No, they have clearly declined any cooperation in UL. One of the best points was "Why would distros that hold most of users change their way for four distros that try to get more trough lack of knowledge. All four distros in UL don't have user base large as Mandrake i you put them together" Which is a good thing. All four UL distros are way off from gaining users, they're constantly loosing them. That's just their try make log rol in the way they'd wish
No, they have clearly declined any cooperation in UL. One of the best points was
Which is a good thing. All four UL distros are way off from gaining users, they're constantly loosing them. That's just their try make log rol in the way they'd wish
This sounds like an invasion to me. Invasion of privacy and freedom. And this invasion is pointing out some strange contradictions
1. Trusted computing made and controled by untrusted company??? 2. Security protocol made by the same people that have the mot security flaws??? 3. Taking control over your computer and increasing your computer costs in the same time??? 4. Forcing you into buying something you'll never own???
What's next? MS tax for breathing? On the other hand, where is here the public good?
Reason. I'm too busy to keep things in order. It's so much easier to buy a CD, convert to MP3, buy DVD and convert to Divx (then trash away to some closet where it doesn't bother me) on my home server (local) and use it as organised shelf. You know, but having over 100 DVDs and over 500 CDs can be a real pain in the ass. My time is limited and my devices aren't hypotetical. Time is hypotetical, devices not. There are cases when I wath a movie or listen to cd I bought in two or three months delay. So organised server is the bes solution.
"June 27th, 2002 - MandrakeSoft cooperates with AMD to support x86-64 architecture - Mandrake Linux 9.x for the upcoming 64-bit AMD Athlon and AMD Opteron processors is expected to be commercially available by the beginning of 2003."
This news are published on the main www.mandrake.com page????? You don't even have to log into channels. Also there was a rumor long time ago. But news are officialy published after signing cooperation. News != Rumors.
I hope your reasons to switch to Debian were better than this bashing. I don't really use MDK, except on my notebook.
Well, that's one. Better question on the Slashdot it would be "what to do if..., how will you react if...". It might turn out some good ideas that would show different path you could choose if....
Practicaly you've made one mistake. Customer is a sheep. If he reads "the best" he doesn't know if that's truth (he just don't know product well enough). Take case of Thermaltake coolers. Yes, they're good coolers but which commercial says it's loud as hell. It's a case of reseller what he'll push to the consumers (and how), not what customer will choose.
"Finally, I think the US.gov could go along with this hare-brained scheme, but do you think the EU will?" US have clearly showed that democracy is a word in dictionary not a human right. I will probably never understand US proclaiming them self for democratic country. But it's the same case as DRM, people in America believe that reselling human rights and passing laws is a democracy. No troll, but EU is only a bit better than that, but no one is proclaiming democracy. Yes, I'm from EU. Democracy (as is) is rulled by money. And when money's rulling the world, there's only a question of better buyer. EU probably won't go with DRM on political level, but it will go with on many other levels. Probably allowing enforing DRM in some products
"Remember: Palladium can only work if every company joins the conspiracy. Some, maybe even a lot, won't." Probably, some won't and this SOME will boost their reselling line of non-DRM products to me, you and some other people.
Basically, this one will probably be solved on people's conscience. More people will know what DRM is, more people will be against it. Take that case and try to tell common user why this is bad and you'll understand difficulty of the job.
Yes, and as it seems based on the article, Intel is making another mistake (AMD is in MS posession (or influence) already so AMD is forced).
Let's say, in my case Intel will lost 200-300 (all what's possible Intel) PCs yearly. but then again I'm only one. I will just move my bussines to first quality non-DRM platform (and if that's Apple than Apple it will be (god I'm proud I wanted my bussines as platform independant as possible)).
But to state my case more clearly, if there is 1000 resellers as I am, it will be a significant market loss. Anyone remember CPU number?
Re:This is not meant as a troll, but...
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
You're predictable too you know:-) I've been just lookng for some hothead posting something like that. One way but in different direction, trying to be smart and thinkable as he's replying.
I read all of that. And still....
It's a really bad MS commercial article, it's not supported with correct facts and author hasn't got a clue what he's saying. Except "MS rules"
I agree desktop market is low on users. But to be honest, this was the first year where linux is targeting users and not geeks with desktop. Everything is aiming to simple user this year. Notice "is" before replying. But then again I agree with the pointing out that some points are MS related, and hardly solvable on Linux. On the other hand there is a point about not targeting software development to Linux in favour of Windows, well he could be smart enough that things could be written independently (with simple two steps avoiding their compilers and forcable solutions as.NET, works for me).
As for server market, I've stopped using Windows and my world become simpler.
"Windows users are more likely to pay for the software, as they are used to paying for software"
God, I hope you're joking at that. Let me think. Almost everybody has Photoshop installed, how many copies Adobe actually sold? Take Autocad. Same.......... If you'd look at percentage of bought software, you'd see that Windows users are 80% or more using pirated software. Companys will buy software, because they must not because they want. If some company would use Beos (and depend on it), then they would buy software for Beos. At least all companys I know off.
"So there only has to be one build" That's probably why my bank accounting software doesn't work on XP probably (worked on 2000). Yeah, I don't own 2000 anymore, it came bundled with my notebook, which I've sold. New one has XP pro, which is a real piece of expensive shit. Even though new notebook is xt6200 (p4 1,6,512MB, CDRW), whole thing is slower than XE3 (p3 850, 512MB, DVD, next one XE3 933,512MB, DVD, XP HE was a real piece of crap, and I replaced him as soon as possible) ever was, and yes I've disabled all extra desktop features, and yes I've disabled services I don't need. Where is one version of yours. Apart from bank software, I use another 3.1 Win software which isn't working also. So off with XP, bought VMWare for Linux, installed 98 and now everything is working.
Offtopic: Linux works like a charm and snappy, when setup finished everything worked (except I had to do ln -s/dev/dvd/dev/cdrom on my own) just in case someone would consider about buying a notebook.
what is wrong with proprietary software? If you have proprietary software (for bussines needs) along with good non-proprietary (for normal use) it doesn't mean it's bad.
If I want, I can still use Open Source. But if I need some more specialized I buy that one. And I think I'm not the one and only that thinks like this. And yes, I develop OSS too. And no, I'm not bothered i someone would use my solutions commercially, I have some closed proprietary too. It's just give, take and use as you can.
I agree, but somehow, I think that this would extend trial for couple of years (apeal after apeal after apeal etc.). And I personally think that it's going to long already.
But it would be a nice addition if there would be a motion to demote them in public compromising patents like drm and government solutions. Monopoly can't have that kind of responsabillity. It would be just as same as having one car company only and that one car company would have a monopoly over fuel prices too.
"United linux" as the name says should unite and not divide. As it is defined with per-seat licensing is good reason enough for people to turn off unision and go somewhere else.
With idea "United Linux" would be per-seat commercial (for binary) you're doing no good for Linux community. It seemes like linux in whole is turning from GPL to per-seat.
On the other hand, my question is "COULD YOU PLEASE RENAME "UNITED LINUX" INTO "SOME OUTSIDERS COMMERCIAL LINUX" AND RESTORE GLOBAL LINUX DEFINITION AS IT WAS, OR JUST AVOID "UNITED" AND OTHER GLOBAL TERMS?"
Do as you like, but next time you stop farting, don't say you've just restored global peace. It would be just as same use as "United" in "United Linux"
First it was obvious it was a prank. Released somewhere the same date as McAffe and Microsoft blabed about tightening security of windows (if you can't make one better, then make others worse, just put a good commercial and that's it)
Now, I'm humored. I guess even viruses don't want cross platform portability. I Guess, "that kind of lame job stays for dull products like mozilla and openoffice."
The last hope is gone, and now, with lack of viruses, we non-win users should send something like this to each other "this is a virus, if not, you just pretend that you don't know, set your alarm clock to 5th every month at 4:36AM, on that time log in as root and delete all files from your hard drive. In the morning when youu wake up start bitchin' where your files have gone. BUT BE PROUD, YOU'VE GOT VIRUS LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD"
It's easy enough to go to securityfocus.com and read about all holes in Windows. What about IE patches that release new holes. Next day IE patch was released, there was info what new holes it opens.
It's obvious that they are MS funded. Look at the topics, just as bloated as Microsoft itself, in the same breath they are talking about technology, democracy in china, cuba, switzerland, environment, immigration, monetary fund, defence, education, africa and intelectual property.
I wonder how many people takes to create such research. I mean we're not talking about lollypops here. All topics are covering such complete topics, that whole bunch of/.ers couldn't put up one intelligent research in one month (at least not enough usable to be called alpha state research). All topics of completely different variety and all topics are connected to Microsoft aims.
I guess my computer bussines days are over, next week I'm gonna be a rocket scientist, after next week,.... who knows...:-)
Divided, yes. LSB standard is not standard for Complete Linux distribution, it's more a set of needs to be LSB compliant >> gcc, kernel, xfree. Have a lower layer defined and upper layer will get more uniform as it was. Every
Any company can extend LSB to its own potential, main thing is that basic layer defined by LSB stays the same.
Same as puting gnome in LSB, YES you can. Being LSB compatible means being LSB compatible.
Read LSB specs and then after that you'll see where you got it wrong. Also read pdf on UL site, you'll realize that they already inteded to make separated distributions. LSB does never defines per-seat licensing. Per-seat licensing is company choice. example Lindows
It should be useful for people to realise that united linux (all 4 companys) is just the first one to accept LSB standard. They don't define what LSB standard is. So instead of "United Linux compatible", "LSB v.X.x compatible" would be more preffered and acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they have clearly declined any cooperation in UL. One of the best points was
:)
"Why would distros that hold most of users change their way for four distros that try to get more trough lack of knowledge. All four distros in UL don't have user base large as Mandrake i you put them together" Which is a good thing. All four UL distros are way off from gaining users, they're constantly loosing them. That's just their try make log rol in the way they'd wish
damn me, I should press preview.
No, they have clearly declined any cooperation in UL. One of the best points was
Which is a good thing. All four UL distros are way off from gaining users, they're constantly loosing them. That's just their try make log rol in the way they'd wish
Stupid or not.
This sounds like an invasion to me. Invasion of privacy and freedom. And this invasion is pointing out some strange contradictions
1. Trusted computing made and controled by untrusted company???
2. Security protocol made by the same people that have the mot security flaws???
3. Taking control over your computer and increasing your computer costs in the same time???
4. Forcing you into buying something you'll never own???
What's next? MS tax for breathing? On the other hand, where is here the public good?
It's ok she tryes to do that, but is your wife digitally signed? Otherwise you can just ignore her and treat her as unsigned virus.
I actually understand that.
Reason. I'm too busy to keep things in order. It's so much easier to buy a CD, convert to MP3, buy DVD and convert to Divx (then trash away to some closet where it doesn't bother me) on my home server (local) and use it as organised shelf. You know, but having over 100 DVDs and over 500 CDs can be a real pain in the ass. My time is limited and my devices aren't hypotetical. Time is hypotetical, devices not. There are cases when I wath a movie or listen to cd I bought in two or three months delay. So organised server is the bes solution.
"If they're not contributing this is just a bullshit attention-grabbing publicity stunt."??????
Isn't ability to dowload their distribution with sources freely a contribution?
"June 27th, 2002 - MandrakeSoft cooperates with AMD to support x86-64 architecture - Mandrake Linux 9.x for the upcoming 64-bit AMD Athlon and AMD Opteron processors is expected to be commercially available by the beginning of 2003."
This news are published on the main www.mandrake.com page????? You don't even have to log into channels. Also there was a rumor long time ago. But news are officialy published after signing cooperation. News != Rumors.
I hope your reasons to switch to Debian were better than this bashing.
I don't really use MDK, except on my notebook.
Well, that's one. Better question on the Slashdot it would be "what to do if..., how will you react if...". It might turn out some good ideas that would show different path you could choose if....
Gathering the ideas is what matters.
Practicaly you've made one mistake. Customer is a sheep. If he reads "the best" he doesn't know if that's truth (he just don't know product well enough).
.gov could go along with this hare-brained scheme, but do you think the EU will?"
Take case of Thermaltake coolers. Yes, they're good coolers but which commercial says it's loud as hell. It's a case of reseller what he'll push to the consumers (and how), not what customer will choose.
"Finally, I think the US
US have clearly showed that democracy is a word in dictionary not a human right. I will probably never understand US proclaiming them self for democratic country. But it's the same case as DRM, people in America believe that reselling human rights and passing laws is a democracy. No troll, but EU is only a bit better than that, but no one is proclaiming democracy. Yes, I'm from EU. Democracy (as is) is rulled by money. And when money's rulling the world, there's only a question of better buyer. EU probably won't go with DRM on political level, but it will go with on many other levels. Probably allowing enforing DRM in some products
"Remember: Palladium can only work if every company joins the conspiracy. Some, maybe even a lot, won't."
Probably, some won't and this SOME will boost their reselling line of non-DRM products to me, you and some other people.
Basically, this one will probably be solved on people's conscience. More people will know what DRM is, more people will be against it. Take that case and try to tell common user why this is bad and you'll understand difficulty of the job.
Yes, and as it seems based on the article, Intel is making another mistake (AMD is in MS posession (or influence) already so AMD is forced).
Let's say, in my case Intel will lost 200-300 (all what's possible Intel) PCs yearly. but then again I'm only one. I will just move my bussines to first quality non-DRM platform (and if that's Apple than Apple it will be (god I'm proud I wanted my bussines as platform independant as possible)).
But to state my case more clearly, if there is 1000 resellers as I am, it will be a significant market loss. Anyone remember CPU number?
You're predictable too you know :-) I've been just lookng for some hothead posting something like that. One way but in different direction, trying to be smart and thinkable as he's replying.
.NET, works for me).
I read all of that. And still....
It's a really bad MS commercial article, it's not supported with correct facts and author hasn't got a clue what he's saying. Except "MS rules"
I agree desktop market is low on users. But to be honest, this was the first year where linux is targeting users and not geeks with desktop. Everything is aiming to simple user this year. Notice "is" before replying.
But then again I agree with the pointing out that some points are MS related, and hardly solvable on Linux. On the other hand there is a point about not targeting software development to Linux in favour of Windows, well he could be smart enough that things could be written independently (with simple two steps avoiding their compilers and forcable solutions as
As for server market, I've stopped using Windows and my world become simpler.
I'll be the first to mod you down.
......... If you'd look at percentage of bought software, you'd see that Windows users are 80% or more using pirated software. Companys will buy software, because they must not because they want. If some company would use Beos (and depend on it), then they would buy software for Beos. At least all companys I know off.
/dev/dvd /dev/cdrom on my own) just in case someone would consider about buying a notebook.
First, you're correct.
"Windows users are more likely to pay for the software, as they are used to paying for software"
God, I hope you're joking at that. Let me think. Almost everybody has Photoshop installed, how many copies Adobe actually sold? Take Autocad. Same.
"So there only has to be one build"
That's probably why my bank accounting software doesn't work on XP probably (worked on 2000). Yeah, I don't own 2000 anymore, it came bundled with my notebook, which I've sold. New one has XP pro, which is a real piece of expensive shit. Even though new notebook is xt6200 (p4 1,6,512MB, CDRW), whole thing is slower than XE3 (p3 850, 512MB, DVD, next one XE3 933,512MB, DVD, XP HE was a real piece of crap, and I replaced him as soon as possible) ever was, and yes I've disabled all extra desktop features, and yes I've disabled services I don't need. Where is one version of yours. Apart from bank software, I use another 3.1 Win software which isn't working also. So off with XP, bought VMWare for Linux, installed 98 and now everything is working.
Offtopic:
Linux works like a charm and snappy, when setup finished everything worked (except I had to do ln -s
I guess Ballmers proclaiming "Linux is a virus" "OSS no good" is not bashing? It's even more public than Slashdot. Tell them tostop too.
what is wrong with proprietary software? If you have proprietary software (for bussines needs) along with good non-proprietary (for normal use) it doesn't mean it's bad.
If I want, I can still use Open Source. But if I need some more specialized I buy that one. And I think I'm not the one and only that thinks like this. And yes, I develop OSS too. And no, I'm not bothered i someone would use my solutions commercially, I have some closed proprietary too. It's just give, take and use as you can.
Oh, and yes, you're lame.
Which software do they use? Obviously Gimp covers my needs way better than some Photoshop, but I doubt that they could use it.
This probably means some new commercial pro package for linux, and I wonder which.
thanks
I agree, but somehow, I think that this would extend trial for couple of years (apeal after apeal after apeal etc.). And I personally think that it's going to long already.
But it would be a nice addition if there would be a motion to demote them in public compromising patents like drm and government solutions. Monopoly can't have that kind of responsabillity. It would be just as same as having one car company only and that one car company would have a monopoly over fuel prices too.
Actually this idea would look great with OpenCD project.
On the other hand Microsoft should do some like OpenCD project. And may the best software win.
For OEMs that is.
Yoda: May the frost be with you
Ok, I was wrong. Sorry!
Compared Lockhead F-35 to Boeing X-32!
Don't bother
Ok, not to be trolling. First informative answer actually.
So, I read the article, but I saw more like competition than filling two different roles.
Both short takeoff/vertical landing, speeds proper for combined air/ground battle, similiar data and probably weapons too.
What are this different roles? I don't see different roles, all I see is competition who will get contract with uncle Sam.
I guess Boeing is making something in Renault car fashion. Originally ughly and eyes hurting.
But positive aspect is no one will take that he saw a plane, at least no one would believe him.
"United linux" as the name says should unite and not divide. As it is defined with per-seat licensing is good reason enough for people to turn off unision and go somewhere else.
With idea "United Linux" would be per-seat commercial (for binary) you're doing no good for Linux community. It seemes like linux in whole is turning from GPL to per-seat.
On the other hand, my question is "COULD YOU PLEASE RENAME "UNITED LINUX" INTO "SOME OUTSIDERS COMMERCIAL LINUX" AND RESTORE GLOBAL LINUX DEFINITION AS IT WAS, OR JUST AVOID "UNITED" AND OTHER GLOBAL TERMS?"
Do as you like, but next time you stop farting, don't say you've just restored global peace. It would be just as same use as "United" in "United Linux"
First it was obvious it was a prank. Released somewhere the same date as McAffe and Microsoft blabed about tightening security of windows (if you can't make one better, then make others worse, just put a good commercial and that's it)
Now, I'm humored. I guess even viruses don't want cross platform portability. I Guess, "that kind of lame job stays for dull products like mozilla and openoffice."
The last hope is gone, and now, with lack of viruses, we non-win users should send something like this to each other
"this is a virus, if not, you just pretend that you don't know, set your alarm clock to 5th every month at 4:36AM, on that time log in as root and delete all files from your hard drive. In the morning when youu wake up start bitchin' where your files have gone. BUT BE PROUD, YOU'VE GOT VIRUS LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD"
It's easy enough to go to securityfocus.com and read about all holes in Windows. What about IE patches that release new holes. Next day IE patch was released, there was info what new holes it opens.
/.ers couldn't put up one intelligent research in one month (at least not enough usable to be called alpha state research). All topics of completely different variety and all topics are connected to Microsoft aims.
.... who knows... :-)
It's obvious that they are MS funded. Look at the topics, just as bloated as Microsoft itself, in the same breath they are talking about technology, democracy in china, cuba, switzerland, environment, immigration, monetary fund, defence, education, africa and intelectual property.
I wonder how many people takes to create such research. I mean we're not talking about lollypops here. All topics are covering such complete topics, that whole bunch of
I guess my computer bussines days are over, next week I'm gonna be a rocket scientist, after next week,
Divided, yes. LSB standard is not standard for Complete Linux distribution, it's more a set of needs to be LSB compliant >> gcc, kernel, xfree.
Have a lower layer defined and upper layer will get more uniform as it was. Every
Any company can extend LSB to its own potential, main thing is that basic layer defined by LSB stays the same.
Same as puting gnome in LSB, YES you can. Being LSB compatible means being LSB compatible.
Read LSB specs and then after that you'll see where you got it wrong. Also read pdf on UL site, you'll realize that they already inteded to make separated distributions. LSB does never defines per-seat licensing. Per-seat licensing is company choice. example Lindows
It should be useful for people to realise that united linux (all 4 companys) is just the first one to accept LSB standard. They don't define what LSB standard is. So instead of "United Linux compatible", "LSB v.X.x compatible" would be more preffered and acceptable.