"It just sounds strange that this article claims a five years study using Windows 2000. As of today, this study should have began by Dec. 1997 ! That means getting Windows 2000 two years in advance. "
So they must using a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) to come up with it TCO figures.
I generally prefer the console but the problem with the console is that you are limited to 80x24 characters, unless you use a platform with framebuffer support.
A minimal X environment allows me to use 110x50 xterms; nice when using programs such as Mutt. Plus, I have access to graphics should I need it.
Why does MS even bother to restrict what the X-Box can run? From what I have seen, they would be able to sell more consoles if it was open to whatever people wanted it to run.
but it seems to me that if you are too lazy to secure your wireless network, you deserve to have it used by strangers. Just because there are no wires doesn't mean the need for access control has gone away.
How can they claim Windows 2000 wasn't built with security in mind? From the very beginning of the NT line, which W2K is a part of, MS has claimed that NT was built to be secure. They advertised it and everything.
Marklar is a good Marklar and, like the Marklar it is based on, would probably run well of the Marklar. Of course, Marklar whould then be on the same Marklar as Marklar, which holds a Marklar there.
Well, all they would have to do is remove the LCD screen of the iMac, cap the result hole, and add an ADC connector for a monitor. They could probably even build it on the same production line.
does not ensure success, sadly. Things I thought should have done better than they did (for whatever reason they failed to find sucess):
1. Newton (Owned one and loved it.) 2. NeXTStep on PCs 3. BeOS 4. Amiga 5. Hypercard/Hypertalk (A fun programming language) 6. Magic Cap OS 7. DR DOS 8. Betamax (the death of which was recently announced) 9. G4 Cube
BTW, I thought that the Newton's interface a awesome but has anyone ever heard of or seen what a color version of the interface might have looked like?
Am I the only one who really, really disklikes the naming scheme of these processors? Although I know that clock speed does not always reflect performance, I would still rather see CPU names that include it.
It seems to me that the terrorist have already won, as we (the citizens of the U.S.) are so cowardly that we will give up our freedoms for a bit of safety. And anyone who thought that the government wouldn't eventually abuse its increased powers was naive.
I'd love to see a high quality survey of users and developers of free OSes like GNU/Linux and the BSDs. Something really detailed with tons of questions.
It would be interesting to see the results. Of course, I have no idea how you would keep fraud for messing up the stats for such a thing.
Mg is nice. I believe that OpenBSD installs it by default now.
Personally, my favorite current editor is Nano. It runs really well. Of course, it is probably missing advanced features a programmer might need but for the basic file editing that I do, it is nice.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this comment on article on CRN's website:
"It just sounds strange that this article claims a five years study using Windows 2000. As of today, this study should have began by Dec. 1997 ! That means getting Windows 2000 two years in advance. "
So they must using a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) to come up with it TCO figures.
I'll consider one if NetBSD runs on it.
Would all of this apply for person to person emails as well?
For example: someone makes public (via the web or in print) a personal email I sent to them. Could I then sue them for copyright infringment?
I think that includes the CPU. If I remember correctly, the CPU is soldered in the socket.
I generally prefer the console but the problem with the console is that you are limited to 80x24 characters, unless you use a platform with framebuffer support.
A minimal X environment allows me to use 110x50 xterms; nice when using programs such as Mutt. Plus, I have access to graphics should I need it.
Why does MS even bother to restrict what the X-Box can run? From what I have seen, they would be able to sell more consoles if it was open to whatever people wanted it to run.
but it seems to me that if you are too lazy to secure your wireless network, you deserve to have it used by strangers. Just because there are no wires doesn't mean the need for access control has gone away.
Well, what if he sells the technology but not the company?
The Windows "look and feel" are more than just icons.
Does the Zaurus SL-5500 support a non-GUI (console) mode?
How's that any different than KDE or Gnome, the too biggest Windows clones around?
How can they claim Windows 2000 wasn't built with security in mind? From the very beginning of the NT line, which W2K is a part of, MS has claimed that NT was built to be secure. They advertised it and everything.
Seems like revisionist history, if you ask me.
Not only do I feel that the guy has a case, I think it is poetic that EBay has to deal with this after the "One Click" patent.
Marklar is a good Marklar and, like the Marklar it is based on, would probably run well of the Marklar. Of course, Marklar whould then be on the same Marklar as Marklar, which holds a Marklar there.
For the Aliens game, that is.
I never owned a Jaguar or played with on but I can still remember the awesome commercial for the game. Does anyone know if it is on line somewhere?
When I had my Newton, I didn't even own a PC. I did everything through the Newton. I eventually bought a used Classic II to back it up with.
Well, all they would have to do is remove the LCD screen of the iMac, cap the result hole, and add an ADC connector for a monitor. They could probably even build it on the same production line.
does not ensure success, sadly. Things I thought should have done better than they did (for whatever reason they failed to find sucess):
1. Newton (Owned one and loved it.)
2. NeXTStep on PCs
3. BeOS
4. Amiga
5. Hypercard/Hypertalk (A fun programming language)
6. Magic Cap OS
7. DR DOS
8. Betamax (the death of which was recently announced)
9. G4 Cube
BTW, I thought that the Newton's interface a awesome but has anyone ever heard of or seen what a color version of the interface might have looked like?
Am I the only one who really, really disklikes the naming scheme of these processors? Although I know that clock speed does not always reflect performance, I would still rather see CPU names that include it.
It seems to me that the terrorist have already won, as we (the citizens of the U.S.) are so cowardly that we will give up our freedoms for a bit of safety. And anyone who thought that the government wouldn't eventually abuse its increased powers was naive.
I'd love to see a high quality survey of users and developers of free OSes like GNU/Linux and the BSDs. Something really detailed with tons of questions.
It would be interesting to see the results. Of course, I have no idea how you would keep fraud for messing up the stats for such a thing.
I'm surprised there isn't a troll posting "Emacs is dying" post like the "BSD is dying" posts.
Mg is nice. I believe that OpenBSD installs it by default now.
Personally, my favorite current editor is Nano. It runs really well. Of course, it is probably missing advanced features a programmer might need but for the basic file editing that I do, it is nice.