I'll continue to judge Google appropriately; when Google gives me a reason to doubt them, I will. In the meantime, everything they touch has turned into gold for me personally. Their products are all useful and free - Picasa, gmail, Google maps, Hello, and Google Desktop are all very useful. And I'm perfectly willing to deal with, and occassionaly actually use - the tasteful ads.
On the Microsoft end, I use Microsoft across nearly my entire network (Linux on the web servers), and I think they have done some really great things: MBSA and WSUS to name a few. I even think IE7 is a step in the right direction, although not *enough* in the right direction.
I use thin clients in our offices (50+ across the WAN) and the thin clients cost ~$395. After Microsoft licensing (Exchange CAL, SQL CAL, TS CASL, Windows CAL), we're up to nearly 1400 dollars. It's obscene, and it's akin to rape. The problem is, retraining the staff and the users is simple not feasible. And with Windows 2000 running out of patches, we have to decide if we want to upgrade again soon.
Also, deploying Firefox is a problem, because there are too many sites that are currently built around IE. And spyware and viruses are a real problem, due to OS and browser inadequacies.
Put simply, I see the world exactly as it is - Google has done right by me, Microsoft has done wrong, but neither is a shining star that is the epitome of good or bad. I trust Google, I don't trust Microsoft.
You can piss and moan all day to the contrary, but it's needless. You've made it clear you're not interested in anything but proving your point.
You SO are mising the point. If you have some anti-Google agenda, fine. But you have read my post, and you've chosen to ignore what I've said.
Google has purchased companies and attempted to WIN market share by providing a better product. They haven't needed to add their own proprietary add-ons and manipulate their marketshare to gain customers. In fact, they've kept the majority of their software very open and compatible.
Microsoft has done the opposite. They leveraged their Windows dominance to lock people into IE, they leverage their desktop monopoly to push needless Office upgrades, and they leverage their market position to cram licensing (in the form of CALs - Windows, SQL, Exchange, Terminal Services) and endless upgrades to everyone.
Google has provided software for free, owned up when they have bugs, and made steady revenue by providing UNOBSTRUSIVE ADS and by making fantastic products, like this: http://www.google.com/enterprise/
There's a HUGE difference. If you don't see it, it's not for lack of trying, it's because you simply want to be right and you're ignoring the proof. Anyway, I think the point is now more than made.
Both corporations buy other companies and release their tech for free, in order to eliminate competition.
The motive is not proven for Google. It is, however, for Microsoft. You can argue all you want, but you cast Google into an unfair light solely because there exists a tried comparison to Microsoft - they are both big technology companies. Microsoft has a history of doing bad things to eliminate competition, like gaining market share and then changing standards to ensure, for example, websites will only render properly in IE. Google has no such blackmarks in their permanent record.
Those who distrust Microsoft do so with reason, but those who distrust Google do so because they are paranoid and fear what MIGHT happen. VAST differences, my friend.
MS [...] has not said that IE7 will not feature improved CSS support.
Yeah, right. These are verbatim quotes from the IE Blog: "there are some fairly large and difficult features to implement, and they will not all sort to the top of the stack in IE7."
"we are doing a much better service to web developers out there in IE7 by fixing our known bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs and usability problems first, and prioritizing the most commonly-requested features based on all the feedback we've had"
You see, you need to read up. While IE7 will have improved CSS support, it's still not enough to justify moving back from the many alternatives that are doing A LOT to come up to the most modern standards - like CSS2.1 and CSS3, which we know, because they've said, will NOT be in IE7. IE7, to my point, is SOLELY a release to continue to keep their portion of the market locked in.
Google IS different, and you know it. When MS buys, they (historically) do so with the knowledge that they intend to do everything in their power to lock people in and make their way the standard. Then they close the APIs or change for access to them.
Google has yet to show that at all. APIs are plentiful. The software is free and promotes choice. Google has embraced open standards (RSS/Atom/cross platform JS-AJAX), all while MS has built web pages that rely upon ActiveX, "extended" RSS for Vista, and told us that IE will, once again, not support much of the CSS out there.
How can you tell me with a straight face that Google and Microsoft are comparable?!?!
There's a perfectly good reason for that. Google has not used their purchases to smash their competitors out of existence. Take for example, Picasa. Used, publicized, integrated, and yet not accompanied by a huge push to take over that sector of the market. Or how about Gmail - beta pretty much forever, and then when it become open, there's no push to steal Hotmail or Yahoo customers. How about Blogger? There are APIs all over the place.
Google hasn't been "evil" with their purchases. In fact, pretty much everything they bought they starting giving away for free.
Not exactly. Office 2003 includes the complete failure "XML" file format. It's useless, it isn't readable anywhere but in Office 2003 (Office 11) (which was a useless upgrade save the UI changes in Outlook), and it has been, and always will be, a complete flop..docx is the new XML zip bundle for Office 12, which is unreleased to date, and it's strikingly similar to OpenOffice.org's new OASIS format. It will not be XML, but rather an extractable zip file with content and format properly separated. Of course, Microsoft reinvented the wheel, but it's still better than the mess that is Office 2003 XML.
Yeah, because that would be way too mainstream. Explain to me why every article has to have some holier than thou asshat slamming PHP for being good at one thing. Can I ask - is there some exclusive club you got a card to when you dissed PHP?
There are many bad PHP programmers out there, and that has led to tons of sloppy code, but that doesn't mean the language as a whole sucks. How about some REASONS, other than the fact that it's not as 1337 when you're writing in the same language that many new programmers started with?
That's the sillient thing I've ever heard. With the rise of NAT, 802.11, RSS, AJAX, VoIP, and home networking, IP communications are stronger than ever.
I'd even argue that Google Maps and re-established the internet as we know it. Now that rich, cross platform web-apps are a reality, the web is once again rife for the taking, further cementing IP in long term existence - even if it's eventually IPv6 (or IPv9 or whatever if you're in China).
XMLHttpReq sends a request as though it was from your browser. You can request anything remotely, even from within a local HTML file. Of course, you can only use the data returned to the client, so it's not like you can query a PHP page and get the code or something.
I have my NT 4.0 certs, and because back then, getting a Microsoft cert meant you could read a book and/or memorize the Transcender tests which were the exact same question with "Bob" substituted in for "Sally."
Recently, I did some work with some third party engineers on a few projects, and was surprised to find that they, like many companies, will not hire non-MCSAs these days. I did some additional research, and found this to be true - the certs are MUCH harder to get these days than they used to be, and the majority of the companies I called said that certs was a "make or break" when they reviewed resumes.
Here at Slashdot, you'll get a thousand idiots making fun of Microsoft, telling you to use Linux, and saying your MCSE isn't worth shit.
Let me dispell that rumor: THEY ARE WRONG. Don't listen to them, their knowledge is VERY outdated. Get your MCSE - it will mean a better job and higher pay, no matter what anyone here tells you.
Your problem is with dependencies, NOT with RPM! So many people make this mistake - RPM is the format in which the updates are delivered, it doesn't do dependency checking. And as far as I know, neither do.deb files (I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think so). The trick is that RPM CAN be used with a wrapper than checks dependencies. Red Hat has stuck with RPM because they think it's a smart way to distribute packages. Since then, they have seen several methods of delivery, RHN, yum, apt4rpm...
If your problem is dependencies, that's fine. But don't blame RPM for not doing what it's not supposed to.
I was a huge video game fan when I was a kid. These days, I have a real life, a girlfriend, and a job. I can't sit down and play some of these games because they take too damn long. That's why I don't buy new consoles and I don't buy new games.
But I still own a gray box, 8-bit NES system and about 50 games, and I love it. Most people do. Because even a guest to my house can come in and play and enjoy it. They don't have to sit down and play for three weeks straight, two hours a day to make progress.
Slashdot gamers are of course going to balk at this, but there is a market for shorter - play in one session kind of games for those Gen X adults raised on this stuff who aren't interested in becoming obsessively involved in video games.
That's a very interesting case- can I be sued if I reverse engineered a Microsoft binary because a public document that I wanted to obtain via FOIA was only published in DOC format? Then I could sue the state or governing body for not providing me access...
Microsoft has for about 5 years now been advertising the hell out of.net with their TV spots about "real time" networks and such. Longhorn was supposed to be lots of things - new frameworks, new APIs, new codebase, etc. It's turning out to be NONE of those things. In fact, it's starting to sound like Windows 2003 SP1 + a few extra desktop features. I fail to see anything revolutionary in it anymore.
Microsoft will only really blaze new ground if they decide to screw backwards compatibility and understand that it will take a few years for people to catch on and really start using it. Unfortunately, that leaves the door open for Linux and Macs to fill the gap.
You can say whatever you want, but if you believe this isn't backtracking then you've fallen victim to the slow but steady retreat from the original campaign.
I've used every major distribution out there, and NOTHING is as friendly IMHO as Xandros. You want a desktop PC certified for Xandros. Here you go, bitches, a $69.99 computer, with mostly realistic specs! (note the Earthlink "catch").
Slashdot Mirror
I love the idea of sidebars, but honestly, even on my 1280x1024, it feels like such a waste of space. Anyone else agree on this?
Know what? Don't make assumptions about me.
I'll continue to judge Google appropriately; when Google gives me a reason to doubt them, I will. In the meantime, everything they touch has turned into gold for me personally. Their products are all useful and free - Picasa, gmail, Google maps, Hello, and Google Desktop are all very useful. And I'm perfectly willing to deal with, and occassionaly actually use - the tasteful ads.
On the Microsoft end, I use Microsoft across nearly my entire network (Linux on the web servers), and I think they have done some really great things: MBSA and WSUS to name a few. I even think IE7 is a step in the right direction, although not *enough* in the right direction.
I use thin clients in our offices (50+ across the WAN) and the thin clients cost ~$395. After Microsoft licensing (Exchange CAL, SQL CAL, TS CASL, Windows CAL), we're up to nearly 1400 dollars. It's obscene, and it's akin to rape. The problem is, retraining the staff and the users is simple not feasible. And with Windows 2000 running out of patches, we have to decide if we want to upgrade again soon.
Also, deploying Firefox is a problem, because there are too many sites that are currently built around IE. And spyware and viruses are a real problem, due to OS and browser inadequacies.
Put simply, I see the world exactly as it is - Google has done right by me, Microsoft has done wrong, but neither is a shining star that is the epitome of good or bad. I trust Google, I don't trust Microsoft.
You can piss and moan all day to the contrary, but it's needless. You've made it clear you're not interested in anything but proving your point.
You SO are mising the point. If you have some anti-Google agenda, fine. But you have read my post, and you've chosen to ignore what I've said.
Google has purchased companies and attempted to WIN market share by providing a better product. They haven't needed to add their own proprietary add-ons and manipulate their marketshare to gain customers. In fact, they've kept the majority of their software very open and compatible.
Microsoft has done the opposite. They leveraged their Windows dominance to lock people into IE, they leverage their desktop monopoly to push needless Office upgrades, and they leverage their market position to cram licensing (in the form of CALs - Windows, SQL, Exchange, Terminal Services) and endless upgrades to everyone.
Google has provided software for free, owned up when they have bugs, and made steady revenue by providing UNOBSTRUSIVE ADS and by making fantastic products, like this: http://www.google.com/enterprise/
There's a HUGE difference. If you don't see it, it's not for lack of trying, it's because you simply want to be right and you're ignoring the proof. Anyway, I think the point is now more than made.
Both corporations buy other companies and release their tech for free, in order to eliminate competition.
The motive is not proven for Google. It is, however, for Microsoft. You can argue all you want, but you cast Google into an unfair light solely because there exists a tried comparison to Microsoft - they are both big technology companies. Microsoft has a history of doing bad things to eliminate competition, like gaining market share and then changing standards to ensure, for example, websites will only render properly in IE. Google has no such blackmarks in their permanent record.
Those who distrust Microsoft do so with reason, but those who distrust Google do so because they are paranoid and fear what MIGHT happen. VAST differences, my friend.
MS [...] has not said that IE7 will not feature improved CSS support.
Yeah, right. These are verbatim quotes from the IE Blog:
"there are some fairly large and difficult features to implement, and they will not all sort to the top of the stack in IE7."
"we are doing a much better service to web developers out there in IE7 by fixing our known bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs and usability problems first, and prioritizing the most commonly-requested features based on all the feedback we've had"
You see, you need to read up. While IE7 will have improved CSS support, it's still not enough to justify moving back from the many alternatives that are doing A LOT to come up to the most modern standards - like CSS2.1 and CSS3, which we know, because they've said, will NOT be in IE7. IE7, to my point, is SOLELY a release to continue to keep their portion of the market locked in.
People here LOVE to fight, don't they?
Google IS different, and you know it. When MS buys, they (historically) do so with the knowledge that they intend to do everything in their power to lock people in and make their way the standard. Then they close the APIs or change for access to them.
Google has yet to show that at all. APIs are plentiful. The software is free and promotes choice. Google has embraced open standards (RSS/Atom/cross platform JS-AJAX), all while MS has built web pages that rely upon ActiveX, "extended" RSS for Vista, and told us that IE will, once again, not support much of the CSS out there.
How can you tell me with a straight face that Google and Microsoft are comparable?!?!
There's a perfectly good reason for that. Google has not used their purchases to smash their competitors out of existence. Take for example, Picasa. Used, publicized, integrated, and yet not accompanied by a huge push to take over that sector of the market. Or how about Gmail - beta pretty much forever, and then when it become open, there's no push to steal Hotmail or Yahoo customers. How about Blogger? There are APIs all over the place.
Google hasn't been "evil" with their purchases. In fact, pretty much everything they bought they starting giving away for free.
Not exactly. Office 2003 includes the complete failure "XML" file format. It's useless, it isn't readable anywhere but in Office 2003 (Office 11) (which was a useless upgrade save the UI changes in Outlook), and it has been, and always will be, a complete flop. .docx is the new XML zip bundle for Office 12, which is unreleased to date, and it's strikingly similar to OpenOffice.org's new OASIS format. It will not be XML, but rather an extractable zip file with content and format properly separated. Of course, Microsoft reinvented the wheel, but it's still better than the mess that is Office 2003 XML.
Anything in Perl or PHP is right out.
Yeah, because that would be way too mainstream. Explain to me why every article has to have some holier than thou asshat slamming PHP for being good at one thing. Can I ask - is there some exclusive club you got a card to when you dissed PHP?
There are many bad PHP programmers out there, and that has led to tons of sloppy code, but that doesn't mean the language as a whole sucks. How about some REASONS, other than the fact that it's not as 1337 when you're writing in the same language that many new programmers started with?
That's the sillient thing I've ever heard. With the rise of NAT, 802.11, RSS, AJAX, VoIP, and home networking, IP communications are stronger than ever.
I'd even argue that Google Maps and re-established the internet as we know it. Now that rich, cross platform web-apps are a reality, the web is once again rife for the taking, further cementing IP in long term existence - even if it's eventually IPv6 (or IPv9 or whatever if you're in China).
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx
XMLHttpReq sends a request as though it was from your browser. You can request anything remotely, even from within a local HTML file. Of course, you can only use the data returned to the client, so it's not like you can query a PHP page and get the code or something.
Oh yes they can. Windows XP is the most secure WHEN IT WAS RELEASED. Longhorn should be when IT is released. You follow?
Otherwise, how can you ever have the ___est ever of anything? One day, somebody will beat it, nullifying the first one's claim.
I sincerely hope that every version of Windows is tagged that. You want it should less secure than XP?
Every version ought to improve security.
I have my NT 4.0 certs, and because back then, getting a Microsoft cert meant you could read a book and/or memorize the Transcender tests which were the exact same question with "Bob" substituted in for "Sally."
Recently, I did some work with some third party engineers on a few projects, and was surprised to find that they, like many companies, will not hire non-MCSAs these days. I did some additional research, and found this to be true - the certs are MUCH harder to get these days than they used to be, and the majority of the companies I called said that certs was a "make or break" when they reviewed resumes.
Here at Slashdot, you'll get a thousand idiots making fun of Microsoft, telling you to use Linux, and saying your MCSE isn't worth shit.
Let me dispell that rumor: THEY ARE WRONG. Don't listen to them, their knowledge is VERY outdated. Get your MCSE - it will mean a better job and higher pay, no matter what anyone here tells you.
Are these commands any more of a hassle? They both use RPM.
#yum install gaim
or maybe you like
#urpmi vim
http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
.deb files (I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think so). The trick is that RPM CAN be used with a wrapper than checks dependencies. Red Hat has stuck with RPM because they think it's a smart way to distribute packages. Since then, they have seen several methods of delivery, RHN, yum, apt4rpm...
Your problem is with dependencies, NOT with RPM! So many people make this mistake - RPM is the format in which the updates are delivered, it doesn't do dependency checking. And as far as I know, neither do
If your problem is dependencies, that's fine. But don't blame RPM for not doing what it's not supposed to.
This is ignorant at best!
My suspicion is that this guy hasn't used an RPM distribution in ages, and that's if he runs Linux at all, which is a big if.
urpmi, yum, Smart, and Apt4RPM have made RPMs as easy as debs from the user standpoint.
Actually, he ran a Sharpie over the F1 key and it worked just fine.
I was a huge video game fan when I was a kid. These days, I have a real life, a girlfriend, and a job. I can't sit down and play some of these games because they take too damn long. That's why I don't buy new consoles and I don't buy new games.
But I still own a gray box, 8-bit NES system and about 50 games, and I love it. Most people do. Because even a guest to my house can come in and play and enjoy it. They don't have to sit down and play for three weeks straight, two hours a day to make progress.
Slashdot gamers are of course going to balk at this, but there is a market for shorter - play in one session kind of games for those Gen X adults raised on this stuff who aren't interested in becoming obsessively involved in video games.
Great, now I'll have people calling me up asking "what program do I use to open a 'dot D O C X' file with?"
And you'll say "Microsoft Word." What's the problem?
That's a very interesting case- can I be sued if I reverse engineered a Microsoft binary because a public document that I wanted to obtain via FOIA was only published in DOC format? Then I could sue the state or governing body for not providing me access...
What a fascinating case that would be.
Microsoft has for about 5 years now been advertising the hell out of .net with their TV spots about "real time" networks and such. Longhorn was supposed to be lots of things - new frameworks, new APIs, new codebase, etc. It's turning out to be NONE of those things. In fact, it's starting to sound like Windows 2003 SP1 + a few extra desktop features. I fail to see anything revolutionary in it anymore.
Microsoft will only really blaze new ground if they decide to screw backwards compatibility and understand that it will take a few years for people to catch on and really start using it. Unfortunately, that leaves the door open for Linux and Macs to fill the gap.
You can say whatever you want, but if you believe this isn't backtracking then you've fallen victim to the slow but steady retreat from the original campaign.
I've used every major distribution out there, and NOTHING is as friendly IMHO as Xandros. You want a desktop PC certified for Xandros. Here you go, bitches, a $69.99 computer, with mostly realistic specs! (note the Earthlink "catch").
You can't beat that!
What's your beef? It's a perfectly cromulent word!
Not working for me either.