Do you really think that Dell people don't know for how much is HP buying M$ licenses and vice versa?
Topicwise, arguments thrown by M$ are just load of crap, as we all know. If they unbundle IE, OE, WMP, IM from Windows, they would have lot of trouble selling this software separatelly. At the same time, they would have to drop the price for Windows because it wouldn't be such a feature rich product.
Now, if Windows price decreases, money has to be made elsewhere - the most logical option being to sell products removed from Windows. But how the hell you sell crap like that if better alternative(s) is(are) already available FOR FREE?
That is the reason they are fighting so hard - not the shape of their product. If they've ever cared, product wouldn't suck, anyway.
This may be a different way of looking at it but I see it as an "endorsement."
This is, in fact, totally different way of looking at it, since this analogy is very poor. Britney's 'principal' business is selling CDs and tour tickets. Although she may earn more by endorsing PEPSI, Coke, Durex, or whatever, it is just the promotion of somebody else's product. OEM_s work in such a way that their products (computers) are useless without somebody else's product (OS).
--
I have to digress here, if that other somebody else is MS, OEM's product is close to useless, anyway.
--
In the climate where one of the OS manufacturers has effective monopoly established AND is using those powers to maintain monoply by penalizing OEM_s for the inclusion of other products, we can't possibly talk about endorsement. It is simply fucking battle to survive!
Linuxconf was not installed by default, since it was breaking a few things. However linuxconf and linuxconf-devel (1.25r-7.3) rpm_s were both included on RH7.2 CD2.
Right in front of me is his column in today's (March 18) issue of ComputerWorld (New Zealand edition). BL is even rewarding a reader who first sent him a tip about the "neat, free or inexpensive utility that don't just make it possible for you to perform a task but actually do the task for you" (BL).
WTF does this mean? I'll get all kiwis to download and install VNC, and then pocket for the tip to MS!
A little off topic but food for thought: when will RedHat get sued for allowing up2date to download a new kernel without running LILO to enable that kernel upon reboot?
I've got no intention to back Red Hat on this but reason may be the fact that default boot loader for the latest version (7.2) is GRUB. As you know, GRUB re-reads it's config file without the need to be re-executed.
On the topic side, there seems to be much more sense to find commercial software companies liable (in some way) for security holes in their products, than OS developers. However, it is very hard for me to imagine a programmer that intentionally leaves or creates such a flaw. To me, intention is a key word here - if one can't prove intentional (evil;op) doing, how can liability be imposed?
In the case of nimda, love bug, etc I think liability would have to be shared between MS and companies that employ ignorant/incompetent sysadmins. MS has done it's bit in providing a patch, that's true but if nothing, they have to be guilty for producing software so prone to malicious code, despite the years (!) long warnings about it.
I mean, if you have 90% of the desktop market, your responsibilities are far greater than what you're responsible to shareholders.
All-in-all, with a bit of effort, it should be possible to create a system which will fairly distinguish between those who just missed it and arrogant, greedy bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
Topicwise, arguments thrown by M$ are just load of crap, as we all know. If they unbundle IE, OE, WMP, IM from Windows, they would have lot of trouble selling this software separatelly. At the same time, they would have to drop the price for Windows because it wouldn't be such a feature rich product.
Now, if Windows price decreases, money has to be made elsewhere - the most logical option being to sell products removed from Windows. But how the hell you sell crap like that if better alternative(s) is(are) already available FOR FREE?
That is the reason they are fighting so hard - not the shape of their product. If they've ever cared, product wouldn't suck, anyway.
If tools (screwdriver, pliers, multimeter) were left inside, that box could have been made self-repareable!
Index of /
Name Last modified Size Description
[DIR] Parent Directory 02-Apr-2002 22:10 -
[DIR] stats/ 02-Apr-2002 22:10 -
Username/password is required for stats directory (Control Panel)
I can't hack [don't know how] but somebody definitelly needs to break the thing in order to fix it.
Who gives a shit about karma? I love when suckers reply!
...but looks like FP opportunity! Why the hell not? . . .
This is, in fact, totally different way of looking at it, since this analogy is very poor. Britney's 'principal' business is selling CDs and tour tickets. Although she may earn more by endorsing PEPSI, Coke, Durex, or whatever, it is just the promotion of somebody else's product. OEM_s work in such a way that their products (computers) are useless without somebody else's product (OS).
--
I have to digress here, if that other somebody else is MS, OEM's product is close to useless, anyway.
--
In the climate where one of the OS manufacturers has effective monopoly established AND is using those powers to maintain monoply by penalizing OEM_s for the inclusion of other products, we can't possibly talk about endorsement. It is simply fucking battle to survive!Yeah, right...
Have you ever tried slamming a revolving door?
of course, i'm just quoting someone, don't know who...
Linuxconf was not installed by default, since it was breaking a few things. However linuxconf and linuxconf-devel (1.25r-7.3) rpm_s were both included on RH7.2 CD2.
Are you saying that your /. activity does not imply intense thinking?
This must be a long-awaited breaktrough for Linux in a desktop market. Problem wasn't "inferrior" GUI, apps or users.
M$ EULA is what we need on every Linux PC!
Well said.
So can BL, the author of this article!
Right in front of me is his column in today's (March 18) issue of ComputerWorld (New Zealand edition). BL is even rewarding a reader who first sent him a tip about the "neat, free or inexpensive utility that don't just make it possible for you to perform a task but actually do the task for you" (BL).
WTF does this mean? I'll get all kiwis to download and install VNC, and then pocket for the tip to MS!
Kidding aside, it still makes me wonder...
Heh, sounds pretty descriptive - I know now it's running (uhm, trying to run) windows of some sort.
Must have had 'thought recognition' turned on... .
Vatican security checked the call with FO though, so he (Pope) never actually answered.
.
I just viThe funniest I've ever seen has to be the one from M.Sobell's "A Practical Guide to Linux":
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
A little off topic but food for thought: when will RedHat get sued for allowing up2date to download a new kernel without running LILO to enable that kernel upon reboot?
I've got no intention to back Red Hat on this but reason may be the fact that default boot loader for the latest version (7.2) is GRUB. As you know, GRUB re-reads it's config file without the need to be re-executed.
On the topic side, there seems to be much more sense to find commercial software companies liable (in some way) for security holes in their products, than OS developers. However, it is very hard for me to imagine a programmer that intentionally leaves or creates such a flaw. To me, intention is a key word here - if one can't prove intentional (evil ;op) doing, how can liability be imposed?
In the case of nimda, love bug, etc I think liability would have to be shared between MS and companies that employ ignorant/incompetent sysadmins. MS has done it's bit in providing a patch, that's true but if nothing, they have to be guilty for producing software so prone to malicious code, despite the years (!) long warnings about it.
I mean, if you have 90% of the desktop market, your responsibilities are far greater than what you're responsible to shareholders.
All-in-all, with a bit of effort, it should be possible to create a system which will fairly distinguish between those who just missed it and arrogant, greedy bastards.
guy in Chicago won't be in any sort of danger. Perhaps spam is the answer...