Good, so now only people who know how to write programs and fix security bugs, or can hire such people who do, will run OSS. That's a quite a bit smaller percentage than the current market share OSS software holds.
And this would be different from the EULAs that say something to the effect "The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you."... how?
Giving OSS a loophole of that sort in their licensing would be equivalent to allowing the same loophole in other licenses, including Microsoft's.
Get one of these babies instead. There's ActiveSync type software for Linux, and if you tire of PocketPC 2002 OS, you can always put Linux on it.
For $430 (after rebate) you get 240x320, 96MB of storage, 206MHz StrongARM processor, expansion pack capability including "compactflash" and PCMCIA cards, infrared capability, USB, and it plays whatever audio Windows Media Player will take, up to and including MP3.
I think, before we look to any altruistic reasoning on the part of Beijing on choosing "Linux" over "Microsoft" we need to look closer to home... to their homes.
Yes, but it took the organization of 4 war- and adventure- hardened hobbits returning from the front lines to get them ready to "butt-stomp" Saruman and his gang of southerners....
Hobbits may have it in them to defend themselves, but the books make it very clear that it takes a lot to bring it out of them.
Sure, remote X and multiple desktops are nice and interesting, but how long has THOSE particular features been hanging around? Has there been any sort of "innovative" usability enhancement of that nature recently? No? Ok.
Besides which, remind me, what's the point of windowshading? Is there a useful distinction between windowshading and minimizing that I'm missing out on?
Since the big-name OSS companies/projects obviously aren't interested.
The latest Gnome control panel looks just like the XP control panel, down to using the paradigm of tasks. KDE is built to look and act much like Windows.
In fact, where is the innovation? Most of the more successful and/or high-profile projects you read about every day seek to duplicate features found in... Microsoft OSes?
It is certainly true that the Linux kernel plays catch-up to advances made in "the real world". How much longer has Windows (NT) had a journaling filesystem than Linux? How many distros even ship with a journaling file system configuration option? Let's not even get into the subject of USB.
On the other hand you have groups pumping out software with very nice functionality, such as openssh, apache, etc. But for the most part those projects, at least of now and in terms of "innovation", look more like they're resting on their laurels too! (Apache 2.0 betas being a notable exception)
For further information I direct you to Microsoft Research.
I tried using it back when I was running RedHat (ok, it was only a few months ago that I switched to debian), it broke Gnome enough that I had to rip it all out (rpm -e'ing all the *ximian* packages, and all the gnome-related ones as well). But by then I had already seen the full splendor (horror) of what was Gnome 1.4 and I never went back to them or Gnome.
Right now if there's anything on my linux box that I can't do in console mode... I don't do it.
So wait, Microsoft is somehow responsible for full compatibility to a standard (1.0, 1998/10) that comes out AFTER the RTM of Windows 98 code (1998/4) and which the first products that adhered to the standard didn't come out until AFTER the release of Windows 98 Second Edition?
Seems like they did well to put that support into the Win2K line.
I'd rather just start making fun of it now, given that we see this type of overhyped project every couple of months or so, we can only get so much mileage out of it before the next target comes along...
Slashdot Mirror
How about this one.
A log can change in 5 years, eh?
I mean, god forbid that Microsoft actually improves their products?
Good, so now only people who know how to write programs and fix security bugs, or can hire such people who do, will run OSS. That's a quite a bit smaller percentage than the current market share OSS software holds.
Is that what you want?
And this would be different from the EULAs that say something to the effect "The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you." ... how?
Giving OSS a loophole of that sort in their licensing would be equivalent to allowing the same loophole in other licenses, including Microsoft's.
In all fairness, that's what it amounts to.
Get one of these babies instead. There's ActiveSync type software for Linux, and if you tire of PocketPC 2002 OS, you can always put Linux on it.
For $430 (after rebate) you get 240x320, 96MB of storage, 206MHz StrongARM processor, expansion pack capability including "compactflash" and PCMCIA cards, infrared capability, USB, and it plays whatever audio Windows Media Player will take, up to and including MP3.
The question is, why Palm?
Funny, because Starcraft appears to be one of the games Wine can run well.
I guess the installer asking for VB runtimes must've confused me.
I guess NT-alpha doesn't count.
Nor do the various MS products that run on Mac hardware (IE, office, etc), Solaris (IE and outlook, for example).
With a decent combination of hardware that is ACPI-aware, the Windows OS handles a power-button-push quite gracefully.
I've never seen a Linux box do the same, although granted I've never bothered to go screw around with the kernel settings to explore ACPI options.
Maybe it's like what McDonald's do to their animals.
shift+del ... delete it.
Oh wait, doesn't Gnome put a Mozilla icon onto your desktop? How about enforced usage of Nautilus?
So is this about a legitimate choice in operating software, or is it about nepotism?
I think, before we look to any altruistic reasoning on the part of Beijing on choosing "Linux" over "Microsoft" we need to look closer to home ... to their homes.
Wait a minute, waiting for Star Wars E2 or Lord of the Rings E2?
Now, if it was LOTR, I'd be much more sympathetic.
Yes, but it took the organization of 4 war- and adventure- hardened hobbits returning from the front lines to get them ready to "butt-stomp" Saruman and his gang of southerners....
Hobbits may have it in them to defend themselves, but the books make it very clear that it takes a lot to bring it out of them.
Oh but wait, even if Mono turns out better than Microsoft's C#.NET compiler, they (and us) still win.
In this case, everyone's a winner! (Except, hopefully, Sun and Java)
The only reason those expensive programs are mentioned as alternatives is because most Linux users refuse to pay for their software *cough*
Something about 2.96 (while 2.4.x was still in -pre) not compiling the kernel correctly, in particular screwing up the filesystem code ...
... and that GCC 2.96 does not even officially exist, according to GNU?
Fine, then I won't discuss VisiOn, GEM, DESQView, or GEOS ...
...
and then of course there's Amiga
Sure, remote X and multiple desktops are nice and interesting, but how long has THOSE particular features been hanging around? Has there been any sort of "innovative" usability enhancement of that nature recently? No? Ok.
Besides which, remind me, what's the point of windowshading? Is there a useful distinction between windowshading and minimizing that I'm missing out on?
Since the big-name OSS companies/projects obviously aren't interested. The latest Gnome control panel looks just like the XP control panel, down to using the paradigm of tasks. KDE is built to look and act much like Windows. In fact, where is the innovation? Most of the more successful and/or high-profile projects you read about every day seek to duplicate features found in ... Microsoft OSes?
It is certainly true that the Linux kernel plays catch-up to advances made in "the real world". How much longer has Windows (NT) had a journaling filesystem than Linux? How many distros even ship with a journaling file system configuration option? Let's not even get into the subject of USB.
On the other hand you have groups pumping out software with very nice functionality, such as openssh, apache, etc. But for the most part those projects, at least of now and in terms of "innovation", look more like they're resting on their laurels too! (Apache 2.0 betas being a notable exception)
For further information I direct you to Microsoft Research.
I tried using it back when I was running RedHat (ok, it was only a few months ago that I switched to debian), it broke Gnome enough that I had to rip it all out (rpm -e'ing all the *ximian* packages, and all the gnome-related ones as well). But by then I had already seen the full splendor (horror) of what was Gnome 1.4 and I never went back to them or Gnome. Right now if there's anything on my linux box that I can't do in console mode ... I don't do it.
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
So wait, Microsoft is somehow responsible for full compatibility to a standard (1.0, 1998/10) that comes out AFTER the RTM of Windows 98 code (1998/4) and which the first products that adhered to the standard didn't come out until AFTER the release of Windows 98 Second Edition? Seems like they did well to put that support into the Win2K line.
I'd rather just start making fun of it now, given that we see this type of overhyped project every couple of months or so, we can only get so much mileage out of it before the next target comes along ...