Agreed. Go back and read some posts on this subject. You'll not only find people that indeed DO believe evolution explains the origin of life and man but that their belief is every bit as vehement and "religious" as anyone else. My point.
The financial world has grown a lot from the days of the first bubble. That bubble was building over a five year period and was due in large part to ignorance. People were being paid with what amounted to an ignorance tax. The less a company knew about the technology, the more they were willing to pay for it. OSS has been slowly moving along and there are more people with a good understanding of what is happening with it in the larger tech sector. You don't have the mindset of "who cares what it costs or what it does, we need it!" Rather, you have "what is it that we have now that we can leverage more value from by going with OSS!"
Evolution is as much a stance as anything. The Vatican is simply trying to have it both ways, like many who try to shoehorn evolution into the Genesis account. (Peer pressure can be so powerful, no?) The Bible is offering a source to the origins of life. Evolution is as well. However, science is forever changing. Evolution is a theory, and while it can hardly be debated that closely related species most likely have a common origin it has never sufficiently explained man's origin. Evolution theory will shift and change. One day, I'm convinced, we'll find that all of the "tragic event" mini-theories within it will beg the honest to abandon it as the "gospel truth" many think that it is. Many reputable scientist look at the complexity of life and see some form of ID involved. Others believe that evolution explains it all. I'm not surprised that religious people hold to their belief because that is the nature of religion. I am surprised how vehemently evolution has remained the "religion" of science with all of the wholes and gaps in this theory as a "map" of all of life. Darwin saw clearly that finches of different locales must have had similar origins. He speculated that perhaps we all share a common origin. In the last hundred years we've had everything from "global radiation theory" to out and out falsification of evidence (Javaman, anyone?). I'm amazed at how "fundemental" evolutionists behave as they point the finger at the religious.
Forums, IRC, and online chatting in general are much like BBS'ing that preceded them. They are a collection of people. Yes, generally they are people of common interests but they are of differing personalities. Just as you have lamer noobs who come in an say, "My Linux is broken, what's wrong?" you have l33ts who say, "RTFM! I'm busy coding a script that will end world hunger!" In the middle, and where most people sit, there are folks who are willing to give details of their issue so they can get help and there are people who have the information they need and are willing to share. I've met a lot of people in my professional life who know a lot but don't want to share. Others are extremely interested in sharing knowledge. It's people. What's a brothuh gonna do?
Where is the metaphor lost? Microsoft robs the young (startups) of innovation, capital, and technology. Bullying tactics, strangling companies of their suppliers, MS has done a lot of this. Perhaps my statements were over the top in a more civilized setting, but this is/. give me a break. Either way, I stand by the idea that Microsoft is unethical, brazen, and devoid of good. Not because they are big and successful but because they have become so dishonestly.
You're missing the point. The Mass. move isn't to OpenOffice, it's to OpenDocument. What they choose to run is a different story. OOo and Wordperfect, for example, plan to support. Microsoft only plans to import it, I believe, and that only recently. Microsoft if fighting the standard. The idea that this state government is moving to OOo is an extension of the MS PR machine. Get everyone worried about losing Office and an outcry will ensue. Nevermind the fact that they're locking themselves into perpetual licensing fees and a proprietary format. Hey, the vendor's benevolent so what's the harm, right? More people, more companies, and more governments need to really stand on MS's neck on this and get them to support standard formats. MS doesn't want to because then they have to TRULY compete with other software. Now if Office is so great, why not just support the format? Why not say, "okay, we'll support it and beat you on equal footing!" The mark of a champion is that he will beat you at your best. MS wants to take out your quarterback's legs, get rid of the instant replay and challenge system, AND make you play on their home field before they'll even join the game. When are people going to realize they are the software industry equivilents to rapists and pedophiles.
It has always been thus. I can remember when our BBS would go down. People would immediately call each other. "Can you get online?" "No. You?" "No! Did you call Jimbo?" "No, but I talked to Dark Horse and he did!" "Cool." "Not cool! Jimbo is out to dinner and probably won't be back for awhile." "$HIT! I've been hot chatting with LadyStone for hours!" "Dude, she's on that other chat BBS, do you have an account?" "No!" "Go join. You get like 1 free hour once your validated." "Yeah, but you have to send a copy of your license!" "Okay, go join and I'll call TimtheEnchanter and get him to validate you. He runs that board." "Cool! Dude, if I score a date you're so getting a beer!" "Cool!"
Oh brother. This is largely splitting hairs, people. In the general sense, admin equivilents are about as root like as they come. You're comparing two different systems so being precise is an impossibility.
I had a feeling this was coming eventually. This is one feature that UNIX really kicked Windows' but with. Run out of space on a critical volume and you could always link to a new one. As others have noted, this is more of Microsoft catching up. Like AD, some Window's-centric noob will be touting this as a great new thing.
The fact is, keeping.DOC is an undefendable position for a government. You are willfully locking yourself in to one vendor not just now but in the future. How can you possibly defend this? I would suspect that the blind have been pitched this from Microsoft or their defendors. Someone sat around and thought, "Hey! What if we get this group to come out against it? Who can argue with the handicapped?" This is a sign, people, of the depths to which Microsoft will sink to make a buck!
I switched to Linux initially because I was interested in it. It really wasn't a switch at first. I had been working on SCO systems (the good SCO) and really liked the power of UNIX. I started playing with Linux around RH5.2. As time went on I gathered up every distro that interested me. I'm currently on a Mac most of the time. The primary reason for that being that KDE and Gnome just hadn't gotten polished enough. Now I'm about to test Ubuntu. The LiveCD is very sweet and a version runs fine on my Mac. I still run Linux on my server simply because it works very well and is solid. From a server standpoint, the only reason to run Windows is for a specific app. The idea that you convert your whole infrastructure to it is just crazy. I think it was in vogue back when people were abandoning Netware. Now the cost is just to prohibitive. We're seeing apps now available on Sun and Red Hat the cost benefits are in the tens of thousands of dollars over Sun. Both Sun and Microsoft are living in an age of margins that are fat and old. This is making Linux a must have, IMO. If I were to start a company today selling widgets, I'd run a Linux infrastructure. There is just no reason not to.
This, I hope, gives many companies in the industry more confidence. Here's Google. They don't make an OS, they don't make a browser, they don't have anything in the way of packaged software you go buy off the shelf. Yet, Microsoft is calling them their number 1 enemy. I understand the fact that this is about a new market and different revenue streams but to the public at large this makes little sense from the traditional view of Microsoft.
Google has the name right now. Microsoft would have to completely abandon MSN because no one wants to search from MSN. One problem they have is that they don't appear to want to go head to head. Their move for AOL shows that they appear to have the idea if they can force AOL users to MSN unawares then their numbers will go up and they will appear to be competing. Just my observation. This whole battle seems to be more of Microsoft's idiology that if it's a technology, they should be the main player. Some might say this is business but business should be, "We can do it better" not "We should have what they have." Google is out there growing and coming up with new ideas. Microsoft is following. This isn't new. They did it with the browser market and the server market. They will build on the technology with new ideas (or bought ones?) once they conquer.
In related news, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President Chief Architect J. Allard was abruptly fired today by CEO Steve Balmer for conduct unbecoming a Microsoft Executive. Said Balmer, "I don't get his guy. What part of 'we need to kill them! Bury them!' did he not hear at the last staff meeting?"
When I read these it reminds me of the Airplane EULA:
Male voice: "The white zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the red zone."
Female voice: "The red zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the WHITE zone."
Male voice: "Listen, don't start with your white zone shit again!"
And can this finally be the last word? What about the countless predictions 2-10 years ago? By now I'm supposed to have been on IPv6 5 years ago and have been speaking Spanish as the number one language in the U.S. for the past 20 years. My refigerator is supposed to have been able to order my groceries by now and my phone is supposed to replace my laptop. OH! And why hasn't the PC replaced my TV? Our modern day prophets are about as usefull as a Jehova's Witness prediction.
Really. Who cares? The people buying their software don't appear to. If people start demanding more then they will get it. This probably won't last but I hope it does. I want Microsoft to charge as much as possible for this service. I want their products to require more spending from their customers. Why? Because I want those customers to discover they have options.
"EBay says they'll be moving from the tradition 'VeriSign Garantee' to a rating system for certified sites based on feedback. So if you want to be sure your secure look for 3 blue stars and a smiley face!"
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Go back and read some posts on this subject. You'll not only find people that indeed DO believe evolution explains the origin of life and man but that their belief is every bit as vehement and "religious" as anyone else. My point.
The financial world has grown a lot from the days of the first bubble. That bubble was building over a five year period and was due in large part to ignorance. People were being paid with what amounted to an ignorance tax. The less a company knew about the technology, the more they were willing to pay for it. OSS has been slowly moving along and there are more people with a good understanding of what is happening with it in the larger tech sector. You don't have the mindset of "who cares what it costs or what it does, we need it!" Rather, you have "what is it that we have now that we can leverage more value from by going with OSS!"
Evolution is as much a stance as anything. The Vatican is simply trying to have it both ways, like many who try to shoehorn evolution into the Genesis account. (Peer pressure can be so powerful, no?) The Bible is offering a source to the origins of life. Evolution is as well. However, science is forever changing. Evolution is a theory, and while it can hardly be debated that closely related species most likely have a common origin it has never sufficiently explained man's origin. Evolution theory will shift and change. One day, I'm convinced, we'll find that all of the "tragic event" mini-theories within it will beg the honest to abandon it as the "gospel truth" many think that it is. Many reputable scientist look at the complexity of life and see some form of ID involved. Others believe that evolution explains it all. I'm not surprised that religious people hold to their belief because that is the nature of religion. I am surprised how vehemently evolution has remained the "religion" of science with all of the wholes and gaps in this theory as a "map" of all of life. Darwin saw clearly that finches of different locales must have had similar origins. He speculated that perhaps we all share a common origin. In the last hundred years we've had everything from "global radiation theory" to out and out falsification of evidence (Javaman, anyone?). I'm amazed at how "fundemental" evolutionists behave as they point the finger at the religious.
No screenshots...this must be the OS designed to run DukeNukemForever!
"Microsoft is the devil"
See, you just feel good saying that, don't you?
Forums, IRC, and online chatting in general are much like BBS'ing that preceded them. They are a collection of people. Yes, generally they are people of common interests but they are of differing personalities. Just as you have lamer noobs who come in an say, "My Linux is broken, what's wrong?" you have l33ts who say, "RTFM! I'm busy coding a script that will end world hunger!" In the middle, and where most people sit, there are folks who are willing to give details of their issue so they can get help and there are people who have the information they need and are willing to share. I've met a lot of people in my professional life who know a lot but don't want to share. Others are extremely interested in sharing knowledge. It's people. What's a brothuh gonna do?
Where is the metaphor lost? Microsoft robs the young (startups) of innovation, capital, and technology. Bullying tactics, strangling companies of their suppliers, MS has done a lot of this. Perhaps my statements were over the top in a more civilized setting, but this is /. give me a break.
Either way, I stand by the idea that Microsoft is unethical, brazen, and devoid of good. Not because they are big and successful but because they have become so dishonestly.
You're missing the point. The Mass. move isn't to OpenOffice, it's to OpenDocument. What they choose to run is a different story. OOo and Wordperfect, for example, plan to support. Microsoft only plans to import it, I believe, and that only recently. Microsoft if fighting the standard. The idea that this state government is moving to OOo is an extension of the MS PR machine. Get everyone worried about losing Office and an outcry will ensue. Nevermind the fact that they're locking themselves into perpetual licensing fees and a proprietary format. Hey, the vendor's benevolent so what's the harm, right?
More people, more companies, and more governments need to really stand on MS's neck on this and get them to support standard formats. MS doesn't want to because then they have to TRULY compete with other software. Now if Office is so great, why not just support the format? Why not say, "okay, we'll support it and beat you on equal footing!" The mark of a champion is that he will beat you at your best. MS wants to take out your quarterback's legs, get rid of the instant replay and challenge system, AND make you play on their home field before they'll even join the game.
When are people going to realize they are the software industry equivilents to rapists and pedophiles.
It has always been thus. I can remember when our BBS would go down. People would immediately call each other. "Can you get online?" "No. You?" "No! Did you call Jimbo?" "No, but I talked to Dark Horse and he did!" "Cool." "Not cool! Jimbo is out to dinner and probably won't be back for awhile." "$HIT! I've been hot chatting with LadyStone for hours!" "Dude, she's on that other chat BBS, do you have an account?" "No!" "Go join. You get like 1 free hour once your validated." "Yeah, but you have to send a copy of your license!" "Okay, go join and I'll call TimtheEnchanter and get him to validate you. He runs that board." "Cool! Dude, if I score a date you're so getting a beer!" "Cool!"
Oh brother. This is largely splitting hairs, people. In the general sense, admin equivilents are about as root like as they come. You're comparing two different systems so being precise is an impossibility.
But linking would allow you to link to an existing volume that may be in use but has more room. Good point, though.
Yeah, it's really humorous to see the old "Bell's" struggle with the new paradigm much like the RIAA. How long before we get sued for using VoIP?
I had a feeling this was coming eventually. This is one feature that UNIX really kicked Windows' but with. Run out of space on a critical volume and you could always link to a new one. As others have noted, this is more of Microsoft catching up. Like AD, some Window's-centric noob will be touting this as a great new thing.
The fact is, keeping .DOC is an undefendable position for a government. You are willfully locking yourself in to one vendor not just now but in the future. How can you possibly defend this? I would suspect that the blind have been pitched this from Microsoft or their defendors. Someone sat around and thought, "Hey! What if we get this group to come out against it? Who can argue with the handicapped?" This is a sign, people, of the depths to which Microsoft will sink to make a buck!
I switched to Linux initially because I was interested in it. It really wasn't a switch at first. I had been working on SCO systems (the good SCO) and really liked the power of UNIX. I started playing with Linux around RH5.2. As time went on I gathered up every distro that interested me. I'm currently on a Mac most of the time. The primary reason for that being that KDE and Gnome just hadn't gotten polished enough. Now I'm about to test Ubuntu. The LiveCD is very sweet and a version runs fine on my Mac. I still run Linux on my server simply because it works very well and is solid. From a server standpoint, the only reason to run Windows is for a specific app. The idea that you convert your whole infrastructure to it is just crazy. I think it was in vogue back when people were abandoning Netware. Now the cost is just to prohibitive. We're seeing apps now available on Sun and Red Hat the cost benefits are in the tens of thousands of dollars over Sun. Both Sun and Microsoft are living in an age of margins that are fat and old. This is making Linux a must have, IMO. If I were to start a company today selling widgets, I'd run a Linux infrastructure. There is just no reason not to.
This, I hope, gives many companies in the industry more confidence. Here's Google. They don't make an OS, they don't make a browser, they don't have anything in the way of packaged software you go buy off the shelf. Yet, Microsoft is calling them their number 1 enemy. I understand the fact that this is about a new market and different revenue streams but to the public at large this makes little sense from the traditional view of Microsoft.
Google has the name right now. Microsoft would have to completely abandon MSN because no one wants to search from MSN. One problem they have is that they don't appear to want to go head to head. Their move for AOL shows that they appear to have the idea if they can force AOL users to MSN unawares then their numbers will go up and they will appear to be competing. Just my observation. This whole battle seems to be more of Microsoft's idiology that if it's a technology, they should be the main player. Some might say this is business but business should be, "We can do it better" not "We should have what they have." Google is out there growing and coming up with new ideas. Microsoft is following. This isn't new. They did it with the browser market and the server market. They will build on the technology with new ideas (or bought ones?) once they conquer.
In related news, Microsoft's Corporate Vice President Chief Architect J. Allard was abruptly fired today by CEO Steve Balmer for conduct unbecoming a Microsoft Executive. Said Balmer, "I don't get his guy. What part of 'we need to kill them! Bury them!' did he not hear at the last staff meeting?"
Why wasn't he able to install the flash card? Seeing as it was an IDE-to-CF interface, Linux should have seen it as the boot device, no?
Thank you! Captain Obvious!
When I read these it reminds me of the Airplane EULA:
Male voice: "The white zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the red zone."
Female voice: "The red zone is for loading and unloading only. There's no parking in the WHITE zone."
Male voice: "Listen, don't start with your white zone shit again!"
And can this finally be the last word? What about the countless predictions 2-10 years ago? By now I'm supposed to have been on IPv6 5 years ago and have been speaking Spanish as the number one language in the U.S. for the past 20 years. My refigerator is supposed to have been able to order my groceries by now and my phone is supposed to replace my laptop. OH! And why hasn't the PC replaced my TV? Our modern day prophets are about as usefull as a Jehova's Witness prediction.
Please...don't breed.
Really. Who cares? The people buying their software don't appear to. If people start demanding more then they will get it. This probably won't last but I hope it does. I want Microsoft to charge as much as possible for this service. I want their products to require more spending from their customers. Why? Because I want those customers to discover they have options.
"EBay says they'll be moving from the tradition 'VeriSign Garantee' to a rating system for certified sites based on feedback. So if you want to be sure your secure look for 3 blue stars and a smiley face!"