It could be that noticed pretty quickly, and then spent the rest of the three months watching him and accumulating enough witnesses and other evidence to take action. It may have taken that long if he was being careful about it, using different cars, changing his laptop's MAC address, etc.
The IE component is not part of the Windows kernel
No, but it is a part of the OS. Have I ever claimed that it's part of the kernel?
Thus demonstrating my point a third time. If I tried to claim that KHTML is part of the OS, I'd be slapped down (and rightly so) by hordes of Linux fans explaining that the "OS" is the kernel, not the desktop environment. That technical distinction is just as applicable to Windows as it is to Linux - I'm referring to the implementation details here, not to packaging and marketing arrangements.
My point (the one you're being kind enough to demonstrate for me) is that Linux fans tend to ignore that distinction whenever it gets in the way of taking a cheap shot at Microsoft - just like you're doing right now. Don't get me wrong - I dislike MS's business practices as much as the next guy. I just hate to see the Linux community using the same kind of FUD tactics that MS does. It lowers us to their level, and we don't need that.
As for being Windows-only... I think that shows how short-sited these people are.
Yeah, why would they settle for selling to 90% of the desktop market when they could have given it away to 10%? What morons!:-)
Okay, kidding aside, surely you can see why a commercial vendor might want to go for the big fish first, and save the Mac & *nix ports for later? Even if Linux users were 5x more likely (a made-up number) to embrace something new, that still leaves twice as many potential customers for a Windows version than a Linux version. In business, it's all about the benjamins. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, mind you, I'm just saying that's how it usually works.
I think you've underestimated the level of improvement. I saw a before/after video of this on last night's network news. Before the treatment, the rat's back half was totally paralyzed. After, it was completely mobile, although it did look like one leg was a little stiff. So we're not talking about just being able to wiggle a few toes here, we're talking about getting up and walking around, albeit with a bit of a limp.
A better link for that video would be appreciated, btw - the above requires IE and MS Media Player.
I'm afraid you have. The IE component is not part of the Windows kernel. That's a fact, and none of the stuff you keep ranting about changes that fact. My point (which you have demonstrated twice now) is that Linux fans will insist on pretending that "but M$ is eeevilll!" or "but M$ limits choice!" is somehow relevant to the way in which the IE component is implemented.
Why shouldn't the courts be involved in "people's personal (and personally funded) computers"?
Look at the state of medical care in the US today. The "sue first, ask questions later" mentality has driven malpractice premiums through the roof. It's to the point where some doctors are reluctant to do certain high-risk procedures, others are relocating to states with ceilings on malpractice payouts, and still others are leaving the practice of medicine entirely. The same trend, if applied to the PC industry, would result in PCs that cost $5000 so that Dell could afford to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars each year for "pain and suffering" claims.
I'm not saying that all lawsuits are pointless, just that too many are. A laptop that explodes and renders your prospects of future parenthood null and void is certainly grounds for a lawsuit, assuming the explosion was the result of negligence on the manufacturer's part. But let's be realistic - how much "pain and suffering" is really involved in being "forced" to reboot into safe mode?
Reminding you once again that any privacy policy that includes the clause that it can be changed at any time with minimal notification and no consent is no privacy policy at all.
It reminds me of job descriptions that include a long list of duties, and at the end say "additional duties as assigned." The catch-all at the end renders the rest of the list moot; they could have simply stated "duties: do what you're told" and been just as accurate.
"They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al - it's just a GUI component that's used by a variety of apps that are bundled with the distribution."
I can install a basic GNU environment with a Linux kernel, installing no GUI at all.
I can install X (whatever variety I feel like) and use a WM like TWM, or FVWM, or Afterstep, or Enlightenment, that don't have web components.
I can install Gnome, and use Galeon or not as my choice (so long as Mozilla is available for rendering).
I can install KDE, which does have some tie-in to its browser for basic stuff, but I don't have to use it and I can minimise the amount of interface that it gives me, as well as install another browser (Mozilla, Galeon, Opera) BY DEFAULT when installing KDE and set that browser as the default, from a fresh, brand new install.
I can install Gnome and KDE both, pick Gnome as my windowmanager, and use Konqueror for my web browser.
I can install KDE and Gnome both, pick KDE as my windowmanager, and use Galeon for my web browser as long as Mozilla is on there.
Yes, you can do these things. How precisely do any of these statements disprove, or even relate to my assertion that IE is just a component that's part of the Windows distribution, not part of the Windows kernel?
More to the point, my assertion was (and is) that any attempt to have a nonpartisan technical discussion concerning a MS product on this site will inevitably be hijacked and turned into a debate about monopolies, corporate ethics, etc. As proof of that, I give you this entire thread.
What I'm trying (and obviously, failing...) to point out is that the hard-line distinction made by many (obviously not all) Linux zealots between "operating system", "distribution", and "windowing environment" tends to be conveniently forgotten when it comes time to take a cheap shot at Microsoft.
they make that "hard line distinction", because it really does exist! It might not exist in Windows, but it MOST CERTAINLY exists in Linux. Windows is different since there is no such separation there.
It exists in Windows too. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point.
While all of the above is quite accurate, none of it has the first thing to do with the fact that IE is part of the Windows distribution, not the Windows kernel. The above does support my statement that Linux fans tend to be touchy about such distinctions when it comes to their favorite OS, while at the same time tending to ignore them when it comes to Windows.
Frankly, I find it kind of bizarre. Windows has plenty of real problems to complain about - why bother with straw men???
I think maybe you need to improve your understanding of exactly what a monopoly is
And now come the predictable personal attacks. I know what a monopoly is, and I've no problem with MS being slapped down for abusing theirs. I was cheering for Stac Industries when most of the people here were in diapers, and happily using clone 286 chips (25Mhz! W00t!) from Harris back when 640k really *was* enough for everyone.
What I'm trying (and obviously, failing...) to point out is that the hard-line distinction made by many (obviously not all) Linux zealots between "operating system", "distribution", and "windowing environment" tends to be conveniently forgotten when it comes time to take a cheap shot at Microsoft. They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al - it's just a GUI component that's used by a variety of apps that are bundled with the distribution.
Another thing that rabid MS-bashers tend to conveniently ignore is that MS are not the only ones to include such a component - in fact I can't think of a single GUI desktop environment today that doesn't include one. Obviously a lot of people outside of Microsoft agree that the basic idea was a good one.
Where MS went wrong (and fell afoul of the law) was in refusing to allow OEMs to replace the default HTML widget. That was a policy decision that had nothing at all to do with the technical implementation.
See what I mean? Score - 0, Troll. There's a double-standard here regarding IE's bundled components and anyone else's. The moderators know it, and they bury any comment that doesn't parrot the party line.
... is exactly what drove me away from Microsoft in the first place.
Can I assume you're equally adamant about the browser components included with KDE (KHTML), GNOME (I forget the name, but it's there), and Mac OS X (WebKit/KHTML)?
Mine came from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. You might have seen the story about the stolen laptop on the news. If the most well-funded military in the world can't keep a lid on our personal data, who can?
Nope. I picked up that expression ages ago, I think from Bugs Bunny or some other "talking animal" toon, when I was too young to even understand terms like "furry" or "cosplay".
Slashdot Mirror
It could be that noticed pretty quickly, and then spent the rest of the three months watching him and accumulating enough witnesses and other evidence to take action. It may have taken that long if he was being careful about it, using different cars, changing his laptop's MAC address, etc.
My point (the one you're being kind enough to demonstrate for me) is that Linux fans tend to ignore that distinction whenever it gets in the way of taking a cheap shot at Microsoft - just like you're doing right now. Don't get me wrong - I dislike MS's business practices as much as the next guy. I just hate to see the Linux community using the same kind of FUD tactics that MS does. It lowers us to their level, and we don't need that.
Okay, kidding aside, surely you can see why a commercial vendor might want to go for the big fish first, and save the Mac & *nix ports for later? Even if Linux users were 5x more likely (a made-up number) to embrace something new, that still leaves twice as many potential customers for a Windows version than a Linux version. In business, it's all about the benjamins. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, mind you, I'm just saying that's how it usually works.
A better link for that video would be appreciated, btw - the above requires IE and MS Media Player.
I'm not saying that all lawsuits are pointless, just that too many are. A laptop that explodes and renders your prospects of future parenthood null and void is certainly grounds for a lawsuit, assuming the explosion was the result of negligence on the manufacturer's part. But let's be realistic - how much "pain and suffering" is really involved in being "forced" to reboot into safe mode?
More to the point, my assertion was (and is) that any attempt to have a nonpartisan technical discussion concerning a MS product on this site will inevitably be hijacked and turned into a debate about monopolies, corporate ethics, etc. As proof of that, I give you this entire thread.
While all of the above is quite accurate, none of it has the first thing to do with the fact that IE is part of the Windows distribution, not the Windows kernel. The above does support my statement that Linux fans tend to be touchy about such distinctions when it comes to their favorite OS, while at the same time tending to ignore them when it comes to Windows.
Frankly, I find it kind of bizarre. Windows has plenty of real problems to complain about - why bother with straw men???
What I'm trying (and obviously, failing...) to point out is that the hard-line distinction made by many (obviously not all) Linux zealots between "operating system", "distribution", and "windowing environment" tends to be conveniently forgotten when it comes time to take a cheap shot at Microsoft. They go on about how IE is "part of the OS", when it's really not all that different from KHTML et al - it's just a GUI component that's used by a variety of apps that are bundled with the distribution.
Another thing that rabid MS-bashers tend to conveniently ignore is that MS are not the only ones to include such a component - in fact I can't think of a single GUI desktop environment today that doesn't include one. Obviously a lot of people outside of Microsoft agree that the basic idea was a good one.
Where MS went wrong (and fell afoul of the law) was in refusing to allow OEMs to replace the default HTML widget. That was a policy decision that had nothing at all to do with the technical implementation.
See what I mean? Score - 0, Troll. There's a double-standard here regarding IE's bundled components and anyone else's. The moderators know it, and they bury any comment that doesn't parrot the party line.
Mine came from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. You might have seen the story about the stolen laptop on the news. If the most well-funded military in the world can't keep a lid on our personal data, who can?
In Soviet Russian HD, Drew Barrimorski reaches out of the screen and feels you up.
What are you going on about? "Technologist" is a legitimate term and correctly spelled. "Notus", on the other paw...