... how the relationship between Microsoft and Novell will develop after the third and IMHO funniest of the clips (I had laughing tears).
Microsoft had bribed Novell into implicitely accepting the notion of an existence of some Microsoft Intellectual Property in Linux. And in that third clip, PC admits to running Linux after a brief and fluffy denial.
I wonder if the moderator who modded me 'Troll' has had a chance to compare the ads from Apple and Novell. The Apple ads *are* crisp and the Novell ones are comparatively blurry. No idea what makes this hint a 'Troll'.
Just have a look yourself. Am I the only one who considers this to constitute a hidden advantage for Apple ?
So sad. I am no MAC fanboy. Still, the quality of the Quicktime beats the meagre MPGs hands down. Had Novell had any senses, they would have offered a technical quality at par or even better than Apple. So sad. Linux would have deserved better. Maybe Novell not.
--- I am not indecisive. I only can't make up my mind.
It's simple, they haven't changed monopoly thinking. They have not recognised their actions could or would have consumers looking at alternatives. They were fully expecting everyone to migrate to Vista. Vista has had a pretty cool reception.
Very much so. Let me add my blog here on what I observed last weekend w.r.t. piracy of Vista:
Last weekend saw me in Low Yat, the almost world-famous place as far as 'cheap' software is concerned. No, I don't buy my software in Low Yat, I download legal software for free from the notorious places like Debian and GnuSolaris. My visit had to make with my dire need of some RAM.
Most obvious and visible as a non-event was the latest event of Microsoft. Vista launched officially on January 31st, 2007. I was in Imbi Plaza in 1998 after Windows 98 had been released. So I was for Windows ME and for W2K in 2000, as well as in 2001 after the launch of XP. Then, you could watch the sales-show of crowds of locals and Mat Sallehs, the 'white men', grep-ing their copy; and many of the latter customers taking copies for their friends and relatives back home; for at least until a legal version showed, from the employer or an OEM.
Dead. This year, dead. Low Yat was crowded as always on weekends, but the crowds would rather bother about the 4 GB thumb drives for US$ 25 and whatnot; but leave the blueish DVDs with the famous logo once too often aside like stale bread. I did ask a salesperson and was qoted RM 10 (US$2.5) immediately. Ultimate Professional Premium, whatever that version is called. Meaning, with a bit of haggling I'd made off with the almost original Vista DVD for probably RM 8 (US$2). 'Almost original', because it was said to contain all necessary cracks to avoid legal problems like product activation. In any case, I didn't dare to start dealing. In the end I might have had to buy it, and to me any write-once medium with Windows on it is a coaster anyway.
Now, that makes me wonder about those numbers published by Steve Ballmer, when he first said the uptake was slow and finally - after a dive of the Microsoft shares by 5% - stood corrected by himself, beaming with great sales results. The best I could describe the reception of Vista in Low Yat would be luke-warm. There are - I guess - two reasons for this: either the general public has acquired a deep sense of law-abiding attitudes, or simply couldn't bother less about Vista at all. Your guess which is applicable !
This is the beginning of the end. Not that Microsoft would be bankrupt over five or ten years; surely not. We will see Vista show on most desktops over two years already. Vista will be OEM-ed as one and only pre-installed Windows on new machines. Therefore it will take market share; and it will take a market share above 50%. But the excitement of the general public will wane to a point of almost complete dis-interest and un-excitedness. Exactly the opposite of what happens with Mac and Apple's followship. Since everyone knows that Microsoft products are simply overpriced (or underperforming for their price tags, whichever you prefer), this does smell like the beginning of the end.
I confess it in front of my friends of the FOSS community, while rumbling home in the Monorail, for the first time in my life I had a brief feeling of pity for the employees at Microsoft.
I've used Outlook and the PST file for slightly more than a decade now, through five versions of Outlook. [...] Despite the occasional computer crash, the PST has always been rock-solid for me and never became corrupted.
And I can also say the same for everyone I've ever seen using Outlook in a personal and business environment. At word, Outlook 2000 needed to run the Inbox Cleanup Tool every now and then if there was a bad write, but it always recovered perfectly.
Good for you. I have been using various POP3 and IMAP solutions based on FOSS for around a decade, and always found them to be rock-solid and never corrupted. And I also used these solutions in a personal and business environment.
There is one difference, though: I never needed to run any 'Inbox cleanup tool'.
(Was actually wondering if eventually you expected a 'funny' mod for your post ?)
And really, people generally know Windows more then anything else.
So, their comfort zone is Windows, because it APPEARS easier to manage. (Of course, it's not, it's just as complicated as anything else when you look past the pretty start button.)
I need to disappoint you:
- My experience with my students shows, that they know Windows less than anything else (they only think they know it, because of the colourful start button and stuff).
- My experience as sysadmin (in both worlds) shows, that Windows gets more complicated past the pre-fabbed administration features (which are usually eeasier achieved in Windows).
Call me a licencing nazi, but OO.org is not GPL-ed.
Just FYI: It uses The Lesser GPL (LGPL); so that derivative work could restrict some users' freedom. For the rest, your answer is fine. The suspicion of creative work automatically licenced under the code of the software is simply preposterous. [Waiting for Microsoft to invent this new twist: A copy of your MS-Office documents are auto-sent-to Redmond and from then onwards, you will have to pay for the use of your own documents. Sorry, even for the fair use of your own documents.]
Not a single person walked out with a shred of respect for him.
There is one huge difference in character between RMS and you: RMS says what he thinks, and says who he is. Whereas you are only an Anonymous Coward on 18-02-07 0:26
... I had a say in SUN: Sack the responsible for security. No, not for cheap repay !
Not for the vulnerability as such. Not for the forgotten validity checks. Not for eventually shipping telnetd. (Only Theo & friends can permit to not ship it.)
But:
- For enabling it by default; at install; in 2007
- Worse: for still not running it unprivileged; though that is possible
Whatever the SUNny fanboys have / had to say: Only in Solaris 10 11/06 was it disabled, and only if SBD was selected. This sheds a wholly new light on 'Secure By Default': Disabling telnet ! Yahoo ! - if SBD is set.
Who the hell even THINKS about enabling telnet on any box these days?
It really beats me, how this is 'Insightful' as of now at +4 ??
What also beats me, that a default install of Solaris 10 seems to have it open. Idiots. Was just sitting at one and saying to myself: Let's show it is harmless. And post to Slashdot. And voilà, there I was. Open. Fscking dimwits. No, it wasn't me opening it up. Can't you trust anyone these days ? I really adore Theo's resolve that boxes need to be unlocked instead of locked down.
bother to give me your address ? I'm waiting for one of those planes hitting your neighbourhood. The difference will be, if it is loading with 'safe' nuclear waste or conventional air freight. No, I won't contribute to your tomb-stone if it was said safely air-flown fresh produce.
I started, and by half way thought, I was thinking 'this guy is an idiot
Mod someone this chap up. And give him another mod point for actually reading the article. The good prof from Montfort is either a troll, drunk or an idiot. You can't possibly compare C to Ruby on Rails. If you have a sense of what you say. He probably hasn't. I rather guess he gave in a long time ago to 'soften' the subject, until a better sales-person creeps out of Montfort; leaving a nice sum of tution fee behind. Teaching CS myself, I consider this mixture of a bit of everything, and pleasing the feel-good, of some drap&drop, some multimedia and a grain of business-mindedness a great cheat on the 'customer'. To me - and that's what I work for - CS is a lot of thinking abilities; understanding concepts of networking and protocols, as well as the underpinnings of multimedia. Neil McBride, the author [not eventually a twin brother of that other McBride ?] starts his epos with dwindling enrolment. Saying, he's scared about his position and salary, and asks: How can we get more students into the subject ? Not by just pleasing them, I'm afraid.
But the students are not that gullible.
, so he says. And then: Now vastly complex applications for businesses, for science and for leisure can be developed using sophisticated high-level tools and components. Virtual robots - Zooks - can be created by eight-year olds without needing programming, logic or discrete mathematics skills. Web designers build complex business sites, graphic designers build animations, accountants assemble business systems without needing to go object-oriented.
Kind of contradictory, ain't it !? His first sentence already would make me deregister my child from the good prof. He is good in patching buzzwords together; buzzwords he obviously doesn't understand himself. Then he says, an eight-year-old could do that. What does that imply ? He wants to undercut those kids ?? And I saw a business system 'assembled' (I wonder where he got this term from ??) by an accountant a few months back. It truely didn't 'go object-oriented'. Actually, the system didn't go anywhere.
At times I really wonder how low those editors go to fill the void. - Oh, I forgot, just reading Slashdot !
[Someone else who deserves all mod points that I don't have...]
If Linus keeps playing the stubborn child, what you say can well happen. The only stumbling block when I read your message - aside of the uncertainty if SUN behaves as childish as Linus when giving up their control is concerned - is my curiosity in how far Linux is technically superior and SUN would have difficulties to keep up. I have a distinct feeling that the SUN kernel has some serious advantages over Linux, the kernel. Though I could be wrong.
perhaps RMS will get behind the Nexenta/gnu-solaris project. Maybe someone in the know can explain (to me and others) whether this would meet the needs of a GNU operating system. Nexenta says so on http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/FAQ, but I wouldn't bet on it. Though, the very moment SunOS / better: OpenSolaris gets GPLv3 instead / on top of CDDL, I do bet both him and Eben will put their weight (sorry - no pun intended) behind this combination.
I really wished I had mod points and I'd throw all of them to you for your insightful contribution. Usually, we Linux-es are simply not really aware of SUN's business. If SUN had some business-minded brains instead of technical wizardry, they'd left their singular isolated licensing boat quite a time ago. If Java (now I'm getting OT, I know) had not been hampered by its licensing restrictions since long, the world would look differently. Okay, it would have been forked forth and back; but still, it would be Java.
Now they have the same chance again, as you point out: They have ZFS (why does everyone mention ZFS and not DTrace as well ?!), undoubtedly the most scalable kernel architecture on this globe. And not much revenue from software. IMHO, nothing better than throwing that software to the crowds, together with an offer of big irons and support to run it in your next data center. SUNs persistent problem is mainly too few people being used to and trained on it - exactly opposite to Microsoft that takes advantage of everyone somehow knowing Windows, and used to sell their often inferior software.
Perhaps we can get ZFS into Linux this way. However, with Linus's position about GPLv3...
Can we try to imagine for a minute what the consequences of a move to GPLv3 would be ?
SunOS already runs ZFS. Everything else (except of the kernel, which happens to be called 'Linux') gets upgraded to v3 as well. So you can compile your any-'Linux'-distro on SunOS.
The consequence is obvious: Your - cough, cough - 'Linux' distro does run ZFS. Only, there is much less 'Linux' left in it than RMS would have ever thought when he insisted on GNU/Linux.;)
And no, chances are you will not be able to compile your any-'Linux'-distro on Linux. Think about it.
Good idea, IMHO. Don't forget - now they merge it with Linux,
Will you please answer this one question for me:
If you 'merge' SunOS (that is essentially the kernel) with a GPL-ed system (aside of the kernel), where in the system would Linux be left ?!
Solaris does not have the equivalent of FreeBSD Ports.
Fine, FreeBSD's port collection is pretty good. But you don't seem to understand that - with these moves - you'll do 'apt-get' on Solaris. And that's vastly superior. (And if you still want to make && make install, you 'apt-get source' instead of 'ftp://ftp.freebsd.org')
A reasonable argument rather could be: Which kernel is better, SunOS or FreeBSD. And then chances are, that there will be a shift in momentum.
Slashdot Mirror
would have been fun just as well !
... how the relationship between Microsoft and Novell will develop after the third and IMHO funniest of the clips (I had laughing tears).
Microsoft had bribed Novell into implicitely accepting the notion of an existence of some Microsoft Intellectual Property in Linux.
And in that third clip, PC admits to running Linux after a brief and fluffy denial.
I can't believe that Redmond will be amused.
I wonder if the moderator who modded me 'Troll' has had a chance to compare the ads from Apple and Novell.
The Apple ads *are* crisp and the Novell ones are comparatively blurry.
No idea what makes this hint a 'Troll'.
Just have a look yourself.
Am I the only one who considers this to constitute a hidden advantage for Apple ?
So sad. I am no MAC fanboy.
Still, the quality of the Quicktime beats the meagre MPGs hands down.
Had Novell had any senses, they would have offered a technical quality at par or even better than Apple.
So sad. Linux would have deserved better.
Maybe Novell not.
---
I am not indecisive. I only can't make up my mind.
It's simple, they haven't changed monopoly thinking. They have not recognised their actions could or would have consumers looking at alternatives. They were fully expecting everyone to migrate to Vista. Vista has had a pretty cool reception.
Very much so. Let me add my blog here on what I observed last weekend w.r.t. piracy of Vista:
Last weekend saw me in Low Yat, the almost world-famous place as far as 'cheap' software is concerned. No, I don't buy my software in Low Yat, I download legal software for free from the notorious places like Debian and GnuSolaris. My visit had to make with my dire need of some RAM.
Most obvious and visible as a non-event was the latest event of Microsoft. Vista launched officially on January 31st, 2007. I was in Imbi Plaza in 1998 after Windows 98 had been released. So I was for Windows ME and for W2K in 2000, as well as in 2001 after the launch of XP. Then, you could watch the sales-show of crowds of locals and Mat Sallehs, the 'white men', grep-ing their copy; and many of the latter customers taking copies for their friends and relatives back home; for at least until a legal version showed, from the employer or an OEM.
Dead. This year, dead. Low Yat was crowded as always on weekends, but the crowds would rather bother about the 4 GB thumb drives for US$ 25 and whatnot; but leave the blueish DVDs with the famous logo once too often aside like stale bread. I did ask a salesperson and was qoted RM 10 (US$2.5) immediately. Ultimate Professional Premium, whatever that version is called. Meaning, with a bit of haggling I'd made off with the almost original Vista DVD for probably RM 8 (US$2). 'Almost original', because it was said to contain all necessary cracks to avoid legal problems like product activation. In any case, I didn't dare to start dealing. In the end I might have had to buy it, and to me any write-once medium with Windows on it is a coaster anyway.
Now, that makes me wonder about those numbers published by Steve Ballmer, when he first said the uptake was slow and finally - after a dive of the Microsoft shares by 5% - stood corrected by himself, beaming with great sales results. The best I could describe the reception of Vista in Low Yat would be luke-warm. There are - I guess - two reasons for this: either the general public has acquired a deep sense of law-abiding attitudes, or simply couldn't bother less about Vista at all. Your guess which is applicable !
This is the beginning of the end. Not that Microsoft would be bankrupt over five or ten years; surely not. We will see Vista show on most desktops over two years already. Vista will be OEM-ed as one and only pre-installed Windows on new machines. Therefore it will take market share; and it will take a market share above 50%. But the excitement of the general public will wane to a point of almost complete dis-interest and un-excitedness. Exactly the opposite of what happens with Mac and Apple's followship. Since everyone knows that Microsoft products are simply overpriced (or underperforming for their price tags, whichever you prefer), this does smell like the beginning of the end.
I confess it in front of my friends of the FOSS community, while rumbling home in the Monorail, for the first time in my life I had a brief feeling of pity for the employees at Microsoft.
I believe the chair on Page 43 is not designed to be comfortable
... !
Unlucky you, I have no mod points
Wait - how would I be disappointed?
/.-user.
You wouldn't. Maybe a problem of language. I tried to rhetorically endorse what you said. Probably I should take an extra course in writing.
Though I need to bow before you as the slightly - if only a few hours - more senior
I've used Outlook and the PST file for slightly more than a decade now, through five versions of Outlook. [...] Despite the occasional computer crash, the PST has always been rock-solid for me and never became corrupted.
And I can also say the same for everyone I've ever seen using Outlook in a personal and business environment. At word, Outlook 2000 needed to run the Inbox Cleanup Tool every now and then if there was a bad write, but it always recovered perfectly.
Good for you.
I have been using various POP3 and IMAP solutions based on FOSS for around a decade, and always found them to be rock-solid and never corrupted.
And I also used these solutions in a personal and business environment.
There is one difference, though: I never needed to run any 'Inbox cleanup tool'.
(Was actually wondering if eventually you expected a 'funny' mod for your post ?)
And really, people generally know Windows more then anything else.
So, their comfort zone is Windows, because it APPEARS easier to manage. (Of course, it's not, it's just as complicated as anything else when you look past the pretty start button.)
I need to disappoint you:
- My experience with my students shows, that they know Windows less than anything else (they only think they know it, because of the colourful start button and stuff).
- My experience as sysadmin (in both worlds) shows, that Windows gets more complicated past the pre-fabbed administration features (which are usually eeasier achieved in Windows).
Explains a lot really
Micro-soft ?
Call me a licencing nazi, but OO.org is not GPL-ed.
Just FYI: It uses The Lesser GPL (LGPL); so that derivative work could restrict some users' freedom.
For the rest, your answer is fine. The suspicion of creative work automatically licenced under the code of the software is simply preposterous.
[Waiting for Microsoft to invent this new twist: A copy of your MS-Office documents are auto-sent-to Redmond and from then onwards, you will have to pay for the use of your own documents. Sorry, even for the fair use of your own documents.]
Uuh, hurried here to place this joke myself.
... ... now any non-geeky person may mod ...
...
2nd post, so to say.
Chapeau, Scarletdown !
Though, 'The Times They Are A-Changin'
Saves me a hare-brained '-1', though. Offtopic: njet.
Wait, there is still 'redundant'. - Ought to have posted as AC. Too late
Not a single person walked out with a shred of respect for him.
There is one huge difference in character between RMS and you:
RMS says what he thinks, and says who he is. Whereas you are only an
Anonymous Coward on 18-02-07 0:26
... I had a say in SUN: Sack the responsible for security.
No, not for cheap repay !
Not for the vulnerability as such. Not for the forgotten validity checks. Not for eventually shipping telnetd.
(Only Theo & friends can permit to not ship it.)
But:
- For enabling it by default; at install; in 2007
- Worse: for still not running it unprivileged; though that is possible
Whatever the SUNny fanboys have / had to say:
Only in Solaris 10 11/06 was it disabled, and only if SBD was selected.
This sheds a wholly new light on 'Secure By Default':
Disabling telnet ! Yahoo ! - if SBD is set.
Who the hell even THINKS about enabling telnet on any box these days?
It really beats me, how this is 'Insightful' as of now at +4 ??
What also beats me, that a default install of Solaris 10 seems to have it open. Idiots. Was just sitting at one and saying to myself: Let's show it is harmless. And post to Slashdot. And voilà, there I was. Open. Fscking dimwits. No, it wasn't me opening it up. Can't you trust anyone these days ?
I really adore Theo's resolve that boxes need to be unlocked instead of locked down.
Not risky. You can even fly it safely.
bother to give me your address ? I'm waiting for one of those planes hitting your neighbourhood.
The difference will be, if it is loading with 'safe' nuclear waste or conventional air freight.
No, I won't contribute to your tomb-stone if it was said safely air-flown fresh produce.
I started, and by half way thought, I was thinking 'this guy is an idiot
Mod someone this chap up. And give him another mod point for actually reading the article.
The good prof from Montfort is either a troll, drunk or an idiot.
You can't possibly compare C to Ruby on Rails. If you have a sense of what you say. He probably hasn't. I rather guess he gave in a long time ago to 'soften' the subject, until a better sales-person creeps out of Montfort; leaving a nice sum of tution fee behind.
Teaching CS myself, I consider this mixture of a bit of everything, and pleasing the feel-good, of some drap&drop, some multimedia and a grain of business-mindedness a great cheat on the 'customer'.
To me - and that's what I work for - CS is a lot of thinking abilities; understanding concepts of networking and protocols, as well as the underpinnings of multimedia.
Neil McBride, the author [not eventually a twin brother of that other McBride ?] starts his epos with dwindling enrolment. Saying, he's scared about his position and salary, and asks: How can we get more students into the subject ? Not by just pleasing them, I'm afraid.
But the students are not that gullible.
, so he says. And then:
Now vastly complex applications for businesses, for science and for leisure can be developed using sophisticated high-level tools and components. Virtual robots - Zooks - can be created by eight-year olds without needing programming, logic or discrete mathematics skills. Web designers build complex business sites, graphic designers build animations, accountants assemble business systems without needing to go object-oriented.
Kind of contradictory, ain't it !?
His first sentence already would make me deregister my child from the good prof. He is good in patching buzzwords together; buzzwords he obviously doesn't understand himself. Then he says, an eight-year-old could do that. What does that imply ? He wants to undercut those kids ??
And I saw a business system 'assembled' (I wonder where he got this term from ??) by an accountant a few months back. It truely didn't 'go object-oriented'. Actually, the system didn't go anywhere.
At times I really wonder how low those editors go to fill the void. - Oh, I forgot, just reading Slashdot !
Luckily, James Joyce is a pleasure to read, one way or another.
Read the source, Luke !
[Someone else who deserves all mod points that I don't have ...]
If Linus keeps playing the stubborn child, what you say can well happen.
The only stumbling block when I read your message - aside of the uncertainty if SUN behaves as childish as Linus when giving up their control is concerned - is my curiosity in how far Linux is technically superior and SUN would have difficulties to keep up. I have a distinct feeling that the SUN kernel has some serious advantages over Linux, the kernel.
Though I could be wrong.
perhaps RMS will get behind the Nexenta/gnu-solaris project. Maybe someone in the know can explain (to me and others) whether this would meet the needs of a GNU operating system.
Nexenta says so on http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/FAQ, but I wouldn't bet on it. Though, the very moment SunOS / better: OpenSolaris gets GPLv3 instead / on top of CDDL, I do bet both him and Eben will put their weight (sorry - no pun intended) behind this combination.
I really wished I had mod points and I'd throw all of them to you for your insightful contribution.
Usually, we Linux-es are simply not really aware of SUN's business.
If SUN had some business-minded brains instead of technical wizardry, they'd left their singular isolated licensing boat quite a time ago. If Java (now I'm getting OT, I know) had not been hampered by its licensing restrictions since long, the world would look differently. Okay, it would have been forked forth and back; but still, it would be Java.
Now they have the same chance again, as you point out: They have ZFS (why does everyone mention ZFS and not DTrace as well ?!), undoubtedly the most scalable kernel architecture on this globe. And not much revenue from software. IMHO, nothing better than throwing that software to the crowds, together with an offer of big irons and support to run it in your next data center.
SUNs persistent problem is mainly too few people being used to and trained on it - exactly opposite to Microsoft that takes advantage of everyone somehow knowing Windows, and used to sell their often inferior software.
Can we try to imagine for a minute what the consequences of a move to GPLv3 would be ?
SunOS already runs ZFS. Everything else (except of the kernel, which happens to be called 'Linux') gets upgraded to v3 as well. So you can compile your any-'Linux'-distro on SunOS.
The consequence is obvious: Your - cough, cough - 'Linux' distro does run ZFS. Only, there is much less 'Linux' left in it than RMS would have ever thought when he insisted on GNU/Linux. ;)
And no, chances are you will not be able to compile your any-'Linux'-distro on Linux. Think about it.
Will you please answer this one question for me:
If you 'merge' SunOS (that is essentially the kernel) with a GPL-ed system (aside of the kernel), where in the system would Linux be left ?!
Fine, FreeBSD's port collection is pretty good. But you don't seem to understand that - with these moves - you'll do 'apt-get' on Solaris. And that's vastly superior. (And if you still want to make && make install, you 'apt-get source' instead of 'ftp://ftp.freebsd.org')
A reasonable argument rather could be: Which kernel is better, SunOS or FreeBSD. And then chances are, that there will be a shift in momentum.