tool and not just an appliance. It'd start off a bit rocky, but over time what'd happen is problems would heal themselves instead of having a single point of failure: The sysadmin.
"Ugh. You're letting your *users* install drivers from websites? How many PCs do you manage??? "
I wrote that long ass thing and that is your rebuttal? heh. What's the matter? Don't like what I have to say so you have to pick on a detail in a vain hope to discredit me?
Be serious.
A user has given a "Troll" (-1) moderation to your comment.1 0&mode=nested&tid=167
Dad, please switch to a real operating system.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/07/18412
"Sorry Mr. Troll, but the T in TCO stands for Total - it doesn't matter if someone other than the sysadmin does it, the employees still have to be paid to do it, so thereforo you must count the time they spend in the Total Cost of Ownership. "
Heh, dumb argument. It works against you. Let's say you have a printing problem. The sysadmin has to walk all the way over to your computer just to assess the situation. That, in a lot of cases, will take a heck of a lot more time than the fix for the problem alone. If the problem is that the new driver needs to be installed, that only takes a few minutes to do. No reboot even.
But, if the user is familiar with the OS, then they'll fix their problem long before the sysadmin even arrives. Thus, saving the total time involved. I won't even bother getting into the problem if two or more people have a problem at the same time.
It is widely known that Windows is the most used desktop OS out there. Indisputable. Linux has hardly scratched that. Few people are very familiar with it in an office environment. In the case of the same printing problem with Linux, what is anybody to do? A lot more people are going to have to call the sysadmin to get it fixed. They're not just going to go to HP's site and find the Linux driver, no no no, they're going to have to have their hand-held through the whole thing.
Thus, both the user and the sysadmin are tied up, including the time it takes for him to get his butt over to the computer in question.
So, using your own example, Linux is definitely going to cost more money to maintain. (at least in the hypothetical example I provided, your mileage may vary.)
Now one could easily argue with me about whether that'd really happen. Just stop there. For every time you'll tell me why Linux is more sysadmin friendly, I'll counter with a point as to why Windows is more user friendly. Unfortunately, the question "Is it better for something to be sysadmin fixable or user fixable?" will never be answered to anybody's satisfaction, so just drop it.
... but this post doesn't excite me as much as it might have a year ago. The problem is that I fear laptops will sooner or later be banned from airplanes due to wireless interference concerns.
I've been looking at laptops lately, a lot of them have built in 802.11 and bluetooth. Problem is: how do you know if they are on or off? The average business user who has no idea what his/her laptop is capable of is expected to know to turn the wireless stuff off. Because of this there has been chatter about banning laptops all together.
It seems to me that air-travel should be a larger concern for mobile devices these days. My cell phone that has all these organizer and game features doesn't have an 'airplane' profile that shuts down the transmitters on it. Should laptops have 'Airplane' profiles too?
In any case, I know it's a little off topic. It's nice to see a company saying "we'll get this approved for use in the air", but arguably air travel is their target market. Personally, I wouldn't invest in them until I knew more about what the future holds for computing devices in the air.
...with a Linux PDA that cannot be done on a PocketPC or Palm?
Just curious. The main reason that the Palm Pilot kicked the Newton's butt (in the marketplace that is) is because it focused on business uses rather than trying to make it a computer. Linux PDAs could fall into the same trap if they don't focus in a similar way.
Microsoft realized this, that's why the PocketPC interface no longer acts like a Windows desktop like CE 3.0 did. If there's no compelling reason to use the Linux OS vs. PocketPC or Palm, this type of PDA could suffer a bad fate.
Heh another ill-informed idiot.
Doh, I forgot to log out. My friend was using my computer earlier.
:) :) :)
I was trying to be funny. I guess I sounded too serious. I was poking fun at the way people seriously use illogical extremes to make a point. I thought your post was obvious enough in trying to make a joke that I could get away with it.
Oh well, I'll use a smiley next time.
"Lightning bolts also use the body's natural conductivity. Are they compatible with pacemakers as well?"
Taking it to illogical extremes can be used for humor, but cannot be used effectively as a debate format.
You can tell from the price that the RIAA produced it. As usual, the DNA artists don't get a significant royalty.
Too bad the moderator didn't catch that this was a joke, and a funny one at that.
:)
At least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that the moderator's been meta-moderated.
"Don't give me a half-assed answer this time.
"
Did you consider not giving him a half-assed question? Not only is your debate style "Take it to an illogical extreme!", but you also use an entirely different industry as a model.
Ever hear of something called copyright? The mod chips bypass copy protection schemes, that's what MS is miffed about. It has nothing to do with trying to run Linux on the stupid machines.
"With 53 percent new footage!"
I think somebody was inspired by my sig. *G*
"sig: If it's theft to listen to music before buying it, then it's theft to refuse returns on albums that suck. "
... having Sound Recorder open while I listen to the song?
A.) I think it's not an issue of Hemos not caring, it's that well balanced people don't care.
B.) Sentences start with capital letters. Do you not care? Why didn't you fire up your spell checker?
C.) Bite everybody's shiny metal ass.