Microsoft probably doesn't really care about ODF because the vast majority of its customers really don't give a damn what the other 1% of people who don't use Microsoft Office are scheming about.
No, you're wrong. The vast majority of MS Office users would care about ODF, but they never heard about it and don't even know what it is. The vast majority of the people using MS Office use it because it supports the file format that everybody else uses. They don't give a damn about the few features MS Office has which OpenOffice.org doesn't. All they want is to use a word processor and spreadshit that support the file format that most people use. If MS Office were to move to ODF, people would be able to choose their office program based on their price and features, not on the file format they support. But Microsoft doesn't want that...
Is this a joke ? AntiTrust is not realistic at all ! Is someone looking at some random C code for 2 seconds and saying "this code is perfect !" realistic ? Is stealing code using videos cameras hidden in the developers houses realistic ? Especially when this code is open source and available on the internet. That's 2 unrealistic things I can remember, but there are many more in this crappy movie.
Ho, that's a lot different if that's books explaining the legal and investigative process. There is nothing wrong with buying a book like this when you know you are investigated, anyone would want to do that.
where does the money come from to pay all these devs that apparently should get paid according to the comments here?
You don't have to sell something to make money. Most of the linux kernel developers are paid for their work on the linux kernel, yet the linux kernel is not beeing sold. This could be the same for Debian. A lot of companies are using Debian and rely on it. They could pay some of their employes to be debian contributors. I don't know for Debian, but this is how things work in many open source projects.
First of all, the last time I used an RPM-based distro, I don't recall it having any higher-level tools like yum or whatever. I suppose I could claim that apt or portage is better than nothing at all, which was what was provided on that distro -- would that make you feel better?
Mandriva has had urpmi in the default install for years. RedHat/Fedora has yum. You can even install apt-rpm if you want. Suse also has a package manager. Which distro are you talking about that come without that kind of thing ?
Also, how about I amend my statement to say that "Gentoo and Debian's package management systems work better than Red Hat's?" Is that okay?
Think of it this way: FreeDOS could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
Your comparison between FreeDOS and a modern OS like Linux is ridiculous, this is not comparable to deb vs rpm.
Think of it this way: FreeBSD could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
I guess some people would chose FreeBSD, while some others would chose Linux, for differents reasons. Same here, some chose dpkg/deb and some rpm. Both have good reasons, there is not ONE good choice.
Also, for the big fundamental difference you're talking about, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. An rpm can depend on a file, but it can depends on packages or virtual packages too, including specific versions of a package.
Why bother? dpkg/deb is maintained and does everything that rpm does.
Why bother moving to dpkg/deb ? RPM will be maintained and does everything that dpkg/deb does.
The choice in this case is between the unmaintained rpm and the maintained dpkg. If it really bothers redhat, just fork dpkg and call it rpm.
No, rpm will be maintained. So the choice is between a tool that you know and have been using for years, vs a tool that you don't know as much, and for which a switch would cause a lot of trouble, without any real benefits.
By the way, apt and Portage come a Hell of a lot closer to your "ideal package system" than RPM does.
Could you give more details about why you think apt is a lot closer to that "ideal package system" than RPM is ?
By the way, apt is not the same as RPM, either talk about dpkg, or compare apt with urpmi/yum/smart... how can you say that apt is better that RPM ? That's like saying Linux is better than a computer, it doesn't mean anything.
Look at the linux kernel source code, and you'll find some GOTOs. When used correctly, it is no problem at all, and it makes the code much more simple.
So there is definitly some cases where using a goto is a good thing.
I doubt Red Hat will die in the near futur. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in business in 2010.
it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?
And it's Steve Ballmer's job to let people beleive Red Hat will be out of business by 2010. And I see no reason to trust Steve Ballmer more than him. And it's not like it's the first time Steve Ballmer is spreading FUD...
Whatever will happens, we'll see, but I see no reason to be afraid of what will happen to Red Hat now.
Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.
Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.
CP/M. DR-DOS. Amiga. BeOS. Ring any bells? No? A small selection of the OS's that were from groups of determined individuals and companies that were supposed to be major competition for an MS operating system. Somehow, Microsoft outcompeted them. Crushed, rended, destroyed. Remnant development and fond memories are pretty much what's left. What you just said constitutes wishful thinking, but based on past experience, that's all it is,
Internet was not what it is today. The internet is what allows people to develop Linux so efficiently.
Companies like Microsoft had a chance before the internet, but today they have to do open source if they want to be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft probably doesn't really care about ODF because the vast majority of its customers really don't give a damn what the other 1% of people who don't use Microsoft Office are scheming about.
...
No, you're wrong. The vast majority of MS Office users would care about ODF, but they never heard about it and don't even know what it is. The vast majority of the people using MS Office use it because it supports the file format that everybody else uses. They don't give a damn about the few features MS Office has which OpenOffice.org doesn't. All they want is to use a word processor and spreadshit that support the file format that most people use. If MS Office were to move to ODF, people would be able to choose their office program based on their price and features, not on the file format they support. But Microsoft doesn't want that
Yes, that sounds interesting and I bookmarked this some time ago. But never had time to read it yet.
I bookmark a lot of things too. However, I never look back at my bookmarks, it's write-only.
This is interesting. I bought the book a few months ago, but never had time to read it. It's on my TODO list.
Is this a joke ?
AntiTrust is not realistic at all !
Is someone looking at some random C code for 2 seconds and saying "this code is perfect !" realistic ?
Is stealing code using videos cameras hidden in the developers houses realistic ? Especially when this code is open source and available on the internet.
That's 2 unrealistic things I can remember, but there are many more in this crappy movie.
Ho, that's a lot different if that's books explaining the legal and investigative process. There is nothing wrong with buying a book like this when you know you are investigated, anyone would want to do that.
Alternatively, this is a good opportunity to help fund the freedom of a possible murderer.
Or to help fund the freedom of a possible innocent.
Who knows ?
Someone could have broken his car windows, and put some blood on the seat.
By the way, you have to be really stupid to buy murdering books, and keep them when you're done.
So either he is really stupid, or someone did that for him, or he made it too obvious to look real.
Yes, it's always possible to imagine something worse. That doesn't mean it's good.
where does the money come from to pay all these devs that apparently should get paid according to the comments here?
You don't have to sell something to make money. Most of the linux kernel developers are paid for their work on the linux kernel, yet the linux kernel is not beeing sold.
This could be the same for Debian. A lot of companies are using Debian and rely on it. They could pay some of their employes to be debian contributors. I don't know for Debian, but this is how things work in many open source projects.
First of all, the last time I used an RPM-based distro, I don't recall it having any higher-level tools like yum or whatever. I suppose I could claim that apt or portage is better than nothing at all, which was what was provided on that distro -- would that make you feel better?
Mandriva has had urpmi in the default install for years. RedHat/Fedora has yum. You can even install apt-rpm if you want. Suse also has a package manager. Which distro are you talking about that come without that kind of thing ?
Also, how about I amend my statement to say that "Gentoo and Debian's package management systems work better than Red Hat's?" Is that okay?
That's not true.
Think of it this way: FreeDOS could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
Your comparison between FreeDOS and a modern OS like Linux is ridiculous, this is not comparable to deb vs rpm.
Think of it this way: FreeBSD could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
I guess some people would chose FreeBSD, while some others would chose Linux, for differents reasons. Same here, some chose dpkg/deb and some rpm. Both have good reasons, there is not ONE good choice.
Also, for the big fundamental difference you're talking about, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. An rpm can depend on a file, but it can depends on packages or virtual packages too, including specific versions of a package.
Fedora should raise the bar and choose the best tools for the job.
What makes you think RPM is not the best tool for this job ?
I can't count the number of times I've heard someone say they tried Fedora but gave up because of package dependency / conflict resolution problems.
This has nothing to do with using RPM. The same kind of problems could happen with dpkg/deb.
Why bother? dpkg/deb is maintained and does everything that rpm does.
Why bother moving to dpkg/deb ? RPM will be maintained and does everything that dpkg/deb does.
The choice in this case is between the unmaintained rpm and the maintained dpkg. If it really bothers redhat, just fork dpkg and call it rpm.
No, rpm will be maintained. So the choice is between a tool that you know and have been using for years, vs a tool that you don't know as much, and for which a switch would cause a lot of trouble, without any real benefits.
By the way, apt and Portage come a Hell of a lot closer to your "ideal package system" than RPM does.
... how can you say that apt is better that RPM ? That's like saying Linux is better than a computer, it doesn't mean anything.
Could you give more details about why you think apt is a lot closer to that "ideal package system" than RPM is ?
By the way, apt is not the same as RPM, either talk about dpkg, or compare apt with urpmi/yum/smart
Actually RPM now stands for Rpm Package Manager.
What about Mandrake/Mandriva ?
...
I don't agree with your list of the hot distribution
Actually I think nobody will agree on what distribution is or was the hot distribution, so this list is quite pointless.
Why is this comment rated informative ?
For thoses who are interested, look at this page :
http://kvm.sourceforge.net/faq.html
It is the same thing, but it is actually readable.
You can do that in VMWare player and VMWare server, both of which are free (as in beer).
You mean I can get drunk if I use them too much ?
Look at the linux kernel source code, and you'll find some GOTOs. When used correctly, it is no problem at all, and it makes the code much more simple.
So there is definitly some cases where using a goto is a good thing.
I doubt Red Hat will die in the near futur. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in business in 2010.
...
it's his job to present a brave face and reassuring words for stockholders, isn't it?
And it's Steve Ballmer's job to let people beleive Red Hat will be out of business by 2010. And I see no reason to trust Steve Ballmer more than him. And it's not like it's the first time Steve Ballmer is spreading FUD
Whatever will happens, we'll see, but I see no reason to be afraid of what will happen to Red Hat now.
Most shops simply cannot afford to run an unsupported configuration, so they will likely migrate their existing SuSE and Red Hat installations to Unbreakable Linux.
Or hopefully they'll migrate instead their existing Oracle installations to MySQL or PostgreSQL or anything that is free software.
9. Have fun coding. Make it a personal challenge. Reallize a job is just for paying the bills. Your much more free than you realize.
...
A job can be not only for paying the bills, but can also be fun. But it might take some time to find the right job
Yes, you might not be confident storing your porn remotly. But any OS can store porn, it doesn't matter what OS you're runny.
The change is not that we won't be running an OS anymore, it's that it doesn't matter as much which one we're running.
CP/M. DR-DOS. Amiga. BeOS. Ring any bells? No? A small selection of the OS's that were from groups of determined individuals and companies that were supposed to be major competition for an MS operating system. Somehow, Microsoft outcompeted them. Crushed, rended, destroyed. Remnant development and fond memories are pretty much what's left. What you just said constitutes wishful thinking, but based on past experience, that's all it is,
Internet was not what it is today. The internet is what allows people to develop Linux so efficiently.
Companies like Microsoft had a chance before the internet, but today they have to do open source if they want to be successful.