2: Linux can go under in the sense that the recent Linux craze can crash and turn to be a fad. And it will.
3: I am a Linux user. Here's how IBM can kill the platform.
I'm not saying IBM's mistake is focusing the platform on geeks. I'm saying IBM's mistake is focusing on geeks, period. They're using Linux as the evagelization tool of choice to attract geeks.
However, by trying to take Linux out of its OSS context, IBM is exposing Linux to mass markets before it is ready to take on the desktop market head on. They're trying to press the advantage of OSS, and frankly, I don't think they care for Linux beyond the fact it's a good way to endear themselves to the geeks.
Thus, IBM is once again taking a product before it is able to compete on the desktop market, and pushing it to the sky. Too bad this means Linux will receive a lukewarm reception from the mass market, and will forever be remembered as another attempt by IBM to promote an OS with not chutzpah.
In closing, I really, really didn't care for your sophism-laden condescending attitude, Mr. 'Have you ever met a Linux user'. For crissakes, did you notice this is SLASHDOT?
So IBM wants to give direct competition to Windows by attacking the market from the techie angle, do they... Here's one reason why it's gonna absolutely fail: OS/2.
Was OS/2 efficient? Yeah. It was stable, customizable, you name it. But OS/2 had a big problem: it was aimed at techies and geeks, while Windows was targeted at marketers and end users.
Guess who has the most power? Sorry, it's the end users, directors and marketers. OS/2's fate proves that. IBM obviously hasn't learned their lesson in the way they now approach the server market, because they're attempting it all over again by catering to Open Source geeks.
Careful that IBM doesn't accidentally kill the Open Source movement by mistake... If IBM corners the market as efficiently with WebSphere as it did with OS/2, expect Linux to go under within two years.
If they wanna do this instead of a traditional marketing campain, I'm not gonna complain. I hope it does exactly what they expect it to - so that they do it again.
Finally, a modicum of intelligence; thank you. I never said IBM is not helping out the Open Source community; I'm saying they're doing it for reasons that are as selfish and as profit-oriented as MS. They just orient it towards techies by playing on their Open Source sensibilities, and obviously it's working well.
Dude, your talking about the company that's donating millions of dollars to the open source community, the company the continues to make damn impressive break-throughs with processors, and the company that's porting Linux to a good deal of their massive servers.
Sure. It's called successful PR. How much do you think a marketing campaign costs? Millions donated to reach geeks all over is as effective as any TV ad you could ever produce, and much less expensive.
Them opening up this file system can be useful to everyone, despite the fact that this may not affect IBM one way or another.
You mean to say, 'Them opening up this file system may be useful to some people, especially since it does not affect IBM other than by generating good PR.'
But to mention IBM and Micros~1 in the same sentence is almost criminal.
Should I then also fail to mention that they are both monolithic giants whose sole purpose is to make money? That IBM coined the term 'FUD' to describe their past activities? Or that IBM succeeded where MS didn't, in resisting the attack of the DoJ for monopolistic practices?
First we had people not reading the article, now we have people not reading the posts.
I never said the DeCSS code was malicious or even harmful; I said that because code in GENERAL could be malicious (e.g. a virus), then code AS A WHOLE could not be considered pure free speech.
I want to watch what I want, where I want, when I want, on whatever system I wish.
This attitude normally dissipates when you grow up to be 5 year-old.
Your analogy is off-base. The point of the verdict is not that DeCSS is malicious code; it's that code doesn't purely qualify as free speech, since it can have malicious effects. Hence, the argument that ALL code is covered by free speech is wrong.
Obviously, the argument that 'code is free speech', as discussed in GENERAL, was one of the arguments of the defendents. What this says is, no it's not.
Your kitchen knife example is so pathetic I won't even discuss it.
What Kaplan says is, coding malicious code is no more a form of self-expression than assassination is a form of political expression. It makes perfect sense: free speech, yes, but code is more than free speech. It's also a tool that can cause harm and break the law.
If you want another analogy, here's one: free speech in the US entitles you to say anything you want; but giving someone the go-ahead to kill another human being is outlawed. Will you fight for your right to tell people to kill other people? If so, you're confusing the issue: it's the conscious act of ordering the death of someone THROUGH SPEECH that is wrong, not the speech itself. Likewise, the issue here is not the code itself, but what is done with the code.
This 'code is free speech' crap is so typical, and is used once again to justify disregard for law and the work of others. Message to all the 13 year-old crackers out there who don't want to pay for your movies and CDs: GET OVER IT.
But then, by your logic, if a guy has the right to tell anybody anything they want, I have the right to tell them I couldn't care less about their opinion. Careful about double standards.
So who are you to tell me what I can and cannot say, while criticizing me for doing the same?
MODERATORS... are you even reading this shit before pumping up the score!
Am I the only one utterly fed up with pompous assholes who think disagreeing with somebody gives them the right to tell moderators how to think and how to act?
Dude, you're not in on the biggest Slashdot secret, I see. ALL the trolls are women, without exception. Ever pondered why there are almost no females posting on Slashdot? Think it's because women couldn't care less about some Linux-lovin' power losers?
It's because the trolls catch them early on. There are sids out there where there's constant cyberlesbo action going on that'd make Madonna on X blush.
Another thing: why is there such a passion for Nathalie Portman by the trolls?
Ever wondered why you never see Nathalie Portman and osm on the same sid?
MS doesn't want what little there is of a Linux desktop market share.
Sure, Linux kicks ass on the server side. But aside from loving geeks who devote all their CPU and HD space to Linux, do you know a lot of people who actually think, 'Well, I'd get Windows, but Linux is so much *better* for desktop applications'?
Well, do you?
Linux is still catching up on Windows on the GUI and desktop side. Just look at the Holy Grail of Linux-related GUIs: 'We'll make it as nice-looking as MS'. As long as Linux is running after MS and Windows, they'll never be a threat.
Seriously, who would MS try to convince, here? If people are using Linux as a desktop, then there's something else aside from convenience and wide-ranging applications that they're interested in. Stability? Perhaps. But everybody else still figures stability is a small price to pay for prettiness, especially if autosave is on.
Sorry. MS isn't porting anything to Linux because, let's face it, on the desktop side it's so little of a threat it's laughable.
I don't know what pisses me off the most about your post. Is it the highjacking of the argument? The condescending attitude? Or the fact it was moderated up at +4?
Sorry, did I short-circuit your brain on that one?
This is an off-topic post. It's not a troll, unless you feel a sudden urge to reply. If you reply, then it's a troll, but you blew your moderator points for this story. If you don't reply, it's not a troll, so please avoid the FUCKING troll marker. If you feel like marking it as Flamebait because of the word 'fucking', then consider this: I'm basically flamebaiting the troll marker. Now, isn't that quite a headache? How can I troll a moderation category? Isn't that like insulting everyone whose last name starts with the letter B? Finally, if you feel the urge to moderate me down but are confused by all the categories, then I recommend 'Overrated'. But in the name of GOD don't mark this as a troll.
Not given the fact that it was posted in such a way as to ridicule his opinion, no. I'm not complaining about what gets posted, but about the bias demonstrated in these postings. You'll never see this kind of article:
"Here's an article saying Linux sucks. It may not be cool hearing that, but the numbers pretty much hold up... Oh, and that other article about how sucks big donkey balls was actually bogus. Score one for Microsoft."
Before someone says, 'It's because these articles don't exist', know that I don't subscribe to your narrow-minded view of the world.
I'm not criticizing the article; I'm criticizing Slashdot for their editorial choices. Would you ever see such an article linked to a debunking of a 'Linux rulz!!' article? As a matter of fact, I bet that if it ever came across Slashdot's editorial 'desk', it was promptly ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
2: Linux can go under in the sense that the recent Linux craze can crash and turn to be a fad. And it will.
3: I am a Linux user. Here's how IBM can kill the platform.
I'm not saying IBM's mistake is focusing the platform on geeks. I'm saying IBM's mistake is focusing on geeks, period. They're using Linux as the evagelization tool of choice to attract geeks.
However, by trying to take Linux out of its OSS context, IBM is exposing Linux to mass markets before it is ready to take on the desktop market head on. They're trying to press the advantage of OSS, and frankly, I don't think they care for Linux beyond the fact it's a good way to endear themselves to the geeks.
Thus, IBM is once again taking a product before it is able to compete on the desktop market, and pushing it to the sky. Too bad this means Linux will receive a lukewarm reception from the mass market, and will forever be remembered as another attempt by IBM to promote an OS with not chutzpah.
In closing, I really, really didn't care for your sophism-laden condescending attitude, Mr. 'Have you ever met a Linux user'. For crissakes, did you notice this is SLASHDOT?
Was OS/2 efficient? Yeah. It was stable, customizable, you name it. But OS/2 had a big problem: it was aimed at techies and geeks, while Windows was targeted at marketers and end users.
Guess who has the most power? Sorry, it's the end users, directors and marketers. OS/2's fate proves that. IBM obviously hasn't learned their lesson in the way they now approach the server market, because they're attempting it all over again by catering to Open Source geeks.
Careful that IBM doesn't accidentally kill the Open Source movement by mistake... If IBM corners the market as efficiently with WebSphere as it did with OS/2, expect Linux to go under within two years.
I know I'm gonna be modded down for this, but you're right!
2- There's a lot more to Haiku poetry than a meter scheme. It's subtle, simple, and yet it transcends the words themselves.
Sorry, but no cigar. A better haiku would have been:
Tiny Lego train
Where do you go today?
Hello there Bill
Finally, a modicum of intelligence; thank you. I never said IBM is not helping out the Open Source community; I'm saying they're doing it for reasons that are as selfish and as profit-oriented as MS. They just orient it towards techies by playing on their Open Source sensibilities, and obviously it's working well.
Sure. It's called successful PR. How much do you think a marketing campaign costs? Millions donated to reach geeks all over is as effective as any TV ad you could ever produce, and much less expensive.
You mean to say, 'Them opening up this file system may be useful to some people, especially since it does not affect IBM other than by generating good PR.'
Should I then also fail to mention that they are both monolithic giants whose sole purpose is to make money? That IBM coined the term 'FUD' to describe their past activities? Or that IBM succeeded where MS didn't, in resisting the attack of the DoJ for monopolistic practices?
I never said the DeCSS code was malicious or even harmful; I said that because code in GENERAL could be malicious (e.g. a virus), then code AS A WHOLE could not be considered pure free speech.
This attitude normally dissipates when you grow up to be 5 year-old.
Obviously, the argument that 'code is free speech', as discussed in GENERAL, was one of the arguments of the defendents. What this says is, no it's not.
Your kitchen knife example is so pathetic I won't even discuss it.
What Kaplan says is, coding malicious code is no more a form of self-expression than assassination is a form of political expression. It makes perfect sense: free speech, yes, but code is more than free speech. It's also a tool that can cause harm and break the law.
If you want another analogy, here's one: free speech in the US entitles you to say anything you want; but giving someone the go-ahead to kill another human being is outlawed. Will you fight for your right to tell people to kill other people? If so, you're confusing the issue: it's the conscious act of ordering the death of someone THROUGH SPEECH that is wrong, not the speech itself. Likewise, the issue here is not the code itself, but what is done with the code.
This 'code is free speech' crap is so typical, and is used once again to justify disregard for law and the work of others. Message to all the 13 year-old crackers out there who don't want to pay for your movies and CDs: GET OVER IT.
Old habits die hard... I hit the 'Anonymous' button without thinking about it.
So who are you to tell me what I can and cannot say, while criticizing me for doing the same?
Am I the only one utterly fed up with pompous assholes who think disagreeing with somebody gives them the right to tell moderators how to think and how to act?
It's because the trolls catch them early on. There are sids out there where there's constant cyberlesbo action going on that'd make Madonna on X blush.
Another thing: why is there such a passion for Nathalie Portman by the trolls?
Ever wondered why you never see Nathalie Portman and osm on the same sid?
It's called 'worshipping the Queen of Trolls'.
And the difference between your description of a troll and the average /. poster is...?
MS doesn't want what little there is of a Linux desktop market share.
Sure, Linux kicks ass on the server side. But aside from loving geeks who devote all their CPU and HD space to Linux, do you know a lot of people who actually think, 'Well, I'd get Windows, but Linux is so much *better* for desktop applications'?
Well, do you?
Linux is still catching up on Windows on the GUI and desktop side. Just look at the Holy Grail of Linux-related GUIs: 'We'll make it as nice-looking as MS'. As long as Linux is running after MS and Windows, they'll never be a threat.
Seriously, who would MS try to convince, here? If people are using Linux as a desktop, then there's something else aside from convenience and wide-ranging applications that they're interested in. Stability? Perhaps. But everybody else still figures stability is a small price to pay for prettiness, especially if autosave is on.
Sorry. MS isn't porting anything to Linux because, let's face it, on the desktop side it's so little of a threat it's laughable.
Sorry, did I short-circuit your brain on that one?
You moderators are so predictable. You played right into my hand. Btw, karma is frozen, so blow me.
Thank you.
"Here's an article saying Linux sucks. It may not be cool hearing that, but the numbers pretty much hold up... Oh, and that other article about how sucks big donkey balls was actually bogus. Score one for Microsoft."
Before someone says, 'It's because these articles don't exist', know that I don't subscribe to your narrow-minded view of the world.
I'm not criticizing the article; I'm criticizing Slashdot for their editorial choices. Would you ever see such an article linked to a debunking of a 'Linux rulz!!' article? As a matter of fact, I bet that if it ever came across Slashdot's editorial 'desk', it was promptly ignored.
Hmm. I take it you don't listen to MP3s, then.
Fine, thanks.
Starting next month, I will be selling a PCI card that runs 6 user accounts in parallel to whore for karma. Any takers?
Heh. Nevermind.
Now THERE's a conspiracy theory. And look, you made the 'karma mafia' junk stop, too.