They'd have to make the names more different, in anticipation of future licence model changes, they'll have to stop calling non-OEM windows offerings "Dell" products.....
But in the first instance, the government is forced to exclude people like microsoft, oracle etc who all sell "closed" software. I'd prefer a law which forced government to consider software on its merits, including use and so called "freedom" issues.
all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.
How is a law forcing government to "choose" open software better than Microsofts initiative forcing people to "choose" Microsoft?
Microsoft is just not comfortable with no OS installed, which means that the user will have to 'find' an OS, that might just be Windows.
There's a bit more to it that that. What this means is that Dell can no longer offer a Model installed with Windows and a non microsoft OS. If Model A comes with OEM windows, Model A cannot be offered as Model A with any other OS. If Dell wish to offer Model A with, say, RedHat Linux, they'll have to brand it as another Model.
This kills dual bootable options and forces suppliers to offer confusing product lines. Imagine the extra money this will take up in Advertising and Admin costs. At the end of the day, some OEMs will find it cheaper to sell only Windows offerings.
Ah, but you're assuming that the more education a person has the more likely they are to earn more. This may be generally the case, but in specific instances, educated people may earn less than the sum of their education, if that makes sense. The reverse is also true. There are plenty of self-made people out there who don't have college degrees but who earn or have "made" alot of wonga. I just ain't one of them! Which means that generally, I can't afford to pay big money for little pleasures.
"counterfeiters flood markets with their underpriced products and steal a great deal of revenue." I think not. If I can't afford to pay for a copy of Windows I won't be buying one from Microsoft regardless of the availability of "counterfeits". If I can't afford, I can't afford. It's the same with CDs - they're way too expensive. I can't pay for what I can't afford. If software and CDs were cheaper, I'd spend far more of my megre disposable on them. But they're not, so I can't. It's about time that people like this Congressman faced up to the fact that consumers are being ripped off by monopolistic corporates,
redwolfoz scribbles "Fresh Scientist reports dat American defence contractors,
Lockheed Martin an' Raytheon, be developin' some 100-kilowatt infrared lasa'
waipon 4 da F-3-fuckin'-5 Joint Strike Fighta' dat may be powerful 'nuff t'
blind sucka's on da ground, even if they be relative-like fah' from da target."
In some major report from da Tripa-A-fuckin'-S, Eugene Spafford, directa' o'
C-E-R-I-A-fuckin'-S, summarizes da many risks t'our 4-1-1 infrastructure (down
low, viruses, bugs, single points o' aborshun, etc.), deir causes (down low,
'esplosive growt', primacy o' time-t'-market ova' quality, lack o' support 4
basic 4-1-1 security research, etc.), an' da damn negative effects o' da damn
D-M-C-fuckin'-A, C-B-D-T-P-fuckin'-A, an' otha' corporate maneuva's."
The use of liquid disk bearings and the subsequent discussion about drive noise bring to mind a question I've been meaning to ask for some time.
I've noticed that my drive (20GB unbranded, 4GB ext3 partition, 16GB FAT32 partition) under Linux makes much more noise than it does under Windows2000.
A couple of years back when I first got Linux installed (SuSE5,2) on a different drive in a different machine, I noticed that the drive made less noise under linux than it did under Win95.
Has anyone else noticed anything similar? Is there a reason for this? Should I be using a different format (Reiser, XFS or whatever)?
Don't come back home just yet! Things here in the UK are pretty bad right now. All the big IT service consultancies have had redundancy rounds recently and I remember hearing the BAe were trimming their workforce too. Things ain't good right now.
When I pressed irRational when the unix tools would be similarly improved they gave the patronizing answer that unix customer's don't want good admin tools. Was this really what was said, or did they say, "unix customers don't want to use GUIs"?? Seems to me from reading Slashdot regularly, that *nix people prefer command lines for sys admin/programming/source control stuff. Plus when writing code for windows, it's natural to include a GUI for apps which have user interaction. Meanwhile, in the *nix world, first you have to decide which toolkit to use, then you need to decided if that's going to fit your chosen programming language etc. It's a different ballgame. For instance, does subversion have a GUI?
I was thinking about something like this recently. However, I envisioned it using XUL/XPCOM. If Moz/Netscape were as prolific as they were 4 years ago, this sort of tech could take over the world.
This certainly takes the encroachment of commercial messages on public space to new levels." I'd say it plumbs new depths, but clearly it's a stunt to advertise for that game, wassitcalled now...? Er..I've already forgotten what they were advertising. I think my short attention span is an evolved self defence mechanism against all the advertising exposure I'm subjected to!
They can change their infrastructure as much as they like - what they can't change is the fact that the APIs are out there, they're implemented and they're being used. That means that so long as MONO mirrors those apis, mono apps will always work with the original.NET framework. It's like all the old Windows 3 programs which still run on XP - Microsoft can't afford to ditch old APIs. Once.NET reaches critical mass (ie the point at which there's so much software that "changing their infrstructure" breaks code) MONO needs only be implemented to that standard and then we're all home and dry.
For better or worse,.NET is seeing a huge take up. Any developers using VB, ASP or Visual C++ are likely to be migrating to the.NET framework on Windows platforms. For that reason, I'd like to see a full and free implementation of.NET on linux - especially the webservice APIS and the Windows.Forms namespace stuff. GTK# seems to exist in it's own namespace at present, which means that GUI apps written using c# on Linux won't work natively on.NET for Windows. If the Windows.Forms stuff is implemented as GTK widgets in MONO or whatever, then that level of compatability would be achieved. For the interested, the.NET framework is free(beer) for windows and there's a free(speech) alternative to VisualStudio shaping up already.
.Net isn't as portable as it's made out to be - yet. AFAIK, the GTK# bindings are differerent to the Windows.Forms namnespace which Mickeysoft supply with their.net framework. So until XIMIAN/AN-OTHER reimplement the Windows.Forms namespace (all the Windows widgets basically) as GTK components, a Windows.NET GUI won't work in GNOME. Also of interest; The.NET framework is available as a free download for windows. Also, you don't need to buy/warez Visual Studio.NET - there is a Free (GPL) alternative which is shaping up quite nicely; SharpDevelop
Slashdot readers may find that some of the material in this book is intuitively obvious.
An ironic statement, no doubt, especially in the light of the earlier Gnome2 review thread!!!!
Re:it seems the US is the only decent place net wi
on
Ghana's Digital Dilemma
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Our broadband is as inexpensive and as available as our world cup victories.
I won't be migrating to Linux until the desktop environments become more stable and intuitive, and the officetools become more powerful and easier to use.
Also, i won't be migrating until people start to produce and support all the music software i can get for windows - eg Cubase, Fruityloops etc.
Is Linux wholly and completely ready for every desktop in the way that Winblows is?
The answer is NO!!
People are happy to claim OpenOffice as a successful Open Source project, but how many remember that the bulk of code in Open Office was produced as a closed source propritary program?
I'm looking forward to the day KOffice becomes as usefully featured as MS word and a little more stable tham it is now. Same for KSpread, KPresenter etc. These are the OpenSource projects people need to get behind.
Or perhaps the fact that a product can only be successful against entrenched competition if it has been spawned by a large commercial entity, or is living in the shadow of a product being sold by that entity, tells us alot about the willingness of the Great Unwashed to accept OpenSource software.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd have to make the names more different, in anticipation of future licence model changes, they'll have to stop calling non-OEM windows offerings "Dell" products.....
But in the first instance, the government is forced to exclude people like microsoft, oracle etc who all sell "closed" software. I'd prefer a law which forced government to consider software on its merits, including use and so called "freedom" issues.
all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.
How is a law forcing government to "choose" open software better than Microsofts initiative forcing people to "choose" Microsoft?
Microsoft is just not comfortable with no OS installed, which means that the user will have to 'find' an OS, that might just be Windows.
There's a bit more to it that that. What this means is that Dell can no longer offer a Model installed with Windows and a non microsoft OS. If Model A comes with OEM windows, Model A cannot be offered as Model A with any other OS. If Dell wish to offer Model A with, say, RedHat Linux, they'll have to brand it as another Model.
This kills dual bootable options and forces suppliers to offer confusing product lines. Imagine the extra money this will take up in Advertising and Admin costs. At the end of the day, some OEMs will find it cheaper to sell only Windows offerings.
and a small percentage of what does grow produces grossly deformed kernels
Which kernel are we taking here? Mach, Linux, NT?
Can someone do the Math please?
Should give Lindows a run for its money. Who says Linux is dead on the desktop? ;-)"
Only the KDE Nay-saysers
Ah, but you're assuming that the more education a person has the more likely they are to earn more. This may be generally the case, but in specific instances, educated people may earn less than the sum of their education, if that makes sense.
The reverse is also true. There are plenty of self-made people out there who don't have college degrees but who earn or have "made" alot of wonga. I just ain't one of them! Which means that generally, I can't afford to pay big money for little pleasures.
"counterfeiters flood markets with their underpriced products and steal a great deal of revenue."
I think not. If I can't afford to pay for a copy of Windows I won't be buying one from Microsoft regardless of the availability of "counterfeits". If I can't afford, I can't afford. It's the same with CDs - they're way too expensive. I can't pay for what I can't afford. If software and CDs were cheaper, I'd spend far more of my megre disposable on them. But they're not, so I can't.
It's about time that people like this Congressman faced up to the fact that consumers are being ripped off by monopolistic corporates,
redwolfoz scribbles "Fresh Scientist reports dat American defence contractors, Lockheed Martin an' Raytheon, be developin' some 100-kilowatt infrared lasa' waipon 4 da F-3-fuckin'-5 Joint Strike Fighta' dat may be powerful 'nuff t' blind sucka's on da ground, even if they be relative-like fah' from da target."
In some major report from da Tripa-A-fuckin'-S, Eugene Spafford, directa' o' C-E-R-I-A-fuckin'-S, summarizes da many risks t'our 4-1-1 infrastructure (down low, viruses, bugs, single points o' aborshun, etc.), deir causes (down low, 'esplosive growt', primacy o' time-t'-market ova' quality, lack o' support 4 basic 4-1-1 security research, etc.), an' da damn negative effects o' da damn D-M-C-fuckin'-A, C-B-D-T-P-fuckin'-A, an' otha' corporate maneuva's."
The use of liquid disk bearings and the subsequent discussion about drive noise bring to mind a question I've been meaning to ask for some time. I've noticed that my drive (20GB unbranded, 4GB ext3 partition, 16GB FAT32 partition) under Linux makes much more noise than it does under Windows2000. A couple of years back when I first got Linux installed (SuSE5,2) on a different drive in a different machine, I noticed that the drive made less noise under linux than it did under Win95. Has anyone else noticed anything similar? Is there a reason for this? Should I be using a different format (Reiser, XFS or whatever)?
Don't come back home just yet! Things here in the UK are pretty bad right now. All the big IT service consultancies have had redundancy rounds recently and I remember hearing the BAe were trimming their workforce too. Things ain't good right now.
When I pressed irRational when the unix tools would be similarly improved they gave the patronizing answer that unix customer's don't want good admin tools.
Was this really what was said, or did they say, "unix customers don't want to use GUIs"??
Seems to me from reading Slashdot regularly, that *nix people prefer command lines for sys admin/programming/source control stuff. Plus when writing code for windows, it's natural to include a GUI for apps which have user interaction.
Meanwhile, in the *nix world, first you have to decide which toolkit to use, then you need to decided if that's going to fit your chosen programming language etc. It's a different ballgame.
For instance, does subversion have a GUI?
I was thinking about something like this recently. However, I envisioned it using XUL/XPCOM. If Moz/Netscape were as prolific as they were 4 years ago, this sort of tech could take over the world.
This certainly takes the encroachment of commercial messages on public space to new levels."
I'd say it plumbs new depths, but clearly it's a stunt to advertise for that game, wassitcalled now...? Er..I've already forgotten what they were advertising.
I think my short attention span is an evolved self defence mechanism against all the advertising exposure I'm subjected to!
They can change their infrastructure as much as they like - what they can't change is the fact that the APIs are out there, they're implemented and they're being used. That means that so long as MONO mirrors those apis, mono apps will always work with the original .NET framework. .NET reaches critical mass (ie the point at which there's so much software that "changing their infrstructure" breaks code) MONO needs only be implemented to that standard and then we're all home and dry.
It's like all the old Windows 3 programs which still run on XP - Microsoft can't afford to ditch old APIs. Once
For better or worse, .NET is seeing a huge take up. Any developers using VB, ASP or Visual C++ are likely to be migrating to the .NET framework on Windows platforms. For that reason, I'd like to see a full and free implementation of .NET on linux - especially the webservice APIS and the Windows.Forms namespace stuff. .NET for Windows. If the Windows.Forms stuff is implemented as GTK widgets in MONO or whatever, then that level of compatability would be achieved. .NET framework is free(beer) for windows and there's a free(speech) alternative to VisualStudio shaping up already.
GTK# seems to exist in it's own namespace at present, which means that GUI apps written using c# on Linux won't work natively on
For the interested, the
.Net isn't as portable as it's made out to be - yet. AFAIK, the GTK# bindings are differerent to the Windows.Forms namnespace which Mickeysoft supply with their .net framework. .NET GUI won't work in GNOME. .NET framework is available as a free download for windows. Also, you don't need to buy/warez Visual Studio.NET - there is a Free (GPL) alternative which is shaping up quite nicely; SharpDevelop
So until XIMIAN/AN-OTHER reimplement the Windows.Forms namespace (all the Windows widgets basically) as GTK components, a Windows
Also of interest; The
Someone finally acknowledging that OpenSource/Free(beer) software actually has an associated cost - what next? Wait - is that a flying pig I see?
Microsoft can only dominate your living room if you own a television.
Slashdot readers may find that some of the material in this book is intuitively obvious.
An ironic statement, no doubt, especially in the light of the earlier Gnome2 review thread!!!!
Our broadband is as inexpensive and as available as our world cup victories.
I won't be migrating to Linux until the desktop environments become more stable and intuitive, and the officetools become more powerful and easier to use.
Also, i won't be migrating until people start to produce and support all the music software i can get for windows - eg Cubase, Fruityloops etc.
Is Linux wholly and completely ready for every desktop in the way that Winblows is?
The answer is NO!!
People are happy to claim OpenOffice as a successful Open Source project, but how many remember that the bulk of code in Open Office was produced as a closed source propritary program? I'm looking forward to the day KOffice becomes as usefully featured as MS word and a little more stable tham it is now. Same for KSpread, KPresenter etc. These are the OpenSource projects people need to get behind. Or perhaps the fact that a product can only be successful against entrenched competition if it has been spawned by a large commercial entity, or is living in the shadow of a product being sold by that entity, tells us alot about the willingness of the Great Unwashed to accept OpenSource software.