>Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages (sic!) that come from Yahoo (sic!), since it now syndicates its search to Google."
You mean, Google relies heavily on advertising revenue from AOL? Gezuz, people, read your own shit before posting. And the editors, before approving someone's shit.
(BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)
>said that the AAC/mp3 format of the ipod is a tie in and this way suggesting that WMA is not a tie in.
Wrong. The Dell device supports WMA _and_ MP3.
Which one is more of a tie in? I would say they referred not to supported file formats but to peripherals and interfaces. That's why I think iPod is in fact more of a tie-in because of the way how you upload/download music to your device. The Dell device seems less particular how you access it.
>Let me inject my ideology. Redhat sucks, run don't walk away from it.
I know that and I myself don't use and/or recommend RH. I just stated a fact. And unfortunately they're still growing at a faster rate than SuSE (compare their number of new enterprise Linux subscriptions in recent quarters) which tells me that there's something wrong with Novell. SuSE: good product, sales. Red Hat: bad product, sells well. Obviously quality of SLES is not the reason. It's how the product is positioned, or sold, or marketed, or supported.
>What's the last major innovation that came out of RH? Let the community bug-test and develop for us? You want to talk about "just assembling a distro from GPL code"? >They're the freaking masters of it.
Exactly. That's why I refuse to use Fedora and I use CentOS when I have to try something out on RHEL. But, what you say proves my point - despite all the bullshit, they're still #1 and fastest growing.
> You do realize that it's difficult to grant you any credibility here when you admit you've never learned how to use the technology, right?
Wrong - I said I know how to use the technology (I use commercial volume manager products), I just haven't bothered to learn this particular product/implementation because I don't think it is superior to commercial volume manager that I use. If it does become better, I might use it, but I don't want to waste time (or risk data loss) on figuring that out - I'll wait until it's a known fact.
Anyway, I see you feel strongly (to replace the term you didn't like) about Novell so I don't think we can agree on much (except that RH sucks). We'll see what happens with Novell. I wish them well but they really seem to be stuck in some kind of endless loop.
>So, its not mozilla.org (the article states "on public servers. Mozilla.org is the latest example")
It doesn't matter.
Who got infected? Users of Mozilla and Thunderbird for Linux. Why? Who cares. The point is that's a typical problem that can happen with OSS. (I have to make one observation here: how the FUCK is one supposed to download from the main site when their servers are fucked up most of the time. Here, today Firefox 1.0.7 was released. I bet you didn't know. Do you see a flashing indicator in your Firefox v1.0.6? I don't and I think I won't see it before next week. So OF COURSE people download crap from whereever they can. Not everyone knows how to use wget, rsync, GetRight, etc.)
I know, it happens rarely, but it's apparently possible and a real threat. In recent years similar things happened with Debian root servers and sendmail packages. And one day when your yum auto-updater updates to a compromised binary, I'll see if you'll overhype of downplay the problem.
>Unlike Mozilla Europe, Mozilla Japan and Mozilla China, the Korean Mozilla site is not officially affiliated with the Mozilla Foundation.
Who gives a shit? If I get infected, I'd hate them all. Refund would certainly not be an option.
If one works for a company (or is a clueless Windows or Linux user), he WILL buy security product (and/or a commercial Linux distro). It's like insurance - if you don't buy it and nothing happens, good for you! But enterprises don't take such risks.
You think you're smarter than those "greedy security vendors" but you only show unprofessional attitude towards security and system management. Or were you speaking from the home user perspective (in which case I have nothing to say to you)?
The truth is - as Linux (and OSS in general) market share is picking up, so is number of its security problems. Maybe we can't compare severity of vulns, time it takes to fix them, etc. but any reasonable person already gets the picture - types of vulnerabilities and risks are different, but the final outcome is that neither Linux nor Windows are secure operating systems.
I don't they they can possibly do this nation-wide or worldwide (imagine negotiating setup and maintenance with a different local partner in each country). I think this is just a scaled up lab test. If they do anything like this, it should happen after WiMax is out.
Yes, the News article carries the same stupid headline, but since you decided to shamelessly copy it, you should have made sure you don't submit shit.
Not only these two apps have aren't OSS, but in most cases they will ultimately run on proprietary OS like AIX and Windows.
The only OSS-related part in TFA is: Release 3 of its application server will be designed to more smoothly operate with third-party products, including open-source development "frameworks" such as Apache Spring and Hibernate, said Rick Shultz, vice president of Oracle Fusion Middleware.
Which isn't news anyway. It's Oracle marketing crap. If you want to report on it, dive into the docs and add value (make some technical or sales analysis on significance of that move).
I have a browser and already visit news.com every day, thank you very much.
The CNet News article mentions that the flaw is not wormable and that exploiting it requires some user intervention (probably executing or downloading some content). What is the big deal?
Users need to be careful in the first place. For starters, don't download crap from goofy Web sites and download porn only via P2P.
>How many R&D staff did SiSE have before they sold out? Probably like a million or so. How many non-Linux developers does Novell have now? Probably like 3.
Nice try.
>Talking out your ass is a fun game!
I see you like that game, too. The difference is your guess is uneducated. When Novell acquired SuSE, SuSE had less than 400 employees. Novell has about 6000 employees. My figures were close enough.
>If you think they are just assembling a distro from GPL code, you really haven't seen their server platform at all, have you? How do you think they got edirectory and all the netware code running on there?
That's exactly my point - instead of dicking around with those applications they should make sure they can make and sell a good bare bone OS. The R&D overhead comes from those apps and burdens their progress in OS sale and development. If Red Hat can make it (sort of) work with 740 people in 27 offices worldwide, why would the SuSE part of Novell need more than 400? If you look at RHEL OS, very few people buy it because it supports Red Hat apps. No, they buy it (or pay for support) because they like it, or it works good for them, or it's recommended by their ISV/IHV, or they're used to it, etc. Customers who say "OK, I want [a rh application] and by the way, give me a few of those RHEL OS licenses as well" must be a very small minority.
Why would it work differently for Novell? But it does - with Novell it's the opposite - people buy SuSE when they want to run Novell apps. That's screwed up. OS isn't sold like that.
>How about the NSS storage module for EVMS? Am I confusing you, since I know what I'm talking about?
No, I am familiar with it and not too impressed. LVM is the open source standard (it also sucks, but if I had to learn one, I'd learn LVM; usually if I notice either, I disable/uninstall it right away. I use and recommend commercial software VM or hardware-based volume managers as those provide proper reliability, scalability, stability and features required by enterprise users. Like most IBM-released GPL code, EVMS got released to the community when IBM saw no future for it. That's all one needs to know about EVMS. NSS - why would anyone be familiar with NSS? Except Netware fanboys and people involved in legacy migrations, that is.
It is, but there was a problem where security updates and many packages were becoming overdue or late (too many supported architectures, plus the conservative policy that turned off many voluteer developers who went to Ubuntu, Gentoo and other bleeding edge distros). It'd be good if DCC could keep Debian's good points and add some commercial backing to its maintenance and development.
>Perhaps the firefox community is much more active at searching for bugs in the much newer firefox code.
And perhaps not. And perhaps MS IE is exposed to more scrutiny because it's #1 browser? And perhaps not. As we can't tell for sure, it's best to ignore such speculations.
>3 (sic)) How effective are the fixes? MS seems to have the same recurring problems because they only do triage. They don't fix the bigger problem (VERY poor browser design). The firefox team appears to address the bigger problem, not just stop the current bleeding.
Gee! And look at the most recent Firefox fix - it's a temp fix which only disables the insecure feature. Not to mention that update alerts actually start blinking in your browser many days late.
I'm not defending MS IE, I'm just trying to point out that FF is pretty much the same. I use it a lot and it's got a bunch of problems - daily crashes, daily hangups with PDF files, frequent security problems and so on. Originally it seemed a lot better. I still use it, but it doesn't seem that way any more - it's time to take a realistic look at it.
What R&D cycle? It's assembling a distro from GPL code, for Christ. How many R&D staff did SuSE have before they sold out? Probably like 100 or so. How many non-Linux developers Novell has now? Probably several thousand.
>Unfortunately the stock traders wanted it to happen faster.
Pleeeese - they had a great OS (SLES8) for multiple CPU archs to begin with, and what did they do? They chose to SIT (not "shit") on it and wait for almost a year until SLES9 was out so that they can tailor it (the so-called R&D) to fit their Netware and what-not legacy apps and Netware channel partners' plans. And not only that - because they didn't want to touch SLES8, they had to rush kernel 2.6 which, SuSE being a follower, few wanted to support until RHEL 4.0 came out in Q1. Do you know that EMC PowerPath for SLES9 came out only last month? A year after their GA. In short, they fucked up. At least they should have started giving SLES8 for free big time (as they didn't plan to sell it anyway) to grow their installed base. SLES9 is a nice product, but Novell has too many (and not all are nice) products - I don't think they have time to focus on core products.
>set to create an easily managed platform without the prohibitive start-up costs of a pure MS platform for the SME market.
Come on, we've been listening about these MS/Exchange killers for years now.
Nobody's versions match those of DCC (even Debian itself) - if all members felt that way, there would be no DCC. DCC is a good idea, and so was United Linux, which got screwed up by a member. DCC is not facing such risks, so I think it will prosper. In any case, DCC is targeted at people and companies sick of dicking around with distro incompatibilities and frequent version updates - a bit different from Ubuntu and Fedora.
Which is the precise reason why they are different - everyone wants to be the leader.
That's why on the one side we have these DCC guys (at the moment underdogs, of course) trying to pool resources and, on the other side, the big shots (RH, Novell, Ubuntu) trying to be as different as possible.
>ever going to happen. If not for the technical difficulties, than (sic!) because Microsoft won't want to adhere to the standard.
Unless it is Microsoft to make that software (as their standard) - it should be easiest for them because popular Linux filesystems are open. OSS licenses permitting such integration, of course.
> Heck, with numbers like that it seems like Linux could run circles around XP Pro for audio/video apps such as streaming, recording, and playback!"
Heck, with brain like that it seems you could run circles around a tree without realizing you're not getting anywhere.
Just look at his piece-of-shit submission - the only interesting part is one that was copied from TFA and the rest is a "I'm a moron" type of comment that tells everyone how stupid and clueless the submitter (and the editor) is.
If had any brains and if he bothered to spend just 10 minutes to make a quality submission, he'd have read an article or two related to RT OS and he would: a) compare RTLinux to published latency figures of some other (open or proprietary) soft- or hard-RT OS b) would not make that idiotic Windows XP comment since it is completely irrelevant c) would make a link to best of those reference articles that he reviewed prior to submitting the story
Being such, the article only does a good job in making tons of likely-minded folks gather at/. and make "m$ suckz" and so-called "Funny" comments.
The editor should have edited out the stupid Windows XP comment or replace it with something meaningful. Not having done that, he hasn't done his job and I can only pass to him same compliments that I had for the submitter.
Everyone, learn how to skip stupid submissions, it's a great way to save time not stupefy yourself. The problem is that on certain days you can skip pretty much everything.
>Who is going to accept a pathetic 6 hours of battery life from their phone (or their MP3 player, for that matter)?
OK. Considering the limit of 100 songs, it takes you *less* than 6 hours to hear everything you can pack in it. Then you have to listen to the same stuff two more times. Why accept that? And who would want to listen to the same set of songs for 3 times in a row? (And add to this other limitations from the review below).
I, on the other hand, can store well over 100 songs in my phone (and that's only because I didn't buy the next bigger, 1GB memory card) without listening to the same stuff over and over again.
I can't find about ROKR's organizer or Web browser either (Pocket Outlook too, but I don't use it on my Smartphone). Would I trade these features for a "better" MP3 player? I don't think so.
With a Smartphone, I don't need a dedicated music player - it does its job, not in a stellar way, but it does it. With a ROKR, I'd need an extra PDA (or a Smartphone).
"What's worse is that songs are stored only in the included TransFlash memory card. While TransFlash cards are currently limited to 512MB anyway, Apple indicated this version of the Rokr will keep its 100-song limit even if bigger cards come out. Integrated memory for photos and other applications is also somewhat small at a paltry 5MB." http://reviews.cnet.com/Motorola_Rokr_E1/4505-6454 _7-31515635-2.html?tag=top
Good for you, but 120GB isn't enough for me. That's what I was saying, some folks don't need it, for others it's suitable and yet for others it's not enough.
I have about 20GB of apps and data and about 30GB of virtual environments - add to that backup image of my 40GB internal disk and in a quarter's time I won't be even able to defrag it any more as I'll have less than 15% of free disk space:-)
> That's where the current draw comes in. How do you know about that?
I have a Windows Smartphone and I can play MP3s on headphones for like 6 hours on one charge. Usually I use it for far less than that (maybe one hour each day) so power drain is never a problem. And usually I carry with me a USB cable that lets me charge the phone from any PC or notebook.
Regarding this phone: I don't understand what's the big deal about it. I've had all its major features in my phone for about half year now.
And before you know, your 120GB drive will be full. And it's not cheap either.
To me, capacity and performance are more important that disk dimensions and weight. That's why I'll get myself a Firewire (faster) enclosure with a 3.5" disk (cheaper) three times the capacity.
>I'm not flaming you but that isn't a step in the way of personalization, that is a step towards jacking the price up on a product that doesn't offer you any more than they want it to offer you
There's nothing Microsoft-specific to it - the same is done with Red Hat Linux, SuSE (Ent/Pro/Pers) and a buch of other non-OS products.
As to Media Player and other comments - you can use any other (Real Networks, QuickTime, whatever) so if that's your choice, you can spend the minimum amount on OS use freebies for value-added features (Open Office, Clam AV, etc.). Or you can get a Linux OS instead. It's the same as with other products.
Bozo, it's an Apache server that connects to a UNIX box.
This has nothing to do with Windows OS (except for the fact that Apache.org can't guarantee stable operation of its software on Windows OS). For comparison, there are many other (open and closed source) 3rd party Web servers for the Windows OS that are supported and recomended to run on Windows OS.
2. The Deathstar term appeared before the sale (actually I figure that's why they sold it, because they couldn't make a quality product). Back in 2000, while IBM still owned the business, a heard from a reseller that they had about 30% failure rate (in the first year) for the Deathstar series. Actually I had one myself (1.7GB or something like that) - it died an untimely death.
3. I think most Thinkpads weren't manufactured by IBM anyway and I don't think the new guys will have to ability to change that in the short therm.
Slashdot Mirror
>Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages (sic!) that come from Yahoo (sic!), since it now syndicates its search to Google."
You mean, Google relies heavily on advertising revenue from AOL?
Gezuz, people, read your own shit before posting.
And the editors, before approving someone's shit.
(BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)
>said that the AAC/mp3 format of the ipod is a tie in and this way suggesting that WMA is not a tie in.
e tails.aspx/dj_ditty?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~page=1& ~tab=specstab#tabtop
Wrong. The Dell device supports WMA _and_ MP3.
Which one is more of a tie in?
I would say they referred not to supported file formats but to peripherals and interfaces.
That's why I think iPod is in fact more of a tie-in because of the way how you upload/download music to your device.
The Dell device seems less particular how you access it.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productd
>Let me inject my ideology. Redhat sucks, run don't walk away from it.
I know that and I myself don't use and/or recommend RH. I just stated a fact.
And unfortunately they're still growing at a faster rate than SuSE (compare their number of new enterprise Linux subscriptions in recent quarters) which tells me that there's something wrong with Novell.
SuSE: good product, sales.
Red Hat: bad product, sells well.
Obviously quality of SLES is not the reason. It's how the product is positioned, or sold, or marketed, or supported.
>What's the last major innovation that came out of RH? Let the community bug-test and develop for us? You want to talk about "just assembling a distro from GPL code"?
>They're the freaking masters of it.
Exactly. That's why I refuse to use Fedora and I use CentOS when I have to try something out on RHEL.
But, what you say proves my point - despite all the bullshit, they're still #1 and fastest growing.
> You do realize that it's difficult to grant you any credibility here when you admit you've never learned how to use the technology, right?
Wrong - I said I know how to use the technology (I use commercial volume manager products), I just haven't bothered to learn this particular product/implementation because I don't think it is superior to commercial volume manager that I use.
If it does become better, I might use it, but I don't want to waste time (or risk data loss) on figuring that out - I'll wait until it's a known fact.
Anyway, I see you feel strongly (to replace the term you didn't like) about Novell so I don't think we can agree on much (except that RH sucks).
We'll see what happens with Novell. I wish them well but they really seem to be stuck in some kind of endless loop.
>So, its not mozilla.org (the article states "on public servers. Mozilla.org is the latest example")
It doesn't matter.
Who got infected? Users of Mozilla and Thunderbird for Linux. Why? Who cares. The point is that's a typical problem that can happen with OSS.
(I have to make one observation here: how the FUCK is one supposed to download from the main site when their servers are fucked up most of the time. Here, today Firefox 1.0.7 was released. I bet you didn't know. Do you see a flashing indicator in your Firefox v1.0.6? I don't and I think I won't see it before next week. So OF COURSE people download crap from whereever they can. Not everyone knows how to use wget, rsync, GetRight, etc.)
I know, it happens rarely, but it's apparently possible and a real threat. In recent years similar things happened with Debian root servers and sendmail packages.
And one day when your yum auto-updater updates to a compromised binary, I'll see if you'll overhype of downplay the problem.
>Unlike Mozilla Europe, Mozilla Japan and Mozilla China, the Korean Mozilla site is not officially affiliated with the Mozilla Foundation.
Who gives a shit? If I get infected, I'd hate them all. Refund would certainly not be an option.
If one works for a company (or is a clueless Windows or Linux user), he WILL buy security product (and/or a commercial Linux distro).
It's like insurance - if you don't buy it and nothing happens, good for you!
But enterprises don't take such risks.
You think you're smarter than those "greedy security vendors" but you only show unprofessional attitude towards security and system management. Or were you speaking from the home user perspective (in which case I have nothing to say to you)?
The truth is - as Linux (and OSS in general) market share is picking up, so is number of its security problems.
Maybe we can't compare severity of vulns, time it takes to fix them, etc. but any reasonable person already gets the picture - types of vulnerabilities and risks are different, but the final outcome is that neither Linux nor Windows are secure operating systems.
From TFFAQ:
>No, Google Secure Access is free.
I don't they they can possibly do this nation-wide or worldwide (imagine negotiating setup and maintenance with a different local partner in each country).
I think this is just a scaled up lab test. If they do anything like this, it should happen after WiMax is out.
>allows customers to pay for purchases by simply waving their cards at readers posted near cash registers or gas pumps.
Does the deduction happen when a phreaker starts waving their cash register near near my card?
Are you drunk?
What exactly is open source in your submission?
Yes, the News article carries the same stupid headline, but since you decided to shamelessly copy it, you should have made sure you don't submit shit.
Not only these two apps have aren't OSS, but in most cases they will ultimately run on proprietary OS like AIX and Windows.
The only OSS-related part in TFA is: Release 3 of its application server will be designed to more smoothly operate with third-party products, including open-source development "frameworks" such as Apache Spring and Hibernate, said Rick Shultz, vice president of Oracle Fusion Middleware.
Which isn't news anyway. It's Oracle marketing crap. If you want to report on it, dive into the docs and add value (make some technical or sales analysis on significance of that move).
I have a browser and already visit news.com every day, thank you very much.
The CNet News article mentions that the flaw is not wormable and that exploiting it requires some user intervention (probably executing or downloading some content).
What is the big deal?
Users need to be careful in the first place.
For starters, don't download crap from goofy Web sites and download porn only via P2P.
>How many R&D staff did SiSE have before they sold out? Probably like a million or so. How many non-Linux developers does Novell have now? Probably like 3.
Nice try.
>Talking out your ass is a fun game!
I see you like that game, too. The difference is your guess is uneducated.
When Novell acquired SuSE, SuSE had less than 400 employees. Novell has about 6000 employees. My figures were close enough.
>If you think they are just assembling a distro from GPL code, you really haven't seen their server platform at all, have you? How do you think they got edirectory and all the netware code running on there?
That's exactly my point - instead of dicking around with those applications they should make sure they can make and sell a good bare bone OS.
The R&D overhead comes from those apps and burdens their progress in OS sale and development.
If Red Hat can make it (sort of) work with 740 people in 27 offices worldwide, why would the SuSE part of Novell need more than 400?
If you look at RHEL OS, very few people buy it because it supports Red Hat apps. No, they buy it (or pay for support) because they like it, or it works good for them, or it's recommended by their ISV/IHV, or they're used to it, etc. Customers who say "OK, I want [a rh application] and by the way, give me a few of those RHEL OS licenses as well" must be a very small minority.
Why would it work differently for Novell?
But it does - with Novell it's the opposite - people buy SuSE when they want to run Novell apps. That's screwed up. OS isn't sold like that.
>How about the NSS storage module for EVMS? Am I confusing you, since I know what I'm talking about?
No, I am familiar with it and not too impressed. LVM is the open source standard (it also sucks, but if I had to learn one, I'd learn LVM; usually if I notice either, I disable/uninstall it right away. I use and recommend commercial software VM or hardware-based volume managers as those provide proper reliability, scalability, stability and features required by enterprise users.
Like most IBM-released GPL code, EVMS got released to the community when IBM saw no future for it. That's all one needs to know about EVMS.
NSS - why would anyone be familiar with NSS? Except Netware fanboys and people involved in legacy migrations, that is.
>If you ask me, that's a feature
It is, but there was a problem where security updates and many packages were becoming overdue or late (too many supported architectures, plus the conservative policy that turned off many voluteer developers who went to Ubuntu, Gentoo and other bleeding edge distros).
It'd be good if DCC could keep Debian's good points and add some commercial backing to its maintenance and development.
>Perhaps the firefox community is much more active at searching for bugs in the much newer firefox code.
And perhaps not.
And perhaps MS IE is exposed to more scrutiny because it's #1 browser? And perhaps not.
As we can't tell for sure, it's best to ignore such speculations.
>3 (sic)) How effective are the fixes? MS seems to have the same recurring problems because they only do triage. They don't fix the bigger problem (VERY poor browser design). The firefox team appears to address the bigger problem, not just stop the current bleeding.
Gee!
And look at the most recent Firefox fix - it's a temp fix which only disables the insecure feature.
Not to mention that update alerts actually start blinking in your browser many days late.
I'm not defending MS IE, I'm just trying to point out that FF is pretty much the same. I use it a lot and it's got a bunch of problems - daily crashes, daily hangups with PDF files, frequent security problems and so on.
Originally it seemed a lot better. I still use it, but it doesn't seem that way any more - it's time to take a realistic look at it.
>then went into an R&D cycle
What R&D cycle?
It's assembling a distro from GPL code, for Christ.
How many R&D staff did SuSE have before they sold out? Probably like 100 or so. How many non-Linux developers Novell has now? Probably several thousand.
>Unfortunately the stock traders wanted it to happen faster.
Pleeeese - they had a great OS (SLES8) for multiple CPU archs to begin with, and what did they do?
They chose to SIT (not "shit") on it and wait for almost a year until SLES9 was out so that they can tailor it (the so-called R&D) to fit their Netware and what-not legacy apps and Netware channel partners' plans.
And not only that - because they didn't want to touch SLES8, they had to rush kernel 2.6 which, SuSE being a follower, few wanted to support until RHEL 4.0 came out in Q1.
Do you know that EMC PowerPath for SLES9 came out only last month? A year after their GA.
In short, they fucked up.
At least they should have started giving SLES8 for free big time (as they didn't plan to sell it anyway) to grow their installed base.
SLES9 is a nice product, but Novell has too many (and not all are nice) products - I don't think they have time to focus on core products.
>set to create an easily managed platform without the prohibitive start-up costs of a pure MS platform for the SME market.
Come on, we've been listening about these MS/Exchange killers for years now.
I think that's a very superficial reason.
Nobody's versions match those of DCC (even Debian itself) - if all members felt that way, there would be no DCC.
DCC is a good idea, and so was United Linux, which got screwed up by a member. DCC is not facing such risks, so I think it will prosper.
In any case, DCC is targeted at people and companies sick of dicking around with distro incompatibilities and frequent version updates - a bit different from Ubuntu and Fedora.
Which is the precise reason why they are different - everyone wants to be the leader.
That's why on the one side we have these DCC guys (at the moment underdogs, of course) trying to pool resources and, on the other side, the big shots (RH, Novell, Ubuntu) trying to be as different as possible.
>ever going to happen. If not for the technical difficulties, than (sic!) because Microsoft won't want to adhere to the standard.
Unless it is Microsoft to make that software (as their standard) - it should be easiest for them because popular Linux filesystems are open.
OSS licenses permitting such integration, of course.
> Heck, with numbers like that it seems like Linux could run circles around XP Pro for audio/video apps such as streaming, recording, and playback!"
/. and make "m$ suckz" and so-called "Funny" comments.
Heck, with brain like that it seems you could run circles around a tree without realizing you're not getting anywhere.
Just look at his piece-of-shit submission - the only interesting part is one that was copied from TFA and the rest is a "I'm a moron" type of comment that tells everyone how stupid and clueless the submitter (and the editor) is.
If had any brains and if he bothered to spend just 10 minutes to make a quality submission, he'd have read an article or two related to RT OS and he would:
a) compare RTLinux to published latency figures of some other (open or proprietary) soft- or hard-RT OS
b) would not make that idiotic Windows XP comment since it is completely irrelevant
c) would make a link to best of those reference articles that he reviewed prior to submitting the story
Being such, the article only does a good job in making tons of likely-minded folks gather at
The editor should have edited out the stupid Windows XP comment or replace it with something meaningful. Not having done that, he hasn't done his job and I can only pass to him same compliments that I had for the submitter.
Everyone, learn how to skip stupid submissions, it's a great way to save time not stupefy yourself.
The problem is that on certain days you can skip pretty much everything.
>Who is going to accept a pathetic 6 hours of battery life from their phone (or their MP3 player, for that matter)?
4 _7-31515635-2.html?tag=top
OK. Considering the limit of 100 songs, it takes you *less* than 6 hours to hear everything you can pack in it.
Then you have to listen to the same stuff two more times. Why accept that? And who would want to listen to the same set of songs for 3 times in a row?
(And add to this other limitations from the review below).
I, on the other hand, can store well over 100 songs in my phone (and that's only because I didn't buy the next bigger, 1GB memory card) without listening to the same stuff over and over again.
I can't find about ROKR's organizer or Web browser either (Pocket Outlook too, but I don't use it on my Smartphone). Would I trade these features for a "better" MP3 player? I don't think so.
With a Smartphone, I don't need a dedicated music player - it does its job, not in a stellar way, but it does it.
With a ROKR, I'd need an extra PDA (or a Smartphone).
"What's worse is that songs are stored only in the included TransFlash memory card. While TransFlash cards are currently limited to 512MB anyway, Apple indicated this version of the Rokr will keep its 100-song limit even if bigger cards come out. Integrated memory for photos and other applications is also somewhat small at a paltry 5MB."
http://reviews.cnet.com/Motorola_Rokr_E1/4505-645
Hah! Skype is isolated?
YOU are isolated!
Good for you, but 120GB isn't enough for me.
:-)
That's what I was saying, some folks don't need it, for others it's suitable and yet for others it's not enough.
I have about 20GB of apps and data and about 30GB of virtual environments - add to that backup image of my 40GB internal disk and in a quarter's time I won't be even able to defrag it any more as I'll have less than 15% of free disk space
> That's where the current draw comes in.
How do you know about that?
I have a Windows Smartphone and I can play MP3s on headphones for like 6 hours on one charge.
Usually I use it for far less than that (maybe one hour each day) so power drain is never a problem.
And usually I carry with me a USB cable that lets me charge the phone from any PC or notebook.
Regarding this phone: I don't understand what's the big deal about it.
I've had all its major features in my phone for about half year now.
And before you know, your 120GB drive will be full. And it's not cheap either.
To me, capacity and performance are more important that disk dimensions and weight. That's why I'll get myself a Firewire (faster) enclosure with a 3.5" disk (cheaper) three times the capacity.
>I'm not flaming you but that isn't a step in the way of personalization, that is a step towards jacking the price up on a product that doesn't offer you any more than they want it to offer you
There's nothing Microsoft-specific to it - the same is done with Red Hat Linux, SuSE (Ent/Pro/Pers) and a buch of other non-OS products.
As to Media Player and other comments - you can use any other (Real Networks, QuickTime, whatever) so if that's your choice, you can spend the minimum amount on OS use freebies for value-added features (Open Office, Clam AV, etc.). Or you can get a Linux OS instead.
It's the same as with other products.
So much for paperless office.
And great news for rainforests, too.
Bozo, it's an Apache server that connects to a UNIX box.
This has nothing to do with Windows OS (except for the fact that Apache.org can't guarantee stable operation of its software on Windows OS). For comparison, there are many other (open and closed source) 3rd party Web servers for the Windows OS that are supported and recomended to run on Windows OS.
1. IBM sold its hard disk biz to Hitachi
2. The Deathstar term appeared before the sale (actually I figure that's why they sold it, because they couldn't make a quality product).
Back in 2000, while IBM still owned the business, a heard from a reseller that they had about 30% failure rate (in the first year) for the Deathstar series.
Actually I had one myself (1.7GB or something like that) - it died an untimely death.
3. I think most Thinkpads weren't manufactured by IBM anyway and I don't think the new guys will have to ability to change that in the short therm.