Too bad it's next to impossible to dual boot a computer with Windows on a SATA drive and Linux on traditional ATA. Grub doesn't understand SATA and Windows XP doesn't play nice with Linux.
Makes an incremental transition to SATA kind of hard...
At that time it was the latest version. Since there was no compelling reason to move away from MS Office I would not have my staff waste their time by using document formats that aren't 100% compatible with those used by the rest of the staff. I will not waste my time by learning a new program when the old one works just fine.
Sorry. Ideological reasons alone won't do.
If my mind had been made up I wouldn't even have given the student a chance to demonstrate that Open Office was up to the task.
Are you sure you're not about to freak out? You know how it starts: the feeling of increasing tightness in your jaw, your heart-rate goes up and you feel dead cold. At one moment you feel so relaxed that you don't dare to go with it because you might never come out of it. Soon after you go all tense and it feels like you can't control your thoughts anymore and it scares you.
Why? MS Office works perfectly, I'm used to it and the license does not cost me anything (campus license).
A student tried to demonstrate OOo 1.0 as a feasible alternative, but it completely failed to import math symbols and equations. I'm not going to forget about that any time soon.
Well, I don't really care why the person I'm interviewing reacts badly to the suggestion that he'll have to conform to the lab policy of using Microsoft Office only.
Why? Compatibility reasons. I want to be able to edit his/her manuscripts so that he can view them with "Track changes" option. No, I'm not going to learn a programming language (LaTeX) just to write a goddamn manuscript or use "diff" for tracking the changes.
We're not buying macs (too expensive) or installing Linux (no MS Office), either. Period.
if Microsoft controls the spec, there's going to be a license on it that prevents it from being introduced into the Linux kernel.
So, we're back to the original post. Where does it say that Microsoft's going to wield such control over the license? Nowhere. I thought it was the BIOS manufacturer who owned the license. Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when they're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
I find it kind of sad that certain people seem to be obsessed with the idea that "if Microsoft's involved, it's evil, evil, evil!".
PS. What is it with Slashdot today? I keep getting "500 Internal Server Error" all the time.
Fortunately it is easy to recognize a Lunix zealot in a job interview. Just ask him what he thinks of Microsoft operating systems in a company network.
Many developers were very angry about RedHat that never supported KDE properly.
From what I could see, they left because THEIR camp (KDE) was not favoured over the "opposing camp". They weren't willing to compromise, so it's better for the rest of us when they left.
It's a GOOD IDEA to have a common GUI. It's a bad idea to have a hodgepodge of different widget sets. I personally don't like RedHat but in this matter they're 100% correct.
you can break your site for everyone except Mozilla/Konqueror/Opera
And why would I want to do such a thing?
Using standards saves time
on
XForms Essentials
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Our faculty of the university at which I work has decided on a new layout for their web pages. This was done and delivered to us by a PR agency. I feared that it might be bad, but that fear didn't even come close to what I had to witness.
Imagine having to tell our users (many of which are using GNU/Linux or Macintosh) that our web site only works reliably in Windows with Internet Explorer 6.0 and above. Just because a PR agency can't develop web pages. It's impossible. I had to do something about it.
So when I implemented the layout for our department (scheduled to go live later this month), I scrapped everything they had done. I took a printout of their page (as it looked in Internet Explorer) and marked up what colors and fonts they had used.
Then I set down and wrote the same thing using XHTML/1.0 Strict and CSS1. This was about two days work, but the finished result now validates using w3c's validate tools, and it works reliably in all browsers I've managed to try, all the way back to Mosaic and Netscape 3, with or without images (yes, Lynx, Links, w3 and other text browsers work very well indeed too).
Not only did I get the pages to validate. By using CSS, I was able to get rid of several images they had been using with their design. The overall size of a page, including graphics and CSS, now weighs in at about 35 kbytes. This is compared to around 120 kbytes with the proposed code.
And even better, most things can be cached by the browser (CSS code and images). The only thing that needs reloading when you hit subsequent pages is the dynamic XHTML code, which weighs in at around 5 kbytes, compares to 40 kbytes in the proposed code.
Now, I think our students will like us. This result is even better than the pages that we have today. They render quickly and effortlessly even on old equipment or on extremely slow links.
I havn't been able to convince the faculty to make my code the "default" yet, but they might get the idea once people start noticing that our pages load much more quickly than the rest of the faculty pages.
So, using standards isn't always about making things render nicely in all browsers. It gives you a while heap of nice side effects that isn't worth sneezing at.
Unlike the teller, you don't have to comply. Don't expect to get on the flight, though.
p
Personally, I often feel like punching people who get all upset at the security checkpoint and cause delays that could have been avoided. Just do what the friggin' Mr. Security tells you to do and we'll be safer and don't have to stand in line forever.
A captain has the authority to refuse to take you on board for whatever reason he/she thinks is appropriate and no-one can do anything about it.
If cracking a bad joke about planes and tall buildings whilst queueing for the check-in can make you miss your flight, giving the security a hard time will certainly disqualify you from the flight.
If a screener *ever* asked to see the contents of my laptop they'd get the verbal equivalent of a polite middle finger.
And after that? The best case: you'd never get your boarding pass. The worst case: you'd never get your boarding pass and you'd get to spend the rest of the day getting stripsearched and interviewed by the authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes an incremental transition to SATA kind of hard...
Sorry. Ideological reasons alone won't do.
If my mind had been made up I wouldn't even have given the student a chance to demonstrate that Open Office was up to the task.
Are you sure you're not about to freak out? You know how it starts: the feeling of increasing tightness in your jaw, your heart-rate goes up and you feel dead cold. At one moment you feel so relaxed that you don't dare to go with it because you might never come out of it. Soon after you go all tense and it feels like you can't control your thoughts anymore and it scares you.
Replace it with "overdosing on heroin" and my argument is still valid.
I don't want a dead battery or a faulty link station to block my call when someone is having a heart-attack, for instance.
Not having a land-line at home is outright irresponsible.
A student tried to demonstrate OOo 1.0 as a feasible alternative, but it completely failed to import math symbols and equations. I'm not going to forget about that any time soon.
Why? Compatibility reasons. I want to be able to edit his/her manuscripts so that he can view them with "Track changes" option. No, I'm not going to learn a programming language (LaTeX) just to write a goddamn manuscript or use "diff" for tracking the changes.
We're not buying macs (too expensive) or installing Linux (no MS Office), either. Period.
So, we're back to the original post. Where does it say that Microsoft's going to wield such control over the license? Nowhere. I thought it was the BIOS manufacturer who owned the license. Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when they're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
I find it kind of sad that certain people seem to be obsessed with the idea that "if Microsoft's involved, it's evil, evil, evil!".
PS. What is it with Slashdot today? I keep getting "500 Internal Server Error" all the time.
Fortunately it is easy to recognize a Lunix zealot in a job interview. Just ask him what he thinks of Microsoft operating systems in a company network.
So, you can buy the specs? What's the problem? I'm sure IBM, RedHat or SuSE can afford to license it.
Sounds like your Lunix fanatic's paranoia of all things commercial is showing...
If you still don't 'get it', then you should not be allowed on a computer or you are a Microsoft astroturfer.
Ah, yes, that's the way to attract more people to try out Linux. You are a recent open source convert, now aren't you?
Indeed.
When I was 30 it already felt like my life was stuck on fast-forward and it's been getting worse ever since.
Uh... where exactly does it say in that ZD article that non-MS operating systems and packages could be locked out?
Assuming a circular crater, the cross-section of hitting this crater would be 2%.
Bad, bad luck.
Fortunately it was a cheap probe.
From what I could see, they left because THEIR camp (KDE) was not favoured over the "opposing camp". They weren't willing to compromise, so it's better for the rest of us when they left.
It's a GOOD IDEA to have a common GUI. It's a bad idea to have a hodgepodge of different widget sets. I personally don't like RedHat but in this matter they're 100% correct.
And why would I want to do such a thing?
Our faculty of the university at which I work has decided on a new layout for their web pages. This was done and delivered to us by a PR agency. I feared that it might be bad, but that fear didn't even come close to what I had to witness.
Imagine having to tell our users (many of which are using GNU/Linux or Macintosh) that our web site only works reliably in Windows with Internet Explorer 6.0 and above. Just because a PR agency can't develop web pages. It's impossible. I had to do something about it.
So when I implemented the layout for our department (scheduled to go live later this month), I scrapped everything they had done. I took a printout of their page (as it looked in Internet Explorer) and marked up what colors and fonts they had used.
Then I set down and wrote the same thing using XHTML/1.0 Strict and CSS1. This was about two days work, but the finished result now validates using w3c's validate tools, and it works reliably in all browsers I've managed to try, all the way back to Mosaic and Netscape 3, with or without images (yes, Lynx, Links, w3 and other text browsers work very well indeed too).
Not only did I get the pages to validate. By using CSS, I was able to get rid of several images they had been using with their design. The overall size of a page, including graphics and CSS, now weighs in at about 35 kbytes. This is compared to around 120 kbytes with the proposed code.
And even better, most things can be cached by the browser (CSS code and images). The only thing that needs reloading when you hit subsequent pages is the dynamic XHTML code, which weighs in at around 5 kbytes, compares to 40 kbytes in the proposed code.
Now, I think our students will like us. This result is even better than the pages that we have today. They render quickly and effortlessly even on old equipment or on extremely slow links.
I havn't been able to convince the faculty to make my code the "default" yet, but they might get the idea once people start noticing that our pages load much more quickly than the rest of the faculty pages.
So, using standards isn't always about making things render nicely in all browsers. It gives you a while heap of nice side effects that isn't worth sneezing at.
Indeed.
Everybody knows that the God wants us to burn oil, gas and coal.
Bomb anyone who thinks to the contrary.
Note that mere make -j 2 won't pass the flags to sub-makes. On multi CPU computers I usually put "-j2" in MAKEFLAGS.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is "STEAL ME! I'M A LAPTOP!" any better?
Unlike the teller, you don't have to comply. Don't expect to get on the flight, though. p Personally, I often feel like punching people who get all upset at the security checkpoint and cause delays that could have been avoided. Just do what the friggin' Mr. Security tells you to do and we'll be safer and don't have to stand in line forever.
A captain has the authority to refuse to take you on board for whatever reason he/she thinks is appropriate and no-one can do anything about it.
If cracking a bad joke about planes and tall buildings whilst queueing for the check-in can make you miss your flight, giving the security a hard time will certainly disqualify you from the flight.
And after that? The best case: you'd never get your boarding pass. The worst case: you'd never get your boarding pass and you'd get to spend the rest of the day getting stripsearched and interviewed by the authorities.
He's not doing anything. He's telling you to turn on the computer, log in and show him the files...