I believe this is from a South Park episode featuring the underpants gnomes.
When the gnomes are asked to explain their business plan for the underpants stealing scheme, they give the following explanation:
1.) Steal underpants 2.) ??? 3.) Profits!
Just to stay on topic, this is a fairly apt description of the reasoning used by many companies when justifying a new product development and could probably be applied to Red Hat and their multimedia distribution. After all the pro audio market is fairly small, thus the exorbitant prices charged for most pro audio software.
Re:this is so not PKD
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Don't forget the most important PKD-ism: Your ex-wife is a no-holds-barred bitch!
Anderton's wife was too likeable for a PKD ex-wife character.
Re:Leftist Propaganda **SPOILERS**
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
Apparently (according to Ain't It Cool News) there was an extra line of narration at the very end that hit the cutting room floor. Anderton explains that the office of precrime has been shutdown and the precogs given a new life, etc. While the camera is pulling away from the isolated farmhouse there is a pause in the narration and then he says: "The following year, there were 161 murders in the District of Columbia."
This would've at least created some room for ambiguity in the ending and encouraged discussion about the pros and cons of trading freedom for security. Shame it didn't make the final cut for whatever reason (Spielberg didn't want to piss off his left-wings buddies?).
Anyway, here's the URL for Moriarty's review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id= 12593
Agreed on all points. I didn't mean to imply that KDE/GNOME were dependent on Linux and vice versa since Linux is perfectly usable without them and both of them are perfectly happy with other kernels under the covers.
What Microsoft and Apple provide is a monolithic set of layered components including the kernel, the user space, the windowing system and the desktop environment. None of these are meant to be interchangeable or interoperable with alternative solutions. Both Apple and Microsoft put shrink wrap on this integrated set of components and call it an operating system. They may be stretching the definition of the term a bit, but I personally feel they have the right to bundle whatever the hell they want. This, of course, limits your choices as a user, but then again if you need choices you can choose another OS!
PT: "It can only be the kernel, otherwise you don't have linux, do you?"
This is an interesting point. The term "desktop OS" is commonly used to describe an operating system that provides a GUI. MacOSX and WinXP are clearly examples of desktop operating systems. While the Linux kernel by itself may arguably be an OS, it certainly isn't a desktop OS unless it includes a desktop.
Thus, in order for the comparison to be fair when considering the issue of browser bundling, GNOME, KDE, etc. *must* be considered part of the Linux OS. It just so happens that there are many flavors of Linux as a desktop OS, but each combination that results in Linux qualifying as a desktop OS can be compared individually to Windows. Using Linux + KDE as an example (which Mr. Madnick attempted to do), Konqueror is roughly equivalent to Internet Explorer. Can Konqueror be removed from KDE? Perhaps, but the result would be just as destructive as Microsoft claims removing Internet Explorer from Windows would be.
All this bickering over terminology and definitions somehow calls to mind Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Perhaps we should invent a new natural language to implement our country's laws. English is too ambiguous!
"I did not have sexual relations with that browser."
I really can't believe that we're still arguing about browser bundling in Windows. This point may have been significant 5 years ago, but the battle has been over for awhile.
KDE and GNOME may not be "operating systems" in the strictest sense of the term, but for the end-user they form the most critical and recognizable part of the operating system: the desktop. What part of Linux is the OS anyway? Is it the underlying kernel that provides support for your hardware and devices? Is it the set of GNU system tools and utilities that you use to maintain your system? Is it the window manager and desktop shell?
Linux was designed to be more modular than Windows, but this additional freedom and flexibility come at a price. What parts of a bundled Linux distribution can be removed or replaced by other work-alike components? Almost everything, but when modern applications come to depend on the existence of other "operating system" components, the complexity of setting up a system can increase exponentially. The operating system itself, however, is not useful in the general sense; it is only necessary. For a computer to be useful, you need applications.
Microsoft has chosen the route of providing a consistent base of OS and applications which are always installed and, in some cases, cannot be easily removed. Consider this the lowest-common denominator approach that bundles every basic tool that the average computer user may need. This includes (in Windows XP): video and audio player/editor (Media Player, Sound Recorder, Movie Maker), basic text editor (Notepad and Wordpad), e-mail (Outlook Express), web browser (Internet Explorer), file manager (Explorer), image/photo viewer/editor (Picture Viewer and Paintbrush), and communications software(Hyperterminal and MSN Instant Messenger) among other things.
Out of all of these commonly bundled applications (after all what desktop OS distribution doesn't include one of these applications in some form or another), the web browser has assumed a unique and important role in the modern computing environment. It has transcended its role as a mere user application and has become a vital system component that other applications have come to rely on. Will your operating system work without a web browser? Yes but, as I stated earlier, the operating system *doesn't matter*.
People use computers to get work done. Work is done by using applications. Applications rely on the operating system to provide basic system services. HTML and HTTP have become basic system services for a large number of applications to provide online help systems, downloadable updates and enhancements, and even application user interface. Because a web browser is included as part of the operating system, Windows application vendors can rely on its existence to provide features to their own applications. Is this not, after all, the entire purpose of the operating system?
The states and the DOJ can force Microsoft's hand and make them remove Internet Explorer from the operating system, but does this really make any sense? Users have always had the ability to use another browser when they surf the web, but an integrated HTML rendering engine and HTTP protocol implementation that it guaranteed to be bundled with the OS makes so much damn sense I really, truly don't understand what all the fuss is about.
This update resolves the "Playback and Copy-Protection Issues When You Try to Play the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs DVD Movie" issue in Windows XP and is discussed in Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) Article Q310510. Download now to be able to play Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" Platinum Collection DVD.
For more information about this issue, read Microsoft KB Article Q310510. (This site may be in English.)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this is from a South Park episode featuring the underpants gnomes.
When the gnomes are asked to explain their business plan for the underpants stealing scheme, they give the following explanation:
1.) Steal underpants
2.) ???
3.) Profits!
Just to stay on topic, this is a fairly apt description of the reasoning used by many companies when justifying a new product development and could probably be applied to Red Hat and their multimedia distribution. After all the pro audio market is fairly small, thus the exorbitant prices charged for most pro audio software.
Don't forget the most important PKD-ism:
Your ex-wife is a no-holds-barred bitch!
Anderton's wife was too likeable for a PKD ex-wife character.
Apparently (according to Ain't It Cool News) there was an extra line of narration at the very end that hit the cutting room floor. Anderton explains that the office of precrime has been shutdown and the precogs given a new life, etc. While the camera is pulling away from the isolated farmhouse there is a pause in the narration and then he says:
= 12593
"The following year, there were 161 murders in the District of Columbia."
This would've at least created some room for ambiguity in the ending and encouraged discussion about the pros and cons of trading freedom for security. Shame it didn't make the final cut for whatever reason (Spielberg didn't want to piss off his left-wings buddies?).
Anyway, here's the URL for Moriarty's review:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id
Agreed on all points. I didn't mean to imply that KDE/GNOME were dependent on Linux and vice versa since Linux is perfectly usable without them and both of them are perfectly happy with other kernels under the covers.
What Microsoft and Apple provide is a monolithic set of layered components including the kernel, the user space, the windowing system and the desktop environment. None of these are meant to be interchangeable or interoperable with alternative solutions. Both Apple and Microsoft put shrink wrap on this integrated set of components and call it an operating system. They may be stretching the definition of the term a bit, but I personally feel they have the right to bundle whatever the hell they want. This, of course, limits your choices as a user, but then again if you need choices you can choose another OS!
SS: "What part of Linux is the OS anyway?"
PT: "It can only be the kernel, otherwise you don't have linux, do you?"
This is an interesting point. The term "desktop OS" is commonly used to describe an operating system that provides a GUI. MacOSX and WinXP are clearly examples of desktop operating systems. While the Linux kernel by itself may arguably be an OS, it certainly isn't a desktop OS unless it includes a desktop.
Thus, in order for the comparison to be fair when considering the issue of browser bundling, GNOME, KDE, etc. *must* be considered part of the Linux OS. It just so happens that there are many flavors of Linux as a desktop OS, but each combination that results in Linux qualifying as a desktop OS can be compared individually to Windows. Using Linux + KDE as an example (which Mr. Madnick attempted to do), Konqueror is roughly equivalent to Internet Explorer. Can Konqueror be removed from KDE? Perhaps, but the result would be just as destructive as Microsoft claims removing Internet Explorer from Windows would be.
All this bickering over terminology and definitions somehow calls to mind Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Perhaps we should invent a new natural language to implement our country's laws. English is too ambiguous!
"I did not have sexual relations with that browser."
I really can't believe that we're still arguing about browser bundling in Windows. This point may have been significant 5 years ago, but the battle has been over for awhile.
KDE and GNOME may not be "operating systems" in the strictest sense of the term, but for the end-user they form the most critical and recognizable part of the operating system: the desktop. What part of Linux is the OS anyway? Is it the underlying kernel that provides support for your hardware and devices? Is it the set of GNU system tools and utilities that you use to maintain your system? Is it the window manager and desktop shell?
Linux was designed to be more modular than Windows, but this additional freedom and flexibility come at a price. What parts of a bundled Linux distribution can be removed or replaced by other work-alike components? Almost everything, but when modern applications come to depend on the existence of other "operating system" components, the complexity of setting up a system can increase exponentially. The operating system itself, however, is not useful in the general sense; it is only necessary. For a computer to be useful, you need applications.
Microsoft has chosen the route of providing a consistent base of OS and applications which are always installed and, in some cases, cannot be easily removed. Consider this the lowest-common denominator approach that bundles every basic tool that the average computer user may need. This includes (in Windows XP): video and audio player/editor (Media Player, Sound Recorder, Movie Maker), basic text editor (Notepad and Wordpad), e-mail (Outlook Express), web browser (Internet Explorer), file manager (Explorer), image/photo viewer/editor (Picture Viewer and Paintbrush), and communications software(Hyperterminal and MSN Instant Messenger) among other things.
Out of all of these commonly bundled applications (after all what desktop OS distribution doesn't include one of these applications in some form or another), the web browser has assumed a unique and important role in the modern computing environment. It has transcended its role as a mere user application and has become a vital system component that other applications have come to rely on. Will your operating system work without a web browser? Yes but, as I stated earlier, the operating system *doesn't matter*.
People use computers to get work done. Work is done by using applications. Applications rely on the operating system to provide basic system services. HTML and HTTP have become basic system services for a large number of applications to provide online help systems, downloadable updates and enhancements, and even application user interface. Because a web browser is included as part of the operating system, Windows application vendors can rely on its existence to provide features to their own applications. Is this not, after all, the entire purpose of the operating system?
The states and the DOJ can force Microsoft's hand and make them remove Internet Explorer from the operating system, but does this really make any sense? Users have always had the ability to use another browser when they surf the web, but an integrated HTML rendering engine and HTTP protocol implementation that it guaranteed to be bundled with the OS makes so much damn sense I really, truly don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Well at least we know what Microsoft was working on in March.
Hi-fscking-ho indeed!
Is a fix for the back button exploit really as important as something like the following?
Q310510: Recommended Update Download size: 220 KB, 1 minuteThis update resolves the "Playback and Copy-Protection Issues When You Try to Play the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs DVD Movie" issue in Windows XP and is discussed in Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) Article Q310510. Download now to be able to play Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" Platinum Collection DVD.
For more information about this issue, read Microsoft KB Article Q310510. (This site may be in English.)
If they didn't edit the shows, they'd have to call it "Poonami".